It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Supporters Hack Twitter Accounts to SPAM Fake Support

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Isn't it prudent to ask who benefits from this? It's very common for Twitter users to use popular/trending topics and hashtags to drive traffic to themselves. I will say that before this, I was only familiar with 2 of the 3 artists. Has anyone suggested the artists themselves may have done the "hacking". I mean there's no doubt (intended) that when Kelly Clarkson voiced her support of Paul that she got a lot of attention. It may not necessarily have been a Paul supporter or detractor, just the PR dept looking to create a little buzz around their artists. Just a thought.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
twitter.com...#!/riseagainst

We were hacked. As you would all assume, We DO NOT support Ron Paul.


If Rise Against isn't for Ron Paul who the heck are they voting for!!? Sort pegged their choice as a no-brainer



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I go to some humor forums and sometimes I see spam block texts of the name Ron Paul repeated over and over, in these forums such postings are dismissed as spamming from 'Ron Paul haters' who are attempting to use psychological warfare by subliminally associating the name Ron Paul to something annoying like *Ron Paul = Annoying Spam* In an attempt to cause revulsion to the name Ron Paul.

This is brute force programming, where a meme is forced into the minds of people. There IS a battle for the hearts and minds of people.

There isn't just a race for the presidency- there is a fight for the presidency, and every dirty trick is used in an attempt to score blows.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 
You don't know who Rise Against is? Definitely check them out, one of my favourite bands - very activist, pretty politically-minded even if they don't support any candidates currently (I haven't been following them closely, just love their tunes, so not sure if they are or not).

Kind of surprised that they *wouldn't* support Paul, though. They seem to think along a lot of the same lines I do. They may not be familiar with him or may actively resist the political process/not trust politicians, though?

Still I recommend. Good punkish/rock stuff.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
Hrmm...looks like I'm late to the party.

*frown* Some have already addressed my thoughts on this well. "Cui bono?" is definitely a good thought to keep in mind here, but properly answering that for determination appears likely to get convoluted both main ways it could go.

I would LIKE to think that Paul supporters savvy enough to do so would also be smart enough to realize the likely odds of blowback involved, as this is one of Paul's big lessons. If some (idiotic, IMHO) Paul supporters are actually doing this, it's no good and is indefensible as far as I'm concerned - even if the net outcome falls in Paul's favor.

That said, I do have one small problem regarding the Kelly Clarkson album sales - there WAS definitely an increase in sales as a result of her Paul endorsement - the album bomb we organized did have a direct and noticeable effect, swiftly driving her sales WAAAY up the charts. However, the valid question to ask is how long that effect lasted, and can the *overall* sales be attributed to the Paul-supporter bump? I personally doubt it, but I have no question that two-day or so sales increased astronomically as a result (seriously, a +1100% sales increase and jumping from like #41 on the movers & shakers list to #1 in the space of a day, etc., is just a result of regular promotion, when at least thousands of people - likely tens - coordinated to buy en-masse over a short period?). And, I'm not aware - may have just missed - that Paul or the campaign claimed anything about it. I know the media itself did report on it, so unless I missed something, I'd put that on them instead of Paul or his supporters.

I also have an issue with people being turned off Paul by his supporters. While I can *understand* the effect and have warned about it previously, it's not a valid response. Distasteful and ill-behaved supporters themselves should be addressed or avoided appropriately, but rejecting a candidate for reasons outside the candidate themselves is a ludicrous decision - if someone is otherwise in your opinion the best option, let everything else be damned.

Regardless - I myself have often agreed that some supporters are our own worst enemy, as is well illustrated here if there is nothing deeper and ATS-ish to this Twitter, etc., hacking claim (and while I'd like to plainly say otherwise, I'll say it's entirely likely to be getting reported accurately...sadly. Even if it's not, I don't see any sufficient way for it to be proven otherwise, beyond claims no one can substantiate). Time and again I have scolded some of my fellow supporters here and more frequently at the DailyPaul for general bad manners and other actions that will only drive people away from being likely to support Paul, regardless of how silly that response is like I already said. These kinds of actions do us no favors, and as made clear otherwise, we already have too much to work against to be adding fuel to any fires.

In short: brothers and sisters - I am disappoint. I would like to once again emphasize a point I try to drive home at the Daily Paul - we should act in a way Paul himself would support and approve of, and generally more like him directly. Being rude, obnoxious, generally stupid, and all the rest of this will likely do more harm than good, and is unnecessary in my opinion since Paul's record and message should stand and shine well enough on their own when presented sincerely and accurately with all fullness to avoid being misconstrued.

