Don't trust her and hate her, at least recognize....

[fskimospy]

Help me understand, what exactly did the Russians do to take away voters' free will and make them vote for Trump / against Hillary?

Let's do a thought experiment. If the Russians had created a fake video of Trump molesting a five year old and circulated it on the internet and then he lost would you say they had affected the election despite voters still having the free will and ability to vote for him?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yes, exactly. It was a totally insane and illogical argument then just as it is now. I imagine it comes somewhat from a combination of a lack of basic understanding of statistics but primarily from the fact that it told you things that conflicted with what you want to believe. When that happens people often don't change their position, they search for reasons to ignore uncomfortable evidence like you did.



As I predicted you refuse to engage on the facts and instead retreat to broad attacks like this. This is an irrational and emotional reaction to things you don't like.

I understand statistics just fine. The one you push is far too broad to have any meaning. A one size fits all answer.

Your Russian collusion has all the hallmarks of a faux political witch hunt. Like the right chasing Obama before you. You are the modern birther, you didn't get your way, now it is time for a tantrum.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Let's do a thought experiment. If the Russians had created a fake video of Trump molesting a five year old and circulated it on the internet and then he lost would you say they had affected the election despite voters still having the free will and ability to vote for him?

Let's deal in reality and not exaggerated claims of hypothetical situations.

The important part would be, did he actually molest a five year old? What was circulated about Hillary that wasn't based in truth?

 

[fskimospy]

I understand statistics just fine. The one you push is far too broad to have any meaning. A one size fits all answer.

It is abundantly clear from your answers that you do not.

Your Russian collusion has all the hallmarks of a faux political witch hunt. Like the right chasing Obama before you. You are the modern birther, you didn't get your way, now it is time for a tantrum.

Haha, just as I predicted.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Haha, just as I predicted.

Your prediction here is as good as your prediction that Hillary was going to win. Smug in both cases too.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's deal in reality and not exaggerated claims of hypothetical situations.

Please answer the question, it's a pretty simple one. We are simply establishing if you consider it to be theoretically possible for Russian disinformation campaigns to affect US elections despite voters retaining the free will and ability to vote for either candidate. Once we've established that we can then go into the facts of what happened and think about what the odds are that they affected the actual election that happened. After all, they only needed to switch 35,000 votes or convince 70,000 people to stay home in 3 states in which almost 15 million people voted. (either about 0.25 or 0.5% of voters)

 

[fskimospy]

Your prediction here is as good as your prediction that Hillary was going to win. Smug in both cases too.

That makes zero sense. My prediction that Clinton was going to win was wrong while my prediction that you would refuse to engage on the facts of this matter is literally proven by the written record of this thread.

I'm not particularly proud of that prediction as it 1) says a lot of unfortunate things about you and 2) was a super easy prediction to make. It's not hard to predict what you will do as you value avoiding uncomfortable thoughts way more than you value logical and rational discussion.

 

[HomerJS]

Please answer the question, it's a pretty simple one. We are simply establishing if you consider it to be theoretically possible for Russian disinformation campaigns to affect US elections despite voters retaining the free will and ability to vote for either candidate. Once we've established that we can then go into the facts of what happened and think about what the odds are that they affected the actual election that happened. After all, they only needed to switch 35,000 votes or convince 70,000 people to stay home in 3 states in which almost 15 million people voted. (either about 0.25 or 0.5% of voters)

He's dodging because he knows the answer to the question.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Please answer the question, it's a pretty simple one. We are simply establishing if you consider it to be theoretically possible for Russian disinformation campaigns to affect US elections despite voters retaining the free will and ability to vote for either candidate. Once we've established that we can then go into the facts of what happened and think about what the odds are that they affected the actual election that happened. After all, they only needed to switch 35,000 votes or convince 70,000 people to stay home in 3 states in which almost 15 million people voted. (either about 0.25 or 0.5% of voters)

Propaganda can sway opinions, I think that is common sense. What disinformation was spread?

 

[SlowSpyder]

That makes zero sense. My prediction that Clinton was going to win was wrong while my prediction that you would refuse to engage on the facts of this matter is literally proven by the written record of this thread.

I'm not particularly proud of that prediction as it 1) says a lot of unfortunate things about you and 2) was a super easy prediction to make. It's not hard to predict what you will do as you value avoiding uncomfortable thoughts way more than you value logical and rational discussion.

What facts am I dodging?? This has all the markings of a typical political witch hunt by the losing side, nothing more. Seen it before, seeing it again. This idea that Russians somehow made people vote outside their freewill is silly.

