General Do you think Trump won the election?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Do you think Trump won the election?

  • Total voters
    37
kneeblock

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
What I'm most curious about is why still to this day people believe all politicians are corrupt, everyone who gets in is due to a rigged game, and that there are shadowy brokers who pull the puppet strings etc. But somehow a rich guy who's been a weasel his whole life ripping people off and talking at a 6th grade level in his public appearances was somehow the only honest man for whom democracy worked and the people wisely and proudly thrust him into office until the power brokers somehow wrested back control. Did the power brokers just hate Hillary more? Was some dark hand restraining them to let democracy prevail in 2016 but somehow in 2020 everything went back to how it was? Did they try to fix it then but screw up?

It seems like most believers in this conspiracy acknowledge that there is intercapitalist rivalry and one team sometimes triumphs over another when the billionaires are placing their bets. Instead of investing your faith in Trump as the one true honest billionaire dethroned by their chicanery, why not look at the tax breaks and deregulation those same billionaires enjoyed under Trump and are still getting under Biden? The contempt for elites is well placed, but there needs to be a stable definition of "elites" that isn't just about people the media covers that say things you dislike. A simple and time tested method is looking at the classes who have massive wealth and ownership of so many things our society depends on. Those folks are stealing elections and rigging policies in your local communities right now and you can actually do something about that today! It seems like the whole "game is rigged" narrative is mostly an excuse to sit home and do nothing besides complain when, as I've said many times, elections (especially national ones) are the smallest part of participating in a democracy. The game IS rigged, but it starts in your city or town and goes upwards from there, not the other way around. I lived in the same city as Trump for most of my life so I've never had any illusions about who he is or who he represents and I can assure you, it wasn't the people.
 
M

member 1013

Guest
kneeblock said:
What I'm most curious about is why still to this day people believe all politicians are corrupt, everyone who gets in is due to a rigged game, and that there are shadowy brokers who pull the puppet strings etc. But somehow a rich guy who's been a weasel his whole life ripping people off and talking at a 6th grade level in his public appearances was somehow the only honest man for whom democracy worked and the people wisely and proudly thrust him into office until the power brokers somehow wrested back control. Did the power brokers just hate Hillary more? Was some dark hand restraining them to let democracy prevail in 2016 but somehow in 2020 everything went back to how it was? Did they try to fix it then but screw up?

It seems like most believers in this conspiracy acknowledge that there is intercapitalist rivalry and one team sometimes triumphs over another when the billionaires are placing their bets. Instead of investing your faith in Trump as the one true honest billionaire dethroned by their chicanery, why not look at the tax breaks and deregulation those same billionaires enjoyed under Trump and are still getting under Biden? The contempt for elites is well placed, but there needs to be a stable definition of "elites" that isn't just about people the media covers that say things you dislike. A simple and time tested method is looking at the classes who have massive wealth and ownership of so many things our society depends on. Those folks are stealing elections and rigging policies in your local communities right now and you can actually do something about that today! It seems like the whole "game is rigged" narrative is mostly an excuse to sit home and do nothing besides complain when, as I've said many times, elections (especially national ones) are the smallest part of participating in a democracy. The game IS rigged, but it starts in your city or town and goes upwards from there, not the other way around. I lived in the same city as Trump for most of my life so I've never had any illusions about who he is or who he represents and I can assure you, it wasn't the people.
Click to expand...
i will add to this a simple anecdote. he asked my company to bid on building trump tower toronto and he was told to kick rocks because he is a known conman in development circles

crazy to see so many people falling for his bullshit
 
Kingtony87

Kingtony87

Batman
Feb 2, 2016
6,515
8,902
I think the media establishment coming together admitting they collectively put their hands on the levers of the free flow of information absolutely corrupted the process. While not criminal, if this was lead from outside our country we would be absolutely incensed.
 
Hauler

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
45,566
57,916
Kingtony87 said:
I think the media establishment coming together admitting they collectively put their hands on the levers of the free flow of information absolutely corrupted the process. While not criminal, if this was lead from outside our country we would be absolutely incensed.
Click to expand...
The censorship was absolutely ridiculous. It was so biased I'm sure that's why many are claiming fraud.
 
John Lee Pettimore

John Lee Pettimore

Further south than you
May 18, 2021
6,302
6,762
Wild said:
Then you're an emotional dumbass.
Click to expand...
Come back with facts to back your stance that Trump won the election, instead of emotions.

Oops...... you can't.

Keep bleating about nonexistent fraud that even Trump's own advisors told him flat out does not exist.

??
 
kneeblock

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Kingtony87 said:
I think the media establishment coming together admitting they collectively put their hands on the levers of the free flow of information absolutely corrupted the process. While not criminal, if this was lead from outside our country we would be absolutely incensed.
Click to expand...
Foreign and domestic media use framing for and against candidates every day. In today's world we consume media from all over the world, even without meaning to. Literally every piece of media you consume at all times is shot through with ideology, but we don't notice much of it because it's what we take for "common sense." There are always biases in media that have to do with the way stories are framed. The order of stories, the way they basically cast political actors as characters, the types of opinion commentators, the way issues are described, all of it is how media organizations construct their version of reality, which is usually at least a partial reflection of their corporate ownership alongside whatever customs have become common in newsrooms and among creative teams.

