That's pretty much the legal framework. There's supposed to be some level of transparency so people can figure out motivations. If Merkel says she prefers HRC, then we know who said it and probably why. The Russian social media stuff is fascinating because it was pretty well hidden, in terms of sources and the corresponding motivations.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Mueller: President Trump Cannot Be Indicted
- Thread starter Route 45
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That's pretty much the legal framework. There's supposed to be some level of transparency so people can figure out motivations. If Merkel says she prefers HRC, then we know who said it and probably why. The Russian social media stuff is fascinating because it was pretty well hidden, in terms of sources and the corresponding motivations.
Which had a much greater audience? Which was more effective?
Who did the entirety of the media back in 2016 and was that "honest"?
Fair questions, even though it doesn't respond to my question.
In terms of audience - quick googling says that in 2016, about 20M people watched the evening news. I think the cable networks would be subsets of that, rather than increasing it. If you want to haggle about that, fine. We'll use whatever numbers you want.
More quick googling suggests about 70% of the US population used social media in 2016. Quick mathing makes that about 210M people. That's 10x people on social media than who watched the news.
Then, most Americans (historically) discount anything said by foreign politicians. That's even assuming they hear it at all. So, let's generously assume 10% of the 20M who watch the news felt like the foreign leaders made any difference, that's about 2M people. (Which, again, given that we know who said it, I seriously doubt its even that high.)
But, with the social media stuff, even assuming that same 10%, its still 21M people. Since the Russian strategy was to feed controversy by going viral, they probably reached MORE people than the news, in a way that made it look like it was 'normal people' sharing. That's going to be more effective that a hoighty toighty Eurotrash leader talking about how great HRC is.
Finally, when the media actually reported what foreign leaders actually said, then yes - that's honest reporting.
I guess I'm not understanding the whole social media aspect of this. Facebook is worldwide. What is stopping any average Joe (or Dmitri for that matter) from posting whatever they want in support of one candidate or against another candidate? Is it all illegal? And aren't all campaign commercials "trying to influence the election"? I guess I just don't understand the uproar over some social media posts, even if there were a buttload of them.
So, there's some interesting science and big data behind it.
Time just came out with an article about it today.
Russia's US Social Media Hacking: Inside the Information War | Time
ETA:
Oh, one other thing. There's a difference between a group of home-grown activists, maybe like an internet gun forum doing it on a scale of hundreds or maybe thousands, and a foreign country doing it on a scale of millions.
1. In regard to your either/or question: I understand that but I'm not sure one rises above the other when both are "interfering".
2. Sorry I was expressing a couple of ideas in the reply, I wasn't speaking of the reporting of foreign leader opinions... that is just reporting by our media (with a heavy dose of glee).
The larger point of: The media, not TV evening news... but most major online media, who reach that 70%, were in the hitlary camp firmly but we were told to believe they were impartial.
My friend, TV news stopped being impartial with Cronkhite. I can't think of anyone who views the MSM as impartial. There may be differences of opinion about which TV-based outlets lean which way, but objectivity has long since been eroded.
In fact, I think that's what makes the social media thing more insidious. For most people, if they get an NBC News alert in their feed, there's automatically a degree of skepticism (or joy). But, if something pops up that looks like it comes from a normal person, then it reflexively avoids the skepticism filter.
If someone post an online article from a large [STRIKE]opinion [/STRIKE]sorry news source... CNN or maybe Time... and uses that as a basis of "fact" they probably see it as an impartial source.
Still sounds no different than what companies like Google do to target advertising to certain groups based on preferences of individuals. And for what it's worth, anyone (over the age of 13) that seriously bases important decisions on Facebook posts... well, the bias of those posts is the least of their worries.
Last edited:
Hey TeeLex, you are quite interested in what Presidential actions would change his supporters minds about Trump. Now that we are into hypotheticals, I would like to ask you about the other side of that question
What Presidential actions would it take for you to change your mind about Trump and vote for him willingly in 2020. If you cannot conceive of a set of circumstances that would reorient your view of the President I would wonder why you are so intent on changing the minds of others. Is that not a two-way street? Are we not encouraged to keep an open mind?
Given our interactions, I'm a bit caught off guard that you would even ask. But, you've been wrong about me before.
Almost like you look for reasons to think the worst of me. 
I'll start by saying that my biggest issue with Trump is the character one. Like a leopard, he can't change his spots. So, at a fundamental level, I don't see how I could support him for president in 2020.
However, the one escape hatch he has, is if he is a "good" POTUS - purely by my own reckoning. Obama was just bad. Bad at so many levels. No matter how much character he has (and I think he is solid on that ground), I just couldn't support his policies. Or, more often, his lack of coherent policies. GWB was both a good man, and someone whose policies I could support.
