Nearly all conservatives I know want to conserve or "resist change" to the Constitution (unless done properly i.e. amendment process) and the culture that surrounds the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and American exceptionalism.
"Operating in the most efficient manner possible" when taken into politics is a Trojan horse. What is operating and toward what end? Are we being efficient at ignoring due process? The government should operate the enumerated powers in the most efficient manner possible but any deviation from those enumerations then you are going to get a political fight. Change for changes sake is not good. Progress toward tyranny is not good even if done as efficiently as possible.
IOW, in politics, "resisting change" and "operating efficiently" are not contradictory.
Yes it is. If you don't think that nearly everyone takes part in "their" team then you are naive. People push the team thing even if they are completely ignorant of a subject. Maybe they are accidentally correct but people are more concerned about signaling to their "teammates" than finding truth. This has become more common place.
pushing right in line with Trump.
Could it be that people can view the same thing and come to a different conclusion? This whole Helsinki outrage is a good example. I am really confused on what Trump was supposed to do. Not meet Putin? Condemn Putin to his face? Any kind of negotiation or deal requires both sides to benefit. There is something to be gained with friendlier relations with Russia in more important Geo-poltics like North Korean denuclearize (What better way to have a security guarantee than an adversary to the US being part of that guarantee?). Why would Russia do anything to help us in those other endeavors if we insult and "be tough" with them? Isn't that the premise behind Obama's "reset in relations"? "We both did bad things. But let the past be for now and let's see if we can both benefit.".
The whole thing is madness and the media is not helping and actively harming the country. They are doing a disservice to every citizen. Do you think the anger against Trump would be this intense if the media only reported facts without their opinion only once (instead of weeks of reporting on their opinion over a gaffe) ?
Um... A lot of your comment seems like you didn't read the GP and took my comment out of that context. Let's bring that back into context to make sure we are on the same page.
A wholistic Asian-European-African alliance would be interesting. Russia acting as the military arm to provide security. China as the production and financial engine (supplanting the US). EU as the research, educational and cultural engine (supplanting the US). Africa as the raw materials and labor engine (China's already investing there to turn it into such).
Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes. How long would that really last?
In the scenario proposed and the division of members in that scenario, Europeans come off as aristocrats in that scenario. Because while the Russians are the soldiers, the Chinese are the bankers and factory workers, and Africa is the mine, Europe sits in an ivory tower to spread its culture. That is not a recipe for a long term equitable relationship in my mind.
And here I thought you were expecting " the most vile insults imagineable thrown at me" yet you started the obscenity against my innocuous post. Seems you are a bit delusional about your president.
Serve. Lead. Commander and Chief. Same thing. Semantics that you seem to lose sleep over. lol. Your president supports you, even you don't support him. He's like Jesus that way.:)
There is something funny about someone bemoaning motives are suspect or being myopic when you advocate for a coup in the same breath.
I quit smoking thank you. I found salvation laughing at... with you.
I love to break it to you but he does speak on behalf of all Americans. He is the leader of the nation and the top diplomat. He is your president.:)
If those frustrated people wanted to "piss off liberals" judging your post (and past posts) then it seems like mission accomplished.
thrown at me for daring to speak against
Actually, speaking from experience, any pro-Trump comment is modded to oblivion with a lot of toxic responses. No one is afraid to speak out against Trump. Literally no one. More people are afraid to speak in defense of anything Conservative. Especially, if you are surrounded by left wingers. Just look at Hollywood and Universities. As a recent example, see Mark Duplass and the Tweet he made saying Ben Shapiro's intentions are good and the subsequent backlash of left wingers. How dare he!
Daring to speak against Trump? lol. Sure thing buddy.
As with all things there is a cost. What cost are Europeans willing to pay to abandon the US relationship?
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes. How long would that really last? Considering part of the issue with US EU relations is that the EU doesn't contribute enough to defense.
It also seems rather petty that many Europeans are quick to abandon a relationship that has benefited them for decades when one party would like to be treated more equitably. That really doesn't sound like a recipe for long term stability with anyone especially if you want to act like the aristocrats of the world.
Some of us require the various facilities of a proper bank to do business.
A credit union can do a lot of what a "proper bank" does. One of the main difference is that instead of being insured under the FDIC they are insured by the NCUA.
