Viciouss said: »
Clinton ran away with the popular vote.
Whoa there. Let's pull back the reins on that one a little.
She won it.
"Ran away with?" I mean, she is neither figuratively nor literally that spry.
Random Politics & Religion #14 |
||
Random Politics & Religion #14
Viciouss said: » Clinton ran away with the popular vote. Whoa there. Let's pull back the reins on that one a little. She won it. "Ran away with?" I mean, she is neither figuratively nor literally that spry. I don't think Hillary Clinton can run.
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » What about the never trumpers? what about them? they were statistically insignificant and they only managed to cancel out the gains made in overall registration. the idea that a completely different 60 million republican voters voted than last time is not only prima facie absurb, it's mind bogglingly complicated for no good reason Fake Election Stories Did Better Than Real Ones on Facebook
Made-up news outperformed actual news in final months Quote: (Newser) – No, the pope didn't endorse Donald Trump, and, no, Hillary Clinton didn't sell weapons to ISIS. But those fake stories and others like them spread more widely on Facebook than actual news stories before the election, a new BuzzFeed analysis reveals. Specifically, the top 20 fake election stories racked up 8.7 million shares, reactions, and comments in the final three months of the election versus 7.4 million for stories from the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post. The trend accelerated as Election Day drew near, and all but three of the 20 top performers were pro-Trump or anti-Clinton stories. "I'm troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat facts I don't like," Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan tells BuzzFeed. That may be changing. While Mark Zuckerberg initially dismissed the idea that facts I don't like might have played a role in election results, he subsequently acknowledged that Facebook could do more about the problem. Since then, both Facebook and Google have moved to restrict such stories via ads, including Google barring fake websites from using its AdSense advertising program, reports Reuters. The Washington Post, meanwhile, interviews Paul Horner, one of the leading purveyors of fake stories, who says that "people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything." And he adds this line sure to upset Clinton supporters: "I think Trump is in the White House because of me." Garuda.Chanti said: » "I'm troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat facts I don't like," Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan tells BuzzFeed. I feel like there's more than one problem with his statement, but neither he nor the article's platform website are quite grasping it. Ramyrez said: » Viciouss said: » Clinton ran away with the popular vote. Whoa there. Let's pull back the reins on that one a little. this might explain where the "illegal alien voted for hillary" backlash is coming from though... to counteract th equally pointless "hillary won" crowd... these are going to be the longest four years ever aren't they lol Lol Swedish politician called the social security minister a *** in a youtube stream when they were testing the stream to see if it worked
He didn't know it was on and 'jokingly' said "I have a plan for a weaker Sweden, where we will be so damn PC all the time. It was inappropriate, Annika Strandhäll, it wasn't okay, to joke about men's voting rights. Go to hell, you ***." He then says (it's a little unclear) "it's only ---- that can see it, you think I would have said this officially?" while laughing. He then calls someone in the room a *** and apologizes for his vulgar language since "since we're apparently vulgar" YouTube Video Placeholder Moron was immediately fired lol Shiva.Nikolce said: » Ramyrez said: » Viciouss said: » Clinton ran away with the popular vote. Whoa there. Let's pull back the reins on that one a little. this might explain where the "illegal alien voted for hillary" backlash is coming from though... to counteract th equally pointless "hillary won" crowd... these are going to be the longest four years ever aren't they lol I have no delusions about Trump winning the election, but he did lose the popular vote by the largest margin for a candidate that went on to the WH. And it wasn't because of millions of occurrences of voter fraud. He ran on a platform of division and thats what he got. Ramyrez said: » Garuda.Chanti said: » "I'm troubled that Facebook is doing so little to combat facts I don't like," Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan tells BuzzFeed. I feel like there's more than one problem with his statement, but neither he nor the article's platform website are quite grasping it. It is not Facebook's responsibility to "police" news stories. I did think it was interesting that teens in Macedonia made so much money off of this election (story came out before election day). How Teens In The Balkans Are Duping Trump Supporters With facts I don't like How Facebook powers money machines for obscure political 'news' sites Offline
Posts: 2442
Viciouss said: » He ran on a platform of division and thats what he got. He what mate? The media ran on the platform of division. Trump was all about making america great again and IDK what Hillary was about. Something about With her and being stronger. Yeah he got 1.5 mil less votes than Romney Hood. But Clinton got 6 less than Obama...
Shiva.Nikolce said: » these are going to be the longest four years ever aren't they lol It's year 17 of Not My President™ If you aren't used to it by now I don't know what to tell you eliroo said: » Viciouss said: » He ran on a platform of division and thats what he got. He what mate? The media ran on the platform of division. Trump was all about making america great again and IDK what Hillary was about. Something about With her and being stronger. No...sorry. You can make the (thin) argument that Trump's words were taken beyond their intention by the fringe racists/etc., but he ran on literal division of countries (US/Mexico) as well as figurative division of countries (US/trade partners) and the division of people (Muslim registration, etc.) Shiva.Nikolce said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » What about the never trumpers? what about them? they were statistically insignificant and they only managed to cancel out the gains made in overall registration. the idea that a completely different 60 million republican voters voted than last time is not only prima facie absurb, it's mind bogglingly complicated for no good reason Jesus old man, the world is gonna run out of hay with all hear strawmen you're making. Well when you won't define what you're talking about in any coherent fashion he's got to keep playing with numbers to see if he can figure out what the *** you're going on about.
