# "...MUST ....VOTE ...FOR...."



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

can someone please explain to me (in plain english) how emails, or ads, or subliminal messages, or whatever, from Putin and / or these Cambridge Analytica nerds, somehow hypnotized millions of Americans into voting for Trump? i'm fascinated...but I just dont get it? have we really turned into zombie robots...?
and - why would they want Trump over Cliton in the first place?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Propaganda + herd (sheeps in particular) mentality?


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

jargey3000 said:


> - why would they want Trump over Cliton in the first place?


Freudian slip.. lol

I agree. If you allow Bookface to tell you how to vote, you deserve to have your suffrage revoked anyway for sheer stupidity.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

They didn't. It was just one of the wild accusations thrown out by Hillary Clinton to put the blame on her losing on anyone but her.

If you want to know who hacked the election and set up Trump for the win look up the Pied Piper Strategy.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

I wanna know how you can "hack an election"...to set up a win ...for anybody....??
is it hypnosis....or what? I dont get it.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> I wanna know how you can "hack an election"...to set up a win ...for anybody....??
> is it hypnosis....or what? I dont get it.


It is nothing so nefarious as that. What ends up happening is that analytics would push certain material, videos and ads that feed a certain extreme viewpoint that you were already leaning towards. More of an echo chamber to solidify ones view. So it doesn't change what you were leaning towards, but it makes you more stubborn to counter arguments. Also, when you are fed with a steady stream of such info, it would motivate someone to vote, even if previously they were apathetic and didn't care about who wins.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

I think Pavlov was doing this...way before Putin....
so....what's the big deal..? 
most people on the lunatic fringe probably dont vote anyway & even then, prob. not enough to swing an elction...


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

_Also, when you are fed with a steady stream of such info, it would motivate someone to vote, even if previously they were apathetic and didn't care about who wins._

you have proof of this ...?
or could it be that it MIGHT motivate a FEW people?
big difference


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> can someone please explain to me (in plain english) how emails, or ads, or subliminal messages, or whatever, from Putin and / or these Cambridge Analytica nerds, somehow hypnotized millions of Americans into voting for Trump? i'm fascinated...but I just dont get it? have we really turned into zombie robots...?
> and - why would they want Trump over Cliton in the first place?


Everyone believes that advertising doesn't affect them but yet companies spend billions of dollars on advertising. Then if you combine that with Russians having no scruples regarding spreading false information and many being gullible to believe it, it is enough to push one candidate over the line in a tight election race. I think the Russians main goal is dis-accord either within the US or between the US and other nations. They probably saw Trump as the best way to accomplish this. Here is an example of Russian tactics.

http://http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/russian-fake-news-campaign-against-canadian-troops-in-latvia-includes-propaganda-about-litter-luxury-apartments

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/hillary-is-a-satan-ten-ads-that-russian-trolls-posted-during-the-2016-u-s-election


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

That’s as good an explanation as i’ve Seen spidey


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

jargey3000 said:


> _Also, when you are fed with a steady stream of such info, it would motivate someone to vote, even if previously they were apathetic and didn't care about who wins._
> 
> you have proof of this ...?
> or could it be that it MIGHT motivate a FEW people?
> big difference


As Spidey pointed out, if advertising didn't work, companies are wasting millions of dollars on Superbowl ads.

At any case, a few people is enough in the close states where the margin was a fraction of a percent.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> They didn't. It was just one of the wild accusations thrown out by Hillary Clinton to put the blame on her losing on anyone but her.
> 
> If you want to know who hacked the election and set up Trump for the win look up the Pied Piper Strategy.


+1 

and if Russians really did it, I wish they will do the same with out selfie-boy


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Clinton won the popular vote by a few million votes. Trump won the electoral college, which gave him the Presidency.

Trump won in traditional Democratic states known as Rust Belt states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.........and those electoral votes gave Trump the victory.

Those races were "very" close. Some were decided by a few thousand votes. 

What Data Analytica did........is what data companies all do. They targeted votes in key areas with messages to convince them to vote for whoever is paying for their services.

How did they know who to target ?..........an innocent looking personality quiz on Facebook. 

Forensic data teams can learn a lot about someone by their interests, friends, what they post, and the IP for where they live.

In short, they used the information they gleaned about voters on Facebook to barrage those in key areas with fake stories about Clinton.

Combined with Clinton's overconfidence in her support in those key states, and Russian dollars spent advertising on social media..........Trump wins.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If someone spends enough money in targeted areas where a few thousand votes determine who wins and loses, the outcome can be swayed.

Remember that during the last Federal election there was an organized effort to vote for the candidate who could best defeat Harper ?

Voter manipulation can work sometimes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Bloomberg article doesn't include Russian spending for Trump.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

imho, all elections should be held only by popular vote


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

http://adage.com/article/digital/russia-spent-1-25m-ads-acted-agency-mueller/312424/


> n an indictment announced Friday in Washington, Mueller describes a years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary Clinton and *supporting Senator Bernie Sanders *and Trump.