From what I understand, (at least through the Credit Union I use) is that as a member you have an equal share of ownership in the Credit Union. Which is why to qualify there are more restrictions. Mine, as an example, requires you to be employed by or retired from a member firm or employer or a blood relative to current member.
Another difference is that you can get better loans and lines of credit through Credit Unions (go figure the name). Although, you may get lower interest rates on your savings account.
the world is going to find ways to uncouple its dependence on the US, as it is becoming considered too irrational and unpredictable
This is probably true but are the alternatives really better? Maybe in the short run.
I think the Europeans have an incredible situation at the expense of the US. I don't think the current situation is as favorable to the US as it should be for mutual reciprocity. Any long term relationship must be beneficial for both parties. While it maybe beneficial to US interests to ensure EU stability at some point the costs do not out weigh the benefits. The geopolitics have changed and the US EU relationship must be addressed to ensure mutual reciprocity and the long term benefit of both.
It doesn't help the general tone of European sentiment toward the US is quite condescending and smug.
Of course you have demonstrated your acumen in "critical thinking" because... something something private political parties and debates. Surely, if we change something something debates and something something elections we can a critical think.
Don't worry Betty. Not everyone can be a "critical thinker" like you. We should be so lucky.
Good god you are thick in the head. Stating a simple fact is not a deflection.
But what about the debates between candidates of multiple parties?
Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions?
What about them? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? Are you just that dumb? Is it too "abstract" for you? Answer my question and you answer your question. I am being "abstract" because that's our laws currently. If you cannot even accurately describe the current system how in gods green earth do you think you can change it for the better? Idiot.
they hold television networks hostage in their quest to actively exclude every other political party from the national discussion.
You must have missed the Libertarian debates. I am sorry I can't hear you over hostage situation in the news room. It appears that An Allepo appeared to legalize medicinal meth and dissolve the FED.
Says the person who's not able to comprehend some pretty simple statements.
Tell me more about abstraction. Do me a favor and just answer my question honestly. It's very simple and from there you will understand how I sit on the issue and what must be done. But if you can't answer that question then we are at an impasse. (Here's a hint; congress shall make no law).
I also believe that any "career politician" should be removed from office
Good for you. Would you like a smiley sticker or a gold star? I guess you should be relieved that the Career Politician Clinton didn't get in.
I am not so sold on your idea for college because of the law that changed in 2005 for debtors to avoid any and all risk. Before then private college and loans were just another option that may or may not be better. After, they were viewed as predatory and broke all trends of increased costs. No other time before that law changed had the same dramatic price increase.
Trump is very much a member of the ruling class
Maybe now but not before he was elected. Clinton was the ruling class in every aspect of the phrase.
Swing states haven't changed since
I distinctly remember a blue wall falling apart recently. The US moves slow. So what.
Why should somebody in Montana be able to force their politics on the more populace California?
It's not a democracy and never has been. Montana shouldn't be able to force their politics but if the federal government makes policy decisions that affect large number of Montanans and they vote in congressman to undue that policy then that shouldn't be a surprise and that those changes, if good, should be done by law and not policy to give Montana a say. You didn't demonstrate how I twisted logic. All I said was that if California wants free college or w/e that they can do it without Montana or the Federal government.
There is so much hand waiving and generalizing that I am baffled I read it and decided to respond.
their 401ks get eaten up by fees and the periodic stock market crashes brought on by weak regulation and risk free bail outs and their student loan debt means they can't start life until their 30s. Meanwhile outsourcing + H1-Bs means they're in intense competition for decent jobs so they worked much, much harder than their parents and grandparents for much, much less
Even if that is all true, that doesn't mean "tax and spend more like Norway". Take an example, student loan debt. The reason why there is so much debt is because the governed guaranteed no risk to the debtors in 2005 to increase supply for higher demand. Now we have record number of people graduating with 4 year degrees that amount to a lower value in that degree. Go figure that when everyone has something it is worth less. Since the government guaranteed no risk that lowered value comes back to bite those young people in the ass. There are a lot of blame but your oversimplification and solution doesn't help anyone.