Turning that assessment to Trump, and I think I've been clear about this, in foreign policy matters, he's doing REALLY well. Like, FAR better than I ever expected. I can't figure out if it is because he is more comfortable in an arena without clear rules or whether he's relying on smart people around him to navigate those areas. Either way, he's doing really well. It could all turn to SIG - which may or may not be his fault - but so far, so good.
In terms of domestic policy, I'd rate him at marginal. Like, the stuff I didn't want him to do, he hasn't really been able to do, so that's good. But the stuff he said he'd do that I did like, well, he hasn't been able to do that, either. So that's not good. If he could turn around the internal politics and start achieving some "good" things (according to my definition, probably not most of INGO's) then he'd squarely be in the "good POTUS, bad person" realm.
So, assuming Pence isn't at the head of the ticket, Trump would have improved his status with me, personally, from when he was candidate-Trump. If he can clean up his act, I could see myself voting for him, holding my nose all the while. (Which I've had to do before.)
I don't know if that counts for "willingly" voting for him or not.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think most Trump supporters have a particularly open minds about him. I'm not sure I've asked for that since he won the primaries. That's why I'm interested in what level of Trump incompetence it would take to change their minds.
I'm long past interested in changing their minds by persuasion. I'm more curious about what impact Trump's behavior itself might cause.
I agree that I'd rather things be in the open where I can make up my own mind. I don't give a rat's ass what the leaders of France, Germany, etc... said about Trump. You say the Russians broke American laws; OK, hang the Russians up by their balls, if you can catch them. I'm good with that. But to indict Manafort on a 2005 rap for taxes? Really, you're good with that? And of the indictments handed out so far, not one is on an American for colluding with Russia. Are you good with that? And then they indict a bunch of Russians and a couple Russian companies, strictly as a grandstand show, never expecting them to respond or show up to defend themselves; but guess what, one company does show up with their American lawyer, ready to defend themselves. And the persecutors are caught flat footed, with their mouths hanging open, begging for a continuance; but they had to put on that show, to prove they were getting 'results'.
There's so much that's rotten about this whole mess that it's hard to even stay up with. I still have hope that real justice will be served to a whole bunch of traitors who thought they could get away with illegally subverting an American President. Their arrogance is unbelievable. I see where the IG has submitted his prelim draft report to the new prosecutor from Utah. I'll keep my fingers crossed that something good comes of it.
Given our interactions, I'm a bit caught off guard that you would even ask. But, you've been wrong about me before.
I'll start by saying that my biggest issue with Trump is the character one. Like a leopard, he can't change his spots. So, at a fundamental level, I don't see how I could support him for president in 2020.
However, the one escape hatch he has, is if he is a "good" POTUS - purely by my own reckoning. Obama was just bad. Bad at so many levels. No matter how much character he has (and I think he is solid on that ground), I just couldn't support his policies. Or, more often, his lack of coherent policies. GWB was both a good man, and someone whose policies I could support.
Turning that assessment to Trump, and I think I've been clear about this, in foreign policy matters, he's doing REALLY well. Like, FAR better than I ever expected. I can't figure out if it is because he is more comfortable in an arena without clear rules or whether he's relying on smart people around him to navigate those areas. Either way, he's doing really well. It could all turn to SIG - which may or may not be his fault - but so far, so good.
In terms of domestic policy, I'd rate him at marginal. Like, the stuff I didn't want him to do, he hasn't really been able to do, so that's good. But the stuff he said he'd do that I did like, well, he hasn't been able to do that, either. So that's not good. If he could turn around the internal politics and start achieving some "good" things (according to my definition, probably not most of INGO's) then he'd squarely be in the "good POTUS, bad person" realm.
So, assuming Pence isn't at the head of the ticket, Trump would have improved his status with me, personally, from when he was candidate-Trump. If he can clean up his act, I could see myself voting for him, holding my nose all the while. (Which I've had to do before.)
I don't know if that counts for "willingly" voting for him or not.
Oh, and for the record, I don't think most Trump supporters have a particularly open minds about him. I'm not sure I've asked for that since he won the primaries. That's why I'm interested in what level of Trump incompetence it would take to change their minds.
All of us have the complete inside information to understand why we do things, none of us is quite the open book to others we might think. Think of me as 'small data' - trying to accumulate information and form hypotheses like big data only with vastly less brain power and more distractibility
No critique, express or implied
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44359434
Its a Christmas Miracle! Trump and I agree on something!
Well, we agree that he could pardon himself. After that, our agreement on the matter gets a bit murky.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ler-accused-of-rape-by-very-credible-witness/ Mueller is guilty......cause she said so!
