Author Topic: 'Murtherland  (Read 3121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #70 on: February 17, 2018, 05:16:05 PM »

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11589
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2018, 06:34:38 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

Or maybe she was a horrible candidate but still would have won if not for certain circumstances outside of her control. The Comey letter alone likely cost her the election (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/), and when you look at Trump's margin of victory in Michigan and Wisconsin versus Jill Stein's vote total (once the primaries were over, the Russia propaganda machine among other things tried to convince people to vote for Stein), there are certainly questions there.

As far as the FISA warrant goes, Carter Page was on the FBI radar going back years before the election ("the best people"), the warrant was granted a month after Page stopped working for the campaign and it was renewed three times afterwards (which, the renewals would require new evidence/evidence that the wiretap was yielding useful information; you couldn't get a renewal by just showing them the dossier again). As far as the dossier being "fake", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that some of the more mundane details (times/locations of certain meetings) have been proven true, but none of the salacious details have been. Don't know that they ever will be (or that they are), but I think to dismiss the dossier as fake is just as unfair and to assume every word of it is true.
Photobucket sucks.

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24442
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2018, 06:32:07 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

BUT HER EMAILS!!!   :lol

It's not like Trump was a tangibly better candidate.  It takes a lot to lose to Trump, and the Clinton campaign had some help in that regard from outside forces.  I don't fully subscribe to the notion that she would have won if not for the Russian influence, but it is worth investigating and validating to prevent similar things from happening in the future.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11843
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2018, 08:34:55 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

BUT HER EMAILS!!!   :lol

It's not like Trump was a tangibly better candidate.  It takes a lot to lose to Trump, and the Clinton campaign had some help in that regard from outside forces.  I don't fully subscribe to the notion that she would have won if not for the Russian influence, but it is worth investigating and validating to prevent similar things from happening in the future.

completely agree. And I've said it somewhere in P/R prior....I voted for Supreme Court Justice's. Who was going to get to put one or two in there. That was it. I never viewed either of them as two term Presidents so I looked at it as who do I most align with. Trumps a D-Bag who can't communicate worth a crap....but as bad as it sounds I'd prefer his Supreme Court Nominees over Clinton's just based off of what I know Clinton's world view is. Nowhere near mine.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2018, 11:20:58 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

Or maybe she was a horrible candidate but still would have won if not for certain circumstances outside of her control. The Comey letter alone likely cost her the election (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/), and when you look at Trump's margin of victory in Michigan and Wisconsin versus Jill Stein's vote total (once the primaries were over, the Russia propaganda machine among other things tried to convince people to vote for Stein), there are certainly questions there.

As far as the FISA warrant goes, Carter Page was on the FBI radar going back years before the election ("the best people"), the warrant was granted a month after Page stopped working for the campaign and it was renewed three times afterwards (which, the renewals would require new evidence/evidence that the wiretap was yielding useful information; you couldn't get a renewal by just showing them the dossier again). As far as the dossier being "fake", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that some of the more mundane details (times/locations of certain meetings) have been proven true, but none of the salacious details have been. Don't know that they ever will be (or that they are), but I think to dismiss the dossier as fake is just as unfair and to assume every word of it is true.

Can we all agree at this point that "being on the FBI radar" means about as much as a pile of horseshit in your hand?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2018, 11:29:48 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

BUT HER EMAILS!!!   :lol

It's not like Trump was a tangibly better candidate.  It takes a lot to lose to Trump, and the Clinton campaign had some help in that regard from outside forces.  I don't fully subscribe to the notion that she would have won if not for the Russian influence, but it is worth investigating and validating to prevent similar things from happening in the future.

completely agree. And I've said it somewhere in P/R prior....I voted for Supreme Court Justice's. Who was going to get to put one or two in there. That was it. I never viewed either of them as two term Presidents so I looked at it as who do I most align with. Trumps a D-Bag who can't communicate worth a crap....but as bad as it sounds I'd prefer his Supreme Court Nominees over Clinton's just based off of what I know Clinton's world view is. Nowhere near mine.

Well, all the other stuff is speculation and hypothesis.  The TANGIBLE fact we have is that the level of frustration with our populace is at an all-time high.    Almost every indicator of such indicates it did nothing but rise over the last 10 years or so.   We came out of an extremely polarizing administration, and bought in, hook line and sinker, to "CHANGE YOU CAN BELEIVE IN!".  What was the change?  More taxes (including one in the form of "the ACA"), no closing of Gitmo, backroom deals with Pharma to pass pet legislation that didn't deliver on it's promises (you WILL be able to keep your doctor!), and an ever increasing over-emphasis on identity politics.   So what you had was anywhere from 7 to 15 million people who gladly voted for Obama deciding to cast their lot in with the new guy.  Obama was the (relative) new guy when he ran against Clinton, a 96 year old career politician who's held office in two of the three branches of government and against McCain, a 123 year old career politician who at least read the tea leaves and picked an outsider maverick to be his running mate.  But after eight years, it was same-old, same-old, and people got tired of it.   Hillary made it worse by mocking those people, calling them "deplorable" because they didn't see things her way.

I said this to my dad this morning, as a matter of fact:  in a real way, the frustration that the Obama voters felt was not that far off from the frustration that people like Stephen Craddock and Nikolas Cruz felt, but they just expressed it in votes not bullets.   You cannot tell me that "HER EMAILS" mattered enough to people that they used that as a criteria, and ignored all the other nonsense that went along with Trump.   Yeah, it all matters, it's all bricks in the wall, but Hillary didn't lose because of emails, Russia or Comey.  She lost because she demonstrated time and time and time and time again that she had no touch, no affinity with the people on the street.   She was party elite, at a time when the voters wanted anything BUT party elite.   