They're currently in control of all branches of Government
Because they won elections. Because the left wing couldn't convince jack or shit. I am not just talking about the 2016 election. I am talking about every election since 2008. You can say "gerrymander" all you want. That doesn't explain the gubernatorial or state legislature loses to the wide extent that we saw.
You're straw-man "defining feature is pro-corporate bent that wants low wages, lax environmental regulations and lax worker protections" works great for others that think like you when you are ignorant to other views. But in the real world, it's not that simple.
The ruling class has so much wealth and power now they can bury the will of the people.
I love seeing this kind of sentiment because of the irony of Trump beating Clinton. Clinton who was the ruling class that had much more wealth and power. Lost. You have a prime example (there are others) of the wealthy and powerful losing yet you still cling to this fanciful idea that only the more moneyed and powerful win elections. Maybe that is true in the city where apathy is higher but that is not a universal truth across the country.
voting power to rural states (a Montana voter has something like 42 times more voting power than a California thanks to our Senate) and the effect of "swing states"
Swing states change over time based on the states needs. Montana has different needs and wants from the government than California. If Californians want free college, or pensions, or whatever bellwether you want for "democratic socialism" you do not need the federal government involved. Federalism works because you don't dictate to others. Lead by example. There are good reasons for the Senate and Electoral College. I am more convinced the reasons are sound when see rhetoric like yours: "we lose elections but I should be able to force my politics on others that don't want it (and vote to reject it) like Montana because muh democratic socialism! I know whats good for those people! They are too stupid to vote the correct way!". Your comment being modded up is a testament to the number of people that think they know what others need. Is that kind of dictatorship normal from advocates of "democratic socialism"? i.e. 'I know whats good for you better than you". If that is "democratic socialism" then no thank you.
why do you think access to these debate dollars is so tightly controlled?Who do you think controls that access?
Debates are not elections. Obviously the two major parties want to stay in power which is why they control the debates in their parties. Idiot. Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions? Tell me more about super delegates of the democrats to shit on Sanders. I stand by my assessment that you are not smart enough for anything beyond your emotions and empty rhetoric.
they would realize that it is a fraud
Trump got in to the chagrin of Republicans and Democrats with zero political experience and formerly a registered democrat with magnitudes less money than his opponent. I don't know but that is a win in my book when a non politician can win against more seasoned and more moneyed politicians.
would demand more choices
Then change your state elections and risk your political power and see if your fellow statesmen agree with your empty rhetoric.
bullshit lesser-of-evils crap that partisan idiots like yourself suck up.
Lol, how have I even remotely been partisan in any of these comments? I think you are projecting but then again from a "critical thinker" like you I would expect as much.
The States decide their elections. If you don't like your current system then you can convince your fellow statesman to enact your idea and risk your political power. If it is a really good idea you can convince me with action instead of rhetoric to be enacted in my state. I don't think you are smart enough or persistent enough to do that so all you have is empty rhetoric. Womp womp.
What I find funny is that you are now completely off the topic of "critical thinking" and now sperging about tangential issues. Let me guess, if people think just like you about topics that would give you more of what you want they would be "critical thinkers".
You complain about voting participation and then complain about the lack of informative voters (you can do the same thing with the recent GOP tax cut) and you think that is evidence of a lack of critical thinking? Get over yourself.
Moving goal posts? "we discover more and more ". We didn't discover anything new with this except for the names of some Russians that are alleged to do things we already knew about.
If you think a concerted misinformation campaign had no effect at all on voters
misinformation campaign as in targeting both sides with trolls and memes. Oh, and airing the dirty laundry of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Hillary.
The dirty laundry wasn't misinformation. It probably persuaded some votes particularly Bernie supporters.
How many voters do you think changed their mind because a few trolls and memes that mostly occurred after the election? Methinks you are the one inclined to believe in fairy tales.
Slashdot Mirror
The moon belongs to America,
Didn't you hear? The Americans gave up the moon after waving the white flag of surrender.
Sounds like a conspiracy from the Chinese.
Nearly all conservatives I know want to conserve or "resist change" to the Constitution (unless done properly i.e. amendment process) and the culture that surrounds the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and American exceptionalism.
"Operating in the most efficient manner possible" when taken into politics is a Trojan horse. What is operating and toward what end? Are we being efficient at ignoring due process? The government should operate the enumerated powers in the most efficient manner possible but any deviation from those enumerations then you are going to get a political fight. Change for changes sake is not good. Progress toward tyranny is not good even if done as efficiently as possible.
IOW, in politics, "resisting change" and "operating efficiently" are not contradictory.
Are your Congressmen representing you and your interests? Mine seem to be doing okay. Not great. Nothing to be upset about.
It's not a team vs. team thing
Yes it is. If you don't think that nearly everyone takes part in "their" team then you are naive. People push the team thing even if they are completely ignorant of a subject. Maybe they are accidentally correct but people are more concerned about signaling to their "teammates" than finding truth. This has become more common place.
pushing right in line with Trump.
Could it be that people can view the same thing and come to a different conclusion? This whole Helsinki outrage is a good example. I am really confused on what Trump was supposed to do. Not meet Putin? Condemn Putin to his face? Any kind of negotiation or deal requires both sides to benefit. There is something to be gained with friendlier relations with Russia in more important Geo-poltics like North Korean denuclearize (What better way to have a security guarantee than an adversary to the US being part of that guarantee?). Why would Russia do anything to help us in those other endeavors if we insult and "be tough" with them? Isn't that the premise behind Obama's "reset in relations"? "We both did bad things. But let the past be for now and let's see if we can both benefit.".
The whole thing is madness and the media is not helping and actively harming the country. They are doing a disservice to every citizen. Do you think the anger against Trump would be this intense if the media only reported facts without their opinion only once (instead of weeks of reporting on their opinion over a gaffe) ?
Um... A lot of your comment seems like you didn't read the GP and took my comment out of that context. Let's bring that back into context to make sure we are on the same page.
A wholistic Asian-European-African alliance would be interesting. Russia acting as the military arm to provide security. China as the production and financial engine (supplanting the US). EU as the research, educational and cultural engine (supplanting the US). Africa as the raw materials and labor engine (China's already investing there to turn it into such).
Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes. How long would that really last?
In the scenario proposed and the division of members in that scenario, Europeans come off as aristocrats in that scenario. Because while the Russians are the soldiers, the Chinese are the bankers and factory workers, and Africa is the mine, Europe sits in an ivory tower to spread its culture. That is not a recipe for a long term equitable relationship in my mind.
P.S.
Trollololol
You should go back to 4chan pol. You seem like type of garbage that would frequent that cesspool.
It's unbecoming of /..
And here I thought you were expecting " the most vile insults imagineable thrown at me" yet you started the obscenity against my innocuous post. Seems you are a bit delusional about your president.
Serve. Lead. Commander and Chief. Same thing. Semantics that you seem to lose sleep over. lol. Your president supports you, even you don't support him. He's like Jesus that way. :)
There is something funny about someone bemoaning motives are suspect or being myopic when you advocate for a coup in the same breath.
I quit smoking thank you. I found salvation laughing at... with you.
I love to break it to you but he does speak on behalf of all Americans. He is the leader of the nation and the top diplomat. He is your president. :)
If those frustrated people wanted to "piss off liberals" judging your post (and past posts) then it seems like mission accomplished.
thrown at me for daring to speak against
Actually, speaking from experience, any pro-Trump comment is modded to oblivion with a lot of toxic responses. No one is afraid to speak out against Trump. Literally no one. More people are afraid to speak in defense of anything Conservative. Especially, if you are surrounded by left wingers. Just look at Hollywood and Universities. As a recent example, see Mark Duplass and the Tweet he made saying Ben Shapiro's intentions are good and the subsequent backlash of left wingers. How dare he!
Daring to speak against Trump? lol. Sure thing buddy.
As with all things there is a cost. What cost are Europeans willing to pay to abandon the US relationship?
I think there is something whimsical that in your scenario, Europeans are the aristocrats that do not produce, protect, or supply anything that couldn't be done by other nations. They get to sit on high in their ivory towers while the rest of the world protect and supply their sophisticated tastes. How long would that really last? Considering part of the issue with US EU relations is that the EU doesn't contribute enough to defense.
It also seems rather petty that many Europeans are quick to abandon a relationship that has benefited them for decades when one party would like to be treated more equitably. That really doesn't sound like a recipe for long term stability with anyone especially if you want to act like the aristocrats of the world.