Bernie still lost


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> imho, all elections should be held only by popular vote


I disagree...I don't want our government elected by Toronto metros every term.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Eder said:


> I disagree...I don't want our government elected by Toronto metros every term.


and I disagree that my vote cost several times less than vote of other provinces....


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

NL-ers have used a much simpler, and effective, election manipulation strategy for years:
“ vote early, and vote often”!


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> They didn't. It was just one of the wild accusations thrown out by Hillary Clinton to put the blame on her losing on anyone but her.
> 
> If you want to know who hacked the election and set up Trump for the win look up the Pied Piper Strategy.


+1

What surprised me more was somehow the left convinced 10's of millions of people mostly woman to march in favour of bringing in people who like Sharia law and think women are second class citizens.

They also somehow convinced millions of people that Hillary wasn't corrupt.

The left were also directly involved in rigging the election through the use of illegal immigrants.

The Russian thing was minuscule compared to what the left put out on the internet and through the MSM. Yet somehow they have convinced the same robotic crowd on the left that the Russians were the big threat.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

gibor365 said:


> and I disagree that my vote cost several times less than vote of other provinces....


I think a farmer in Peace River vote should be more important than one from a drone in a city....jmo and no offense intended


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Natives aside you are right Eder. 

Toronto had over 2.7 million people in 2016, Manitoba has a total of 1.27 million and Saskatchewan 1.12 million so Toronto has more population then those two provinces combined. So the MP system or electoral college system helps balance things out and gives people with big land masses a say. 

Gibor aside most city people don't appreciate what farmers, miners, loggers or people in smaller towns do. Most city people would shut everything down aside from farms if they had the chance and then vote it to open up again when the economy collapses or we have to import raw materials and energy.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

jargey3000 said:


> I wanna know how you can "hack an election"...to set up a win ...for anybody....??
> is it hypnosis....or what? I dont get it.


The Pied Piper strategy. This was revealed in emails of the Clinton campaign from the famous leak (not hack) of Podesta's computer.

The Clinton campaign's strategy was to rig the Republican primary in such a way as to get them to nominate a candidate that was so far out of the mainstream that Hillary would have a pushover in the election. A way out nut candidate that appealed only to the farthest right Republicans and had no mainstream support at all.

Their short list included Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. They settled on Trump as the easiest for Hillary to beat. They then sent the orders out to all media outlets that support the Democrats, which is practically all of them, to push Trump as the Republican candidate.

It worked and Trump never suspected. He was patting himself on the back for running such a great campaign and getting billions in free publicity by his brilliance, not knowing it was on Hillary Clinton's orders.

I smelled a rat when the day after the election the media went from fawning over Trump as the greatest candidate in the world, to damning him as the worst candidate in the world, literally overnight. But put it down to typical American politics and media insanity.

It turned they were hoist by their own petard. Trump had more game, and more support than they expected. Trump touring the country addressing ordinary voters 5000 at a time, while Clinton held fund raisers for billionaires and Arab sheiks at $250,000 a ticket didn't help her cause and neither did promising to let men use girls bathrooms and calling Trump supporters deplorables, while Trump promised jobs prosperity and greatness.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

jargey3000 said:


> can someone please explain to me (in plain english) how emails, or ads, or subliminal messages, or whatever, from Putin and / or these Cambridge Analytica nerds, somehow hypnotized millions of Americans into voting for Trump? i'm fascinated...but I just dont get it? have we really turned into zombie robots...?
> and - why would they want Trump over Cliton in the first place?


I'd like someone to explain to me how 42% of the US population thinks Russian collusion is something Hillary should go to jail for while refuting any thought of Trump collusion.

I think it comes down to mental laziness of the average person. People, generally, do not like to think beyond a sound bite. "Lock her up" is going to gain more traction with the population than a nuanced discussion of influence and funding that is multiple layers deep.

Peeling this onion is going to require objectivity and patience. The Mueller probe is the most critical test of western democracy and the rule of law since I've been alive.

I think it's important to acknowledge that being convinced of Trump's guilt is nonobjective, just as is being convinced of his innocence. We need the probe to finish and evidence to be presented.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

jargey3000 said:


> _Also, when you are fed with a steady stream of such info, it would motivate someone to vote, even if previously they were apathetic and didn't care about who wins._
> 
> you have proof of this ...?
> or could it be that it MIGHT motivate a FEW people?
> big difference


Scientific evidence is overwhelming that humans are not as rational as they think they are. We are subject to all kinds of manipulation, even if you are aware of the techniques, you can still be manipulated. Indeed, why else do companies spend hundreds of billions on marketing?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Scientific evidence is overwhelming that humans are not as rational as they think they are. We are subject to all kinds of manipulation, even if you are aware of the techniques, you can still be manipulated. Indeed, why else do companies spend hundreds of billions on marketing?


I was always taught they continue spending because they are afraid to STOP when their competitors are spending..it's a vicious circle...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

jargey3000 said:


> I was always taught they continue spending because they are afraid to STOP when their competitors are spending..it's a vicious circle...


If it didn't work, then the companies that cut back would be able to undercut those that squandered funds on marketing.


----------