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24442
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2018, 10:47:29 AM »
Yeah, it all matters, it's all bricks in the wall, but Hillary didn't lose because of emails, Russia or Comey.  She lost because she demonstrated time and time and time and time again that she had no touch, no affinity with the people on the street.   She was party elite, at a time when the voters wanted anything BUT party elite.   

Which is it... is 'it all matters', or is it because she had not touch/affinity? I agree that it was a multitude of things that cost her the election, many of which were her own doing.

Yet, some portion of 63M votes she garnered were ok with her being 'elite'... or at least weren't conned into thinking that Trump wasn't going to demonstrate similar 'elite' behaviours/motivations.  As you said in another thread, it's all a matter of perspective - the person suing for bad water having a 1/100,000 chance to cause cancer who is puffing back a pack of darts daily.  Hilary was no more elite in her behaviour then vs how Trumpster is now.  He's hardly a man-of-the-people... just a different color of 'elite'.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11589
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2018, 11:02:10 AM »
Where's the informative post at that details how corrupt ol' Hillary was/is concerning the FISA warrant and the fake dossier? That's FAR worse than a dozen Russian people posting cliche'd hashtags on social media. They didn't vote illegally.....they posted crap that whomever believed it was already wasn't going to vote for Hillary. The likelihood of their effort swaying hundreds of thousands of votes is minimal.

Hillary lost because she was a horrible candidate. Period.

Or maybe she was a horrible candidate but still would have won if not for certain circumstances outside of her control. The Comey letter alone likely cost her the election (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/), and when you look at Trump's margin of victory in Michigan and Wisconsin versus Jill Stein's vote total (once the primaries were over, the Russia propaganda machine among other things tried to convince people to vote for Stein), there are certainly questions there.

As far as the FISA warrant goes, Carter Page was on the FBI radar going back years before the election ("the best people"), the warrant was granted a month after Page stopped working for the campaign and it was renewed three times afterwards (which, the renewals would require new evidence/evidence that the wiretap was yielding useful information; you couldn't get a renewal by just showing them the dossier again). As far as the dossier being "fake", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that some of the more mundane details (times/locations of certain meetings) have been proven true, but none of the salacious details have been. Don't know that they ever will be (or that they are), but I think to dismiss the dossier as fake is just as unfair and to assume every word of it is true.

Can we all agree at this point that "being on the FBI radar" means about as much as a pile of horseshit in your hand?   

Fair enough. To be more precise, Carter Page was warned by the FBI as far back as 2013 or 2014 that the FBI thought the Kremlin was potentially trying to cultivate him as a foreign asset (at the same time, he was bragging in letters about being an informal Kremlin advisor).
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #78 on: February 21, 2018, 08:22:51 AM »
Yeah, it all matters, it's all bricks in the wall, but Hillary didn't lose because of emails, Russia or Comey.  She lost because she demonstrated time and time and time and time again that she had no touch, no affinity with the people on the street.   She was party elite, at a time when the voters wanted anything BUT party elite.   

Which is it... is 'it all matters', or is it because she had not touch/affinity? I agree that it was a multitude of things that cost her the election, many of which were her own doing.

Yet, some portion of 63M votes she garnered were ok with her being 'elite'... or at least weren't conned into thinking that Trump wasn't going to demonstrate similar 'elite' behaviours/motivations.  As you said in another thread, it's all a matter of perspective - the person suing for bad water having a 1/100,000 chance to cause cancer who is puffing back a pack of darts daily.  Hilary was no more elite in her behaviour then vs how Trumpster is now.  He's hardly a man-of-the-people... just a different color of 'elite'.

Well, they both do, but one (the  touch) is a dealbreaker, the others are not.  It's like... okay, bad analogy, but Van Halen.  Look, the star of the show is Eddie, no doubt, and for most, Van Halen is about legendary guitar playing.  But there are those for whom the difference between Roth and Hagar is enough to sway them one way or another.  But it's not like they went from arena stars with Roth to club dogs with Hagar or vice versa.   Or Michael's vocals; yeah, they are the sugar on the strawberries, but are people REALLY buying 10 million copies of VHI because of Michael's angelic backing vocals? Not hardly.   

Trump:  I disagree with that assessment of him as "a different color of elite", at least as regards the voters.   It might be different in Canada (that's not a dig or a mock) but here, "money" alone isn't enough to make one "elite".  We revere people all the time that have tons of cash, but have an image of being a "regular guy".  Bruce Springsteen.  Neil Young.   John Mellencamp.  And I haven't even gotten out of the music industry.   Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock sign $50 million comedy deals and they are "men of the people" speaking "truth to power".     Here - and I welcome others' opinions on this - I view "elite" as a systemic thing.    Trump's not elite in that regard.   For many, particularly those that consistently insisted that HE filed bankruptcy (and not his companies), the bankruptcies were a bad thing.  But for another pool of people, they were a sign that he wasn't a golden boy.  He wasn't getting special treatment from his cronies.  He didn't have people lying for him or rigging the election in his favor (looking at you, Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Strychnine).    Same with the Billy Bush thing.  That was human and flawed, and people implicitly responded to it.   Now, I get it; there's a whole other interpretation of that, and I understand that.   But you HAVE to look at this through different lenses, the lenses of people that have been promised, and promised, and promised, and promised, and have virtually nothing to show for it, can't find a job, can't feed their families, and yet Nancy Pelosi is worried about "what bathroom people can use"?   They're like, "Mofo, please."

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26662
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2018, 08:26:26 AM »
I agree that Trump wasn't seen as the same kind of "elite" as Hillary.

But Trump as a regular relatable dude? No way. Trump was his own elite, but was no less elite or detached from the people.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #80 on: February 21, 2018, 08:42:01 AM »
I agree that Trump wasn't seen as the same kind of "elite" as Hillary.