To Paul opponents - if you validly oppose Paul for policy differences, well and good - we can discuss that as needed. But to oppose Paul simply as a result of his supporters is nothing less than ignorant, regardless if I understand it from a psychological standpoint or not. If that's how you make decisions regarding politics, it's to your own shame.

Take care, all.

EDIT:
And I'll admit the profusion of Paul threads gets fairly ridiculous and a bit on my nerves at times. Just like other popular topics on ATS, I don't believe as many little things about it really need to get their own threads - personal opinion. Add the excessive gushing over Paul to my list of peeves as well. While I think he's keen and the best bet, in addition to generally being awesome on a personal level, I've seen and heard things that personally bother me.

Do I still support Paul? Absolutely and completely, for many reasons (some political, some personal) - but gah...come on, people. I love you all, but sheesh.
edit on 1/14/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Hadn't heard about this one. Must have been a really slow news day.



Lets enjoy some videos from grassroots:









edit on 14-1-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius


I would LIKE to think that Paul supporters savvy enough to do so would also be smart enough to realize the likely odds of blowback involved, as this is one of Paul's big lessons. If some (idiotic, IMHO) Paul supporters are actually doing this, it's no good and is indefensible as far as I'm concerned - even if the net outcome falls in Paul's favor.


A very brief time in just two Ron Paul threads on ATS would indicate otherwise. The Ron Paul fans here are angry, mean, rude, spoiled, selfish, childish, etc. I cannot believe how many personal insults and just plain rotten remarks I had to read in response to the idea that I might not worship Ron Paul and pledge my first born to him.

I think looking at what Ron Paul fans are doing right here on ATS leads me to believe this is exactly what they would do without thinking ahead. I see far too many of them already doing things without thinking ahead. I have seen more than one Ron Paul supporter say to another poster "We don't want your vote anyway, go vote for X" Yeah, that is a clever supporter thinking ahead there telling people to vote for others.


To Paul opponents - if you validly oppose Paul for policy differences, well and good - we can discuss that as needed. But to oppose Paul simply as a result of his supporters is nothing less than ignorant, regardless if I understand it from a psychological standpoint or not. If that's how you make decisions regarding politics, it's to your own shame.


I am getting really sick and tired of being outright attacked for saying that I do want to discuss some issues. I am not even an OPPONENT, just someone with some questions. I sure am not supporting anyone else at the moment and I think Newt supporter has a longer road to travel than a Paul supporter in order to convince me he is the guy but I am really tired of trying to go down that road and just getting beat up for it.

You guys need to have a meeting and maybe you can explain to the rest of them how to discuss.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Littikani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Littikani
 
Hi Littikani -


A very brief time in just two Ron Paul threads on ATS would indicate otherwise. The Ron Paul fans here are angry, mean, rude, spoiled, selfish, childish, etc. I cannot believe how many personal insults and just plain rotten remarks I had to read in response to the idea that I might not worship Ron Paul and pledge my first born to him.

To be fair, I would like to point out that it's not all of us, and that Paul supporters also receive the same kind of attention from some of the less-pleasant Paul opposers (whom I can't name, but you've probably seen them around). Granted, that's no excuse or justification - just pointing out that it's a PEOPLE problem, and not something unique to my fellow "paultards".


I think looking at what Ron Paul fans are doing right here on ATS leads me to believe this is exactly what they would do without thinking ahead. I see far too many of them already doing things without thinking ahead. I have seen more than one Ron Paul supporter say to another poster "We don't want your vote anyway, go vote for X" Yeah, that is a clever supporter thinking ahead there telling people to vote for others.

You might be entirely correct, sadly...


I am getting really sick and tired of being outright attacked for saying that I do want to discuss some issues. I am not even an OPPONENT, just someone with some questions. I sure am not supporting anyone else at the moment and I think Newt supporter has a longer road to travel than a Paul supporter in order to convince me he is the guy but I am really tired of trying to go down that road and just getting beat up for it.

I worded that poorly, granted & my apologies (another wake-up at 3am so I was a bit foggy).

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly on the forums or via PM if you have any questions, and I'll be glad to help if I'm able. I'll offer you no challenge and just provide honest answers.


You guys need to have a meeting and maybe you can explain to the rest of them how to discuss.

While it's a good idea that's somewhat needed...the idea a "herding cats" seems to apply well here. Aside from our support of Paul's views, any general homogeneity of thought beyond that seems to go out the window readily...it's really kind of like trying to get any group of like-minded folks to behave across the board - unfortunately, the internet will be natural territory for a good chunk of most of the excitable-type of Paul supporters, so they have overly-large representation here.

For whatever it's worth you have my apologies, at least. I'll be here as you need me.

Take care.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join