Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook (nymag.com)
Max Read makes his case via New York Magazine for how Facebook was the reason for Donald Trump's surprise victory on November 8th. Though, to be fair, "Facebook" is called out specifically due to its large online presence, but in reality all the "large and influential boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics" are to blame. The main reason why has to do with Facebook's "inability (or refusal) to address the problem of hoax or fake news" that is spread rampantly and effortlessly across the platform: Fake news is not a problem unique to Facebook, but Facebook's enormous audience, and the mechanisms of distribution on which the site relies -- i.e., the emotionally charged activity of sharing, and the show-me-more-like-this feedback loop of the news feed algorithm -- makes it the only site to support a genuinely lucrative market in which shady publishers arbitrage traffic by enticing people off of Facebook and onto ad-festooned websites, using stories that are alternately made up, incorrect, exaggerated beyond all relationship to truth, or all three. Many got hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of shares, likes, and comments; enough people clicked through to the posts to generate significant profits for their creators. The valiant efforts of Snopes and other debunking organizations were insufficient; Facebook's labyrinthine sharing and privacy settings mean that fact-checks get lost in the shuffle. Often, no one would even need to click on and read the story for the headline itself to become a widely distributed talking point, repeated elsewhere online, or, sometimes, in real life. When roughly 170 million people in North America use Facebook every day and nearly forty-four percent of all adults in the U.S. say they get news from Facebook, the spread of "fake news" is all the more detrimental. The problem is that Facebook seems "insecure about its power, unsure of its purpose, and unclear about what its responsibilities really are." Earlier this year, Facebook acted on what was right and wrong by censoring the iconic "napalm girl" photograph, later issuing a statement saying "These are difficult decisions and we don't always get it right." Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns; Facebook has simply made them easier to spread, and discovered that it suffers no particular market punishment for doing so -- humans seem to have a strong bias toward news that confirms their beliefs, and environments where those beliefs are unlikely to be challenged.
that's why. it couldn't be the candidate or the policies that lost.
I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.
Some even accusing Trump of raping a 13 year old girl (which we may suppose is likely not true given the fact that she withdrew her lawsuit against Trump)
that's why. it couldn't be the candidate or the policies that lost.
Trump won because of facebook?
I've lost track of the rationalizations, the reasons why Trump won.
Anyone have a list?
...that Trump won because the media could not control the narrative despite their best efforts.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Using Facebook as a scapegoat for popular votes doesn't really make for a valid argument. This is speculative at best unless you proof without a shadow of a doubt. This article is nonsensical at best.
Hillary is almost the perfect foil to her husband in politics. If Bill divorced her and ran as a Republican he'd probably have crushed her 70/30 that is how unpopular she is.
Look at her stats. She is damn near in McCain/Palin territory. She is the Nickelback of Democratic candidates.
Please stop living in a bubble and you will realize why it could have never been anyone else. How many established Republicans ran against him? Dozens, he slaughtered them for the same reason he destroyed Hillary. If you are looking around for a reason why he beat your establishment crook, don't look at Facebook, try the mirror.
Yeah, don't blame the fools using Facebook. Let's be honest, if they didn't get their biased news from Facebook it would have been from the Washington Post, Fox news, CNN, or a large source of other traditional infotainment money makers.
Hoaxes were always there.
Trump won because Hillary lost. She lost it because she mistakenly took SJW outrage for actually what people think. Turns out, there was/is silent majority and they don't care one bit about SJW issues but do care about corruption, warmongering, foundation profiteering, and DNC machine rigging.
Clinton wasn't completely destroyed because of Facebook and other social media hiding the real news.
But please try again! Btw, Putin and FBI have already been used.
blah blah TRUMP wheeze cry pout mean baad man baad man sniff momma
People are asking, what happened? Has everyone gone crazy?
Trump supporters have been watching people go crazy for awhile now. We could draw you a map.
Hope 'yall come back, time to fix things.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
this morning, trying to figure out why Hillary lost. It was because the same party candidate after a two President usually loses. It was because she was a woman. It was because the current President is black. Now it was because of Facebook.
Absolutely any possible reason except that the voting public do not like and do not trust Hillary Clinton. She lost because Trump was less distasteful.
(And because he beat her at her own game, on her home turn. Her whole political career has been based on being so vicious and nasty that no one would dare cross her. And it turns out Trump was even more vicious and nasty. And Americans love that shit.)
Give a spineless imp a "safe space" to post and they come up with this tripe.
Sheesh. Trump won because people voted him into office, and were tired of the establishment, being lied to and taken advantage of.
So it is all Facebook's fault, nothing to do with decades of politicians ignoring the the people. Telling them what they should be doing instead of listening to what is important to them. Likely few people actually voted for Trump because they thought he was the best that America could offer, but rather in protest for not bing listened to for such a long time. We are living in interesting times.
Reddit would like to disagree with this, considering all of the work done uncovering Hillary's crookedness done there. They definitely cost her a great deal of votes.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
Without him, and if Johnson voters had gone for Clinton, that would have flipped MI, WI, PA and FL.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Couldn't have said it better. They lost control of the narrative and were defeated. Fuck the media.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Trump won because Americans don't trust the government to consider their best interests any more. I mean, I see it in your comments here all the time. Clinton didn't do enough to separate herself from the institution, I mean, did she even try at all? Trump took it because it's America's attempt to fight fire with fire. You feel betrayed, so send in the betrayer, a bull dog.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
she and the Democrats abandoned the Rust Belt. Michael Moore described election night back in July: Donald Trump was going to take Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, plus the Romney states, and win. That's pretty much what happened, except Trump also got Florida. Hillary conceded Ohio, paid only a little attention to Pennsylvania, took Michigan and Wisconsin completely for granted, and lost.
They had the skill to vote past more wars, more debt, loss of jobs, bad trade deals, open boarders and vast illegal immigration.
The root of the issue was the poor quality polls. The left leaning media, contractors, neocons and the elite owners selected poll numbers to fit in with what they wanted.
Great for the few million who consumer the media, but the wider public then voted in reality.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or actually the LACK of the Donald's access to his Twitter feed for that last month...
Think about it. Every time he got into a Twitter war at 3AM over some foolishness that irked him, it got out of hand and he fell in the polls. So that last month where he stopped being stupid on Twitter is what cost Clinton the election.... Well, that and the fact that she had some serious flaws to overcome....
So, the next election cycle we make all the candidates debate on Twitter. Either side can initiate a debate on a question by posting it with a given tag. Points are given for the wittiest come back with difficulty points for quick responses before they can be fully vetted and focus grouped, as well as a bonus given for the time of day. All responses MUST be posted by the candidate themselves and they must personally craft every answer without outside help.... It will be a blast, trust me, and Trump will LOOSE BIGLY for sure.
The problem wasn't Facebook... It was Twitter...
sarc off
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Here's a list of the things Trump has promised to do in the first 100 days.
Of particular note is this item in the 3rd grouping:
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama(*)
That is something the president can do on his own, without getting permission from congress. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.
Additionally, Ben Carson said he's willing to help Trump find a replacement for Obamacare.
Dr. Carson is smart and has first-hand knowledge of the healthcare system. He's not a career politician, and would make a good HHS secretary or surgeon general.
Check out the comments to that 2nd article, and see what people are saying about Carson.
(*) He doesn't say how he will determine whether something is unconstitutional, but in my view any reasonable method would work. Such as getting a consensus from a panel of legal scholars, or simply cancelling anything that orders the government to do something. We'll have to wait and see.
Of course, lies and exaggerations have always been central to real political campaigns; ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No way in hell would Johnson (Libertarian) voters go for a statist big-government Democrat candidate like Hillary.
Without Johnson, the Trump margin would have been even more decisive.
No, the problem is that ya'll were too busy reading about how the moon landing was faked to bother to find out how much of a con man Trump is.