But Trump as a regular relatable dude? No way. Trump was his own elite, but was no less elite or detached from the people.

Read what I wrote:  look at it through the lenses of the people voting.  No, he's not a "regular dude". He's not even a "regular dude" in his own circle.   But in the same way we revere people who aren't really like us, but we want to THINK they are, so Trump.  He's standing up to the Man!  He's mocking the talking suits who have fucked us over for years!    He recognizes that women are hot!   He's not talking about his "journey" or his "experience" or his "space"!    We're talking about a part of the country that idolizes Kiss, Iggy Pop and the Browns, not REM, Perry Farrell and the Lakers.  No, he doesn't hang with us in a bar, but he "gets it".    He knows how to prioritize!

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26662
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2018, 08:44:06 AM »
I'll agree that Trump was extremely good as fostering the worst parts of us, and that those parts are much louder than we're willing to admit.


Then again, I'm just a silly liberal, so my sense of good and bad are extremely warped.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #82 on: February 21, 2018, 09:07:28 AM »
I'll agree that Trump was extremely good as fostering the worst parts of us, and that those parts are much louder than we're willing to admit.


Then again, I'm just a silly liberal, so my sense of good and bad are extremely warped.

Not warped; it's not about what your specific sense of good and bad are, it's the notion that your specific sense is what others should and do hold (not saying you feel this way).  That's really the nature of this "elitism".   It's not about whether they ARE at a different level, it's that they can't fathom that there IS a different level.     

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #83 on: February 21, 2018, 10:02:12 AM »
Honestly I think the most "regular guy" thing about Donald to these people was that he was crass, vulgar, offensive and got called out for it. That's why people said he "Tells it like it is" (even though he is a compulsive liar) and "says what people are thinking". It was just a case that someone in a high profile position were saying stuff that "they", "the elite", were being offended by, but yet he was still persisting and doing it and kept "winning". By voting for him / supporting him, there's a way of sticking it to "them" by showing that there's enough people that also don't like getting called out for being offensive, racist, deplorable, whatever, and that you can't stop them. Of course that might make people question why someone would support the rhetoric of Trump, but to give people the benefit of the doubt I don't think that many of them necessarily agree in full with what he was saying or his policies - so they don't necessarily think that being a "regular guy" means being as bad as Trump. But "regular guys" do face backlash from the PC movement for stuff that's either bullshit or, at the very least, stuff they can't understand why it's supposed to be a problem, and so they see voting for the most obviously offensive person out there as a way of hitting them back. Hence why you see so much about "liberal tears", "triggering snowflakes" among Trump supporters.

The characterisation of of Trump and Clinton / Democrats posted by Stadler above is extremely biased, but it's a very informative description of how things are percieved by some.

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #84 on: February 21, 2018, 10:23:32 AM »
When it comes to the question of "Did it change the outcome of the election?", the fact is that for anything short of a recorded hack of the voting machines that changed the votes by X amount, there is no way to know for sure how much something impacted anything. Trying to judge how much any factor affected the result of the vote is guesswork. Many people post insisting that their interpretation of how things went down is "The real reason Trump won / Clinton lost", but the truth is there were many different factors in the election and we have literally no way of rewinding time and testing what happens again if one factor is changed.

However, in this election we had a very close result - the number that is bandied about is that 80,000 votes across three states could have flipped it. When the margins are fine, you don't need to believe that something was the most significant factor, or even one of the top couple of significant factors in the election, to think that it could have made enough of a difference to change the result.

In my experience, some people seem to get extremely defensive about the question of whether something "changed the result". So rather than trying to debate something that can't really be proven either way, I would maybe consider it from a different angle: If you were campaigning for a candidate that was considered a longshot, and you tried out a relatively new campaign strategy, then your candidate won by a narrow margin, would you think "That new campaign strategy I tried was clearly worthless, no point trying it again"? You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24442
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2018, 11:04:16 AM »
But you HAVE to look at this through different lenses, the lenses of people that have been promised, and promised, and promised, and promised, and have virtually nothing to show for it, can't find a job, can't feed their families, and yet Nancy Pelosi is worried about "what bathroom people can use"?   They're like, "Mofo, please."

If you're asking (telling?) others they "HAVE to" look through different lenses, I would submit that you too need to do that every so often as well ;) -  that some people weren't buying what Trump was selling... that they didn't view Hilary in the light that you do (elite, corrupt, out of touch).  I personally don't subscribe to the first two, but she/the campaign would certainly seem to be hugely guilty of the third (eg, not visiting Wisconsin even once).

I agree that Trump wasn't seen as the same kind of "elite" as Hillary.

But Trump as a regular relatable dude? No way. Trump was his own elite, but was no less elite or detached from the people.

I think this is what I was trying to say - you said it far better than I did.

You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

ding ding ding ding ding ding... winner winner, chicken dinner.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2018, 11:11:35 AM »
Quote
The characterisation of of Trump and Clinton / Democrats posted by Stadler above is extremely biased, but it's a very informative description of how things are percieved by some.

Which is exactly how I wrote it.  That was the point.   We've somehow come to the point - and I think the "media bias" is absolutely a significant part of this - where many people in positions of broad audience just assume that everyone thinks like they do.  So when you get a predominantly liberal media, and a predominantly liberal Hollywood,  and a predominantly liberal music industry, you get a narrative that just assumes a liberal point of view as a de facto standard.   

And I'm not even suggesting that the liberal viewpoint is bad, per se, but it doesn't allow for a differing prioritization.  For example, much of the initial "RESIST!" campaign was about his misogyny.  That position just assumes that "misogyny" is the most important issue and trumps everything.  Well, not everyone agrees with that.   Perhaps they would prefer NOT to have a misogynist as our President, but if it means standing up to China, or ending the immigration problem, or improving wages, they'll take their chances.   

