3 ms·
>We do know that in, for example, the US elections, some counties/states swung for Trump in 2016 by pretty narrow margins. Were those affected more by "but her
by harry8 6y ago
>We do know that in, for example, the US elections, some counties/states swung for Trump in 2016 by pretty narrow margins. Were those affected more by "but her emails", some sort of disinformation campaign, or the general unpopularity of Clinton? Maybe all of the above but it's a stretch to dismiss it all
That which is asserted without evidence can and must be dismissed without evidence.
"Drain the swamp" was the most effective political slogan for many decades. It's a real shame Trump was not better than Clinton's corruption and neither will Joe be. The corruption is the biggest threat to the USA for so many reasons.
- tolien 6y ago> That which is asserted without evidence can and must be dismissed without evidence. TFA provides evidence for nothing, so I guess we just dismiss it all then? My point was how do you even begin to assess to what extent slogans, disinformation campaigns, apathy towards either candidate or some other factor was effective in swinging the result? Demanding proof that disinformation moved the result even a little verges on ludicrous.
- harry8 6y ago>Demanding proof that disinformation moved the result even a little verges on ludicrous. Got some weapons of mass destruction over there. Just keep up the "evidence is ludicrous" We'll need that to get the power to do more of what's right and get it past the population, like the unqualified success invading Iraq has unquestionably been. Or should we not take WMD on trust forever? If you're not asking for evidence when people are justifying power grabs with bogeyman stories, then when exactly should we?
- tolien 6y agoI mean, the claim that Iraq had WMDs didn't change anyone's mind about invading because it was prima facie nonsense, right? Unless you have direct evidence that the claim was both accepted as true and moved the needle on sentiment regarding the invasion? Maybe everyone was just in favour of getting shot of Saddam because, like, "drain the swamp [beside the Euphrates]"?