Wednesday, the New York Times published a story claiming that Democrats in Alabama spent $100,000 in the 2017 special election between Republican Judge Roy S. Moore and Democrat Sen. Doug Jones mimicking the tactics of alleged Russian social media meddlers in the 2016 presidential election.

One might think that the Times would denounce such tactics in the Alabama race, considering the convulsing they’ve done over Russian meddling allegedly propelling President Donald J. Trump to the presidency. But since our lying, thieving media is the enemy of the people, that is not the case.

Here is the characterization of the Alabama meddling by Democrats from the Wednesday Times piece:

Trending: BOMBSHELL: Whistleblowers Present Hundreds of Pages of Evidence Alleging Illicit Behavior of Clinton Foundation

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

Contrast that with the way the Times reported on the Russia meddling from 2016:

They made for a wildly varied slide show, designed by Russia to exploit divisions in American society and to tip the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald J. Trump and against Hillary Clinton. The House Intelligence Committee provided on Wednesday the biggest public platform to date for a sample of the Facebook ads and pages that were linked by a trail of ruble payments to a Russian company with Kremlin ties.

According to the Times, $100,000 allegedly spent by Russia in a nationwide election in which more than 120 million Americans voted “tip[ped] the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald J. Trump,” but when Democrats spent the same amount mimicking the same tactics in a statewide election where only 1.3 million people voted, $100,000 was “likely too small to have a significant effect on the race.”

Furthermore, Trump crushed twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton by way of electoral votes, 306 to 232, meaning that $100,000 dollar spent in social media meddling was far less likely to have an impact in the presidential race. In the Alabama Senate race, measured by popular vote, Doug Jones won by only a 1.5 percent margin, or about 20,000 votes. That means that the $100,000 spent meddling by Democrats was far more likely to have an impact on the outcome of that race.

All of this, apparently, is lost on the New York Times, which is a propaganda machine for the Democratic party.

Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca

Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca

You Might Like

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
•