Isn't that what real tolerance is, anyway? 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2018, 11:17:49 AM »
When it comes to the question of "Did it change the outcome of the election?", the fact is that for anything short of a recorded hack of the voting machines that changed the votes by X amount, there is no way to know for sure how much something impacted anything. Trying to judge how much any factor affected the result of the vote is guesswork. Many people post insisting that their interpretation of how things went down is "The real reason Trump won / Clinton lost", but the truth is there were many different factors in the election and we have literally no way of rewinding time and testing what happens again if one factor is changed.

However, in this election we had a very close result - the number that is bandied about is that 80,000 votes across three states could have flipped it. When the margins are fine, you don't need to believe that something was the most significant factor, or even one of the top couple of significant factors in the election, to think that it could have made enough of a difference to change the result.

In my experience, some people seem to get extremely defensive about the question of whether something "changed the result". So rather than trying to debate something that can't really be proven either way, I would maybe consider it from a different angle: If you were campaigning for a candidate that was considered a longshot, and you tried out a relatively new campaign strategy, then your candidate won by a narrow margin, would you think "That new campaign strategy I tried was clearly worthless, no point trying it again"? You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

Except for one thing; my position isn't necessarily JUST about "Why Trump Won", though it obviously factors in, and it is clearly how I've been writing it (since, well, he DID win).  It's why we are where we are as a country, generally.  Hillary could have won and my position would not change much.  We are STILL a country where the Dems seek to selectively moralize everything in lieu of hard data that proves their point, which leads us to STLL being a country where some operate on the assumption that as soon as anything even hinting of racism, sexism, or any -ism, comes along, it is to be rejected outright and anything that comes after is to be considered null and void, like a basketball shot at the buzzer.   Because I don't reject Trump because he doesn't show the optimal PC deference to women, gays and transgender, I should not be judged morally on that (read: I should not be called "deplorable" by someone seeking my vote).   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #88 on: February 21, 2018, 11:24:11 AM »
But you HAVE to look at this through different lenses, the lenses of people that have been promised, and promised, and promised, and promised, and have virtually nothing to show for it, can't find a job, can't feed their families, and yet Nancy Pelosi is worried about "what bathroom people can use"?   They're like, "Mofo, please."

If you're asking (telling?) others they "HAVE to" look through different lenses, I would submit that you too need to do that every so often as well ;) -  that some people weren't buying what Trump was selling... that they didn't view Hilary in the light that you do (elite, corrupt, out of touch).  I personally don't subscribe to the first two, but she/the campaign would certainly seem to be hugely guilty of the third (eg, not visiting Wisconsin even once).

Well, you're right, in the general sense, but most of what I'm writing is NOT my personal viewpoint.  I did not vote for Trump. I did not support Trump.  I do not believe his approach is necessarily correct on all issues (most, for that matter).  I do not believe I was specifically one of the "deplorables" to which she was referring.  I was THISCLOSE to voting for Hillary, and only didn't when she perjured herself under oath and when it became clear that Debbie Wasserman-Schlitz fixed the nomination in her favor.    So most of what I'm writing is me doing EXACTLY what I'm asking you to do.  The one thing that is mine, and I won't apologize for, is the point about prioritizing.   

My viewpoint, personally: I don't care who marries who, I don't care who sleeps with who, I don't care what letter you put under "GENDER" on your drivers license*, and I don't care if you piss into a bowl, a urinal or a trough.   BUT, I do not personally consider those issues to be so important as to override issues of national security, global economics, or infringement of other, fundamental rights like religion and speech.   They are merely the same and have to be compromised like any other when competing rights interface.

Quote
You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

ding ding ding ding ding ding... winner winner, chicken dinner.

See my direct response to that post.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 482
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #89 on: February 21, 2018, 11:25:28 AM »
When it comes to the question of "Did it change the outcome of the election?", the fact is that for anything short of a recorded hack of the voting machines that changed the votes by X amount, there is no way to know for sure how much something impacted anything. Trying to judge how much any factor affected the result of the vote is guesswork. Many people post insisting that their interpretation of how things went down is "The real reason Trump won / Clinton lost", but the truth is there were many different factors in the election and we have literally no way of rewinding time and testing what happens again if one factor is changed.

However, in this election we had a very close result - the number that is bandied about is that 80,000 votes across three states could have flipped it. When the margins are fine, you don't need to believe that something was the most significant factor, or even one of the top couple of significant factors in the election, to think that it could have made enough of a difference to change the result.

In my experience, some people seem to get extremely defensive about the question of whether something "changed the result". So rather than trying to debate something that can't really be proven either way, I would maybe consider it from a different angle: If you were campaigning for a candidate that was considered a longshot, and you tried out a relatively new campaign strategy, then your candidate won by a narrow margin, would you think "That new campaign strategy I tried was clearly worthless, no point trying it again"? You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

Except for one thing; my position isn't necessarily JUST about "Why Trump Won", though it obviously factors in, and it is clearly how I've been writing it (since, well, he DID win).  It's why we are where we are as a country, generally.  Hillary could have won and my position would not change much.  We are STILL a country where the Dems seek to selectively moralize everything in lieu of hard data that proves their point, which leads us to STLL being a country where some operate on the assumption that as soon as anything even hinting of racism, sexism, or any -ism, comes along, it is to be rejected outright and anything that comes after is to be considered null and void, like a basketball shot at the buzzer.   Because I don't reject Trump because he doesn't show the optimal PC deference to women, gays and transgender, I should not be judged morally on that (read: I should not be called "deplorable" by someone seeking my vote).