Someone had to do it.
Obama will pardon Hillary for everything before he leaves office.
He doesn't even have to be specific about what he's pardoning her for. Ford did the same for Nixon when Nixon resigned, because it was the quickest way for the country it put it behind them.
Everyone knows it was /pol/, r/the_donald, and the magic of Pepe memes.
Whites getting religiously persecuted, insulted, blamed for everything and anything, every second of every day.
White males getting religiously insulted and persecuted by feminists, being told they don't have a right to preference, to opinions, to life in some cases, being treated like animals, being showered in hate.
Social justice evangelists using any way possible to mask their hate and crusade against white men as a "righteous cause" only so they can justify being even more condescending and abhorrent in their high-horse inquisition.
The past half a decade of this, every fucking day. Whether on the Internet or on campus or on rallies.
Every fucking day.
Now the white people, and white men, have had it. If a percentage of white men were against, or even apathetic towards Trump, Trump may not have happened.
But white men keep being insulted and hated, so are we surprised that they finally got to give a middle finger?
The safespace professional victim and offense brigade brought it upon themselves.
The devs at reddit had a special algorithm running that artifically suppressed the trump discussion page from appearing on the front "most active" page list.
This came to light about a week ago, when the algorithm had a bug and stopped working, and the trump pages started showing up.
It was quickly corrected, though...
As more and more voting fraud is exposed, Hillary's chances will just keep increasing.
You mean like this kind of voting fraud:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/st...
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
american's are incredibly gullible and stupid
And I think the liberals were blindsided because the rampant social intimidation scewed the poll results making the Clinton campain blind to the truth.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
> There is no evidence CTR exists or ever did.
https://correctrecord.org/
The DNC had a strong foothold online behind Bernie. Large amounts of youth waited in lines for hours to vote for Bernie, do you think they did the same for Hillary? Trump had the bored, young, white, male demographic if for no reason other than it pissed off someone they knew.
And that demographic hangs out on Facebook, Reddit and 4Chan. Tada, you now 'control' online.
Meanwhile when Bernie voters logged into facebook they were told they weren't wanted in the DNC or in November from a few people there to correct the record.
You, sir, win the internets.
That was the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
Great post!
Dealing with this problem that the news most people get these days hasn’t been carefully vetted as it was (or at least they tried) back in the days of Uncle Walter Cronkite is important. The Internet, with it’s ability to spread unfounded rumor at a wildfire pace, has broken America. I’m not talking about this current election, this has been going on for some time now. The question comes down to how does an organization like Facebook help keep down the levels of total bullshit without censorship problems. And I’m talking both sides of the political spectrum here. One way might be to take on a vetting responsibility in which bullshit posts aren’t removed but are edited by adding a statement something along the lines of “this statement is the most puro of bullshit” along with a link to something like Snopes where the issue is explained.
This won’t fix this problem, but it might help people see that there’s more to a story than what their good buddies or BFFs are posting on Facebook. And no, it’s not perfect, but it’s also not censorship. You can post whatever nonsense you feel like, but the owner of the site has the right AND THE OBLIGATION to watch for and flag nonsense. It would be nice if everyone had a working bullshitometer, but the newer models of People seem to have dropped that module.
CNN booted her for that: http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Of course, this was just weaseling out, because Donna isn't the only one who was involved in this. But no, it's not fair to give one side a copy of the test in advance, that's just cheating. If they want to do that kind of thing fairly, they should just publish the questions in advance, so it's about ideas and policies, not about the media trying to tell us what to think. And yes, they were lying in that clip.
Have gnu, will travel.
Then less than 20% of the country supported Hillary too. Current estimate is that the popular vote is within ~200,000 votes nationwide.
Have had too many of my female friends who are women of color, who are all in STEM occupations, tell me about personal attacks on them by these people.
This is what came out of Germany in the 30s.
Let's by Crystal about that
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The only conspiracies I've read about were those hatched by the DNC, which we learned about in their own DKIM validated emails. I note that everyone who posts things like this never bothers to give examples, citations or links.
Free thinking is about examining the sources yourself and coming to your own conclusion, including sources you're predisposed to disagree with. If you cannot even interact with ideas you disagree with, you simply blind yourself and you're in for a rude awakening when your filter bubble suddenly bursts.
Nice job 'correcting the record'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
... for foreign powers to influence the elections, which the Kremlin now admitted: http://www.mobypicture.com/use...
Transparent call for censorship is transparent.
the "large and influential boards and social-media platforms where Americans now congregate to discuss politics" are to blame.
Sounds to me like they should be crediting Facebook and other forums with helping people become more involved in the process. For decades voter apathy was bemoaned. Now we have people taking an interest. That's a good thing. Unless you're a loser...
We shall see about that. If he doesn't Trump won't be scared off by the dirt Hillary has on the old school Republicans (Bill and Hillary have had some miraculous escapes from justice already). Could get interesting real fast.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.. so much of what he said was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.. but no one did that.. and rather than keep FAKE news out, it was a matter of, let the disinformation flow.
If I started a campaign against you and lied (literally) at every turn, you would be firing up your axe and had your lawyers on speed dial. If I called out your flaws (not a lie, but kept calling out the actual flaws in you as a candidate) then that would be a different thing.
Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie (most medium, quite a lot large, and some small), which is being regurgitated as "news". And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide. And I say this not just for campaigns but also in general.. (my wife gets more scams and just false stories about so many things that even a single check the link shows its all false.. BUT.. most people don't).
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
Does this mean Sheryl Sandberg will get a seat on Trump's cabinet?
#DeleteChrome
Feel free to make memes of this and share on Twitter under #whyshegottrumped or share on /r/T_D, I'm just a lurker over there.
I almost forgot that fracking in Flint poisoned the water supply of Michigan with red pills.
I think the election results disprove that only 20% supported him. I think the truth is a lot of people voted for him that did not want to admit they would. Not because he wasn't their choice, but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.
american's are incredibly gullible and stupid
And I think the liberals were blindsided because the rampant social intimidation scewed the poll results making the Clinton campain blind to the truth.
You mean "But you have to vote for her, shes a *WOMAN* how can you not vote for the WOMAN"?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
> That only confirms the headers. The bodies of the emails are Russian fabrications.
Okay, so click here and then the "view source" link and you can read the DKIM signature yourself. I'll save you some trouble and copy paste it:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=JgW85tkuhlDcythkyCrUMjPIAjHbUVPtgyqu+KpUR/kqQjE8+W23zacIh0DtVTqUGD
mzaviTrNmI8Ds2aUlzEFjxhJHtgKT4zbRiqDZS7fgba8ifMKCyDgApGNfenmQz+81+hN
2OHb/pLmmop+lIeM8ELXHhhr0m/Sd4c/3BOy8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date
bh=EHIyNFKU1g6KhzxpAJQtxaW82g5+cTT3qlzIbUpGoRY=;
b=dEYKdN2vH085sl/02zUgJ1Lr66LV8lRV9Lrqx9SIpfiF1bOLLbIr1Au6AAY5vwg1vS
klK/TvacKT0j8aYADGNWP6BtG5XZ+IME6ydojlufQ3jqksqLkycSJ2ahYhxw4LmCii8n
kja2EKzRFcKGPnfhYnfwBCmIk/D5FWN6+yvpAYSmmZlxsR4b7mTJ8r/NmB7dKRIHeq8b
Ersjyl8edCTfC6nGbUrEEV7C6uQE3N16B5m2XPnRATWSuWj/Nz7ZsM/9snj+rlTjJx5e
wI5Epet9ADtlAWqJw/L/5HCNaAFqyR3QK1/AFjsTk+Q2METC3+0Eo+yMaArw2viFZLu4
hvoQ==
What does that mean? Let's check Wikipedia:
Now, would you like to go back and look at the b and bh parameters in the signature and tell me what those mean? Right, they cover contents (headers and body) as well as the body hash. If you want to make a serious claim that this is fake, give me a link to the blockchain transaction when you win 1 BTC from Erratasec for breaking DKIM.