Some of us require the various facilities of a proper bank to do business.
A credit union can do a lot of what a "proper bank" does. One of the main difference is that instead of being insured under the FDIC they are insured by the NCUA.
From what I understand, (at least through the Credit Union I use) is that as a member you have an equal share of ownership in the Credit Union. Which is why to qualify there are more restrictions. Mine, as an example, requires you to be employed by or retired from a member firm or employer or a blood relative to current member.
Another difference is that you can get better loans and lines of credit through Credit Unions (go figure the name). Although, you may get lower interest rates on your savings account.
the world is going to find ways to uncouple its dependence on the US, as it is becoming considered too irrational and unpredictable
This is probably true but are the alternatives really better? Maybe in the short run.
I think the Europeans have an incredible situation at the expense of the US. I don't think the current situation is as favorable to the US as it should be for mutual reciprocity. Any long term relationship must be beneficial for both parties. While it maybe beneficial to US interests to ensure EU stability at some point the costs do not out weigh the benefits. The geopolitics have changed and the US EU relationship must be addressed to ensure mutual reciprocity and the long term benefit of both.
It doesn't help the general tone of European sentiment toward the US is quite condescending and smug.
Of course you have demonstrated your acumen in "critical thinking" because... something something private political parties and debates. Surely, if we change something something debates and something something elections we can a critical think.
Don't worry Betty. Not everyone can be a "critical thinker" like you. We should be so lucky.
Good god you are thick in the head. Stating a simple fact is not a deflection.
But what about the debates between candidates of multiple parties?
Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions?
What about them? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? Are you just that dumb? Is it too "abstract" for you? Answer my question and you answer your question. I am being "abstract" because that's our laws currently. If you cannot even accurately describe the current system how in gods green earth do you think you can change it for the better? Idiot.
they hold television networks hostage in their quest to actively exclude every other political party from the national discussion.
You must have missed the Libertarian debates. I am sorry I can't hear you over hostage situation in the news room. It appears that An Allepo appeared to legalize medicinal meth and dissolve the FED.
Says the person who's not able to comprehend some pretty simple statements.
Tell me more about abstraction. Do me a favor and just answer my question honestly. It's very simple and from there you will understand how I sit on the issue and what must be done. But if you can't answer that question then we are at an impasse. (Here's a hint; congress shall make no law).
I also believe that any "career politician" should be removed from office
Good for you. Would you like a smiley sticker or a gold star? I guess you should be relieved that the Career Politician Clinton didn't get in.
I am not so sold on your idea for college because of the law that changed in 2005 for debtors to avoid any and all risk. Before then private college and loans were just another option that may or may not be better. After, they were viewed as predatory and broke all trends of increased costs. No other time before that law changed had the same dramatic price increase.
Trump is very much a member of the ruling class
Maybe now but not before he was elected. Clinton was the ruling class in every aspect of the phrase.
Swing states haven't changed since
I distinctly remember a blue wall falling apart recently. The US moves slow. So what.
Why should somebody in Montana be able to force their politics on the more populace California?
It's not a democracy and never has been. Montana shouldn't be able to force their politics but if the federal government makes policy decisions that affect large number of Montanans and they vote in congressman to undue that policy then that shouldn't be a surprise and that those changes, if good, should be done by law and not policy to give Montana a say. You didn't demonstrate how I twisted logic. All I said was that if California wants free college or w/e that they can do it without Montana or the Federal government.
There is so much hand waiving and generalizing that I am baffled I read it and decided to respond.
their 401ks get eaten up by fees and the periodic stock market crashes brought on by weak regulation and risk free bail outs and their student loan debt means they can't start life until their 30s. Meanwhile outsourcing + H1-Bs means they're in intense competition for decent jobs so they worked much, much harder than their parents and grandparents for much, much less
Even if that is all true, that doesn't mean "tax and spend more like Norway". Take an example, student loan debt. The reason why there is so much debt is because the governed guaranteed no risk to the debtors in 2005 to increase supply for higher demand. Now we have record number of people graduating with 4 year degrees that amount to a lower value in that degree. Go figure that when everyone has something it is worth less. Since the government guaranteed no risk that lowered value comes back to bite those young people in the ass. There are a lot of blame but your oversimplification and solution doesn't help anyone.