But why put the all the blame on the Dems?  Seems a little too convenient.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #90 on: February 21, 2018, 11:36:08 AM »
When it comes to the question of "Did it change the outcome of the election?", the fact is that for anything short of a recorded hack of the voting machines that changed the votes by X amount, there is no way to know for sure how much something impacted anything. Trying to judge how much any factor affected the result of the vote is guesswork. Many people post insisting that their interpretation of how things went down is "The real reason Trump won / Clinton lost", but the truth is there were many different factors in the election and we have literally no way of rewinding time and testing what happens again if one factor is changed.

However, in this election we had a very close result - the number that is bandied about is that 80,000 votes across three states could have flipped it. When the margins are fine, you don't need to believe that something was the most significant factor, or even one of the top couple of significant factors in the election, to think that it could have made enough of a difference to change the result.

In my experience, some people seem to get extremely defensive about the question of whether something "changed the result". So rather than trying to debate something that can't really be proven either way, I would maybe consider it from a different angle: If you were campaigning for a candidate that was considered a longshot, and you tried out a relatively new campaign strategy, then your candidate won by a narrow margin, would you think "That new campaign strategy I tried was clearly worthless, no point trying it again"? You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

Except for one thing; my position isn't necessarily JUST about "Why Trump Won", though it obviously factors in, and it is clearly how I've been writing it (since, well, he DID win).  It's why we are where we are as a country, generally.  Hillary could have won and my position would not change much.  We are STILL a country where the Dems seek to selectively moralize everything in lieu of hard data that proves their point, which leads us to STLL being a country where some operate on the assumption that as soon as anything even hinting of racism, sexism, or any -ism, comes along, it is to be rejected outright and anything that comes after is to be considered null and void, like a basketball shot at the buzzer.   Because I don't reject Trump because he doesn't show the optimal PC deference to women, gays and transgender, I should not be judged morally on that (read: I should not be called "deplorable" by someone seeking my vote).

But why put the all the blame on the Dems?  Seems a little too convenient.

Why would I blame the Republicans for the failure of the Democrat message to resonate?   If anything I thought I was being exceedingly fair by minimizing or even ignoring the ways in which the Republicans got it right. Point of fact for me is that they didn't.  The RNC is as fucked up in it's own way as the DNC is.   I don't consider Trump a success or a triumph, except to the extent that it reinforces my belief in the power of PEOPLE, and not the power of GOVERNMENT.   In fact, you yelled at me once or twice because I kept saying that that Trump is a BAD thing, and is a sign that things are worse than we can even imagine.    I don't consider him an anomaly, or a singular event that just needs "correcting".  He is - as Obama was before him, in a different way - a sign of our times, and a harbinger of bad things ahead.  (Case in point:  who are the two potential Democrat candidates in 2020 getting the most airtime? Oprah and George Clooney; Trump but with liberal politics)


Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24442
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #91 on: February 21, 2018, 12:03:03 PM »
(Case in point:  who are the two potential Democrat candidates in 2020 getting the most airtime? Oprah and George Clooney; Trump but with liberal politics)

Oh, ffs... here we go again.

Le sigh.





















I agree with Stadler.

:ontome:
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20136
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2018, 06:23:55 AM »
Twitter Bots sometimes haven't had the location services turned off on their accounts.



I really don't get how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at this.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 08:21:57 AM by Chino »

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2018, 07:16:25 AM »
Quote
The characterisation of of Trump and Clinton / Democrats posted by Stadler above is extremely biased, but it's a very informative description of how things are percieved by some.

Which is exactly how I wrote it.  That was the point.
Oh yeah I realise this, was just trying to think how to word the response to that post since "I agree with this" didn't really seem right.

When it comes to the question of "Did it change the outcome of the election?", the fact is that for anything short of a recorded hack of the voting machines that changed the votes by X amount, there is no way to know for sure how much something impacted anything. Trying to judge how much any factor affected the result of the vote is guesswork. Many people post insisting that their interpretation of how things went down is "The real reason Trump won / Clinton lost", but the truth is there were many different factors in the election and we have literally no way of rewinding time and testing what happens again if one factor is changed.

However, in this election we had a very close result - the number that is bandied about is that 80,000 votes across three states could have flipped it. When the margins are fine, you don't need to believe that something was the most significant factor, or even one of the top couple of significant factors in the election, to think that it could have made enough of a difference to change the result.

In my experience, some people seem to get extremely defensive about the question of whether something "changed the result". So rather than trying to debate something that can't really be proven either way, I would maybe consider it from a different angle: If you were campaigning for a candidate that was considered a longshot, and you tried out a relatively new campaign strategy, then your candidate won by a narrow margin, would you think "That new campaign strategy I tried was clearly worthless, no point trying it again"? You might not know for sure how much it made a difference, but if all you have to go on is the result, the evidence would tell you that it's worth trying again. That's basically the position of Russia after this election - whether or not Trump would still have won in some alternate universe where this never happened, in reality they have every reason to believe that their efforts worked and, if there were no other consequences, no reason not to keep doing the same thing.

Except for one thing; my position isn't necessarily JUST about "Why Trump Won", though it obviously factors in, and it is clearly how I've been writing it (since, well, he DID win).  It's why we are where we are as a country, generally.  Hillary could have won and my position would not change much.  We are STILL a country where the Dems seek to selectively moralize everything in lieu of hard data that proves their point, which leads us to STLL being a country where some operate on the assumption that as soon as anything even hinting of racism, sexism, or any -ism, comes along, it is to be rejected outright and anything that comes after is to be considered null and void, like a basketball shot at the buzzer.   Because I don't reject Trump because he doesn't show the optimal PC deference to women, gays and transgender, I should not be judged morally on that (read: I should not be called "deplorable" by someone seeking my vote).   
I don't really have an issue with anything in this post (other than another reminder that people that were called "deplorable" were literally those Trump supporters who actually consider racism and misogny a feature rather than a bug, so if you're not in that category then there should be no need to bristle about it ;) ), seems to be pretty much what I agree with re: the way some Trump supporters see things and why they embraced them.

