• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,692
Location
Mincogan
Basic Beliefs
naturalist
If Russia caused Trump to win and Clinton to lose does that mean Americans are easily led?

How is it that Russia somehow controlled the result of the recent Presidential election, through hacking or lies or something equally bad.
How were Americans fooled by that...are they just not able to distinguish truth from fiction?

The Americans I know are independent thinkers , smart, and not easily duped, so I find it hard to understand how Russia was supposed to have some strange control over the country.
 
Last edited:
Americans are easily led.

Humans are easily led.

Thinking is hard; most people don't bother with it, instead choosing to trust someone else to do their thinking for them.

Just look at the shit people buy - "Free from BPA and Parabens", screams the label. Ask a thousand people who picked that one over the cheaper one next to it on the shelf, and nine hundred and ninety nine won't be able to tell you what 'BPA' stands for or what it does; or what a Paraben is, whether it's bad, or why they avoid it.

But they will try to avoid these things, because they trust the label. The label wouldn't claim the product was free of things that were harmless, would it? Even though by doing so, it makes someone richer than they otherwise would have been. And obviously nobody misleads people in order to make money. Obviously. :rolleyes:

Humans are very easily duped. Americans are no exception in this regard.

ETA: It doesn't matter whether or not BPA or Parabens actually are harmful; the fact remains that people believe that they are based on utterly inadequate and untrustworthy evidence, and not because of any actual thought on their part.

Humans trust slogans, memes, tall people, handsome people, and men with deep voices; but are deeply distrustful of science.

Humans are basically fucking idiots. A tiny handful are aware that they are idiots. None (present company included) think hard about everything they do, when trusting someone for bad reasons is an option.
 
Actually looking here...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-may-24-2017.html
Only 30% of people polled think Russia influenced the election a lot and 14% a little.

But they might be Fox people. I think it's closer to 90% of people around here :p

But, my god!..how can we stop Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA. It seems people are powerless in the face of this mighty Russian threat!
 
Who here has said Russia is the cause?
 
Last edited:
If Russia caused Trump to win and Clinton to lose does that mean Americans are easily led?

How is it that Russia somehow controlled the result of the recent Presidential election, through hacking or lies or something equally bad.
How were Americans fooled by that...are they just not able to distinguish truth from fiction?

The Americans I know are independent thinkers , smart, and not easily duped, so I find it hard to understand how Russia was supposed to have some strange control over the country.

Many Americans in this respect are mistaking assumptions and accusations as facts.

So far there is no concrete evidence to conclusively demonstrate or on weight of evidence that Russia magically influenced the election or that Hillary ran a Brothel from a Pizza house.

Judging by the fact that any route the enquiries are taking are fed to the press, tends to be indicative of a weak case.

If anything it seems that the US media tried to influence the election, mostly supporting Clinton.

The US had an election in which Trump was not supposed to have won. Hillary blamed the FBI regarding an investigation into her emails, but Trump was also receiving negative publicity in the press.

- - - Updated - - -

Who here has said hi Russia is the cause?

One just has to accuse; that's the way propaganda works.
 
This is a comically defective induction even by historical standards. And then the appeal to a public opinion poll as if that's somehow relevant.

Is there another tainted batch of bath lotion going around?
 
One just has to accuse; that's the way propaganda works.

You should know. Your cult specifically trains followers in these tactics. Most people probably don't know that it's church policy to use them against whoever the authority says is an SP. Insinuation is only the beginning of official church harassment techniques.
 
So far there is no concrete evidence to conclusively demonstrate or on weight of evidence that Russia magically influenced the election or that Hillary ran a Brothel from a Pizza house.

Well they didn't "magically" influence the election, but the evidence is clear that they tried like hell to do so, and that the result was the one they were looking for.

I know that you and Will and Barbos and Tupac all think that Russia is our bestest buddy and would never do anything underhanded to try an undermine the US, but that's a pretty naive position to take. Russian espionage goes back as far as when we were actually allies in WWII if not further. Putin has been playing the long con since before he rode around with W in a pickup truck. The work that used to be done by Pravda is now being handled by bots and paid trolls, while the spy business has expanded to include hackers and useful idiots like Assange. And of course people who go out of their way to defend Putin free of charge on message boards and comment sections.

Sorry, but no amount of L Ron inspired bullshit is going to convince me that Vlad is just a misunderstood teddy bear.
 
One just has to accuse; that's the way propaganda works.

You should know. Your cult specifically trains followers in these tactics. Most people probably don't know that it's church policy to use them against whoever the authority says is an SP. Insinuation is only the beginning of official church harassment techniques.