Ideally a media company will balance their frames and in the case of social media, they'll not overmoderate or algorithmically limit content in one direction or another, but of course they do. Again, this is partially a function of their ownership and also part of the customs that develop in these corporations. In the case of both traditional and social media, research has consistently found that all media is less biased than it's perceived, but how much you accept that result depends on how your own personal mental map of the world interacts with the one being presented in a story's framing. Most political commentary on media focuses on framing and tries to contest the meaning of statements made by people covered by media like celebrities, politicians, corporate heads, etc. It's how they drive viewer interest and get clicks. Often this leads to overstatements of media bias to position political influencers as authentic information sources. But they aren't really any less biased of course. They just declare their biases up front, again as a play to authenticity.

But the bias seems to matter most when it comes to accuracy of information. Framing has been shown to have mostly minimal effects on changing someone's behavior, particularly voting behavior. Few minds change in elections and undecideds realistically swing elections much less than turnout of party faithful. So the media's framing biases impact what happens in an election much less than facts which generally inspire voter turnout. Most research of whether there is factual bias, that is, whether media tends to outright lie about what politicians said or did, has found very little across the ideological spectrum. FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN and others are remakably close when it comes to reporting facts. It's just the frame that differs.

Social media companies also tend to mostly be focused on removing slander, hate speech and unverifiable information in their content moderation, but in practice this has been shown by study after study to not punish any mainstream political group considerably more than any other. People on social platforms like YouTube lie with impunity every day for their favored political orientation and the decision making on who is shut down for it are often arbitrary and done by poorly organized and resourced teams. Some companies developed cogent policies but few properly invested in the now growing field of "trust and safety." So individuals in the media industries as a whole may have expressed personal desires for particular political outcomes, but they're not wizards and the public does have a mind of its own.

The question people should be asking themselves when they encounter such biased frames about elections is when else does the media use a frame? Are algorithms a frame? What frames are the people I like in media using to keep me as an audience member? Is what I'm consuming real and true or being framed that way to win me as an audience? What does the algorithm think I want when it shows me this story by this outlet? Why are they interviewing these people when they tell the story? Why did they choose to cover these events in this order? Why these ads/commercials? Who owns this company and what else are they into?
 
La Paix

La Paix

Fuck this place
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
38,273
64,597
Seeing multiple people from Trumps legal and campaign team go on record saying he lost and all his efforts in the courts failing how can somebody argue that they’re so sure he won? This seems like some faith bases shit that Kenneth Copeland cons people of
 
John Lee Pettimore

John Lee Pettimore

Further south than you
May 18, 2021
6,302
6,762
kneeblock said:
Foreign and domestic media use framing for and against candidates every day. In today's world we consume media from all over the world, even without meaning to. Literally every piece of media you consume at all times is shot through with ideology, but we don't notice much of it because it's what we take for "common sense." There are always biases in media that have to do with the way stories are framed. The order of stories, the way they basically cast political actors as characters, the types of opinion commentators, the way issues are described, all of it is how media organizations construct their version of reality, which is usually at least a partial reflection of their corporate ownership alongside whatever customs have become common in newsrooms and among creative teams.

Ideally a media company will balance their frames and in the case of social media, they'll not overmoderate or algorithmically limit content in one direction or another, but of course they do. Again, this is partially a function of their ownership and also part of the customs that develop in these corporations. In the case of both traditional and social media, research has consistently found that all media is less biased than it's perceived, but how much you accept that result depends on how your own personal mental map of the world interacts with the one being presented in a story's framing. Most political commentary on media focuses on framing and tries to contest the meaning of statements made by people covered by media like celebrities, politicians, corporate heads, etc. It's how they drive viewer interest and get clicks. Often this leads to overstatements of media bias to position political influencers as authentic information sources. But they aren't really any less biased of course. They just declare their biases up front, again as a play to authenticity.

But the bias seems to matter most when it comes to accuracy of information. Framing has been shown to have mostly minimal effects on changing someone's behavior, particularly voting behavior. Few minds change in elections and undecideds realistically swing elections much less than turnout of party faithful. So the media's framing biases impact what happens in an election much less than facts which generally inspire voter turnout. Most research of whether there is factual bias, that is, whether media tends to outright lie about what politicians said or did, has found very little across the ideological spectrum. FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN and others are remakably close when it comes to reporting facts. It's just the frame that differs.

Social media companies also tend to mostly be focused on removing slander, hate speech and unverifiable information in their content moderation, but in practice this has been shown by study after study to not punish any mainstream political group considerably more than any other. People on social platforms like YouTube lie with impunity every day for their favored political orientation and the decision making on who is shut down for it are often arbitrary and done by poorly organized and resourced teams. Some companies developed cogent policies but few properly invested in the now growing field of "trust and safety." So individuals in the media industries as a whole may have expressed personal desires for particular political outcomes, but they're not wizards and the public does have a mind of its own.

The question people should be asking themselves when they encounter such biased frames about elections is when else does the media use a frame? Are algorithms a frame? What frames are the people I like in media using to keep me as an audience member? Is what I'm consuming real and true or being framed that way to win me as an audience? What does the algorithm think I want when it shows me this story by this outlet? Why are they interviewing these people when they tell the story? Why did they choose to cover these events in this order? Why these ads/commercials? Who owns this company and what else are they into?
Click to expand...
Awesome post, but absolutely wasted on the clowns who just plain don't give a fuck about reality or objective fact.

??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom