Without time to constantly follow the story, I've been checking into the Trump investigation for periodic updates. So far, it ebbs and flows with what new revelations say about collusion.
But what is becoming apparent is that whether Trump is guilty or not is not even the real meat of this story. The ease with which access to public opinion could be pretty damning, but that just shows how important it will be to improve security in these social media players if they're going to continue to be part of our everyday lives.
What's most startling is that they may have entered a campaign with strict and deliberate intent on how to engage in public manipulation. You notice that the themes they were attempting to use are the very same ones constantly being echoed, still, to this day, that have won Trump his mass of supporters.
Examples:
Obama's approach to the Middle East, including supporting Arab Spring, as well as support for the Iran nuclear deal
It's been revealed that the Crown Princes of the UAE & Saudi Arabia were entering into support for a company that would be setup to create thousands of fake FB accounts that could spread manipulative information based on user data and sway opinion in favor of Trump. The reason is expected to be the ruler's dismay about how their enemy, Iran, having been given a potential cash windfall, and the uprisings, probably receding their power.
With Trump pulling out of the nuclear deal it looks like an early win for Saudi and UAE. With Trump's military budget increases we might see a stronger position in the Middle East, too.
Hillary Clinton's hitch to Obama and the Trump campaign calling her babsically evil
Clinton was viewed as weak as Sec of State in the Middle East and would continue to be in this position post Obama. They wanted someone in office who may be a stronger hand.
Of course, the attacks on Hillary were vicious from Trump's mouth. He called her "cooked" while his team was covertly entering into these types of political maneuvers. He also coined the term "fake news", while also pursuing this heavy handed campaign blitz online with FAKE accounts to push his positions clear into the minds of millions of online posters.
Obviously, some might say, "the campaign was just pushing the real truth that the #fakenews #lyingmedia wouldn't tell," but, it's still obvious how duplicitous and insidious it all was. What should be noted as interesting is Hillary probably had similar political tricks, such as timing the release of the Billy Bush, "grab em" leak. The only thing is, she pegged her strategy to people loving the idea of a woman vs a womanizer, without realizing the real battle was online in public manipulation--a sort of, micro campaigning on how "bad" the previous administration had been. I know I wasn't particularly eager to see a woman president. I didn't think the Obama administration was horrible either, though.
It's. Just. Startling. How easy people are manipulated. To this day, people talk about Middle East failures as the main issue with the Obama administration.
Thoughts?
Hey iBankedUp, I'm here to break the silence...any of these links help you?:
No promises, but maybe one of our professional members will share their wisdom: DetRustCohle mcr180608 CornBeggar
Fingers crossed that one of those helps you.
Why even follow it? Doesn't matter what I think or if I know about it. I agree people are easily manipulated though.
Paging @TNA"
Go Caps!
His fucking campaign manager was indicted, along with his personal attorney and multiple other members of the campaign....what the hell are you talking "nowhere".
Anyway, so what is the answer from "between the coasts", because all I see are state like Oklahoma who elect guys like Brownback, cut corporate taxes and regulations to nothing, and then suddenly are surprised when they can't afford basic services like schools and infrastructure. OH! and suddenly there are earthquakes because they despise "east coast elite science" which pointed to how fracking clearly causes earthquakes.
I've given up on this investigation holding substantial weight a while ago. It's still interesting when new findings come out. But, I agree I don't know if people find it to be of high importance.
What's interesting about it, is this revelation that he's manipulating the public, but also doing so within the closed walls of the Fox News silo. If you look at his tweets, one of the top topics is Fox News even though the number one topic is #Fake News, while the subject matter on Fox is mostly positive, contrary to how he likes to generally portray the rest of the media. He's talking about Fox not because it's just his source of news, it's because it's the main source he feels agree with his own views.
His language is reflective of what's on Fox, which is also reflective of a segment of the general population, so they're all in an amplified circle of exchange, not to engage in discourse, but to agree with each other like old pals. By Trump being another one of the good ole boy camp, he has strong support whether he does anything or not. The Obama rhetoric is part of that, because Obama has been a target for such a long time since the birther crisis. But it doesn't make it real, unless you consider saying it enough times as equivalent with truth.
Just one example, because I want to establish what I mean.
Obama is called "the drone" president and is credited with mass civilian deaths. What is true is Obama built on a program implemented by his predecessor.
He's called being soft on countries in the ME, do nothing president, yet that directly contradicts the other thing they're saying. Also, he's increased the number of strikes ten-fold from his predecessor.
He's called out as being a criminal for the deaths of civilians. But if you compare the numbers to Bush, he's much more efficient. Obama is reported to have killed less than 10% civilians of reported deaths in his program. Bush is responsible for nearly 66% in his program.
He's also called a liar, with no credit for providing all relevant documents, like his birth certificate, to prove the contrary, while Trump has not even provided a traditional tax return. When Bush used drone strikes, he did not care to admit it for fear of its controversy, something Obama did not shy away from.
All I'm pointing out is that, Trump is exactly a master of manipulation. Since none of what he says is 100% accurate, you'd think people would take it with a grain of sand and focus more on issues, versus this undying loyalty, this chalking up premature successes, this excusable double standard--by taking a revisionist approach to Obama, while also declaring then retrenching on Trump.
We're lucky to live in a democracy where separation of powers exists, because it's scary to think what would've happened on Trump's supporters' watch. I used to call myself a conservative, moderate, right of center person. Now, I don't care to go by any of that too seriously. I didn't particularly think Obama was great, but I'll take a moderate over an extremist in most cases.
Over 100 criminal counts filed 3 Russian companies under prosecution 19 people charged 5 have already pled guilty Multiple have flipped and are now working with Mueller (who is a lifelong Republican) Trump's Twitter feed has gone apocalyptic cause he knows the walls are closing in, and there's nothing he can do about it besides obstruct and mislead.