I'm waiting.
The media painted a picture that Hillary had the race won weeks before voting began, which didn't create any sense of urgency among moderate voters. So why not make a trendy protest vote for write-in Bernie Sanders, or Gary Johnson. It's not like Trump has any real chance of winning, right?
But that's just it.. the Media never called him on his shit. He was the clown, the "verbal kent" in our game of "usual suspects" in that no one suspected him because he's "too stupid to be a threat".. so ever fumble, outlandish, crazy, lie he's ever told was just laughed at as "he's just trump and no one is going to seriously believe him" . But they underestimated the masses in that they wanted someone that was not "part of the establishment" (which his actions proved) and they wanted someone that would put america front and center (and they won't understand what tiger they have unleashed until its too late). The "establishment" they (the media) know the lines they can cross so when they cross them they called them on their shit 100% (like smacking an adult for saying foolish that you let slide with a 2 year old), never realizing that the baby in diapers telling the stories was a Baby Herman, not a Baby Huey.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
I had a thought earlier today: The internet is the primary vector for the worst epidemic of mental disease ever to strike humanity, on par with the Old World plagues that wiped out New World peoples upon first contact. Here's what I wrote about it elsewhere:
Fuck 4chan. They're responsible for this Trump victory. Actually, fuck the internet in general as it is today, but 4chan is where that shit first gained a foothold.
Trump winning this election happened because of the continuous shitfest of frothing-at-the-mouth rabid drivel that now circulates around 24/7 nonstop. The internet is what lead my dad to turn into a crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks that 9/11 was a coverup for the then-recently-revealed existence of extraterrestrial life awaiting our spiritual awakening ever since the fall of Atlantis at the end of the Pleistocene. It's also what's convinced my original-generation-hippy, lifelong-Democrat, now-disabled mom, who survives entirely off of social programs likely to be cut under Trump, that Obama is a Muslim building a Mosque at Ground Zero, and that Hillary is part of the Illuminati who apparently worship Satan on some hill in Oregon (according to the obviously doctored photos someone posted online), and made her vote Trump for her first Republican president ever.
Once upon a time I was under this blissful delusion that instant worldwide communication would lead to a new enlightenment for the populace in general, but it's become abundantly clear that the only thing keeping an echochamber of the worst, craziest, lowest-common-denominator "truthy" bullshit from drowning what few braincells most people have to rub together was the physical difficulty in that kind of craziness spreading.
I think there's an analogue to be made with biological disease here. Back in the days before modern medicine, cities were about the least healthy places you could live, because being in close physical proximity to so many other people (and animals) made it so much easier for disease to spread; you weren't air-gapped from most people like you would be in the country. I think the same is true of what I guess we'd call "memetic" diseases of the mind: nasty, destructive, viral ideas spread and mutate far more quickly now that everyone is plugged into the internet 24/7, than they could back in the day when they would be contained to whoever Joe McNutbar was ranting to at the local pub.
A further hypothesis: When the Old World first met the New World, the New World people died of Old World plagues but not vice-versa because the Old World had lots of previous exposure to plagues, having had lots of big dense cities for a long time and developing strong immune systems piecemeal over time enough that those plagues could just be everywhere in the Old World and most people were unaffected by them, while New World peoples with their sparser populations had no history of plagues (none that had any survivors to adapt to them at least) and so had both no resistance to the European ones and none to offer in return. I wonder if the earliest netizens, those of us who remember when UseNet was the happening place, are like the Europeans in that analogy. Those of us who grew up with trolls and flamewars and the kinds of crazy that the internet could breed... we got inoculated to it. That crazy was always still around but you know, don't feed the trolls and you'll be fine. We grew up knowing not to believe everything you read because the internet is full of lies.
But now the whole goddamn world is very suddenly connected to that cesspool of lies and madness, and they have no defense against it, so it's spreading like wildfire, mutating into ever-more virulent strains, and wiping out (the minds of) the population at large.
I just hope there are survivors enough to adapt a herd immunity to it some day.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Next your going to blame the onion.
The people who believe whatever shit they read on facebook would otherwise have believed whatever crap their neighbors told them about something they heard from a friend of a friend.
Donald Trump won because of Clinton. There is no way around that.
If a person with decades of experience runs against someone who has no experience in politics and has no organized campaign (according to the media at least), and still loses, there is no one else to blame.
Perhaps among the false noise, just one story was true. Let's say for instance one dealing with a cryptographically authenticated email exposing internal partisanship. Once the voter's mind is made up, why not indulge in the rest of the fluff?
Trump won because he got more electoral votes than the other guys. Stop pointing fingers media, you're not doing yourself any favors.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Less dead people for sure.
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
> Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.
They had a paid organization named Correct the Record working to do that constantly. Half the problem was that people didn't believe them due to all the times they could be proven to have lied (see my posts above for some examples). Most people didn't trust her to begin with and the provable scandals, like the leaked debate questions, hurt her with things like the bogus entries on the kill list.
> was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.
She's a public figure, so you have to prove actual malice.
> Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie
Ask yourself instead why people didn't believe them, even when they were right. They also covered items that were matters of opinion (this comes into play anywhere we discuss motives) rather than fact, as well as predictions about the future.
> And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide.
I don't even have a Facebook, but I wouldn't call it "news" and if they want to pick and choose what people can and cannot say there, they'll just drive people to other services. You're advocating censorship here and you don't appear to realize it. Sure, their site, their rules, but they're a business too and you shouldn't be shocked when people choose the highway instead of their way.
As more and more voting fraud is exposed, Hillary's chances will just keep increasing.
You mean like this kind of voting fraud:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/st...
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
Or an unreviewed paper by a couple students from Berkley does not count as proof. If election polls and exit polls were that reliable it would also prove that Trump won the general election because of fraud.
Instead it's more likely that old voting machines were not distributed randomly, and the variables that correlated with old voting machines also correlated with support for Clinton. And what ever these variables were, the researchers didn't manage to control for it.
I stole this Sig
So let me get this straight, the problem is that there wasn't enough control over the news by the Democratic party?
Never mind how Wikileaks shows us that CNN leaked all the debate questions to Donna Brazille to help them cheat. Never mind how the Washington Post held a clandestine fundraiser with the DNC with services in kind that they kept off the books, much to the lawyers' dismay. And we have Correct the Record's "nerd virgins" (their words, not mine) shilling for dough on every social medium possible, etc., etc., etc.
I wonder when they'll realize that their own propaganda machine is half the problem?
They don't know why they lost and that's why they lost.
The Democratic party didn't control the news.
Rather reporters are typically educated and self-critical, and in the US political climate these characteristics skew sharply left.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
In the past if you wanted to convince people to give you a platform you needed to be smart and have integrity to pass the gatekeepers who had the time and expertise to take a good hard look. So the only mass media the public saw came from people who went through a fairly rigorous vetting process.
Now with social media the gatekeeper is wrong, you can make up an infographic that is complete BS, but as long as it's internally consistent it's just as convincing as an infographic that's completely true.
That being said in this election the mass media failed spectacularly, they got caught feeding the slow drip of a couple minor Clinton scandals while letting multiple major Trump scandals slide by.
I stole this Sig
Mod parent up
You funny man. Reporters are people who got a college degree in something that pays less than a living wage so they can either A) change the world, or B) be on TV. Neither of those, in any way, lead to an educated or credible press corps.
Donald Trump won for the following reasons.
1. The Mainstream media (MSM) kept telling everyone HRC was going to win, so everyone in rural America and flyover country made 100% sure their vote counted, and wow, did it!
2. The MSM would repeat anything and everything Donald tweeted or posted to Facebook for ratings and the hopes of discrediting him as a clown. This only gave him free press and brought things that were previously politically correct to the forefront for discussion.
3. Trump won, not because everyone wanted Trump, but because the people are collectively sick of the Federal Government constantly intruding in everything from small business to healthcare to trans-gendered high school locker-rooms. The people are sick of being called racist, biggoted, hatemongers or worse anytime they exercise their right to free speech and speak out against the never ending Federal Government Mandates. Trump won because he talked about all the unpopular things like illegal immigration, unfair trade deals, and the collapse of the middle class. Trump and Pence visited rural America and flyover country. They spent time there campaigning, yelling, screaming, brawling, and listening. Trump spent the last hours of election eve in Grand Rapids, Michigan a city with little political power and one that barely matters due to it's geographic proximity to rural northern michigan.
That is why Trump won. It is not because of Facebook.
Just like the UK, it was a full out revolt. This is how a democracy is supposed to work when they feel they aren't being heard. "The People" of the United States were heard this election.
It's all going to be ok. Trump will not destroy America. There is no need to move to Canada. The president is not king and only has a limited amount of power. The pendulum will swing back the other way for awhile and it will either work and benefit the USA or it won't.
In any case, it is time to stop fighting, yelling, screaming and come together to run the country again for the benefit of all. It will all be ok.
Trump won because too many people think HRC should be in jail, not on the campaign trail. After losing to Obama 8 years ago she had 8 years to keep her nose clean. But no, she had to set up a private email server to ensure her email wouldn't be subject to legal actions.
8 years. She had to stay clean 8 fucking years and she would be POTUS. Instead, she used her horrible judgement and put a private email server in her bathroom while secratary of state, fucking knowing classified email would be flowing through it. She figured she could legalise her way through anything that came her way, which led to her downfall.
Be honest. If Biden or Sanders had been the nominee do you think Trump would have won? Hell no, the guy was unelectable as could be. Says a lot for an HRC loss.
Welcome to 2016, 70 year olds are not unusual on facebook. They see what their grandkids are doing as well as forward around conspiracy theories.
I'm sorry but the right wing media is an absolute joke. Fox News is notorious for pushing flat out lies among its viewership, many of their leading anchors have been caught lying multiple times. But Fox is a minority, most mass media is actually fairly good.
I think we can quite confidently state this is false based on what we just saw during the last 8 months of this election. The MAJORITY of the mainstream media outlets were all working directly for the DNC. They weren't performing investigative journalism. They weren't fact checking or checking their biases. They were unabashedly promoting hillary every step of the way and bashing Trump with things taken out of context, alleged and taken for truth, twisted, and sometimes just outright lies.
The media in general and many social sites like slashdot censored the real news that were being shown about Hillary. At the same time it was proven they were working with her.
Now they are claiming it was the fake news in Facebook that made Trump win.
First, I believe it was the real news that made him win. Even with the media working in her favor and hiding the real news, talking about DNC gossip instead of electoral crimes (like getting money from foreigners and laundering it), people somehow got informed of who she is. There was no motivation for democrats to vote for a candidate that is a warmonger that rigged their primaries. There was real motivation for people who needed jobs and/or were against war or terrorists to go vote for Trump (not because he is decent, because he was the alternative).
Second, if the real news were provided by traditional means, people wouldn't be running away from them. Having to read Wikileaks twitter feed and subreddits (cause reddit was censoring too) to know what people were finding, despite the magnitude of the revelations, is shameful for Slashdot (that did post about someone calling Chelsea a brat, about the Russian hackers fiction, despite of intelligence agencies claiming there was no way to say it was them, but not about money laundering, about the proposed no-fly zone killing a lot of Syrians or about getting money from terrorist supporting countries and increasing the weapons sales for them).
Third, if Hillary had won, it would be mainly to the MSM's hiding of news and collusion with her that would be to blame, and that wouldn't be such wild speculation like this shitpost TFA was. That together with how bad Trump is (something we know). Even if the "fake news made him win" was true, I'm not sure if that would be much worst than "MSM manipulation that included fake news made her win".
From the curriculum. You reap what you sow.
i am so very tired....
" are to blame" nice tell you let slip, how about "are to thank"
Ahhh yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity from Gawker is definitely the one we need to point out the consequences of inaccurate reporting on the internet.
This election will be the defining moment for these online millennials as they learn to deal and grow the fuck up.
I'm still wondering when slashdot will do that. Literally every summary posted somehow can't deal with the reality that its (obviously) favored side just fucking lost. In this case it blames facebook, of all fucking things.
but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.
The word for this is bigotry.
https://www.google.com/search?...
The democrats, and especially the social justice crowd, has been highly bigoted against people who don't share their viewpoint. In my opinion, the most egregious example of it was this:
http://the-toast.net/2013/08/2...
Which only took two years to turn into this:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
TL;DR: Kid gets denied heart transplant because of bad grades and long rap sheet. Doctors were accused of being racist, so he gets heart transplant anyways in spite of this happening to everybody, regardless of race (I personally was initially denied kidney transplant listing myself, though for health reasons which I later resolved.) Two years later, in a criminal rampage, the kid attempts to shoot an old lady in the head during a robery, flees the cops in a high speed chase, strikes a pedestrian, and then dies in a high speed collision with a lightpost. Meanwhile somebody else likely died while waiting for a heart transplant that should have been theirs. Thank you social justice.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
Nobody bought that one, not even Jezebel.
That aside, the Epstein thing in there is actually interesting. Yes, it's true that Trump was on that guys plane once, long before it came out that he was a pedo. Tons of celebrities have also been on that guy's plane, including Bill Clinton (20+ times).
As far as I know Trump has had nothing to do with the guy after knowing he was convicted as a pedo. Not everyone can say that...
Never. And this election just proved it.
By my completely biased viewpoint, issues were discussed like 1% of the time and the cult of personality vs the brick and what they allegedly did over the last decades made up the other 99%.
Personally, I voted policy, not personality.
I also voted for the losing side. But I'm not bitter, after all when your candidates only redeeming value is people seem to hate her slightly less. That's not a campaign strategy. That's desperation.
It was The Creamsicle Charlatan vs. The Pantsuited Enabler!
It should of been on WWE, not our ballots.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
So what you're saying is, despite them being far-right anti-authoritarians, Johnson voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate whose stated positions are even more authoritarian and further to the left?
Just for shits and giggles, let's use the distance formula to provide the approximate ideological distance from Johnson (9.5, -1.5) to each other candidate on that political compass graph, sorted by proximity:
Clinton (7.5, 5.0): 6.80
Trump (6.5, 9.0): 10.92
Stein (-2.5, -2.5): 12.04
And now let's mirthfully equate the candidates to their nearest counterparts on a graph of a few famous historical figures (eyeballed, due to lack of graph lines):
Johnson ~= Milton Friedman, almost exactly
Clinton ~= Thatcher, more or less
Stein ~= Gandhi's less-cool, more-right-leaning cousin
Trump ~= Hitler and Thatcher's secret lovechild
I said that Newsweek's analysis does not appear to have included that document, not the FBI's. I do not have any reason to believe that Newsweek had early access to Wikileaks, nor was it mentioned in their analysis. Frankly, they're a bit slow to catch up with the times. For a bit of humor about that, see also: http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/n...
I've explained separately why I don't think the FBI will charge her: it would be pointless. So they came up with a self-contradictory statement about why they didn't file charges and simply explained what they found.
Why the fuck do that way. It's an issue at every election. Every. Single. One.
They need to do away with voting machines, period.
Here in Washington (not DC, the other one, no we are not part of Canada...) we do paper ballots. Most are mailed out and we drop them in any of 100's of boxes. There are permanent ones at libraries and the courthouse and hundreds of temporary ones during a general election.
We have a very strict accounting system overlooked by a bi-partisan pollsters at every step.
