I know you are right but I just think if I keep trying he will understand. Rationally I know it is hopeless to discuss/debate anything with a Trump supporter but still I persist.
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
I know you are right but I just think if I keep trying he will understand. Rationally I know it is hopeless to discuss/debate anything with a Trump supporter but still I persist.
" No matter the number of times you fail you must be determined to succeed. You must not lose hope. Don't
stop in your storm. Don't give up so easily. "
- Tony Norams
Y'see, bone......someone still believes in you !!.........shape up !!
To me, the largest potential success the Russian intervention had is essentially immeasurable, it is the creation of a voter apathy in a targeted group and the likelihood of undervoting. Interestingly, as I recall a major targeted segment was the African American community. Hillary Clinton underperformed in the African American community. Interference or coincidence? I couldn't tell you with certainty.
Additionally, given the ultra narrowness of the margin in Wisconsin, Michigan, et al, the same question and answer apply to the heavy rust belt interference activities of the Russians.
Trump won. I can live with it. It's his actions since winning that actually have set me off. Had he proceeded with a modicum of an actually Presidential approach, while I wouldn't have preferred him, you wouldn't be hearing much from me.
Additionally, given the ultra narrowness of the margin in Wisconsin, Michigan, et al, the same question and answer apply to the heavy rust belt interference activities of the Russians.
Trump won. I can live with it. It's his actions since winning that actually have set me off. Had he proceeded with a modicum of an actually Presidential approach, while I wouldn't have preferred him, you wouldn't be hearing much from me.
Yeah, Trump doesn't win the popular vote, wins the electoral college, he's not the first, most of us can accept that. However, from day one, starting with the size of his inaugural crowd, this dipshit has 100% demanded that his ignorance, stupidity, inanity, egomania... not just be taken seriously, but be the law of the land.
Don't you think the RNC and Trump campaign were the one's providing the information about the Clinton Foundation, her health, etc? You think Russia magically uncovered all these juicy nuggets and gave then to the Republican party?
Come on....All that info was well known public knowledge.
The most damning evidence of all was the fact that she deleted 35,000 classified emails.
She was a flawed candidate with too many question marks.
If you can provide me with something specific that Russia did/said/uncovered about Hilary that the Republican party didn't already know and was providing the public during the campaign, then I might agree.
But there was nothing done by Russia to influence anyone.
This is all I needed to know after clicking on your CBS link. Russia spent a whopping $100,000! You have people spending more than that get on a podunk city council!
"The Russian trolls paid 3,981 rubles for it, which converts to about $63. About 1,849 people saw the post, 94 of whom ended up clicking on it.
Altogether, the Russian trolls spent up to $100,000 on all the ads."
Did you see the rally in Dallas last night?
If you're still this upset after 3 years, get ready for 4 more years. You might want to look at real estate in Canada......
Read the Mueller Report, you ignoramus.
Lol. You really don't get it.
It isn't about uncovering juicy nuggets. Whether the stories were true or not, new or old, it's about the mass distribution of the stories. I trust you are aware that there are people who believe everything they read on Twitter or FB.
All our Intel agencies say the Russians did it. They have an entire group dedicated to it (the IRA, Internet Research Agency). The RNC or the Trump campaign would have to say who they were, they can't hide ( not supposed to) behind false indentities.
If you believe Trump that our Intel agencies are deep state and sworn to destroy him, I guess this won't convince you.
Tell you what. Go on Twitter, search for "witchhunt", then click on a comment where the poster has no picture. You'll probably see a name with no other information. Nothing. That's a bot. It's not a real person. That's just one very basic way the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians try to affect attitudes here.
Beth, just how open minded are you? You bash Trump. You bash Pence. You bash anyone on here who doesn't agree with your political agenda. We all know that you are another liberal with no tolerance for the other side. And it's becoming more evident every day.
The day you realize that someone like Bbf is bashing posters' CONTENT, rather than the person, is the first day of your possible enlightenment.
The fact that Pence's government/religion issues and Trump's insanity exist are issues unto themselves
Let me ask you this (and be honest and objective):
Would you agree or disagree that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, as well as Time, USA Today, and Newsweek in addition to 80% of Hollywood, all lean significantly to the left politically in their coverage, their hosts, their op eds? (we'll let MSNBC and Fox cancel themselves out).
Would you say that all the above covered Hilary and Trump in the same manner in 2016 or was one covered in a more positive light than the other?
Honest question....when Hillary comes out of that losers closet and runs again, will you vote for her or not vote
I remember it like it was yesterday. Trump was on CNN on a daily basis. Calling in to CNN sometimes twice a day for interviews. If he wasn't on there his surrogates we're on 24/7. He sucked up almost all of the media coverage during the republican primaries. I can still remember him standing there all alone , with his hand up during the republican debates, saying he would run as an independent if he didn't get the nomination
Blocking you because I try to be polite and at least try to see your point of view. Alas, you do not extend the same courtesy to me so. . . ciao
Last edited:
Really Beth? You and I have had great conversations regarding Italy, have been civil, yet you block me because I point out that you have fallen into the trap of, "If you can't agree, then bash". Sorry, but you're much more positive when not being political.
I only posted the truth.