 

[fskimospy]

Propaganda can sway opinions, I think that is common sense. What disinformation was spread?

Great! Now we're getting somewhere! Remember it doesn't have to be disinformation, it simply has to be actions by the Russians to change people's minds to either vote for Trump or not vote for Clinton.

From this article here we can see there were a huge range of activities undertaken by the Russian government to sway the US election. Do you think it is possible that a combination of the DNC email hacks and subsequent release and a concerted disinformation campaign from both social media and from Russian government state media like Sputnik and RT could have convinced 1 in 400 voters to change their vote or 1 in 200 voters to stay home? If not, why and what is this based on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

[Jhhnn]

Help me understand, what exactly did the Russians do to take away voters' free will and make them vote for Trump / against Hillary?

Nothing. Nobody said that happened.

Were you on the same side of the election with an army of Russian hackers, disinformation artists, trolls & bots, or not? Are you comfortable with that?

 

[Sunburn74]

Propaganda can sway opinions, I think that is common sense. What disinformation was spread?

All sorts of disinformation.
Pizzagate story
Remember the witchcraft story they circulated for a while
All the weird political non truths about Hillary committing murders and stealing and back table deals. Don't forget the stuff they played about Hillary wanting to ban all guns immediately.
By report they had a bunch of guys in their early twenties in Macedonia just making up whatever crazy ass story you could come up with and posting on Facebook knowing people wouldn't fact check it at all.

 

[blankslate]

I have no doubt that she is book smart...

I have doubts about her judgment. She supported just about every major foreign intervention proposed since the beginning of the century and frankly they haven't gone as well as they could have.
Even after that she still appears to support them. Granted many politicians support them, but I believe the point stands considering that the intelligence term for unintended consequence (often related to foreign actions), "blowback", has become rather well known among people who follow politics.

She also apparently hired bad campaign consultants because losing the firewall states shouldn't have happened. If she campaigned there more vigorously in person she might have gotten those states' electoral votes.

By comparison her husband and President Obama are not only smart but they also were arguably more effective campaigners which imo requires a different kind of intelligence that Hillary apparently is lacking.

Having said that yes she would have been a much better center to left of center (depending on the issue) President than Trump is.


_____

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It’s not really irrelevant at all, it’s just a quirk of our system. The research indicates campaigns change almost nothing so it’s not like if it had been a popular vote contest Trump could have won by campaigning differently.

Oh come on, be real here for half a second. If the game completely changed to getting the most votes across all states... instead of just targetting battleground states the game would entirely change.

States that Trump never went to would now be focus points (NY, WA, CA) that are normal liberal mecca points that no one dares to challenge...

Likewise, donkeys would be much more present in places like TX, FL, and the other bible belts.

 

[Jaskalas]

First thing I see in that video is her bobble head. Something is off with her motor skills but I just can't place my finger on what it is exactly. Queue her health concerns and her collapse on September 11th, 2016. It's tied together, the public just isn't privy to what it is that's wrong with her health.

Second thing, remember her age. That alone is disqualifying for my endorsement. (Not the same as how I'd vote)

As for the rest of it, how she composed herself in that interview, yes. It was quite intelligent compared to Trump, even in general it wasn't a bad showing. But really, with Trump on stage the bar has been set so low that anything with a pulse could beat him. So what? If intelligence and composure were deciding factors in the election, Trump never would have become President.

In the first Trump VS Hillary debate his behavior disgusted me.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh come on, be real here for half a second. If the game completely changed to getting the most votes across all states... instead of just targetting battleground states the game would entirely change.

States that Trump never went to would now be focus points (NY, WA, CA) that are normal liberal mecca points that no one dares to challenge...

Likewise, donkeys would be much more present in places like TX, FL, and the other bible belts.

Yes, let's be real here for half a second! Here's some pretty exhaustive research analyzing the effects of campaigns on voter behavior:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867

Significant theories of democratic accountability hinge on how political campaigns affect Americans’ candidate choices. We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero. First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in general elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact 10-fold. These experiments’ average effect is also zero. In both existing and our original experiments, persuasive effects only appear to emerge in two rare circumstances. First, when candidates take unusually unpopular positions and campaigns invest unusually heavily in identifying persuadable voters.

If the effects of campaigns on voter behavior are functionally zero then it doesn't really matter where Trump or Clinton would have gone, does it?

 

[Jhhnn]

First thing I see in that video is her bobble head. Something is off with her motor skills but I just can't place my finger on what it is exactly. Queue her health concerns and her collapse on September 11th, 2016. It's tied together, the public just isn't privy to what it is that's wrong with her health.

