Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[butchersapron]

um, have you guys missed that conspiracy theories regarding electronic vote hacking are pretty mainstream right now with calls for recounts and they've already been quoted on this thread by other posters.

And if you are going to look at those, Bev Harris has been the authority for years and her site blackboxvoting.org is non-partisan

If it's pretty mainstream then you don't need to link to anything to do with loon alex Jones stuff.

 

[rekil]

7 months before the election

Presidential Proclamation -- National Charter Schools Week, 2016



A week of celebrating what is effectively looting, and in some areas like New Orleans is a key tool of targeting specifically mostly black teachers, on behalf of the already rich shareholders of the 'education industry' justified by anti-racism. The Obama administration has been truly loathsome on education, it will get worse now but it will be a lot easier for Trump to make it even worse because the direction of travel is so bad already!

You'll like this liberal star studded pro-charter school fillum then. Won't Back Down.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

PropOrNot’s monitoring report, which was provided to The Washington Post in advance of its public release, identifies more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans. On Facebook, PropOrNot estimates that stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.


Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were “useful idiots” — a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Switching topics: where's Casually Red gone these days?

 

[andysays]

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls”, and networks of websites and social-media accounts

And when you read some of CR's posts here you get an indication of just how sophisticated Russia’s propaganda machinery has become...

Given the efforts the US state has put into influencing elections in foreign nations over the years, not to mention far more blatant acts of anti-democratic subterfuge, I'm sure I can't be alone in finding it amusing that some are now getting all in a lather at the possibility that the Russians might be doing it to them, albeit in a far more gentle way than some of the shit the CIA pulled.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

... because two wrongs always make a right.

Hamfisted intervention in the politics of other countries by the United States has led to many regional crises and much human suffering. Thinking that such intervention has been applied against the US might give some people some sort of satisfied feeling; but once again - this is more than an intellectual exercise. Trump's rise to power likely will have very negative consequences for a large number of people.

 

[weltweit]

People should be careful where they get their information from.
I recall seeing an article about how many get their primary info feeds from facebook.

 

[maomao]

Hamfisted intervention in the politics of other countries by the United States has led to many regional crises and much human suffering.

It's not hamfisted intervention though. It's an endless series of vicious invasions and coups. People who were arguing against a vote for Hillary (as an intellectual exercise, very few of us here have a vote) were the ones arguing two wrongs don't make a right. You're upset about Hillary losing because she was the one who was going to continue the brutal US imperialism that you have a decade plus long history of arguing in favour of on this site. We all hate Trump's racism but you don't care about Clinton's.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

People should be careful where they get their information from.
I recall seeing an article about how many get their primary info feeds from facebook.

A couple of good examples:

Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory — one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting.

Mr. Tucker's post was shared at least 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 350,000 times on Facebook. The problem is that Mr. Tucker got it wrong. There were no such buses packed with paid protesters.

But that didn't matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html

What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.

Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he’s British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. “South Park” lawsuit last year.

Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’

 

[andysays]

... because two wrongs always make a right.

Hamfisted intervention in the politics of other countries by the United States has led to many regional crises and much human suffering. Thinking that such intervention has been applied against the US might give some people some sort of satisfied feeling; but once again - this is more than an intellectual exercise. Trump's rise to power likely will have very negative consequences for a large number of people.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, either in this case (assuming it's actually proven, which it definitely hasn't been yet) or in any other.

I also find it interesting that some in the US have hardly got over blaming some of their fellow citizens (you remember, the thick racist ones), for Trump's victory, and they've now jumped on another possible explanation, that of subversion by a foreign power. As much as anything, it seems to me a sign of desperation and an inability to actually examine why an elite professional career politician like Clinton who was thought to be a sure thing against the idiot Trump could possibly fail to win.

None of which means that I view Trump's victory with any satisfaction. His rise to power clearly (not just likely) will have very negative consequences for a large number of people, but probably not any of those who are most responsible for it, the American political elite who have created such antipathy and outright loathing towards them in recent decades that a cunt such as Trump could actually become President by claiming to be opposed to that elite.

And for you to continually post up in full seemingly every single article the Washington Post publishes is hardly likely to change things, TBH

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I also find it interesting that some in the US have hardly got over blaming some of their fellow citizens (you remember, the thick racist ones), for Trump's victory, and they've now jumped on another possible explanation, that of subversion by foreign powers.

Not sure that it's an 'either/or' situation.

 

[andysays]

Not sure that it's an 'either/or' situation.

So what does that mean - the reason Trump won is thick racist voters and Russian propaganda?

Maybe you should try addressing some of the other reasons people have been suggesting that most of the US electorate have rejected the American political elite, as personified by Clinton.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Disbelieving that race is a factor in American politics, indicates a misunderstanding of American politics, imo.

 

[ska invita]

Many factors were in play in the Trump win. What the order of importance and impact is is another question. The biggest is definitely how the Democrats lost it.

On the issue of Russian epsionage, I think it is pretty interesting if true. The extent of it is hard to be certain of from where Im sat.

 

[tim]

Hilary's campaign must still have some money on hand, surely.

If she gets the Greens to do it she can still play the dignified loser if the recounts achieve nothing, and grab the spoils in the unlikely event of them turning out trumps

 

[butchersapron]

If she gets the Greens to do it she can still play the dignified loser if the recounts achieve nothing, and grab the spoils in the unlikely event of them turning out trumps

5 million dollars that could have been used to organise green stuff.

Where are the mouthy de niros, the durhams with the money now? It's a piffling amount.

