Discussion:
Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Add Reply
mg
2018-04-08 17:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election

Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018

A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."

From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election

From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader

From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
GLOBALIST
2018-04-08 18:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
I doubt if on-line news effected my vote at all.
I just heard everything in the Primaries, the Convention
and all the huge crowds were Trump spoke. In other words
I did not go thru any other 2nd parties.
El Castor
2018-04-08 18:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
Thanks for posting both sides of the story, but I still have a few
problems with your fake news parade. I don't doubt that fake news
exists (often out of journalistic incompetence and a willingness to
believe stories that fit a particular political belief), but I do have
a problem with a couple of examples posted in the study -- were they
really fake news, and did they have a Russian origin? I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS, and as for her health, who among us has not seen videos of her
repeated stumbles. It's so bad that she can't get into a car or walk
down a few stairs unless she is accompanied by a aquad of butt
catchers.

Oh, and no, we do not need a government truth squad that filters the
news and fines or arrests anyone deemed to have been a purveyor of
"fake news" -- whatever that is. 1984, here we come.
mg
2018-04-08 23:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 11:21:59 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
Thanks for posting both sides of the story, but I still have a few
problems with your fake news parade. I don't doubt that fake news
exists (often out of journalistic incompetence and a willingness to
believe stories that fit a particular political belief), but I do have
a problem with a couple of examples posted in the study -- were they
really fake news, and did they have a Russian origin? I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS, and as for her health, who among us has not seen videos of her
repeated stumbles. It's so bad that she can't get into a car or walk
down a few stairs unless she is accompanied by a aquad of butt
catchers.
Oh, and no, we do not need a government truth squad that filters the
news and fines or arrests anyone deemed to have been a purveyor of
"fake news" -- whatever that is. 1984, here we come.
In our political/economic system, we like to solve a lot of our
problems with good, old-fashioned competition, but what do you do when
that doesn't work and most of the competition has been eliminated and
the monopoly was actually created by the government. (In this case
Bill Clinton). Sometimes, when monopolies happen, the government has
to step up and do something. An example that comes to mind is the
break up of Ma Bell.

Was that a good thing or a bad thing? Here's an interesting article
(editorial) written by somebody who thinks it was an awful thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/09/business/l-ma-bell-s-breakup-039070.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 04:48:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 11:21 AM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...

I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government. Hard to prove, but
Ambassador Stevens was probably in Benghazzi coordinating the
departure of a shipload of Khadaffi weapons, paid for by Qatar, and
destined for Syria, when he was killed by a Libyan militia that wanted
the weapons for itself.

"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012 "
"Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not
comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels,
some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street
Journal."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html

"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 14, 2012"
"“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid
are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American
official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on
an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html

"Study shows US weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands"
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands

As I said, I am convinced that Hillary did participate in, and/or
approve of, sales and delivery of weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and
likely some elements of an incipient ISIS. Not a secret. Read all
about it in the NY Times, Reuters, BBC, etc.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-04-09 15:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
I am convinced
that Hillary did participate in, or approve of, sales or delivery of
weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and likely some elements of an incipient
ISIS,
You have just entered the Werner Zone.
Not quite ...
I've posted a lot on this before. Hillary's State Department and the
CIA were knee deep in the delivery of weapons to Syrian "rebels" aimed
at overthrowing Assad's Alawite government.
Perhaps. But your post seemed to imply she knew ahead of time the
weapons were going to Islamists and went ahead anyway. That's Werner
territory not supported by the Times.
Post by El Castor
Hard to prove, but
Ambassador Stevens was probably in Benghazzi coordinating the
departure of a shipload of Khadaffi weapons, paid for by Qatar, and
destined for Syria, when he was killed by a Libyan militia that wanted
the weapons for itself.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012 "
"Spokesmen for the White House, State Department and C.I.A. would not
comment on any intelligence operations supporting the Syrian rebels,
some details of which were reported last week by The Wall Street
Journal."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria
By DAVID E. SANGEROCT. 14, 2012"
"“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid
are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American
official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on
an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry."
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Study shows US weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands"
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
As I said, I am convinced that Hillary did participate in, and/or
approve of, sales and delivery of weapons to Syrian Jihadists, and
likely some elements of an incipient ISIS. Not a secret. Read all
about it in the NY Times, Reuters, BBC, etc.
Gary
2018-04-08 18:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
Washington Post (above) says:

".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."

I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.

Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
mg
2018-04-09 01:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."
I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.
Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
To be honest, I never read any of those articles. I need to do my
income tax and really I shouldn't be doing anything else until I get
that done. After that, I have a huge amount of work to do outside the
house and some inside work, also. It's depressing to think about it
and the economy is so good right now that it's hard to get a handyman.
I'm almost hoping for a recession so that I can find somebody to help
me. :-)

In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by Gary
Post by mg
"Study Says Fake News Had Major Impact on 2016 Election
Featured News Story April 3rd, 2018
A new study suggests that fake news had a significant impact on the
2016 election, so much so that it may have given President Trump a
pathway to win. The Left argued that the data shows a high probability
that false stories cost Clinton the election, while the Right
highlighted other studies that concluded fake news had little to no
effect on the outcome."
From the Center
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/381449-researchers-say-fake-news-had-substantial-impact-on-2016-election
From the Left
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/03/a-new-study-suggests-fake-news-might-have-won-donald-trump-the-2016-election/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
From the Right
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/03/fake-news-study-has-problems/
That is most interesting. But I think they lie. For instance,
".... suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012
supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in
fake news stories..."
I looked up Obama's vote in 2012. It was 65,918,507. And Hillary's
in 2016 was -- 65,853,652.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
I subtract Hillary's from Obama's and get a difference of 64,855. I
take Obama's vote and multiply by 4% and get -- 2,636,740. If my
figures are correct -- Hillary did not get 4% less votes than Obama.
Oh, well ! Figures are fun :-)
To be honest, I never read any of those articles. I need to do my
income tax and really I shouldn't be doing anything else until I get
that done. After that, I have a huge amount of work to do outside the
house and some inside work, also. It's depressing to think about it
and the economy is so good right now that it's hard to get a handyman.
I'm almost hoping for a recession so that I can find somebody to help
me. :-)
In regard to the election, though, my knee jerk reaction is that her
health isn't good enough to be president and she's probably lucky that
she's not in jail, anyway. :-)
Oh, oh! Another victim of Russian fake news! Where is the Truth Bureau
when we need it?
Loading...