But I was actually trying to work out at first why this was the response to the quoted, I figure you are focusing mainly on how everyone has their reasons for why "Trump won" or rather why things are the way they are now. With that though I wasn't trying to get into debating those reasons, more to get at that when we consider whether something affected the election, we don't need to be trying to choose a single "real reason" that did it - it's impacted by many, many things, and it was close enough that even something with a small effect might have been enough to make the difference in the result. So when we're discussing the DNC hack, Russian-pushed propaganda, social media activity, it's just as naive and misleading to say "That had zero effect, Clinton was just terrible because of this issue" as it is to say "Clinton had a perfect campaign, she just lost because of Russia". Conceding that something had an impact doesn't absolve the effect of other issues.

Ultimately:
1. Something can have an effect on the election without directly changing votes or without being the main factor that affected voting, and the Russian activities definitely had a big enough impact in the conversation that they are probably one factor that played a role.
2. There's no way to know for sure whether the impact of one factor changed the outcome of the election.
3. Whether it changed the outcome or not doesn't really matter other than for relitigating the arguments of 2016 - it's still something that happened, it's still something that is happening, it's still something that needs to be addressed.

So often the discussion of this issue seems to get muddied with people wanting to get back to other issues regarding Clinton or Trump, but it's not really about their issues or even just about the 2016 election - it's something that's still happening right now. I'd be really curious to see if we can get more of the views of people here on the issue of this thread (which, from the way Chino keeps posting the updates, I take it is the investigation into Russian bots and propaganda - I must admit I don't really get the title of the thread  :lol ).


Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #94 on: February 22, 2018, 08:09:28 AM »
Twitter Bots sometimes have had the location services turned off on their accounts.



I really don't get how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at this.

I'm not really following this story, is this true about this person?  I think it's important to know if this is fake news.  If so, then there is a huge problem with allowing that information to spread (regardless of source).  If not, then I'd say I still don't like it to see outsiders try to influence us, but how do you stop it?  We all want freedom of speech and the open internet.  Isn't this also kind of a result of that?  We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #95 on: February 22, 2018, 08:17:14 AM »
Twitter Bots sometimes have had the location services turned off on their accounts.



I really don't get how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at this.
Yeah, a few months ago I think I recall seeing one from a supposed "Antifa" account for a US city with the location tag in Russia. That's may be just one example that was picked up online, but there are plenty of reports about fake accounts impersonating Black Lives Matters pages, Antifa groups, things like that, coming from those identified by the sites themselves and in this investigation.

When we talk about bots and fake accounts people tend to associate it with MAGA-hats and right wing accounts, and there are plenty of those out there too. But while I'm not going to say "But they supported both sides!" as it's being clearly documented that their aim was to weaken Clinton and support Trump in the 2016 election, it most definitely is true that they impersonate and push propaganda on "both sides". When there's a police shooting, they are all over #Blacklivesmatter, #Bluelivesmatter, #AllLivesMatter. In the wake of this school shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if there were just as many fake accounts pushing extreme gun laws and anti NRA sentiments as there are fake NRA supporters.

I think it's important to keep this in mind, for "both sides", as it were. One is to try to get away from this idea that it's all just about the 2016 election again, and have people knee-jerk to "But Hillary..." or even "No collusion!" as soon as the topic of Russian interference (or even of bots, fake accounts and propaganda in general) is brought up. Maybe at this point we can all assume that we are all pretty much where we are going to be regarding our opinions of Hillary or Donald (at least as candidates in 2016) and that we know most of the other folk here's views, and that acknowledging what's going with social media and bad actors intentially trying to sow discord on it isn't giving any more or less legitimacy to the issues of that election.

The other reason is that I think it highlights that it's a multifaceted problem. This topic is quite difficult to discuss with people honestly, because the reality is that NO ONE wants to believe that they might be influenced by propaganda, by fake accounts, by bots, by social media. And the fact is that it also does no good if someone's trying to have a conversation with you to then not take their views in good faith and instead try to tell them it's just because of propaganda (the same issue comes up when the discussion comes to unconscious bias too). So trying to talk about this issue you face a big pushback as soon as someone thinks you're saying something that even hints at a chance that THEY might be affected. People tend to believe that they are not susceptible, and people also hate admitting that they were fooled.

But rather than thinking about whether our own beliefs are being influenced in any way, instead think about what others are seeing. Large numbers of fake accounts are impersonating BOTH SIDES on a given issue, ran by bad actors who are trying to incite the conflict and drive the two sides further apart. The way I see it, if I were making fake posts pruporting to be either a left wing / right wing activist with the aim of increasing the division, I'd have two goals - to get people from "my side" to follow my lead and take or defend my extreme positions, and to have people on the "other side" believe that my side of the issue are so extreme that they can't be reasoned with. To the left, they want to make the right look so bad and crazy that their opponents will think think they have to do the same, and to the right they want to do the same with the left. If I control "@NRA4EVer" and "@Death2NRA" on Twitter, I can have a lot of fun trying to coax supporters of both viewpoints into supporting more extreme positions.

Even if you're unconcerned about ever having your own viewpoint tainted by anything these idiots post, wouldn't you prefer to get assholes deliberately trying to make people with your views look like crazy nutjobs? If you're tired of being bullied for not hating Trump or supporting some of his ideas, wouldn't you quite like it if all those accounts stopped flooding social media to deliberately try and make it look like anyone who supports Trump must be a nutjob?