I don't look at religion; I look at our history in law which the US and UK share. This relates to what I said. The legal way of proof, though different in structure of research is still evidence based. The Media hasn't demonstrated adherence to evidence based practices but of marketing.
 
So far there is no concrete evidence to conclusively demonstrate or on weight of evidence that Russia magically influenced the election or that Hillary ran a Brothel from a Pizza house.

Well they didn't "magically" influence the election, but the evidence is clear that they tried like hell to do so, and that the result was the one they were looking for.

I know that you and Will and Barbos and Tupac all think that Russia is our bestest buddy and would never do anything underhanded to try an undermine the US, but that's a pretty naive position to take. Russian espionage goes back as far as when we were actually allies in WWII if not further. Putin has been playing the long con since before he rode around with W in a pickup truck. The work that used to be done by Pravda is now being handled by bots and paid trolls, while the spy business has expanded to include hackers and useful idiots like Assange. And of course people who go out of their way to defend Putin free of charge on message boards and comment sections.

Sorry, but no amount of L Ron inspired bullshit is going to convince me that Vlad is just a misunderstood teddy bear.

B-a-a-a-h
Vlad is misunderstood. He doesn't get help from Hubbard since he is deceased.
The Americans, Russians and British all try to hack each other. It's an extension of spying. Look at all this ransom-ware. It was stolen from the NSA/

All the bleating doesn't detract from the fact that there is no concrete evidence to prove anything about Trump, Clinton anyone else.
 
If Russia caused Trump to win and Clinton to lose does that mean Americans are easily led?

How is it that Russia somehow controlled the result of the recent Presidential election, through hacking or lies or something equally bad.
How were Americans fooled by that...are they just not able to distinguish truth from fiction?

The Americans I know are independent thinkers , smart, and not easily duped, so I find it hard to understand how Russia was supposed to have some strange control over the country.

It's these kind of questions that make it repeatedly necessary to question your sincerity (and other Trump supporters) in asking it.

When you speak of people being easily led, one technique of the people that seek to do the leading of the gullible is to replace nuanced, complex answers with easy, pithy comments, just like you have done here. Another way is to misrepresent your opponent's criticism in order to nullify it, again as you have done here.

How is it that Russia somehow controlled the result of the recent Presidential election, through hacking or lies or something equally bad.

Your attempt at misrepresentation both here and in other threads has been explained to you multiple times, yet you continue to ask this question. Why are you continuously asking the same question and expecting a different result?

We all now live within a pretty new world with regards to social media and it's ramifications aren't as of yet fully understood. Think about social media for a minute. A world wide telecommunications web where the main source of revenue is advertisement. We now live in a world of apps and devices purposely and skillfully designed to hold onto your attention as long as possible in order to sell you more stuff. Whereas before one could advertise to a mass audience, now one can specifically target the type of person most vulnerable to manipulation, and selectively target their fears and desires, without offending others that would find such topics objectionable - thus shutting down public discussion. We now have companies with powerful analysis and expert systems that can from our internet history, posting on social media, and other factors glean quite a lot of information about you, your likely views, opinions, politics, even your mental state. Today's expert systems can even tell when someone that's depressed or bipolar, etc. is entering a manic state. Think about what that means for a moment. These algorithms are quite accurate about us. Think about what one could do with such information on a massive scale. Now obviously it isn't only the Russians working on this type of stuff, in fact it's American companies that are pioneers of this type of technology. I mention this because, put simply, we are all being manipulated more strongly and more surgically, than ever before - and it's being done out in the open and we all consent to it with every EULA where we click "agree". This is now the world where we live, and we know that the Trump campaign spent a historic amount of their campaign dollars on Facebook ads, targeting specific people. Only the Trump campaign and Facebook knows what those were, if they were factually accurate and so on, but this is where we are today.

Now, you may continue to remain skeptical of American intelligence services, but they have all come to the conclusion, along with the various other intelligence services of other nations, that Russian linked hackers broke into DNC computers and revealed many, many gigabytes of information from only ONE side of a two sided campaign. Remember, these are the same Americans you call
independent thinkers , smart, and not easily duped
In fact, they're specifically trained to be so. We also know that when you release gigs and gigs of internal emails from ANY source, one will easily be able to find and mine negative looking material from it. Much like Climate gate, etc. We also know that Russian hackers in large numbers, sowed dissent, and created an illusion of numbers, and fostered false information through the use of bots, troll armies, and ironically, actual fake news and conspiracy stories. One source on that here among many. I personally witnessed this happen in real time on Twitter and Reddit. It is often mentioned by Trump supporters that the media was favorable to Clinton. They descended on the wiki-leaks with ferocity and ratings driven profit motive, with hardly a thought to dropping all these details from only one side of a two sided campaign, and what that would mean for people's points of view. Also, Russia has a history of interfering in the elections of other countries in order to give themselves a more favorable position on the world's political stage. (Before you run off half cocked, allow me to mention that YES the US has also tried to influence elections of foreign countries for it's own purposes as well. As my mama used to say. "Two wrongs don't make a right.") Finally, we also know that Trump won the electoral vote by a thin margin of what amounts to the population of a moderate sized city.


How were Americans fooled by that...are they just not able to distinguish truth from fiction?

Are you seriously asking this on a skeptic's board? Really? Do you think this is some sort of "gotcha"? Do you think that our blind patriotism to our country will catch us in a "does not compute" Will Robinson type moment? How incredibly stupid is this argument? I'll spell it out for you here, in all caps so you understand. OF FUCKING COURSE AMERICANS OVERALL ARE EASILY LED! SO ARE HUMANS EVERYWHERE! :rolleyesa: <---- Here is a "roll eyes" emoji, further signifying my contempt at such a lame brained question.

What's your next move? To tell us once again that we made this whole thing up to cover our embarrassment at losing an election we should have won? Let me save you the trouble. Clinton was 1) A horrible choice for a candidate. 2) Awful at running campaigns. 3) The democrats are a disorganized mess that have lost touch with the poor and working class and are to in bed with wall street - and people are sick of it.

There are many reasons why the election turned out as it did. We are now investigating the matter of the Trump campaign colluding with the attempt made by the Russians to influence this campaign. This is an important question, and put simply, while you may deny it, things aren't looking too good in Trumptopia. Many, many of the mainstream press bombshells revealed in the last several months are bearing fruit. Personally, I don't know if there was active collusion by the Trump campaign. Although Trump certainly benefited from it, the Russians certainly didn't need Trump's help to pull off what they did. If Trump's administration didn't actively participate, fine. There are plenty, plenty PLENTY of other reasons to want to remove this orange asshat from office, and to look for illegal behavior.
 
You should know. Your cult specifically trains followers in these tactics. Most people probably don't know that it's church policy to use them against whoever the authority says is an SP. Insinuation is only the beginning of official church harassment techniques.

I don't look at religion; I look at our history in law which the US and UK share. This relates to what I said. The legal way of proof, though different in structure of research is still evidence based. The Media hasn't demonstrated adherence to evidence based practices but of marketing.

Is there not have a discovery process in the UK? Do people just show up to court, pick a number, wait in line, and start talking when the judge calls them in? In a criminal case, do the prosecutors and defense attorneys do the same? They just show up without ever speaking to each other and bring in truckloads of files, while the other lawyer hears all of the evidence for the first time right then and there?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

Anyway, as to the OP, Russia's ability to influence a lot of gullible people didn't happen in a vacuum. There's been over 3 decades of far right wing, daily bombardment on radio and TV that's brought us to this point. From the moment one wakes up, until they go to sleep at night, this tidal wave of mindless rage, mischaracterization, and flat out fabrication washes over their eyes and ears. It's now to the point where tens of millions will believe anything they're told over the airwaves. This has also worked to solidify the not so stupid into voting lockstep with their party.

There are more center and left of center people in the U.S. than there are conservatives. The numbers don't lie. But because conservatives vote in lockstep; no matter who the guy with "R" next to his name is, that's who they vote for. Therefore, they generally don't have to worry about votes being siphoned off by third parties to the extent Democrats do. Look no further than this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

The bottom line in the article is that the number of votes received by Jill Stein in the states that won the election for Trump, was larger than Trump's margin of victory. The people that voted for Stein would have never voted for Trump. And who did Stein attack? She attacked Clinton, not Trump. So fuck her for that.

The utter dedication to party on the part of conservatives doesn't exist to the extent it does with everyone else. It's what got Bush II elected and it's what got Trump elected.

The Russian role in this was to take advantage of that. Was it the primary cause of Trump's win? No. But absent the massive Russian effort to influence the outcome, I don't think Trump is POTUS today. When taken with everything else, it was the final thing that put him over the top.
 
Americans are indeed easily led. Remember Iraq WMD? No, how about Ronnie Raygun?
 
[

All the bleating doesn't detract from the fact that there is no concrete evidence to prove anything about Trump, Clinton anyone else.

