But that's how you're presenting it because it's you framing a bad faith argument.
All that shit you posted below is the byproduct of exactly what I've been talking about; the Conservative propaganda effort over the last 40 years to undermine faith in democratic institutions in order to break them up and sell them off to their rich friends.
So I'm not sure what you think you're proving by posting those links other than that propaganda is successful.
If you think government is institutionally flawed, then don't participate in the political process.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Welcome to the conversation.
Mueller didn't say that.now add in the fact there was no Russian collusion
If there was no collusion with Russia, why did the RNC change its platform during the convention to pro-Russia, and why did Manafort share polling data with Kilimnik for months?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
PAYBACK for Izraeli election interference, dumbasses.Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/w...l-capital.html
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
First of all, the results of 2016 are in doubt now because we know that Russia hacked into the voting systems of every single state, and only Rosenstein's assurance nothing was changed is all anyone is going on.
We don't know if they changed vote totals, and we can't trust Rosenstein. So it stands to reason they would have changed the totals because why hack election systems if your intent wasn't to screw with them?
Oh, so you have a scientific study you can produce that shows propaganda only affects a very small percentage of voters? No? Oh, so you're just substituting a bad faith assertion in order to retcon your shitty argument. From what study are you basing this conclusion that propaganda only affects a small percentage of voters? What percentage? How many? And would 100,000 total voters be the "small percentage" affected? That was Trump's total margin in the states he won in the Midwest, BTW. 100,000 voters...so wouldn't 100,000 be a "small percentage"?There is that literal mindset again. It affects a very small percentage of voters.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Truth Detector (08-15-2019)
Truth Detector (08-15-2019)
So before, you laughed off propaganda affecting anyone's choice.
Now you're saying it does affect the choice, but for "a small percentage of voters".
Well, Trump won those three midwest states by a total margin of 100,000 votes. Would 100,000 voters qualify as "a small percentage of voters"?
So now that we are taking your post through to its conclusion, you are admitting that Russian propaganda did sway the election to Trump because you said yourself that "a small percentage of voters" are affected by propaganda.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Truth Detector (08-15-2019)
Nope. By October/November 2020, liberals had galvanized behind Clinton...as she won 3 million more votes than Trump.
Yeah, but Trump won...Clinton didn't...and Trump won by a total of 100,000 votes across three states, all of which were targeted by Russian propaganda efforts as detailed in the Mueller Report you still haven't read.It was because Drumpf and Clinton both had negative ratings meaning a majority of voters did not like either one of them.
You said in literally one post ago that propaganda "affects a small percentage of voters" (and you made that assertion with no evidence to support yourself...just your shitty judgment and poor instincts)...well, would 100,000 voters be "a small percentage of voters"? And did those 100,000 voters prove pivotal in choosing the President?
So the only conclusion you can come to us that Russian propaganda got Trump elected because it swayed the minds of "a small percentage of voters" big enough to make the difference.
So why are you arguing with me that Russia didn't change anyone's vote, even after you admit that propaganda does affect voters, albeit "a small percentage", but a percentage big enough to affect the outcome?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Here's the winding path your argument has gone:
1. Russia didn't change anyone's minds.
2. Propaganda isn't effective.
3. OK, propaganda is effective, but only for a small percentage of voters.
4. OK, a small percentage of voters were pivotal in the 2016 election, but that small percentage of voters who put Trump over the top weren't the small percentage of voters I was talking about who were susceptible to propaganda.
So...if propaganda is effective enough to change the minds of "a small percentage of voters", why wouldn't the Russian propaganda about Clinton have affected the 100,000 voters across three states Trump needed to flip in order to win?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Bookmarks