They're currently in control of all branches of Government
Because they won elections. Because the left wing couldn't convince jack or shit. I am not just talking about the 2016 election. I am talking about every election since 2008. You can say "gerrymander" all you want. That doesn't explain the gubernatorial or state legislature loses to the wide extent that we saw.
You're straw-man "defining feature is pro-corporate bent that wants low wages, lax environmental regulations and lax worker protections" works great for others that think like you when you are ignorant to other views. But in the real world, it's not that simple.
The ruling class has so much wealth and power now they can bury the will of the people.
I love seeing this kind of sentiment because of the irony of Trump beating Clinton. Clinton who was the ruling class that had much more wealth and power. Lost. You have a prime example (there are others) of the wealthy and powerful losing yet you still cling to this fanciful idea that only the more moneyed and powerful win elections. Maybe that is true in the city where apathy is higher but that is not a universal truth across the country.
voting power to rural states (a Montana voter has something like 42 times more voting power than a California thanks to our Senate) and the effect of "swing states"
Swing states change over time based on the states needs. Montana has different needs and wants from the government than California. If Californians want free college, or pensions, or whatever bellwether you want for "democratic socialism" you do not need the federal government involved. Federalism works because you don't dictate to others. Lead by example. There are good reasons for the Senate and Electoral College. I am more convinced the reasons are sound when see rhetoric like yours: "we lose elections but I should be able to force my politics on others that don't want it (and vote to reject it) like Montana because muh democratic socialism! I know whats good for those people! They are too stupid to vote the correct way!". Your comment being modded up is a testament to the number of people that think they know what others need. Is that kind of dictatorship normal from advocates of "democratic socialism"? i.e. 'I know whats good for you better than you". If that is "democratic socialism" then no thank you.
why do you think access to these debate dollars is so tightly controlled?Who do you think controls that access?
Debates are not elections. Obviously the two major parties want to stay in power which is why they control the debates in their parties. Idiot. Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions? Tell me more about super delegates of the democrats to shit on Sanders. I stand by my assessment that you are not smart enough for anything beyond your emotions and empty rhetoric.
they would realize that it is a fraud
Trump got in to the chagrin of Republicans and Democrats with zero political experience and formerly a registered democrat with magnitudes less money than his opponent. I don't know but that is a win in my book when a non politician can win against more seasoned and more moneyed politicians .
would demand more choices
Then change your state elections and risk your political power and see if your fellow statesmen agree with your empty rhetoric.
bullshit lesser-of-evils crap that partisan idiots like yourself suck up.
Lol, how have I even remotely been partisan in any of these comments? I think you are projecting but then again from a "critical thinker" like you I would expect as much.
The States decide their elections. If you don't like your current system then you can convince your fellow statesman to enact your idea and risk your political power. If it is a really good idea you can convince me with action instead of rhetoric to be enacted in my state. I don't think you are smart enough or persistent enough to do that so all you have is empty rhetoric. Womp womp.
What I find funny is that you are now completely off the topic of "critical thinking" and now sperging about tangential issues. Let me guess, if people think just like you about topics that would give you more of what you want they would be "critical thinkers".
You complain about voting participation and then complain about the lack of informative voters (you can do the same thing with the recent GOP tax cut) and you think that is evidence of a lack of critical thinking? Get over yourself.
Um, no. We are partly in this mess because some people like to push for a Pied Piper candidate for the opposing party to push their crappy candidate.
Because they would be critical thinkers if they voted just the way you vote. amirite? Get over yourself.
Moving goal posts? "we discover more and more ". We didn't discover anything new with this except for the names of some Russians that are alleged to do things we already knew about.
Either way it describes same thing. One sounds scarier.
If you think a concerted misinformation campaign had no effect at all on voters
misinformation campaign as in targeting both sides with trolls and memes. Oh, and airing the dirty laundry of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Hillary.
The dirty laundry wasn't misinformation. It probably persuaded some votes particularly Bernie supporters.
How many voters do you think changed their mind because a few trolls and memes that mostly occurred after the election? Methinks you are the one inclined to believe in fairy tales.