I'd be glad to undertake a new topic if you can acknowledge my reply to your previous one.
that wasn't the question....When it came down to Trump and Hilary, how were they covered? Do you not disagree that Trump was shown in a very negative light by all those media outlets or do you think the coverage, op eds, etc were balanced and unbiased?
As. I remembered it , the only negative coverage on Trump was when he said something outrageous. Most of the time it was intentional, to get the free media coverage. With the email scandal and Bengazi hearings as opposed.to the Billy Bush tape, i think it was pretty much equal. On the other hand, after the election, the media soured on him. Probably had a lot to do with his constant attack on the enemy of the people aka the media.
Did Hillary say that POW's weren't heroes and she was a fan of people that weren't captured? Did she mock a disabled person and mirror their mannerisms? Did she settle a lawsuit in 2016 for running a fake university that preyed on desperate people? Was her foundation caught self-dealing and giving a donation to Pam Bondi shortly before she decided to shutter an investigation. Did 15 women come forward in 2016 claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Clinton?
If Clinton had done any of that, media outlets would have absolutely covered it.
Trump brings the coverage on himself by being an absolutely disgusting human being.
Last edited:
But here's the point: Some of you are claiming that Russian interference, apparently mostly through Facebook, helped Trump win the election?
Is that correct?
If so, then despite the mainstream media clearly favoring Hilary and taking shots at Trump at every opportunity, despite all the stupid things he said or did, despite virtually every poll out there showing Hilary winning in a landslide, he still won.
So, either Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads was the greatest and most influential advertising campaign in the history of the world, or...the American public was fed up with Democrat liberal, left wing politics and wanted something different.
That's not what I was inferring. The media was pretty nuetral in regards to the election IMO. It was only after the election that the media turned on Trump. Remember the media thought that Hillary had a huge lead. They wouldn't have had a need to be biased.
That's your narrative so you might as well stick with it.
I have an answer for you bone.
The Russians, with help from GrB and payment from the DNC, supplied the MSM a dossier so ridiculous that the people of the US knew it was complete BS. BS propagated by the DNC themselves. It boomeranged on the DNC.
This Russians give the fly over American citizen far more credit for intelligence than does the DNC. This dossier thus helped Trump.
The dossier wasn't even known to the public until a week before the election. Very little was known, let alone who paid for it. Try again.
So the release of damning information about your political
Opponent a week before the election was intended to have no effect?
And of course the public wasn’t aware of the root of or funding of the dossier until after the election.
So what’s your point?
The Senate is Republican controlled. You believe Fox News as near as I can tell.
Concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee 85 page report on election interference, Fox News reports
"The senators noted the Russians' social media effort was a 'vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than was initially understood,' with planning well underway in 2014.
The report said the Russians' social media campaign was 'overtly and almost invariably supportive' of Trump and designed to harm Democrat Hillary Clinton."
So, as they say, GTFO with that weak sh*t...
Last edited:
I agree totally that the overall Russian impact is impossible to gauge because there were so many activities. I felt that a huge impact in the rust belt was that HRC assumed she would easily carry those states. That was well documented.
there is also no doubt the Russian wave of FB ads touched a lot of people. One datapoint I would like to know is thru social media how many total ads, emails, tweets, etc were sent in total and how many did the Russians send. I would guess that as a % the Russians were small. Does anyone have any data like this?
I should have been more clear. It was a story in Mother Jones a week before the election....... and was very vague. The details in the dossier didn't come out until after the election. Even then, it took awhile to know HC hired Fusion.
You don't remember what all the talk was before the election? I'm sure you were posting about it. Hillary.......investigation....Comey......cleared her and then reopened the investigation? Hello?
To say the dossier had any effect on the election is just not true.
No, I haven't seen such. My guess would be that the social media businesses are pretty tight about providing much of anything...
I would agree that the Clinton presumption of strength in the Rust Belt was devastating to her.
Honest answer: I'd vote for Hillary's Golden Retriever before I'd vote for that feeble-minded depravity that currently lives in the White House.
1) There were NO polls showing Clinton winning by anywhere NEAR a landslide. Final CONSENSUS was 4-5 %.
2) There were about 2,900,000 more Americans " fed up " with Trump compared to Hillary, that showed up to vote in Nov., 2016
3) Too bad the Trump media didn't take any " shots" at Hillary " at every opportunity " Oh, wait......
4) your recognition that Trump ( said and did stupid things) might rank right up there with the Sun's out in the day and the moon's out at night.....
But, to your credit, there's acknowledgement given.
It wasn't only through ads but also through straight up fake news articles from fake sources, memes with fake claims, Facebook groups, etc...
To put it in perspective the amount of campaign spending the Russians spent a small fraction compared to the rest of the campaign $. That doesn’t alleviate the need to stop Russian or other countries interference but it does put into perspective.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/470711/presidential-election-season-ad-spend/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/
the above article from left leaning 538 is accurate in my opinion. Comey’s October surprise second email news was devastating to HRC’s campaign and added to the fact that she didn’t give enough attention to the Rust belt and you have it. Remember that HRC’s favorability rating was t much better than Trump’s.
Here’s the thing: winning a war that doesn’t need to be “fought” isn’t really winning at all. When you create conflict where none needs to exist, it’s foolish to run around worrying about winning and losing that conflict.
538 is NOT left leaning. Reviews of their output, over the years, has revealed meticulous non-partisanship.
Similar threads
