Definitely. I don't get how not one of his advisors have said to him "maybe you shouldn't tweet so much." I liked him as a candidate under the assumption that his reality star antics would turn into a presidential state of mind. They haven't and it's definitely worrisome. Does he not realize how weak it makes him look?
Ok, but what specific stories are you referring to? How many were there? What did they say, exactly? And, more importantly, what specific evidence do you have that these stories actually had a tangible impact on how people voted?
his advisors probably have told him not to tweet because it makes him look pathetic. But Donald Trump is going to Donald Trump. That's the whole point, he's a reality TV star, not a President. Not to pick on you for thinking he would change, but the guy has never changed. He's been nothing but the trashy reality TV type his entire life. Why would he change when people elected him president doing that?
Naw, no one would ever believe fake internet news, especially in North Carolina: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/index.html Ron
But, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I'll write it again: I'm looking for specific examples of "fake" news stories that the preponderance of evidence suggests were: A) Planted by Russian authorities and B) Had the potential to influence a significant number of voters (presumably, this could be quantified by statistics such as how many people actually clicked on the link, etc.)
Fake news was everywhere this election cycle and still is everywhere. Grabbing examples of that and its potential is easy. The problem is your question (A) - tracing it back to the Russians. Its difficult because tracing any online story directly back to the guy writing it with "cheeto fingers" in his garage is difficult. It's especially difficult when that guy would presumably want to hide that he's trying to influence an election for the Kremlin. Good luck with that. -- But the fake news stuff is scary. At Stanford they recently ran a study on young people, giving them a crap load of fake nonsense with real stories. https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive Summary 11.21.16.pdf It was truly astonishing how poorly these people scored. Even most of the students they studied at Stanford, one of the most prestigious universities, struggled with deciphering actual reports from biased content written by activist groups. The researchers concluded --- "they didn't ask where it came from. They didn't verify it. They simply accepted [it] as fact." In their final conclusion they noted: "Many assume that because young people are fluent in social media they are equally savvy about what they find there," the researchers wrote. "Our work shows the opposite." Now if young people are the ones more fluent in social media and struggle mightily with fake news on social media, you know old(er) people like myself and older geezers would be even worse. It's a dark joke but its true - "20 years ago our parents said 'Don't trust anything you read on the internet!' now our parents are hitting us with ...... 'I read on www.scarymonkey69.co that Hillary Clinton kills babies. Don't vote for her!!" -- And this fake news stuff absolutely has potential to influence a significant number of voters to answer your question. The fake article "FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE" by the Denver Guardian was completely fake and it was shared over a half a million times, 100 shares per minute! on Facebook.http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/05/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-denver-guardian/ --- So, there is huge potential! You have a society unable to decipher real news from fake news, and the ability to easily share fake news like wildfire while keeping your identity hidden. You don't have to believe foreign influences like the Russians were involved in this type of activity, but it would absolutely be easy for them to do so, and seeing as how Russia has used fake news propaganda on their own citizens before, its a definite possibility and worth looking into.
Ok, but none of this directly addresses the issue I am poking fun at. We have liberals openly blaming the election results on nefarious, mysterious, and spooky sounding "Russian interference," without specifically citing direct, clear, and unassailable evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, these same people are ignoring major flaws in both the candidate that their party nominated as well as the shallow, baseless identity politics that have grown to shape and scope their core message. For the record, I don't completely disagree with the bolded paragraph. I do think there is potential for such a thing. But, can we focus on the obvious, homegrown reasons for the widespread repudiation of liberal politics this election cycle, at least, you now, until we actually get some evidence that the Russians had a significant impact?
Also, I would argue that, by in large, the national news media was so decisively and unapologetically in the tank for Hillary, that the net sum of their reports was equivalent to some quantifiable amount of "fake news."
Well, for one thing, I probably should have been more careful in my writing, since what I truly believe was repudiated was the phony, intellectually dishonest, politically-correct, liberal outrage over any insensitive statement that anyone ever makes about anyone . . . ever. However, on a larger scale, I think this directly ties in with the left's insane obsession with race, gender, and social identity groups . . . what I broadly termed above as "identity politics." However, to answer your question, my comment was based on the fact that, despite many pre-election predictions to the contrary, republicans control the house, senate, presidency, a majority of the Governorships, and an overwhelming majority of the state legislatures. Trump won 30 states and over 80 percent of all counties. I think liberals in this country have a lot of soul-searching to do. I think their position on illegal immigration is preposterous and indefensible. (I believe, deep down, most liberals know this) I think their insistence that we enthusiastically accept thousands upon thousands of Muslim Syrian refugees into our country, without a long pause to comprehensively overhaul our vetting and security measures, is intellectually dishonest at best, and more likely, just plain delusional. (The fact that they have the unmitigated gall to make anyone who isn't in favor of such an extreme position out to be a bigot really pisses me the fuck off) And, just so we are clear, I'm a black, Puerto Rican who grew up 10 miles from Manhattan. I'm pro choice (In fact, I'm pro late-term abortions). I'm pro gay rights (vehemently so). I'm pro marijuana legalization. I'm an atheist who has little regard for the Christian right. I'm in favor of gun-restrictions on assault rifles. I think people who deny climate change are either ignorant, lying, or both (including Trump).
The Republicans control the government because of the way the election process is structured, not because most Americans agree with their politics. On the other hand, the fact that the Democrats lost despite the opportunity to run against a blowhard says something pretty bad about their platform. As for me, I voted Democrat because I think Trumpism is more dangerous than and lax national security and stupid identity politics. And little Trump has done since winning has made me feel better about him. But I agree the Democrats need to get their shit together by focusing on economic issues that really matter and pulling away from Wall Street money and the PC police.