The mailed ballot has an outer envelope that identifies the voter, and an inner yellow security envelope than can have nothing written on it and the ballot enclosed and sealed.
After it is received they are electronically separated into districts and initially checked against registration rolls. They are then hand checked against voter rolls as the yellow envelopes are separated.
The separated vote then is removed and counted and all votes stored for a period (I'm unsure of how long.).
No problems large enough to make national news. A full paper trail. No internet, no machines to fuck up or be fucked with.
You can fill a vote out online and print it out. But the vote is only accepted at polling places or in-person drops as they don't have a second security envelope like the mailed ones.
Since it never touches the internet, you need physical access to do any fraud. That vastly complicates things compared to a few lines of code.
Sometimes the old fashioned way truly is best.
I don't know how costs compare, but with all the possibility of lawsuits, bad press, recounts and maintenance, I'm guessing it's not an astronomical difference. And I can be fairly confident that the counts are legitimate, as it would take some high-level fraud to cover up a paper trail with so many checks in place.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
This post breaks down in so many ways. Premise in a nutshell: FB allows the spreading of fake news, and this is why HRC lost. Immediate irrefutable response: Assume FB allows the spreading of fake news. Since they don't enforce any partisan content restrictions (on personal status updates), this makes it equally easy for any political position to spread fake news benefiting their narrative. During this election cycle, I spotted fake news from both sides of the race. So let's start by tossing out the implication that fake news came only from Trump's supporters. Then we can easily toss out the notion that it had any measurable impact on one side's propaganda versus the other's. Secondary point: Snopes has been accused of operating under a political agenda of its own. The implication that they constitute an example of objectivity introduces a flaw into the chain of logic. Tertiary point: IMHO a much more honest/impartial discussion might arise from the new proliferation of primary sources online for people to do their own fact-checking. As an example, I went straight to Wikileaks to find out what was there when the story broke. Many acquaintances of mine (from one side of the race) only ingested editorialized, filtered reports about Wikileaks; and many others (from the other side) know almost nothing about the content, dismissing it as the propaganda of a malicious foreign power. In both cases, the stories being ingested are once-removed from the original facts because of an editorializing intermediary. If anything, social media's role in this election served as an agent of confirmation bias - on both sides. Just as partisans choose media outlets that reinforce preconceived notions (CNN, FOX, NYT, etc), social media users accept self-reinforcing memes as fact , and reject those that contradict.
Trump wants to get rid of the corrupt "Old School Republicans". Sorry, the serial rapist and the nasty drunk are going away. They have nothing to bargin as Trump does not want to save the "Old School Republicans". This is one of the reasons the People elected him to power. The Democrats AND Republicans are the problem - all aristocratic thinking people are (including the new aristocracy in Silicon Valley). The inability of the supporters of the Big State Collectivist Left will continue to lose until they grok this. People do not want a Nanny State which treats them as babies - they want you to get the fsck out of their lives and stop using State force to steal the wealth they generate. But the Left will continue to deny this reality, which is why the Limited Government, Individual Liberty Right is growing all over the World. Please think about what I've written some more - because the Left will continue to lose until it starts to listen to the concern of the Family-centric, Limited Government Right. And we need competing ideas, not ideological conformity, so there is a place for a ***loyal*** opposition of the Left.
To be fair doctors are not supposed to pass moral judgements on their patients. That means that a criminal gets the same life saving treatment as a boy scout. Was this a waste of a good heart that could have helped someone that wasn't total scum instead of this guy? Yes, but was it right to withhold the treatment? I'm not sure that it was.
Looking at RCP it's currently within 2m. That's basically a dead heat. I guess we had a hard time choosing who we hated more as neither are a clear winner with the populous. I think many votes were cast against candidates and not for candidates.
Personally, I voted policy over personality. (not that I agree down the line with either, just ones a tad closer to what I believe in, too bad they don't seem to believe in it once in office)
Seriously this election would of been better represented by the WWE.
(really loud, obnoxious announcer)
"November 8th, 2016, the match of the century is upon us! See the ultimate demonic duel of damnation!"
"The Creamsicle Charlatan vs. The Pantsuited Enabler no holds barred cage match. This is to the finish folks, no tag outs, no substitutions! Get your ballots now!"
It fits WWE better than it fits our ballots....
Kinda drifted off-topic there, damn good micro-brew. That's my story and I'm sticking with it...
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
No, then it would be all about the 'rigged' election.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Facebook only helps stupid ppl to comunicate with each other and spread stupid ideas.
Propaganda for "nerds". Articles insinuating the advent of censorship in facebook, how nice.
No, that's not what I took from this story at all.
The problem with social media that this election illustrates on both sides is that because of its nature it seeks to maximize views and shares, it doesn't care whether or not an article comes from a satirical news site, a blog, or a scientific journal. All it cares about is maximizing eyeballs and clickthrough rates. This creates an environment that's ideal for bubbles to form and as people on both sides of the political field share stuff - factual or not - that supports their view.
For democracy to work properly the populace needs to be informed about the state of affairs. When they're not, and when the channels of information they use don't offer them factual information but emotionally appealing content, the result is that populism becomes easier and easier. It's only a day after the election and Trump has started pivoting into his actual positions already. He's stopped talking about jailing Clinton, and his so called 'plan' to ban all muslims just disappeared from his website without any explanation.
As a foreigner I'm not so much worried about Trumps actions as president, but what his run is signalling: you can now lie openly and blatantly and make claims that are so wildly absurd everyone with 2 brain cells or more knows them to be bullshit, and still get elected as the president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
If we want better candidates, step one on that road is to make the voters more aware of how to discern truth from fiction, and the media does play a role in that, especially the social media.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
well you got your Trump and Taliban Pence. good luck.
Yep. The strategy now is:
1. Tell them whatever the fuck they want to hear (ban muslims, mexicans are rapists, etc)
2. Get elected
3. Do whatever the fuck you want
We don't seem to have anybody who creates a policy based on what they think is best, and trying to sell it. Instead, they want to know what people want, so they can vacuously promise it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I have mod points, but you are already on five, so I will just comment and say I agree with you. I just shut up when it came to Clinton vs Trump debates. I learnt early on not to voice any support for Trump, regardless of my reasons.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
most of us know
Most? I sincerely doubt it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
>so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist.
A 100% accurate label. Just because they didn't want to publicly wear the label, doesn't mean it's any less accurate.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Sounds like #Brazil, where in week leading up to impeachment, 3/5 of most shared articles on Facebook were false http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/p..."
This has nothing to do with Facebook. Nothing. It has everything to do with a rejection of corruption, with a rejection of globalism, and with a rejection of the notion that America shouldn't have an immigration policy that allows people in who benefit our society and keeps out those who wish us harm.
Trump support didn't materialize out of nowhere. It wasn't because of the FBI. It was always there. The media, all of it, promoted Clinton at every oppurtunity all the time. The propaganda broke the biggest rule of American propaganda--it was so pervasive it was noticeable to anyone who looked. It wasn't liberal bias either, it was corporate bias.
It was a rejection of something else too, something very ugly. It had become ok to insult Trump supporters. It was ok to call them racist, to call them sexist, to call them anything because a lot of them are white people and a lot of those are men (not all of course, but that's the meme here) It's totally fine to insult that category in this country no matter how offensive or how wrong you are because apparently it's wrong for that particular group to exist or something.
So they shut up. They didn't talk to pollsters, didn't put a lot of yard signs up, didn't do much of anything. Except show up and vote, which is what matters. You'd think the huge turnout at Trump rallies, the one outlet some allowed themselves, would have been a clue to the corporate media but nope. There are way too many people in this country who vote their group, their race, their orientation, their ethnicity, etc. They just got a lesson in why divisiveness is a bad idea.
There were far too many on the identity politics side of this who cannot and will not get this. Electing Trump was not an attack on them no matter how much they tried to get in the way or how much they want to make themselves victims of something. It was an attack on the ruling class, on those who would pit Americans against each other and who have done so for decades now. We need to end that, and we need to end their grip on power. That's what this was about. Facebook and Zuckerberg can go on the garbage pile of history where they belong because this wasn't about them.
The laws are setup to cut third parties out of the process. The election committee is ran jointly by Republicans and Democrats.
In some districts Gary Johnson managed to get 5%+, but it was almost only in rural areas and western states (Cibola County in New Mexico at 12% for Gary Johnson). In urban areas he was closer to 1-2%. (NYC)
If all of the Gary Johnson voters went for Hillary in Florida and Pennsylvania, then she would have won.
Those third party votes would also change the results for the really close states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire.Which would have been enough to make this a dead heat between Trump and Hillary.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
My gosh! Never before have we seen so many people butt-hurt at one time. It's glorious I say, Glorious!!
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
> racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist
I mean, to be fair here. He's done nothing short of put all of those features on full display. You can say "hey I voted on policy" but you also own that shit too.
Just like I own the fact Clinton would make a garbage sysadmin and all the insider BS.
You should have a +5 Funny on that post. Maybe the joke was too subtle.
Sigh
I think the election results disprove that only 20% supported him
Not necessarily. There are at least three reasons for voting for Trump:
Trump got around 60M votes. There are about 230M registered voters in the USA. That means that 26% of the eligible population actively voted for him. It's not too much of a stretch to assume that 6% did so for the second or third reason.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
IMO they should split it.
They should offer (but not require you to accept) a unique signed client certificate to every registered voter. If you accept it, you can vote online exactly once in any election using that signed certificate. The deadline for online voting should be midnight BEFORE election day, but you should be able to check online to confirm how your vote was cast after the deadline. As long as you can check back later to make sure your vote didn't get lost/changed, and the software is open and strictly regulated and inspected to ensure that what you see is what's getting counted, I would trust that more than paper. The certificates can be set to expire automatically in a few years to force you to re-confirm that you're still alive, that you still live at the same address, etc.
For anyone who doesn't want to use the certificate, who loses it, or has it stolen (which you would notice immediately when you try to cast your vote online and it tells you that you've already cast your vote), you come in on election day and cast a paper ballot. Showing up in person on election day will automatically invalidate any online vote tied to your registration (it would happen when they verify your ID and check you off the list to prevent you from casting another vote).
If done right, this could be made even more secure than most bank web sites (my bank doesn't even offer client-side certificates for online access), and it would greatly increase voter turnout. Who wouldn't want to avoid taking time off from work, driving to the polls, and standing in line? It would also make the lines a lot shorter for those who prefer to come in person.
To be fair doctors are not supposed to pass moral judgements on their patients. That means that a criminal gets the same life saving treatment as a boy scout. Was this a waste of a good heart that could have helped someone that wasn't total scum instead of this guy? Yes, but was it right to withhold the treatment? I'm not sure that it was.
It's not a moral judgement, rather it's one based on their own statistical gathering. Organs are a very very finite resource, and in the face of any kind of limited resource, triage does in fact mean they have to make judgments. The transplant team likewise will not allow somebody to receive an organ if, based on a criteria that is the same for everybody, they determine that the person probably won't live long either because of personal recklessness or because they fail to maintain the graft (organ.) And yes, there's a LOT of maintenance involved.
In fact, when I got listed for kidney transplant, they looked back through my medical records to make sure that I was taking all of my medication exactly as prescribed. If I wasn't, then no graft. They also asked questions about criminal history, if I had any other terminal illnesses, if I abused alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs. If the answer to any of this was yes, then no graft.
I had to personally meet with the head transplant surgeon as a final step for being listed, (everybody does at my transplant center) and he told me the reason for this is that every day his team has about 200 people come in needing graft removal, and a third of them are there simply because they didn't take their medication as prescribed. Those are the lucky ones though; a lot of them just plain die. These rules are meant to weed those people out, because if they didn't, those numbers would be much higher, and we'd have a lot of people in need of a graft while many people just waste perfectly good organs for no good reason.
It seems the premise of this article is that Trump won because Facebook was used to distribute false news, lies, and fake stories.
Please, please, if you believe this, stand firm. Do not give in.
You are missing the revolution, and you maybe, possibly, can stop it. So please, do not think for a moment that people actually WANT what Trump is proposing.
Oh, and while you are at it, take a moment and contact some member of the Republican Establishment. Encourage them to continue to work with you. They are the single greatest threat to the revolution, but do not, please ever breathe a word of that to them.
Thank you. We may yet save this nation if you persist in your delusion. And you will, despite your delusion, benefit from our renewed nation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
His head might assplode (then again, maybe that would be a good thing). It's bad enough that he thinks he's all that and a bag o' chips.
SAID NO ONE EVER
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
If all of the Gary Johnson voters went for Hillary in Florida and Pennsylvania, then she would have won.
It's hardly likely that Johnson voters would have voted for Clinton.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Somehow you are not noticing that Hilary Clinton has won the popular vote. To be clear, more people in the country wanted Clinton to be president than wanted Trump to be president. Trump is the president-elect, no doubt about that, but he did not get a mandate from the people. He lost the popular vote.
I can't tell what was in the mind of the Founding Fathers when they set up the electoral vote system, but I would be surprised if they intended this to happen. Generally, elections are intended to determine the winner based on the number of votes for each candidate. In 2000 and 2016 that has not happened - both George Bush and Donald Trump won despite receiving fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.
Dubs in uid confirm praise Kek.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
" It was ok to call them racist, to call them sexist,"
Welcome to the new political correctness. It's not ok to call a racist a racist in Trumpland.
Play Command HQ online
What a whiner. You had CNN broadcasting every speech from Donald, you got Fox News (no explanation necessary). Every news show in the nation spending more time on Clinton's email non-scandal than any other topic, including all substantive issues combined, with the FBI itself giving the final twist of the knife.
And people voted Republican because of the propaganda? I dare say they did. As our new pres would say: Sad. Very sad.
Play Command HQ online
But the fact-checking sites are partisan propaganda, too, that nitpick anything a Republican says but gloss over anything a Democrat says because "we know what they really meant."
Jeb Bush could say "my name is Jeb Bush" and politifact would go "PANTS ON FIRE! His real name is John Ellis Bush." But Hillary could say "I personally killed Adolf Hitler" and politifact would go "well, she would have if she could have so mostly true!"
We need less people pretending to be "unbiased" and more adversarial media. There's no such thing as unbiased. Humans have biases. I read Breitbart and I know what I'm getting, I read Mother Jones and I know what I'm getting. But I turn on CNN and they're just lying to my face.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It may be vital but the US Media "establishment" is going to change. If they don't, they will become increasingly irrelevant and out of touch, eventually going out of business (or existing on the margins).
Parent post is right - the media shredded all of the trust they had left when they went in the tank against Trump. They didn't even try to hide it so now they can't claim "we're objective seekers of truth" anymore. Everyone - and I mean everyone - knows the gig is up. Change is a comin'
I think you'll find that Gerrymandering could have only played a part (and that a very small one) in Maine and Nebraska. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Do a little digging on your US civics my friend.
This is EXACTLY the type of thing it was set up for.
This is to help keeps the states on a more equal footing. The country is set up, where you are a citizen of your state FIRST, and then you are a citizen of the United States. The vote is based on the voting of the states....this is to keep from having 2-3 super populous states dictate the leader for the whole country all the time. The states have such diverse needs based on population type, climate, etc....so the EC was set up to help keep things a bit more set so that each state was somewhat proportionally represented...
I would posit that some tweaking to the EC would be made to have each states' EC votes be proportional to the votes within each state, rather than winner take all.
But that change would be up to each individual state. I think it would be a GOOD change and force candidates to spend more time in each state more than they do and not take states for granted.
But this is just another part in the US set up...balancing the rights of states as equals, but also some nod to population within states.
NYC has needs vastly different than a city in Wyoming....but the state of NY is no more important than WY..and therefore mechanisms need be in place to make sure voices are heard and have same impact from all states.
HTH....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
How do you gerrymander a Federal election? Did Idaho redrawn their border with Oregon to push some of their 'undesirable' Dem voters into a blue state to help them go red or are you just throwing out words to try and make yourself look smart without any understanding of their meaning?
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The left had hoped throwing labels on people would prevent them from supporting Trump openly and it worked, but the ultra downside of it is people didn't support Trump in the polls either and the left got confident they would win. In reality is Trump must have been ahead for a while before the election.
By my completely biased viewpoint, issues were discussed like 1% of the time and the cult of personality vs the brick and what they allegedly did over the last decades made up the other 99%.
That's the media's doing. I watched a lot of Trump rallies, and he would talk about policies he wanted to enact, on trade, on immigration, on the military. So you'd have an hour of substance, with Trump's humor thrown in because that's how you actually get people to want to listen to a speech on trade and immigration. And the media would wait for one sound bite they could take out of context and then scream "TRUMP INSULTS ALL [INSERT GROUP]!!!!" and that would dominate the news cycle for 3 days. And then people online would say "OMG Trump doesn't have any policies!" Yes he does. They're on his website. He talks about them at his rallies. But if all you were watching is CNN then Trump does nothing but scream at Mexican rapists and disabled reporters all day.
The media's been near criminal in their behavior this cycle. They've convinced half the people Trump is literally Hitler, so my FaceBook feed is full of terrified crying women who think America just elected...literally Hitler. And that half their neighbors who voted for literally Hitler are also literally Hitler. It's psychological abuse. I said this when Trump won NH and HuffPo did that ludicrous headline "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC!" (literally their headline). I wondered, what are people who believe this going to think if Trump wins? Are they going to wake up and realize the media's been lying to them? Or will they now spend their days terrified because they never know which of their friendly neighbors is really a Hitler-loving monster who could murder them at any moment? Judging by my FaceBook feed, it's the later.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Well the polling methodology was also flawed. Pegging the demographics for 2016 to the demographics from 2012 is stupid during a change election. I didn't know what the numbers would be, but it seemed highly unlikely that blacks would turn out for the old white lady as much as they did Black Jesus, and whites just might have a reason to turn out in greater numbers. Again, I didn't know what the numbers would be, just saying assuming they'd be 2012 numbers is silly. Also, they poll "likely voters" and a likely voter is (depending on the survey) someone who voted recently. But Trump was bringing in new voters and people who hadn't voted in decades because nobody was speaking to the working class.
Nate Silver could have figured this out, but the polls matched his biases, so he didn't.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It has been a given that almost all Republicans hate the Clintons. It is also a given that the majority of Democrats hate Trump, and what he has been saying. So, you now have a contest about who is disliked by more people, rather than how much people actually like the candidate. Add to all of this that the Democratic primaries were effectively stolen, and the DNC establishment rigged the primaries, so that the one candidate with genuine energy and enthusiasm was pushed out.
I blame Debbie and the rest of those Clinton-loving people in the DNC who rigged the process.
Explain to me how this prevents duplicated ballots from being dropped in? Or people stealing them and voting and dropping them in? Or how you address the lost ballots and replace them (since an individual CAN'T be prevented from voting) etc.
This sounds like high school prom kink/queen voting and is ridiculously easy to scam
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
> There's just no "there" there, since she forwarded pertinent records onto the government servers.
Hillaryclintonemail.com is not a "government server" in any meaningful sense. Nor are Yahoo & Gmail.
One of the emails they were worried about (which they discuss with all the uncleared people in the Podesta email chain...) was a classified picture of North Korea. Huma has been known to communicate with Wiener using Hillary's account. (Now do you see how she got sucked into the Wiener probe?)
You would know this if you researched this yourself. But that takes thinking. That takes work. You're not just wrong, you're provably wrong. Just how many new theories have we had saying Hillary did nothing wrong? Clinton has continually lied about what was found based on the evidence available at the time. Those theories of why she wasn't wrong keep getting blown out of the water as new leaks drip out. And the leaks keep coming out. They weren't just for this election.
Read them, or remain ignorant. Your choice.
Actually the only compelling reason to vote for Trump was the Supreme Court.
Article is wrong.
"facebook" is nothing more than text and images transmitted over a computer network.
If there was no internet, idiots would share bogus news and idiotic opinions other ways
repeat: idiots will share idiotic information to other idiots no matter what the channel, be it HTTP, clipped out and copied magazine articles, postcards, voice, and semaphore code and smoke signals.
Idiots are why Trump got elected
Idiot Democrat voters who nominated Hillary over Bernie - delusionally ignoring that Hillary was incredibly unpopular for at least half the electorate
Idiot Republicans for being Republican
Idiot Sanders voters who voted for Jill Stein or other
Idiot 'libertarians' who are Democrats by policy but think their balls will fall off if they just vote Democrat
Idiot sexists who didn't vote for Hillary b/c she was a woman
Idiot minorities who voted for Trump, in direct opposition to their own interests
Idiot poor people who voted for Trump, in direct opposition to their own interests
That's why Trump won: idiots...broken down by type of idiot.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I agree, Trump won because Hillary is a deeply unpopular candidate, and not only because of sexism but because she *actually* is deeply flawed, though less than Trump.
Idiots are to blame for Trump's victory. Idiot democrats who voted for her in the primary, idiot minorities and poor people who voted against their own interests, idiot bigots and sexists, idiot republicans for being republican...
Facebook is not to blame either. I'm sure they are worthy of criticism (Remember Romney's phantom 'likes'???) but the fact is, idiots will share information with other idiots using all channels of information available: HTTP, magazine clippings copied on the office copier, voice, post card, semaphore code, ASL...every way humans communicate, idiots will use to spread idiotic information to other idiots.
Thank you Dave Raggett
This election will be the defining moment for these online millennials as they learn to deal and grow the fuck up.
I'm still wondering when slashdot will do that. Literally every summary posted somehow can't deal with the reality that its (obviously) favored side just fucking lost. In this case it blames facebook, of all fucking things.
Scapegoating logic and bias is a constant over Human evolution. You can probably predict who/what will be "blamed" for their not getting what they want next after Facebook-centered finger pointing has started to settle a hair. Sad but true and easily predictable. ALMOST as predictable as "the sun rising tomorrow". I'm a bit bold on that loose analogy, but I'll bet on it. :)
...but sort of. People using FB as a point of blame for their not getting what they want is humorous, as they didn't get what they want because of the electoral college system. She DID win the popular vote, so why not blame the electoral college?
I guess that they think there will be something they somehow gain from finger pointing a corporation rather than a government process that's been in play since..well.. the beginning. They used to have to take tallied vote totals and rush them by horseback to districts, etc etc to the actual central point of decision. It's unnecessary nowadays due to telecom and other forms of near-instant communication, but people aren't really attacking that. I'm not pro-Clinton, BTW. I'm not pro-Trump, either. I was pro-NON OF THE ABOVE on this election. None. No party. Nobody. I'm not speaking in support of a party, is what I'm getting at.
to be clear, more people didnt vote for either of them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Paper trail, checked multiple times against voter rolls.
Plus that was a very simplified explanation.
Plus Paper trail.
Can't be hacked from outside. (No net connection)
No machine to be hacked.
No system is perfect.
Did I mention paper trail?
It's actually very secure. To make a difference, you would have to steal way too many to not be noticed.
If you haven't received it by a specified date you contact the elections office.
Dupes? Checked multiple times by man and machine against rolls.