Second thing, remember her age. That alone is disqualifying for my endorsement. (Not the same as how I'd vote)

As for the rest of it, how she composed herself in that interview, yes. It was quite intelligent compared to Trump, even in general it wasn't a bad showing. But really, with Trump on stage the bar has been set so low that anything with a pulse could beat him. So what? If intelligence and composure were deciding factor in the election, Trump never would have become President.

So, you bought in to conspiracy theory about Hillary's health? Of course you did.

Age? She's a year younger than Trump and several years younger than Bernie.

Trump? He never even tried to make sense. He campaigned on hate, discontent & the emotional hot button issues of white American conservatives.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yes, let's be real here for half a second! Here's some pretty exhaustive research analyzing the effects of campaigns on voter behavior:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867



If the effects of campaigns on voter behavior are functionally zero then it doesn't really matter where Trump or Clinton would have gone, does it?

Your story seems to side more with "advertising doesn't really affect whom a voter sides with" - which has no bearing on voter turnout. I'm stating that voter turnout will completely change. Think of how many people say "OH this is a blue state, there is no point in even showing up" that will now feel as though they have a voice. Same goes for red states as well, I think it was estimated that TX is essentially a blue state, it's just that the left are too lazy to turnout because they are quick to say they don't have a chance.

 

[fskimospy]

Your story seems to side more with "advertising doesn't really affect whom a voter sides with" - which has no bearing on voter turnout. I'm stating that voter turnout will completely change. Think of how many people say "OH this is a blue state, there is no point in even showing up" that will now feel as though they have a voice. Same goes for red states as well, I think it was estimated that TX is essentially a blue state, it's just that the left are too lazy to turnout because they are quick to say they don't have a chance.

Not advertising, campaigning in total. (contact and advertising) If you're saying voter turnout might increase I agree with you but the most likely outcome there if anything gives the Democrats an advantage as overall turnout and Democratic vote % are positively correlated with one another. So not only would Trump campaigning differently not have mattered, the most likely outcome is that Clinton would have won by even more. There's no likely outcome for a popular vote system in which Trump wins.

 

[Jaskalas]

So, you bought in to conspiracy theory about Hillary's health? Of course you did.

Age? She's a year younger than Trump and several years younger than Bernie.

There's no conspiracy, there is something plainly off about her motor skills. Her head and facial movements are all exaggerated. I don't know if she was like that when she was younger, but since her original incident as Secretary of State - something's not quite right.

Yes, age. I don't want anyone holding office at age 70+.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Arm in arm with Russian propagandists & deep in denial.

Are you denying that the Russians made such an effort?

With the active help and aid and money from Democrats. Yes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Propaganda can sway opinions, I think that is common sense. What disinformation was spread?

What matters is if the law was broken. If a campaign representative worked with a foreign national to attempt to influence an election they have violated law, the Logan act in particular. This was Jr's goal by his own admission. So you can argue whether collusion was effective, but that's not what will put people in jeopardy of office or freedom. Robbing a bank is illegal whether you get away with the money or not and so it will be with whoever broke the law. Likewise is obstruction and you and I are irrelevant however Trump has certainly demonstrated little understanding of how things work. Mueller and his team however do and the facts be brought to light. I would not be sure of a favorable outcome for many involved with the Russians. Be in favor of Trump or against, what matters is what some very skilled prosecutors find and they have already discovered some "interesting" things. If Trump were a stock I'd say to sell short.

 

[bshole]

What matters is if the law was broken. If a campaign representative worked with a foreign national to attempt to influence an election they have violated law, the Logan act in particular.

I thought the Logan act had something to do with foreigners scratching your back with adamantium claws. As far as I know, Trump only got peed on by the Russians, he didn't get adamantium claw back rubs.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Great! Now we're getting somewhere! Remember it doesn't have to be disinformation, it simply has to be actions by the Russians to change people's minds to either vote for Trump or not vote for Clinton.

From this article here we can see there were a huge range of activities undertaken by the Russian government to sway the US election. Do you think it is possible that a combination of the DNC email hacks and subsequent release and a concerted disinformation campaign from both social media and from Russian government state media like Sputnik and RT could have convinced 1 in 400 voters to change their vote or 1 in 200 voters to stay home? If not, why and what is this based on?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

You are grasping at straws. Trying to find an excuse for why your candidate lost, why you didn't get your way. Trying to rationalize away how the rest of America is wrong and you are right. Protect your ego.

I heard Kenya was rooting for Obama and said positive things about him when he ran. Clearly he should have been impeached. /s

13 minutes of Hillary lying.