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20136
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #96 on: February 22, 2018, 08:21:27 AM »


I'm not really following this story, is this true about this person?  I think it's important to know if this is fake news.  If so, then there is a huge problem with allowing that information to spread (regardless of source).  If not, then I'd say I still don't like it to see outsiders try to influence us, but how do you stop it?  We all want freedom of speech and the open internet.  Isn't this also kind of a result of that?  We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.

As much as I hate to say it, I think government needs to step in and create some rules around social media. I think a great start would be having every post be geotagged. When groups in Russia can trick tens of thousands of people into following a "Republicans of Philadelphia"  (I think that was the name) page that they created, that's unacceptable. When Russian groups are arranging a controversial rally in a city, and then create an opposition event on the same day and time an 8th of a mile away, that is unacceptable. People should be able to have some kind of idea where their influence is coming from.

Also, the social media giants need to address this internally despite what it will do to their bottom line. They've started banning bots that end up going public, but they need to do a complete purge. It's easy enough detect bot activity and they're choosing not to do it. Doing so would reduce their user base significantly and it would affect ad revenue.


Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #97 on: February 22, 2018, 09:03:40 AM »
I'm not really following this story, is this true about this person?  I think it's important to know if this is fake news.  If so, then there is a huge problem with allowing that information to spread (regardless of source).  If not, then I'd say I still don't like it to see outsiders try to influence us, but how do you stop it?  We all want freedom of speech and the open internet.  Isn't this also kind of a result of that?  We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.
What are you asking is true or not? About whether the school shooting surivor isn't genuine and is instead coached by CNN or working for the FBI?

I agree that it's a problem regarding what people believe on social media. I know that a lot of people here hate social media and don't like to use it already, but even if we personally aren't on it I don't think we can't dismiss its impact, and honestly I would say that we are ALL affected by it. Even if it's purely because of the topics we end up discussing - if something's "trending on Twitter" it will probably find it's way onto cable news or other media. Sometimes talking points on Fox News have their roots in that website that we're not allowed to post the name of on this forum (which I think is because it's often flooded with child porn) as its where a lot of alt right online discussion begins. From seedy anonymous imageboards, to alt right social media accounts, to Alex Jones, to Hannity, and then out of the mouth of the president. An open internet may have many great benefits but it certainly has its downsides.

More dilligence with information we take from social media in general would help a great deal. And on this particular issue, there are definitely steps that can be taken to more effectively prevent large numbers of fake accounts or bots - big social media companies like Twitter and Facebook knew basically what was going on, but they have little incentive to shut down accounts that are driving traffic if the government doesn't hold them accountable. Also, quite simply, people being aware of the existence of this phenomenon could help quite a bit too. If 10% more people took a few more seconds after seeing a headline or image with some claim about "the other side" to wonder how sure they could be it was true before sharing it, that might slow down the spread of "fake news". If people read something posted by someone of the opposite viewpoint that really makes their blood boil, and take a few seconds to wonder whether this person is really genuine or if they might just be looking to enrage people like themselves, then they might not be so quick to dismiss reasonable people that hold the opposite viewpoint. If social media did a better job of shutting down known botnets rather than letting them keep driving traffic, that might prevent the coordinated spread of talking points designed to dominate the conversation and make it more toxic. If its determined that a foreign nation is funding operations designed to do exactly that, then maybe implementing the sanctions that passed Congress with 99.04% (419-3, 98-2 ) on that nation, rather than refusing to do so and trying to muddy the water about whether it happened or not, would make them less able to think that they can keep trying to do the same thing again with impunity...

It is not an easy issue to deal with - but it's not as though there is nothing that can be done either.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #98 on: February 22, 2018, 09:41:06 AM »
I'm not really following this story, is this true about this person?  I think it's important to know if this is fake news.  If so, then there is a huge problem with allowing that information to spread (regardless of source).  If not, then I'd say I still don't like it to see outsiders try to influence us, but how do you stop it?  We all want freedom of speech and the open internet.  Isn't this also kind of a result of that?  We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.
What are you asking is true or not? About whether the school shooting surivor isn't genuine and is instead coached by CNN or working for the FBI?

Yea, I am not following this story and seen a few references to this.  Just wondering if there's truth to that twitter post Chino quoted.  I'm definitely against spreading fake news, but if someone in Russia is spreading truthful information about someone in American society, I think the water gets a little murky on how I feel about the government intervening on social media. 

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20136
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #99 on: February 22, 2018, 09:51:28 AM »
I'm not really following this story, is this true about this person?  I think it's important to know if this is fake news.  If so, then there is a huge problem with allowing that information to spread (regardless of source).  If not, then I'd say I still don't like it to see outsiders try to influence us, but how do you stop it?  We all want freedom of speech and the open internet.  Isn't this also kind of a result of that?  We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.
What are you asking is true or not? About whether the school shooting surivor isn't genuine and is instead coached by CNN or working for the FBI?

Yea, I am not following this story and seen a few references to this.  Just wondering if there's truth to that twitter post Chino quoted.  I'm definitely against spreading fake news, but if someone in Russia is spreading truthful information about someone in American society, I think the water gets a little murky on how I feel about the government intervening on social media.

