PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you're assumptions.....
Did Russian Interference Affect the 2016 Election Results?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
you're assumptions.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it makes me feel guilty to make fun of the feeble minded, but dude.......
Exactly. You can't prove it did or did not change a vote--too complicated. So those who say it did or did not do not really know. We can easily predict how people will answer based on their partisan preference.
There is a lot of research on the effects of campaigns. They use a panel of people and interview them several times over the course of a campaign to determine when and why they decide how to vote. We know those who are weaker in their party loyalty decide later in the campaign and a lot of campaign strategy is aimed at this group.
We know people are easy to manipulate, but most of that manipulation occurred while they were acquiring their party affiliation. Once that is established we know how they will vote despite any negative propaganda or how much money is spent. Studies give respondents an issue and ask them how they feel about it. Then they are told their party takes the opposite stand on that issue and many of them will change their stand on that issue.
reagansghost
eternal
so the question whether or not Russia's mass propaganda campaigns, being conducted since 1917, are effective is a crap shoot?
don't think so
Says the liberal Democrat with no evidence whatsoever while the conservative Republican answers just the opposite with no evidence.
And how effective have those interventions been?
"We identified two waves of Russian meddling since the early 1990s. The first wave lasted until 2014 and targeted only post-Soviet countries. Since then, a second wave has expanded dramatically into established Western democracies.
However, an examination of both of these waves shows that Russia’s efforts have made little difference."
"But there are reasons to be skeptical of the claim that Russia swung the election for Trump. First, Russian information warriors produced far less fake news and polarizing rhetoric than did domestic and other international sources. Russia simply added to the already deafening cacophony of inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.
Second, the hacked emails had little obvious impact. The first batch of Democratic National Committee emails was released in July 2016, amid the two party conventions — after which Clinton’s lead increased. Similarly, after WikiLeaks released John Podesta’s emails in October, Clinton’s support increased, apparently in response to such other campaign events as the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trust in Clinton remained more or less the same throughout October — not what we’d expect to see if the emails had made a difference."
"But there is far stronger evidence that other factors were more critical. For instance, public opinion shifted suddenly after Oct. 28, when FBI Director James B. Comey announced that he was reopening an investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. And the closeness of the election mostly resulted from polarization between Democrats and Republicans that long predates Russian President Vladimir Putin or the rise of Trump."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-it-made-a-difference/?utm_term=.5d4e60715f13
However, an examination of both of these waves shows that Russia’s efforts have made little difference."
"But there are reasons to be skeptical of the claim that Russia swung the election for Trump. First, Russian information warriors produced far less fake news and polarizing rhetoric than did domestic and other international sources. Russia simply added to the already deafening cacophony of inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.
Second, the hacked emails had little obvious impact
"But there are reasons to be skeptical of the claim that Russia swung the election for Trump. First, Russian information warriors produced far less fake news and polarizing rhetoric than did domestic and other international sources. Russia simply added to the already deafening cacophony of inflammatory rhetoric and misinformation.
Second, the hacked emails had little obvious impact
Your lying and crying are boorish, juvenile and lack anything that could be considered to be adult debates. Run along you pathetic whiny little asswhipe.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong and looking like a moron? That was rhetorical. Of course you don't. You prove it every damned day.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You're in need of counselling. There must be a sympathetic simian willing to take you on. Haw, haw.............................haw.
You don't know that, and you're basing this assertion on absolutely nothing.
No, you are getting nowhere with it. You're the one who said Russia affected the election systems, but you say they affected it by "copying" information. How does copying the information "affect" anything?
Wrong! Russia hacked the election systems of all 50 states. You have no idea the depth and breadth of what they did.
I wasn't the target of Russian propaganda. You were, and you still are.
OMG, you just said you did before. And now you're saying they're not popular with the public? Why do you think that is? It's because of the propaganda effort that has been ground into your small mind your entire life by people with a vested interest in undermining your faith in the institutions of government so they can sell it off to their rich friends. And you help them do that when you parrot this self-fulfilling prophecy. You enable Trump and the GOP.
It's a joke to pretend that our government isn't bought and paid for by rich special interested and wealthy people. Sheldon Adelson gave Trump $50M!
You didn't challenge my views...all you did was regurgitate some propaganda about people hating politicians. And you refuse to see the connection between that feeling and the sustained effort of the Conservatives for the last 40+ years to get you there.
PJ O'Rourke has a saying that is apropos; "Republicans say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it".
And it's bad faith to think you're entitled to me coddling your bad faith.
Obama says you are full of shit and a lunatic asshat.
Obama: Trump's Rigged Election Comments are 'Ridiculous'
Obama says you are a liar and full of shit asshat:
Obama: Trump's Rigged Election Comments are 'Ridiculous'
Well, why do you think they did?
See, you come right up to the cusp of saying why, but then you stop short because you don't want to end up admitting that they were swayed by propaganda because admitting that would be admitting that I'm right and you simply don't want to give me that satisfaction because you will take it personally.
It was the same, if not greater baggage than Clinton because Obama is black.
Trump made a political name for himself off that baggage.
You are trying to retcon because...as I said before...you don't want to admit I'm right because you know I'm not going to let it go with you and will just hammer you over the head with it over and over and over.
So you are staking out a position for your own fucking pathetic ego's sake.
But you just said right in this same post that you don't know the reasons:
So, are you having a senior moment? Suffering from early-onset dementia? You can't even keep track of your argument in the same post.
So you're chalking this up to your poor judgment now. You're applying those bad instincts to explain something you just admitted earlier you couldn't explain.
And to pretend that this is normal in American politics is to be willfully blind to what happened in 2016, even after Mueller's report came out and detailed the depth and breadth of the attack. A report you still haven't read.
OMFG. Those ads were the ones bought and paid for by Russia you stupid asshole.
Seriously, read Mueller's report, specifically Volume I...it details the Russian hacks, the money they spent, the posts they created, the fake accounts they used to share those posts, etc.
I cannot tolerate such bad faith laziness.
Your posts are lazy in every regard.