Lost? Provisional, just like everyone else.
The point I was making is it is more secure than these vote-flipping, prone to breakdown machines. If you chose to take it as a high school gymnasium with a bunch of stoners stuffing the ballots for the girl with the biggest tits, then that's on you.
After all, we aren't in the news for ballot irregularities.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Trump got around 60M votes. There are about 230M registered voters in the USA. That means that 26% of the eligible population actively voted for him.
Don't forget that only about 55% of the voting-eligible population even turned out to vote, significantly less (about 4M) than in 2008 even though the number of eligible voters is a little higher now.
It's pretty obvious that a bunch of people really didn't want to vote for either one, but held their nose and did so, and a bunch just didn't bother showing up because they didn't like the choices. That latter number probably had an effect on the down-ticket votes too, leading to a Republican sweep. You did a heckuva job, DNC.
Not disagreeing with you at all, but, I was referring to conversations here on Slashdot. Which, if anything talked about the cults of personality even more often than the media.
I won't even look at FB for at least another month for that very reason you stated. (Fortunately, I no longer have a long-distance job so avoiding it is easier than when I relied on it to keep up with my family. FB at that time had some importance in my life. Now that I work locally , not so much. )
Oh, to answer the last bit, judging by the reactions of people around me, they will hide in fear for at least a year (for the less paranoid) before they realize the world didn't end and POTUS doesn't mean 'dictator with unlimited power.' Also something to blame on the media with their exaggerated stories about Executive Orders and such making the Presidency out to be one person rule without limitation.
I don't care for President-elect Trumps authoritarian style, but the checks and balances will prevent him from running roughshod over the system.
While actual voter fraud is rare, paranoia is the medias stock and trade of late.
Saw some just as ridiculous headlines on Briebart about Hilary as well. They are all responsible for spreading their brand of paranoia.
(I read every side I can, and make up my own mind, for the most part, I came to the conclusion they're all full of shit.)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to look any examples up before my coffee's done and off to work.
Maybe when the shitstorm has cleared, people will wake up and start actually questioning those who....ah fuck, who am I kidding? People are sheep, and I very much doubt that will change unless there is actually blood running in the streets. (Ok, in some cases that seems to be happening, but you can't fix stupid, and nowadays, there is little excuse for being that uniformed) If your team lost, then you should be fighting harder next time, not rioting,making false accusations etc. (white people rioting no less, surprised it even got reported, though I haven't the time to read those stories until after work, so my knowledge is constrained at the moment to headlines.)
Oddly enough, one of the best, least biased explanations I saw, hidden under a very inflammatory headline, (and a fair bit of vulgarity in the body) for the difference between rural and urban voting was on Cracked...I know, that shouldn't be the case, but check out (and ignore the title, it has little to do with the article) 'how half of America lost it's f***ing mind.'
Someone else posted a link here, and I read it expecting something funny and irreverent, but got a very well thought out explanation of the difference in voters of rural and urban settings.
Coffee's done.
Peace out man!
Off to work!
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Well I did goof, it's actually clintonemail.com. Funny you didn't mention that. Still, classified docs, non-gov server, so you can't very well leave that part out if you're going to say she didn't mishandle classified info. There are people in jail for less and intentionally negligent is a literal contradiction in terms if you bother to look at the definitions.
Now, I'm not perfect. I never said I was. I just said that I looked at the actual sources of evidence and came to my own conclusions. I don't read media articles for their opinion, I pull the factual statements out of them and then look for their sources. You can tell a whole lot of different stories about the same source material. I don't give a damn about their stories, I care about what facts they can bring to the table. And which ones they forget to mention.
That's why I can and h ave backed up my assertions with sources and facts. You'll never be satisfied with the evidence I put out there, I know that. It doesn't matter. Your problem either that you can't or you won't do the same. You and most others just sit there and insult me and never back a single one of your claims. That's mere contradiction, not argument, you're in the wrong department.
Now, I don't know how things will be in four years and neither do you. All I can tell you is that they're currently heading in absolutely the wrong direction to convince independents like myself. They will, in fact, just harden the opposition. But 4 years is a long time. They could learn their lessons by then. Honestly though? I wouldn't hold my breath, they're already doubling down on the things that helped them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Now then, quick test of your filter bubble: how many references do you understand in this manga? Can you link to the relevant Wikileaks emails for the many references related to it? Can anyone claim to be an informed voter if you don't understand most of those references, even if you vehemently disagree with them? If you can do more than just rage, try proving it to me.
(You can take that in both of it's meanings.) Facebook just delivers the messages that users put on it. A decade ago people were using email to send these stupid stories and images.
The real problem is that the majority of people have stopped thinking. They come across a story about Trump killing a yeti family while they were vacationing in Colorado and they accept it at face value as an example of how he'll keep America safe from immigrants. People have turned off their critical thinking and will believe what they are told to. If you are brought up believing that a certain party is the right one then nothing is going to change that.
These people like living in their bubbles with simple answers being fed to them, even if those simple answers are wrong and bring about dangerous consequences.
Who uses Facebook most? Young people. Who voted for Clinton? Mostly young voters who use Facebook. If Facebook had any effect, it supported Clinton rather than Trump.
Facebook stats: Age 25 to 34, at 29.7% of users, is the most common age demographic. (Source:Emarketer 2012)
http://www.cnn.com/election/re...
18-29 Clinton 55% Trump 37%
30-44 Clinton 50% Trump 42%
I agree with you entirely. There seems to be a generation coming along that want another vote and another vote until they get the result they want. Have they not understood the meaning of the word democracy.
I have been totally ashamed at the whining political classes here in the UK where I am, trying to eject a labour leader who has been democratically elected by a vast majority of the labour root and branch members, just because he doesn't say what they think is what the parliamentary labour party should be saying.
Likewise with our leaving the EU vote; the London elite (who along with their large corporations) feel we the plebs out in the real world should listen to them as they are far more important than we are and because we voted to get out of the EU and are absolutely wrong about that, they are whining and interfering trying to delay the will of the majority.
Now it's happening in the US, I think if Trump really shakes up your politicians like we need to do with ours and make them see that what goes on in the Washington bubble is not what the vast majority of the real people who live away from Washington have to put up with. They pay their taxes and spend their money so that the elite get richer and yet further removed from reality and they, like us in the UK, have had enough of their bullshit. We are just as important as them when it comes to a vote. Politicians should represent the people not their own selfish aspirations. I think too many of them are in the pay of lobby groups so cannot represent the people and should be removed and replaced with people who do want the best for their constituents.
I hope Mr Trump really upsets the Apple cart and does what he says he will do and does not get turned into another uncaring member of the elite who run government for their own end. When he first came out and said a lot of outrageous things I was deeply concerned, but more recently he is seeming more statesmanlike and has toned down the outrageous comments so I hope that was just to get headlines and break through and now we are seeing the real man.
And to all the whiners, shut the f@ck up and accept that the majority of your peers have spoken and accept democracy.
Martley, Near Worcester UK.
I think there was a substantial influence from something the media isn't discussing at all. How many moderate Republicans, Independents and center leaning Democrats support the second amendment? Anyone voting their conscience in supporting the constitutional protections for gun rights isn't going to be able to vote for Hillary. Being anti-gun might play well to the democrats base in the primary, but it does serious harm in the general election. You might get a Republican to cross party lines and vote for a moderate democrat, but that isn't going to happen if that vote is going to come at the cost of liberty.
Whereas, fake news distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK?
And the missing news not distributed by government-approved broadcasters was perfectly OK to omit?
I'm going to say "No" and "No", on those two. YMMV.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
lol
orley ? why not because of the illuminati or area 51 ?
im still surprised at the initial disbelief and surprise at the most likely outcome, its a global anti-establishment period and thats what he is, left right, black white or not
opposed to ms. clinton he is the anti-establishment
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?