Interesting write up on the guy and how he's being portrayed/attacked

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/20/right-wing-media-david-hogg/

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #100 on: February 22, 2018, 09:59:44 AM »
Well, a real component of this discussion is "Russia".  I think we're suffering from a simplification complex.  It's convenient and easy for Clinton to write off her loss because America is racist.  That plays to the base, and reinforces the stereotype that the Coasts have of middle America.   It's also dead wrong.  So you add "Russia!" to the mix, but that doesn't work either.   CLINTON (well, her party machine) approached Russia for intel, so a) they knew Russia had the info (and therefore the means to GET the info, very important!) and it was accepted and acknowledged.  I believe that is because they understood that Russia/Soviet Union has been doing this since 1945, in one form or another.   It must have been okay when it led to Kennedy.  Or Johnson.  Or Nixon.  Or Carter.  Or Reagan.  Or Clinton I.   Or Bush.  Or Obama.   But all of a sudden, it leads to Trump, and whoa! NELLY!  They had the nerve to deny the anointed one her place at the head of the table?  RUSSIA!

I don't disagree with you on the idea that it is a multi-variable equation, often with competing interests.  No question.   But while it's okay in some applications to approximate variables and use constants, I don't think here it is.   To over emphasize the Russia variable is to underemphasize some other variable, and that doesn't do our country justice.  I would hate to think the world thinks of the US as nothing but a racist group of gun-toting assholes in MAGA hats at the beck and call of Comrade Putin.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #101 on: February 22, 2018, 10:07:18 AM »
I'm so confused, but who really started the story?  Various blogs?  And the Russians are spreading it?  Why do we let this become a story?  Is it because people just really believed it from reading it on the internet?

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #102 on: February 22, 2018, 10:11:30 AM »
  I would hate to think the world thinks of the US as nothing but a racist group of gun-toting assholes in MAGA hats at the beck and call of Comrade Putin.
Unfortunately the country is not doing a great job of preventing that right now  :lol  I don't really see how downplaying / denying the issue because of being afraid that it somehow would make people think a little less poorly of Clinton is helping with that.

To quote parts of my own posts:

Quote
3. Whether it changed the outcome or not doesn't really matter other than for relitigating the arguments of 2016 - it's still something that happened, it's still something that is happening, it's still something that needs to be addressed.

Quote
Maybe at this point we can all assume that we are all pretty much where we are going to be regarding our opinions of Hillary or Donald (at least as candidates in 2016) and that we know most of the other folk here's views, and that acknowledging what's going with social media and bad actors intentially trying to sow discord on it isn't giving any more or less legitimacy to the issues of that election.

Whether or not "Clinton would have lost anyway because ___" is irrelevant to investigating and addressing the problem. Extricating the discussion of it from "Hillary vs. Donald" so that people don't reflexively feel the need to get defensive about the issue because they believe they would be supporting Hillary if they didn't, would be very helpful.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 10:34:57 AM by RuRoRul »

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #103 on: February 22, 2018, 10:26:13 AM »
I'm so confused, but who really started the story?  Various blogs?  And the Russians are spreading it?  Why do we let this become a story?  Is it because people just really believed it from reading it on the internet?
Well, basically, yes, it seems.

After all, why are we talking about it now? Because an image posted of a quote from social media said something about it and you wanted to know if it's true. Checking if there is any validity to something online is of course a great thing, but I know that if I was looking to make the subject of gun control as toxic as possible I would be absolutely thrilled if I had regular reasonable people questioning whether school shooting survivors were crisis actors. If you know about the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and the harassment the families of those killed suffered by those claiming they were "crisis actors", then the idea that people (and let's be clear, it's not just Russians, fake accounts, bots, or whatever...) can push into the mainstream the idea that school shooting survivors are crisis actors just by screaming loudly about it on social media is quite a frightening and horrific idea.

Quote
We need to educate the public better about what to believe on the internet and what your sources are.  People believe way too much of what they see on social media.
I think this part from your post is definitely true. It's not just an easy flip of a switch to do it, but it's something that needs to be tacked.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13171
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 'Murtherland
« Reply #104 on: February 22, 2018, 12:31:37 PM »
  I would hate to think the world thinks of the US as nothing but a racist group of gun-toting assholes in MAGA hats at the beck and call of Comrade Putin.
Unfortunately the country is not doing a great job of preventing that right now  :lol  I don't really see how downplaying / denying the issue because of being afraid that it somehow would make people think a little less poorly of Clinton is helping with that.

To quote parts of my own posts:

Quote
3. Whether it changed the outcome or not doesn't really matter other than for relitigating the arguments of 2016 - it's still something that happened, it's still something that is happening, it's still something that needs to be addressed.

Quote
Maybe at this point we can all assume that we are all pretty much where we are going to be regarding our opinions of Hillary or Donald (at least as candidates in 2016) and that we know most of the other folk here's views, and that acknowledging what's going with social media and bad actors intentially trying to sow discord on it isn't giving any more or less legitimacy to the issues of that election.

Whether or not "Clinton would have lost anyway because ___" is irrelevant to investigating and addressing the problem. Extricating the discussion of it from "Hillary vs. Donald" so that people don't reflexively feel the need to get defensive about the issue because they believe they would be supporting Hillary if they didn't, would be very helpful.

Well, I'm guilty of this as much, if not more, than anyone.  But I'm really not about "Donald vs. Hillary".  I really don't care.  No, really, because neither espouses my politics all that much (and no President really has since Clinton). I didn't vote for either in 2016, and wouldn't now.  What I fear more than anything - more than Trump as President, or Clinton as President - is we not learn our lessons.   Trump is not an anomaly, an aberration or a singularity.  He - or someone like him - WILL happen again if we don't understand why we got here.  It's not a matter of "emails" or "Comey" or "grabbing pussy".  Every President in modern times has overcome some scandal ("cocaine use", "bogus National Guard service") and every challenger has faced same ("Swifboats", "Willie Horton").  But we are facing a trend of spurning experience for "new" and "change" and "different" and its hurting us.  We are increasingly moralizing policy positions, and it's minimizing the effectiveness of the resulting solutions.  We are increasingly treating "Votes" like "Facebook likes" and they are not the same thing.