We're only a year into the investigation. (Watergate took 4 years; Whitewater 7+)
Just because Trump lies to the American people about every single thing, doesn't mean you have to believe him. I've got a unopened bottle of 12-year Pappy waiting for the night I watch Kushner, Flynn, and Don Jr. walk into Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.
Guilty of what? Collusion? No. Hacking? Neither. Obstruction of law? Not even that one. They pleaded guilty to crimes that do not lead to any of the above, nor whatever liberals can come up to justify the fact that they lost an election they thought they couldn't lose.
Let's be clear here: they lost to self-proclaimed shitposters from 4chan, basement dwellers, ''losers''. And it's so embarassing that they are trying to paint a bunch of millennials with too much free time as an ingenious ''Russian conspiracy'', because at least they wouldn't look as dumb as they actually are.
It's also hilarious that ''fake news'' was another one of the Democrats excuses for their incompetence and now OP is whining because it backfired to the point that Democrat leaning media get called fake news. Democrats fucked it up. Again. You started this ''fake news'' accusations.
No, I think the Trump campaign was doing what every presidential campaign does. I think a lot of people are upset this time because their horse lost what they were told was a sure thing (NYT 85%, HuffPo 98%).
I don't know what to make of the investigation. I could see it going anywhere from being a totally corrupt push to try to undermine Trump to Trump's campaign knowingly working with the Russians to get him elected.
I do find the media coverage of events pretty pathetic. We've gotten to the point that it's all about clicks, ratings, and reaffirming people so they keep coming back for more. Objective journalism is, for the most part, gone.
Most liberals I know don't even care about CNN, MSNBC, NYT, HuffPo, WaPo, and others pushing their agenda, they just say, "but Fox!" Okay, we all know Fox is to the right, but to ignore the numerous lefty news outlets who claim to be "unbiased" is the result of either ignorance or denial.
This is an interesting study comparing the coverage of Trump's first 100 days to other presidents, and I think it's consistent with his campaign and presidency so far.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-cover…
"The study found that in Trump's first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.
CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive."
"While Trump's 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.
So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study."
What a shocker, the democrat gets glowing reviews.
I think what this shows is that Trump received consistent negative coverage. Which, his activities being so unorthodox, might've being causal. Can't blame the media for covering what Trump does, although it's also apparent that certain outlets are more favorable to Trump than others.
The Obama piece is pretty interesting, especially with respect to Clinton. It doesn't seem to be a dem thing at all. I can see why people like to view the man negatively because its counter to MSM, I guess..
"Can't blame the media for covering what Trump does, although it's also apparent that certain outlets are more favorable to Trump than others."
^No one is blaming the media for covering Trump. In fact, I think many people, myself included, would say quite the opposite, that they cover him too much. And I think it would be more accurate to emphasize that outlets being negative is more typical than being neutral/positive.
The study did mention that the media often counters critics who say they are overly negative by saying, "we're just reporting on what he does." Well, there are at least two sides to every event. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's bad. Some liberals I know, and probably several media outlets, seem to be having a hard time realizing that there's a new President and he is under no obligation to continue Obama's style. In fact, I'd say if people wanted a continuation of Obama's presidency, Hillary would be President.
Personally, I don't dislike Obama like a lot of my fellow conservatives do. I disagree with him on quite a few things. But he's a pretty smart dude.
This study is so garbage. Let's look at those First 100 Days, shall we...
Day 1 - Trump is still tweeting like a moronic angsty teenager, leaving those who predicted he'd shape up looking stupid, and the rest of us feeling panicked.
Week 1 - Countless reports of the Trump team being completely unprepared for the transition and severely understaffed
Day 7 - Trump bans admissions from Muslim countries with no advance notice on a Friday night, causing chaos at airports across the country
Day 8 - Puts alt-right ally Steve Bannon, who has openly called for wars against Iran and China as "needed cleansing" on the Homeland Security Council in an unprecedented move
Day 17 - Senate confirms Betsy Davos, the least qualified member of a Cabinet full of unqualified cronies
Day 23 - Michael Flynn resigns in disgrace after less than a month in office, the shortest tenure for a National Security Advisor in history
You get the idea. I'm shocked, SHOCKED these stories were covered with a negative tone!
There's at least two sides to every story. I can see you are clearly not a fan of Trump, which is fine. But I'd encourage you to see where the other side is coming from. Just because a reporter disagrees, doesn't mean the story should be negative.
I will correct you on the "Muslim Ban," which is a misleading phrase pushed by the left. Trump placed a travel ban on countries identified by DHS, during the Obama administration, which were considered high-risk for terrorism.
So the last Democrat before Obama got 60-40 negative coverage...
...and your conclusion is that democrats get glowing reviews? I'm not going to deny that Obama had favorable coverage - he was also the first black President in history and ushered in an era of hope and excitement, from both Dems/GOP and black/white, that we desperately needed after the Great Recession. Even Trump's biggest sycophant has to admit that his "governing" style is erratic and well outside historical norms and expectations for the most powerful man in the world.
Qui consequuntur magnam illum similique molestias. Dignissimos natus rerum expedita sed quis delectus. Placeat autem qui adipisci est velit. Excepturi voluptatem non eum assumenda quam doloremque dolor.
Architecto ab quis voluptate doloribus blanditiis mollitia enim. Debitis numquam officia odio aut. Quam eius molestias tempora quas id. Inventore repellat error aut consectetur quisquam quia et. Unde consequatur et exercitationem id. Itaque praesentium libero dicta et. Voluptatibus consequatur sint quis architecto totam saepe.
Amet quis doloremque officiis aut quidem molestiae enim officia. Maxime aut ducimus provident.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...