Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bernie is running

I think there's some truth in this (lizards aside). I think they'll realise they ('progressive' types, activists, etc) will realise they have to move back offline again. They can take a hint from BLM and the way they use social media and a strong presence during things like Ferguson to make connections and keep the pressure on. It's going to have to be a fight everywhere, not just online, not just offline. Pressure on at all times everywhere.
renegadedog (rip) many years back would often moan how on chinese-language boards a thread about politics would often become crowded out with government employees pushing the gmnt line. Apparently they were obvious and by and large, ignored. Its obvious when 2 or more are shilling the same line.
 
The window for challenging social structures via social media is closing, the Lizards are getting wise to this game and will make it work to their interests with increasing slickness. Crowd out or distract.

I think most of us are familiar with paid internet trolls. Its pretty common practice now for government, corporations, and political parties to pay people to post.

China:
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | China's internet 'spin doctors'

Israel:

Israel to pay students to defend it online

It's only going to get more sophisticated as they pair all those internet databases keeping track of all of us with a psychological push here and there.
 
It's pathetically easy to disrupt online discussions - it'd be amazing if this wasn't being done, both in an organised and informal way, by all political wings.

There's been posters on here that seem to know how to pull people's chains and drift threads off track into protracted squabbles. I doubt it's worth anyone's money to be paying them however.
 
Here is just a microcosm of the wider online left though - the same chain-yanking is equally effective (more so often) elsewhere. And yes - loads of people do it for free, for fun (the 'informal' disruption I mentioned) - but that doesn't mean there isn't paid actors in the mix too. One of the advantages for online political disruption is that one person can spread themselves a lot thinner...

It wasn't worth the met paying all those deep cover cops to live for years among the anarchists either. but they did.
 
Here is just a microcosm of the wider online left though - the same chain-yanking is equally effective (more so often) elsewhere. And yes - loads of people do it for free, for fun (the 'informal' disruption I mentioned) - but that doesn't mean there isn't paid actors in the mix too. One of the advantages for online political disruption is that one person can spread themselves a lot thinner...

It wasn't worth the met paying all those deep cover cops to live for years among the anarchists either. but they did.
We have had a lot of Russian government posts (Putinbots) here who've been comically easy to detect. I used to let them through just for amusement but they started to get so common that they got spam-blocked. It's odd because it's hardly as if Russia is short of internet-aware people, but I guess they don't want to work for state propaganda.

Based on other experience I don't think other states maintain active posting campaigns. It's a bad way of doing it, anyway: what you want to do is encourage a situation where you get real people doing it for you, feeding them talking points and targets. The Republicans in the Bush years were absolute masters at this, but they've lost control of the machine now.
 
We have had a lot of Russian government posts (Putinbots) here who've been comically easy to detect. I used to let them through just for amusement but they started to get so common that they got spam-blocked. It's odd because it's hardly as if Russia is short of internet-aware people, but I guess they don't want to work for state propaganda.

Based on other experience I don't think other states maintain active posting campaigns. It's a bad way of doing it, anyway: what you want to do is encourage a situation where you get real people doing it for you, feeding them talking points and targets. The Republicans in the Bush years were absolute masters at this, but they've lost control of the machine now.

You are absolutely right here, I think that has been the main method used by the Clinton campaign.
 
Honestly this does not come as a huge shock to me, with some regularity on ele bction days during the primary huge numbers of very new accounts have flooded the Sanders subreddit pushing one or two negative messages about the Sanders campaign in an effort either to smear Sanders or demotivate the campaign. There is also a remarkable amount of near-identical messaging amongst prominent pro-HRC 'journalists' and people with large twitter followings and this messaging often does not really make a lot of sense in the context of their previous output.

The best example is multiple people who have spent months insulting Bernie Sanders, his supporters and politics suddenly deciding that they think Sanders' politics are great and necessary but unfortunately too tainted by sexism/racism/toxic masculinity/whatever to be possible to pursue.

I actually remember a story (which I can no longer find) about how a bunch of twitter accounts posted the exact same thing about Trump's success with Latinos right after the NV primary. Assuming it's a bot network, but still, someone somewhere went to a lot of time and trouble to be able to get a message out. Social media is a big deal because a lot of people are more receptive to messages there than traditional media.
 
Chkd1pQXIAAxUZ1.jpg:large
 
Indiana goes to Bernie
Yes, but Bernie got 43 delegates & Hillary got 44. Bernie is beaten but it's very good he ran. He forced Hillary to take more progressive positions & she'll have to at least try to look like she's sticking to them if she's pres.
 
She won't even stick to them for the next month. Hillary Clinton is going to pivot way, way to the right as she courts Republicans who hate the poor and love war but think that Trump is a bit too crass.
She can't pivot too far right or she'll lose the Bernie voters which she needs to win.
 
Only by winning every single delegate between now and the convention and getting superdelegates to switch sides. So, in practical terms: not a cat's chance in hell....
 
Only by winning every single delegate between now and the convention and getting superdelegates to switch sides. So, in practical terms: not a cat's chance in hell....

The only way that would happen is if something came out about Clinton that made her completely unsuitable. And if the Republicans have such a thing, they'll wait to use it in October.
 
Yes, but Bernie got 43 delegates & Hillary got 44. Bernie is beaten but it's very good he ran. He forced Hillary to take more progressive positions & she'll have to at least try to look like she's sticking to them if she's pres.
google has it 44 to sanders, 38 to clinton:confused:
 
...There's around 936 delegates left (including one or two still not accounted for by the press from states already voted but still at 99% reported). Bernie would need to win every one of these plus an additional 31 superdelegates to go 1 over the 2383 finish line. That's a huge ask, it's all over bar the shouting for him... =/
 
Last edited:
...There's around 936 delegates left (including one or two still not accounted for by the press from states already voted but still at 99% reported). Bernie would need to win every one of these plus an additional 31 superdelegates to go 1 over the 2383 finish line. That's a huge ask, it's all over bar the shouting for him... =/
There's also approx net 30 gain to bernie still to come through from Washington state (details here).

But yes, it's looking a tad unlikely unless something causes a huge swing to Bernie in the remaining states and among the super delegates.
 
The 30 gain from washington state will mean either only 1 extra superdelegate or only having to win 97% of the forthcoming delegate counts and not 100%. Either way, still not looking too good sadly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom