[loceng]

"No measurable effect" is a weak argument - especially considering we're talking about it, and it massively influenced the narrative - amplified by the mainstream media, just like Trump used effectively.

"They vote for who they want to vote for" - you understand manipulation is a thing, right? And that people will believe lies, and that people are often irrational - and therefore when they "decide" who to vote for it might not be logical and based on whatever manipulative messaging, propaganda, they've heard over and over again?

[malvosenior]

If someone wants to claim that Russia made a measurable impact on the 2016 election with $100k ad spend, then they're going to have to provide proof.

[loceng]

I just pointed to proof - the fact that you're ignoring or dismissing it doesn't change that.

[malvosenior]

I must have missed your link to proof? I don't see it in your comment.

[loceng]

First how about you define what you mean by measurable, then we can see how you're gatekeeping the use of that term. Then define what you mean by impact to see how you're gatekeeping that quantification. Then maybe there can be a conversation.

[malvosenior]

It's actually on the people claiming that Russia had a measurable impact on the election to provide some sort of proof of that claim.

[loceng]

You're running in circles to avoid answering.

[repolfx]

you understand manipulation is a thing, right?

Of course. But you're arguing here that Trump won because of massive scale manipulation to the extent that millions of voters don't have free will at all, which is just conspiracy theory thinking.

By the way, what makes you think that Clinton voters weren't the manipulated ones? The press came out in full force for her, and they're the most obvious source of information manipulation. The press have been trying to stack the electoral deck since forever, and they worked overtime that year to get Clinton in power. Still lost. I'm not seeing any evidence that voters are so easily manipulated as you think.

[loceng]

Trump rallied people claiming immigrants were taking jobs, and that he was going to bring the manufacturing jobs back - as POTUS candidate Andrew Yang explains however it's automation that took the jobs - and those jobs lost aren't coming back. People believed Trump's words because he was rallying people emotionally yet didn't present any actual evidence or data.

Do you consider that manipulation or not? Maybe you'll argue "Trump just didn't know any better" - and that's not a form of manipulation, lying to people?

I didn't argue that it was one or the other set of voters who were manipulated. And yes, the two-party system has been very bad for democracy - why POTUS candidate Andrew Yang will implement Democracy Dollars among other policy to breakup the two-party system; https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/

[repolfx]

Do you think immigrants don't compete in the labour pool against American workers? I mean, you're very quick to label Andrew Yang's rhetoric as explanation and Trump's as manipulation, but if you think cheap immigrant and foreign labour had no effect on American workers at all I'm not sure what to say to you. Robots just aren't that powerful. Look at what happened when Tesla tried to use too much automation: Musk retreated licking his wounds.

Also, isn't Andrew Yang the man who is telling people "vote for me and everyone will get free money". This is economically illiterate in a way that makes Trumponomics look like the work of Greek philosophers; I'm not American and have no dog in that race but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Trump is manipulative for talking about jobs but Yang isn't for promising voters free money.

At any rate the original comparison was Trump v Clinton, not Trump v Yang. Clinton certainly engaged in a lot of emotional and manipulative rhetoric herself. The part where she adopted a policy of starting a war with Russia over Syria, but obfuscated it by claiming it wouldn't be a war because Russia would immediately surrender? That's what I remember the most.