221–230 of 662 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I know why people love him too — he is entertaining as fuck and if you’re too poor or too rich to be affected by government policy, who gives a shit about the president?
To answer your question. Me, as a European, I like a POTUS who doesn't drag us into a war with Russia, thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, he won the election thanks to 80000 votes in three states. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/do...
Actually, he won thanks to ~63,000,000 votes. You’re also trying to make it sound like there was something uniquely nefarious about his campaign. He used the same marketing tactics that all recent campaigns have used. The same tactics that Obama was widely praised for in 2012. He won because voters liked him more.
Please don't delude yourself or at least attempt to be honest. Races at the county and state level matter a lot. It matters that outside of a couple of states, the winner take all electoral system can have a significant impact on elections.
Yes, those are the rules that have been established, that both parties are privy to when developing their campaign strategy.
But let's not reduce that to "oh, one person won because people liked them more."
Despite the barrage of negative stories that would have ended nearly every other Presidential campaign - ranging from accusations of racism, misogyny, treason, incompetence, mental instability - despite all of it, tens of millions of Americans absolutely love President Trump. I cannot imagine how utterly frustrating it must be for them to watch the media bounce from story after story in some convoluted attempt to exp…
Well said. No matter the influence of Russians nor widespread manipulation by Cambridge Analytica, the reality is that people chose to believe these things without their own personal endeavor into critical inquiry. And I'm not talking about that white working class "base" that people like to attribute as Trump's secret weapon. I know plenty of people, truly well meaning individuals, who are not the dumb animals most…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the actions on the margin that matter here. Just think of what this whole story (Foreign meddling) says about these marginal voters in that case: That they were so easily swayed, that they decided to vote ostensibly against their own better judgement simply by being shown a series of ads to influence their emotions. Something is very wrong with voter education if it's that easy to sway a certain influential popu…
I always love people who tout the "how could those feeble minded simpletons be so easily swindled; I would never fall for that" slogan. Have you considered it might be happening to you, right now ? How would you tell, if by definition we are talking about pressing unconscious psychological buttons? You may be very well educated, but you've never the less the same monkey brain as everyone on this earth.
Your comment adds nothing but a personal attack on me where one is not warranted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point still stands. Whatever adjective you prefer.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download "From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes,…
Also the DNI report is too generic. They literally have screenshots of Russian news channels. This is bordering on cold war era style propaganda.
PS: thank you for taking the time and effort to have a conversation. I haven't seen anything convincing me that Russia meaningfully interfered in the election. And I'm wary to jump to conclusions since there are a lot of people who seem to be hell bent on undercutting the President using any means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was no “Russian meddling” in the election. Stop parroting nonsense without evidence. Hillary did cheat though. Her campaign directly collaborated with correct the record - last time I checked coordinating with a super pac was illegal. She also directly worked with the media to spread progaganda. Thank god Trump won. Hillary would have been more of the same. Also, it’s hilarious that we’ve all stopped caring abo…
We've established beyond a doubt by now that there was, in fact, "Russian meddling" in the election. It's incredible that someone could still deny this.
FREE JULIAN!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple issues with that statement: (1) The issue is not getting the data of the people who used the app, it's the millions of their friends who were included. This is what's being implied should be thought of as a "breach" (with the media trying its darndest to make it look like Trump himself downloaded all the data into a big CSV file while laughing) (2) Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked, the…
> Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked, This seems...insane. Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent? It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the…
Very simply: None of the millions of friends were asked for their consent in either case. There was no consent requested or premise given, the data was simply "obtained" in both cases, by the same means.
> but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.
Maybe because it has nothing to do with what I wrote? Allow me to make up a statement that does. "Hey, Bob, can I have access to your account so I can understand you better to advance the Obama campaign? Ok, good. Oh, and Tom's your friend, so I get his information also. ....... Hey, Bob, can I have access to your account so I can understand you better to create a personality profile? Ok, good. Oh, and Tom's your friend, so I get his information also."
Now, you are Tom. You were not contacted in any way whatsoever. You were not presented with a reason for accessing your account in any way whatsoever. Your data was simply pulled, and that is why I equate the two. I am indeed quite sane.
Despite the barrage of negative stories that would have ended nearly every other Presidential campaign - ranging from accusations of racism, misogyny, treason, incompetence, mental instability - despite all of it, tens of millions of Americans absolutely love President Trump. I cannot imagine how utterly frustrating it must be for them to watch the media bounce from story after story in some convoluted attempt to exp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I know why people love him too — he is entertaining as fuck and if you’re too poor or too rich to be affected by government policy, who gives a shit about the president?
He basically ran a campaign of "People in Washington suck and I'm going to ruin their day" and that is the one campaign promise he's knocked out of the park. Every time the media gets bent out of shape about something he does, his base feels vindicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The winning candidate spent significantly less money in this instance. Also I tend to agree with Citizens United. Unions and Corporations should be allowed to express their views on a candidate. If there is someone running for office and making a BS claim about steel workers, I would want steelworkers unions to have the right to advertise and inform me that it is BS. Also if you get into issue based stuff, it becomes…
The winning candidate won by something like negative three million votes. What other country would consider that a democratic outcome?
One similar example of this is the recent German election - I believe AFD had like ~10% of the popular vote, but only won 5% of seats in the parliament.