Every time you try to whine or distract about Russian evidence you mischaracterize it too. At this point you have been corrected so many times I must insist that you are being deliberately deceptive. There is no conclusive evidence of Russian hacking to influence this most recent election. But there is plenty of actual, physical, concrete evidence of Russiaian hacking to influence this most recent election.
 
I don't look at religion; I look at our history in law which the US and UK share. This relates to what I said. The legal way of proof, though different in structure of research is still evidence based. The Media hasn't demonstrated adherence to evidence based practices but of marketing.

Is there not have a discovery process in the UK? Do people just show up to court, pick a number, wait in line, and start talking when the judge calls them in? In a criminal case, do the prosecutors and defense attorneys do the same? They just show up without ever speaking to each other and bring in truckloads of files, while the other lawyer hears all of the evidence for the first time right then and there?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

Anyway, as to the OP, Russia's ability to influence a lot of gullible people didn't happen in a vacuum. There's been over 3 decades of far right wing, daily bombardment on radio and TV that's brought us to this point. From the moment one wakes up, until they go to sleep at night, this tidal wave of mindless rage, mischaracterization, and flat out fabrication washes over their eyes and ears. It's now to the point where tens of millions will believe anything they're told over the airwaves. This has also worked to solidify the not so stupid into voting lockstep with their party.

There are more center and left of center people in the U.S. than there are conservatives. The numbers don't lie. But because conservatives vote in lockstep; no matter who the guy with "R" next to his name is, that's who they vote for. Therefore, they generally don't have to worry about votes being siphoned off by third parties to the extent Democrats do. Look no further than this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

The bottom line in the article is that the number of votes received by Jill Stein in the states that won the election for Trump, was larger than Trump's margin of victory. The people that voted for Stein would have never voted for Trump. And who did Stein attack? She attacked Clinton, not Trump. So fuck her for that.

The utter dedication to party on the part of conservatives doesn't exist to the extent it does with everyone else. It's what got Bush II elected and it's what got Trump elected.

The Russian role in this was to take advantage of that. Was it the primary cause of Trump's win? No. But absent the massive Russian effort to influence the outcome, I don't think Trump is POTUS today. When taken with everything else, it was the final thing that put him over the top.

There is an investigation process as you said. In this instance there could be several lines of searching into reports claims and hunches.

There seems to be media which spans from right of centre to left of centre.
Fringes also have a smaller media but work at a grass roots level.

It is going to prove how Russia influenced the election in order to establish that Russia did.
 
It's these kind of questions that make it repeatedly necessary to question your sincerity (and other Trump supporters) in asking it.
.
Are you sincere? I don't believe so. I have repeatedly said I am not a Trump supporter, and the fact you never quote me saying as much indicates that you don't really care about what is true,
All I ever said on this forum was that I preferred what he said about his foreign policy when compared to Hillary Clintons record on foreign policy. I also repeatedly said I liked Sanders the most. For some reason you (and others here) appear to have been so incensed, so angry I dared to criticise Hillary Clinton, that somehow that made me a Trump supporter. :rolleyes:
Do you think you could stop being a hypocrite? Is that too much to ask?

Now, you may continue to remain skeptical of American intelligence services, but they have all come to the conclusion,

As an Australian I don't want our country to follow foolish Americans who think their intelligence agencies tell them the truth and who think they are exceptional and special and can invade and bomb other countries and topple regimes on the basis of the lies their intelligence agencies tell them
 
Last edited:
[

All the bleating doesn't detract from the fact that there is no concrete evidence to prove anything about Trump, Clinton anyone else.

Every time you try to whine or distract about Russian evidence you mischaracterize it too. At this point you have been corrected so many times I must insist that you are being deliberately deceptive. There is no conclusive evidence of Russian hacking to influence this most recent election. But there is plenty of actual, physical, concrete evidence of Russiaian hacking to influence this most recent election.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack.We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof. Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly. Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.
 
But, my god!..how can we stop Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA. It seems people are powerless in the face of this mighty Russian threat!
Well, here's an idea, I know this is way the heck out on the wishful thinking limb here, but what say we have our political parties not try to rig our primaries? Then when inevitably somebody hacks their emails it won't be quite so embarrassing.

Okay, sure, that's never going to happen, fine; here's Plan B. If you're a party official whose role is supposed to be neutral but you're conspiring to undermine Bernie Sanders anyway, then, to heroically save America from Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA, how about you have the wit to do your conspiring over the phone instead of by email?
 
Back
Top Bottom