Offline
Posts: 2442
Ramyrez said: » eliroo said: » Viciouss said: » He ran on a platform of division and thats what he got. He what mate? The media ran on the platform of division. Trump was all about making america great again and IDK what Hillary was about. Something about With her and being stronger. No...sorry. You can make the (thin) argument that Trump's words were taken beyond their intention by the fringe racists/etc., but he ran on literal division of countries (US/Mexico) as well as figurative division of countries (US/trade partners) and the division of people (Muslim registration, etc.) All of those only applied to things outside of the US such as other nations and immigration. These are all heavily nationalistic views which center around coming together as an independent country. The media made them about inter-country division, not Trump. Examples: When talking about illegal mexican immigrants: Quote: When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists Media headline: "Donald Trump says all mexicans are rapists" THIS creates division Furthermore Trumps registry are of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and is nothing more than a registry but even know the Media will have you believe he is throwing all muslims into camps. You are absolutely wrong in saying his campaign was about "division". The media divided us, not Clinton, not Trump. The only argument that can be made his division from other nations such as the wall with Mexico, his talks on NAFTA and the TPP, his plan to pull out of the paris accord, his plan to stop funding Syrian rebels and support their government instead. But those are NOT the people voting for him. This is the same division that hurt Hillary Clinton. eliroo said: » All of those only applied to things outside of the US such as other nations and immigration. These are all heavily nationalistic views which center around coming together as an independent country. Excuse me? Are you suggesting that we do not have 3M+ Muslim Americans, many native born? Offline
Posts: 2442
Ramyrez said: » eliroo said: » All of those only applied to things outside of the US such as other nations and immigration. These are all heavily nationalistic views which center around coming together as an independent country. Excuse me? Are you suggesting that we do not have 3M+ Muslim Americans, many native born? Where did he implicate that national born Muslims were a threat to the US? DT said: » When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists His entire statement was always idiotic. Completely idiotic. Mexico isn't "sending" people as a country. They're not emptying their prisons bare and dropping them off on the Rio Grande. They're people attempting to get here to make a better life for themselves. But instead, Trump suggests that they're predominantly criminals with a few good people maybe sprinkled in rather than the complete inverse being the case. Donald Trump is us vs. them. His entire campaign is hedged upon a traditional American sense of nationalism. Which by its very nature is divisive when we as a people don't even agree on what those shared American values are. Offline
Posts: 2442
Ramyrez said: » DT said: » When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists His entire statement was always idiotic. Completely idiotic. Mexico isn't "sending" people as a country. They're not emptying their prisons bare and dropping them off on the Rio Grande. They're people attempting to get here to make a better life for themselves. But instead, Trump suggests that they're predominantly criminals with a few good people maybe sprinkled in rather than the complete inverse being the case. Donald Trump is us vs. them. His entire campaign is hedged upon a traditional American sense of nationalism. Which by its very nature is divisive when we as a people don't even agree on what those shared American values are. We aren't discussing the validity of his statements, the fact is that he was referring to illegal immigrants in that very statement not the legal ones current living here. I agree that the statement is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE but that isn't the point I'm making. I do not agree with his statement but he was never about division and that is the point I'm making. The media made him about division. Media biased against Trump for repeating his own words.
eliroo said: » The only argument that can be made his division from other nations such as the wall with Mexico, his talks on NAFTA and the TPP, his plan to pull out of the paris accord, his plan to stop funding Syrian rebels and support their government instead. But those are NOT the people voting for him. You just listed 5 divisive Trump platforms (while missing a few). You wish to omit 1, but its included in your list. Soooo this argument is not working for you. The media did not shape the Trump platform. These are the things that Trump ran on. eliroo said: » Where did he implicate that national born Muslims were a threat to the US? At least a year ago. During the primaries he was calling for Muslim registries broadly. Not simply "incoming from foreign countries," as if that weren't bad enough. From the NYT almost a year ago today (11/20/15) Quote: Donald J. Trump, who earlier in the week said he was open to requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a database, said on Thursday night that he “would certainly implement that — absolutely.” Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’ When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’ Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question. Lets not forget about his anti-NATO/collaborate with Russia platform (which the Senate has promised to investigate). Totally not divisive.
Offline
Posts: 2442
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Media biased against Trump for repeating his own words. Yup Pleebo because there is no difference between these two statements: "Most illegal immigrants are rapist" and "All Mexicans are rapist" Viciouss said: » You just listed 5 divisive Trump platforms (while missing a few). You wish to omit 1, but its included in your list. Soooo this argument is not working for you. The media did not shape the Trump platform. These are the things that Trump ran on. Let me quote my post to clarify (also your original post was discussing: Viciouss said: » I have no delusions about Trump winning the election, but he did lose the popular vote by the largest margin for a candidate that went on to the WH. And it wasn't because of millions of occurrences of voter fraud. He ran on a platform of division and thats what he got. You are referring to American votes here, foreign countries DO not vote in our elections Quote: The only argument that can be made his division from other nations such as the wall with Mexico, his talks on NAFTA and the TPP, his plan to pull out of the paris accord, his plan to stop funding Syrian rebels and support their government instead. But those are NOT the people voting for him. Please don't perverse your argument to circle jerk over my point. His platform was never country division which is why your statement is correct. But as usual, when your only source of information is leftist media then you will believe whatever they tell you. I wasn't unspecific.
I suspect there are probably million(S) of illegal alien votes in the popular vote totals. I suspect this because there isn't much preventing illegal people from voting in the first place. If we want to argue about something else, I also suspect that many democrat votes were otherwise fraudulent. The dead vote and they vote democrat. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » I make up my own fantasies and believe in them firmly. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Media biased against Trump for repeating his own words. Taking someone's words out of context is in fact an example of media bias. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|