 

[J Ed]

5 million dollars that could have been used to organise green stuff.

Where are the mouthy de niros, the durhams with the money now? It's a piffling amount.

Focusing on radical self-love I suspect

 

[andysays]

Disbelieving that race is a factor in American politics, indicates a misunderstanding of American politics, imo.

Well Johnny, it's just as well that no-one here has actually suggested that race isn't a factor, because that would certainly make them look pretty foolish...

 

[butchersapron]

Well Johnny, it's just as well that no-one here has actually suggested that race isn't a factor, because that would certainly make them look pretty foolish...

Disbleiver! Disbeliver!

 

[andysays]

Disbleiver! Disbeliver!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So what does that mean - the reason Trump won is thick racist voters and Russian propaganda?

Maybe you should try addressing some of the other reasons people have been suggesting that most of the US electorate have rejected the American political elite, as personified by Clinton.

First, that's not true. Despite the awfulness of Clinton as a candidate, she won more votes than any other candidate, and by a relatively big margin given that she lost the election.

Second, most of those who voted Republican did so as life-long Republican voters, not out of some protest against the political elite. See the more than 80 per cent evangelical white vote that went to Trump despite his lack of any clear religiosity. They voted for the candidate they thought would advance their agenda. They'd have voted Republican regardless of the candidate put up, quite possibly voted for Trump despite him being Trump rather than because of him, and were probably more enamoured by the traditionally conservative creationist loon he had as a running mate, who is himself very much a part of that elite.

So, let's be clear about who exactly it is that voted Trump as an expression of their rejection of the political elite, and as importantly, what the reasons for their anger at the elite were. We're talking relatively small numbers of people here - measured in millions perhaps, but certainly not in tens of millions, and that's not a huge number given that the overall electorate is more than 200 million.

 

[butchersapron]

First, that's not true. Despite the awfulness of Clinton as a candidate, she won more votes than any other candidate, and by a relatively big margin given that she lost the election.

Second, most of those who voted Republican did so as life-long Republican voters, not out of some protest against the political elite. See the more than 80 per cent evangelical white vote that went to Trump despite his lack of any clear religiosity. They voted for the candidate they thought would advance their agenda. They'd have voted Republican regardless of the candidate put up, quite possibly voted for Trump despite him being Trump rather than because of him, and were probably more enamoured by the traditionally conservative creationist loon he had as a running mate, who is himself very much a part of that elite.

So, let's be clear about who exactly it is that voted Trump as an expression of their rejection of the political elite, and as importantly, what the reasons for their anger at the elite were.

Let's assume the first is true.

The 2nd - ok, then we're talking about non rep areas that voted rep. Don't talk about absolute numbers liberal sorcerer. Let's be clear as fuck.

 

[butchersapron]

Second, most of those who voted Republican did so as life-long Republican voters, not out of some protest against the political elite.

Great. Any evidence?

 

[andysays]

First, that's not true. Despite the awfulness of Clinton as a candidate, she won more votes than any other candidate, and by a relatively big margin given that she lost the election.

Second, most of those who voted Republican did so as life-long Republican voters, not out of some protest against the political elite. See the more than 80 per cent evangelical white vote that went to Trump despite his lack of any clear religiosity. They voted for the candidate they thought would advance their agenda. They'd have voted Republican regardless of the candidate put up, quite possibly voted for Trump despite him being Trump rather than because of him, and were probably more enamoured by the traditionally conservative creationist loon he had as a running mate, who is himself very much a part of that elite.

So, let's be clear about who exactly it is that voted Trump as an expression of their rejection of the political elite, and as importantly, what the reasons for their anger at the elite were.

I'm talking about people rejecting the political elite, as personified by Clinton, which is about more than just people voting for Trump, it's also (and crucially for the result) people who might have been expected to vote for Clinton not voting for Clinton, even though the alternative was Trump.

And while much of the rest of your post is worth exploring, I'll just remind you that my post was in response to claims which have rejected any attempt at examining, eg, what the reasons were for anger at the elite, in favour of, first, simplistic explanations that racism was the only factor worth mentioning and, second, that it's all the fault of Russian subversion.

But by all means lets explore those questions you mention in your final para

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well Johnny, it's just as well that no-one here has actually suggested that race isn't a factor, because that would certainly make them look pretty foolish...

In the same way that suggesting the Democrats' mishandling of the campaign isn't a factor, would be foolish. And similarly, no one is making that suggestion.

 

[ferrelhadley]

5 million dollars that could have been used to organise green stuff.

She raised $3,218,525 during the election and spent $3,144,843.
You really think this is Green Party supporters suddenly finding deep pockets for Billary?

 

[ferrelhadley]

On the plus side this potential recount has gotten Heil Trump's neo nasty supports in a tizz.

 

[andysays]

In the same way that suggesting the Democrats' mishandling of the campaign isn't a factor, would be foolish. And similarly, no one is making that suggestion.

Glad to hear it, but the argument that some of us are making (which is in danger of being drowned out by all the bollocks about Russian vote rigging and other stuff you and others seem so keen to post up uncritically) is that it goes far beyond the Democrats' mishandling of the campaign (although that too is certainly a factor) and is more fundamentally about the rejection by various electorates of political elites and the way that has been exploited by rightist populists.

Nothing that you've posted here seems to show any recognition of that as an underlying theme.

 

[butchersapron]

She raised $3,218,525 during the election and spent $3,144,843.
You really think this is Green Party supporters suddenly finding deep pockets for Billary?

That's the point big brain.