File: 1571539228577.jpeg (101.96 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, hillary-118443.jpeg) ImgOps Google
37 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
What's up with Hillary? Yesterday she was saying something about Jill Stein (former Green Party presidential nominee and respected environmentalist) and Tulsi Gabbard being "Russian assets" or something ridiculous like that. And apparently lots of people think that Hillary is going to run for president again this year.  What's going on?
Well is it fact that Russia tried to interfere with our election, regardless of who had knowledge of that and who we can prove went along with it. Russia used social media and the internet to try and interfere with our election.
So is it unfair for her to believe Russia tried to interfere in this specific way? By pushing a third-party candidates to take votes away from their preferred candidate's opponent?
File: 1571601853614.png (302.49 KB, 1280x926, 640:463, 1454098.png) ImgOps Google
Yes they did. And now she's looking for secret Russian conspiracies everywhere instead of accepting that she might be wrong, just like King Cheeto.
Being justified doesn't make a person less paranoid.
>>3770>So is it unfair for her to believe Russia tried to interfere in this specific way? By pushing a third-party candidates to take votes away from their preferred candidate's opponent?
A little, 'cause you could just start saying that about anyone. And hell, maybe it's even true
about anyone. Russia could
be pushing every single person on the DNC just to cause chaos and conflict. But I think unless someone is literally a Russian plant we're capable of evaluating things on our own, without having to second guess Russian ties.
Well, earlier in this thread, you said (>>3696
):>The idea being that Stein was pushed by Russian agents (without her consent) to divert votes that would have otherwise gone to Hillary in 2016. Third party candidates weakening the votes of someone from the two main parties is a real thing. Apparently this something Hillary thinks Russian agents caused in 2016 and will try again.
Adopting a Condorcet method (which can be done on a state-by-state basis without the need for a Constitional amendment and thus is at least somewhat politically feasible) would prevent Russia from influencing our elections in this manner. (Because even if people decide to vote for the Green Party instead of the Democratic Party, their votes will still fall back the Democratic Party if the Green Party doesn't win.)
To some degree, sure, like literally every country including us.
But that hardly means she should be pointing fingers at good candidates saying they're "Russian assets".
Should we call Hillary a Saudi asset?
Well Like I said, I believe Hillary means they are being used by the Russians, not that they are working with or for the Russians.
I'm not aware of what connections to Saudi Arabia you're talking about.
Asset seems to imply a bit more to me then just being better for the Russians then a warmonger.
And that's just with the general usage of the term, as I've always understood it. Asset always seems to imply more direct control, then just meaning some minor advantage.
Plus, I don't think Hillary is so dumb as to not understand the potential effects her words can have. I rather sincerely doubt she wouldn't put any consideration in the particulars of the language she chooses to use.
More likely, to me, honestly, she chose something that was just barely within the bounds, so as to deflect and Dodge criticism.
As I understand it, she has got a lot of donations from the Saudi government. I think it was to our Clinton foundation, but I don't recall off the top of my head. It was a bit of a talking point, for a while, while she was running.
Though I guess that's a bit more of a direct tie, anyway. Not quite the same thing.
I doubt she has control over who donates, though, so I still wouldn't condemn her for that.
I haven't heard anything about her running as a third-party candidate. Last I checked, isn't she going as a Democrat?
It seems like something you should reserve until she actually runs outside of that, first. But, maybe I've missed something she said. It's the first I've heard of it, though.
After thinking about it, and looking at the sources, I have to say that I quite frankly believe it. The amount of certain... media suddenly talking about Tulsi Gabbard came from out of nowhere.
I think it makes total sense that the Russians are trying to interfere with the election again.
I don't understand the far-right's fixation with Hillary Clinton, as if there was not a much bigger problem in the White House, right now.
>>3785>We would no longer have to come together with other groups to solve certain common issues.
Why is that? It seems to me that in Approval Voting, the winning candidate would need to unite many different groups of people to vote for him/her.>>3788> I have to say that I quite frankly believe it.
She is, as Tulsi put it, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sicked, I would say, the institution of politics as a whole.
I imagine that's why the so-called "far right" has a "fixation" on her. She's pretty much the poster child for political corruption.
Well, "the media" is not a monolith. Some outlets have been critical of Trump, but some, like Fox News for example, have done little but praise him.
I believe Russia was targeting social media like Facebook, not mass media like newspapers or TV stations.
>>3836>but some, like Fox News for example, have done little but praise him.
Fox News is sometimes a bit less united when it comes to the opinions of its personalities (whose shows are all about spouting their opinions), so definitely there's been some criticism of Trump there. It's not as cut and dry as Fox News just being the Republican mouthpiece while everything else is controlled by Democrats.>I believe Russia was targeting social media like Facebook, not mass media like newspapers or TV stations.
There's seemingly been pretty clear evidence for this, in fact, and this is ultimately the assertion that Clinton was trying to make: Russians may attempt to fake a grassroots social media movement in support of someone who isn't a frontrunner, perhaps hoping to divide democrats between two candidates like they were when it was Hillary and Bernie at the front.
I still don't believe it's actually happening, I'm pretty sure Hillary is just making stuff up to discredit people who aren't Biden. Coming out and calling someone a Russian asset means nothing if you're just going to follow it up with "So basically just double check for Russian bots on Twitter." I'm not sure there's anyone in politics I trust less than Hillary and she's mostly not even "in" politics anymore.
Trump also got less votes that Hillary
But there's a lot of evidence of Russian interference, especially over social media. "Interference" doesn't have to mean actively changing the number of votes or anything like that. It includes spreading misinformation and lies on social media, which we have evidence they did.
Yes but there's no evidence the 20 russians making facebook memes had any effect on the election.
Trump won through an electoral college victory by flipping the upper midwest. Russians didn't force hillary to never visit Ohio, run a corrupt party that put their thumbs on the scale of the primary, alienate voters, or have a lower amount of enthusiasm(as measured by likeability, trustworthiness, popularity, anything you can think of in her own party) than any major candidate in decades. Trump got less votes than Romney(who was already an unpopular candidate in 2012) even though the population of eligible voters was smaller in 2014. The most accurate way to describe Hillary's loss isn't some grand conspiracy of russian memes, it's a massive lack of turnout on the democrat side because she was one of the worst candidates in decades.
I disagree that spreading misinformation about someone has no effect on their election results.
You keep talking about how Hilary was unpopular, but I think it's reasonable to think that her unpopularity might have been the result of, or at least exacerbated by, all the misinformation and lies about her spread on the internet.
File: 1572208157851.jpeg (12.25 KB, 214x200, 107:100, clownpiece____by_hall0wza….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>3858>a considerable amount of Democrats were probably swayed not to vote at all by by misinformation about Hillary
Probably more were swayed by correct information about Hillary. For example: her response about shooting down Russian planes over Syria. Maybe lots of people didn't want someone willing to risk WW3 over Syria as the commander-in-chief of the US military?
"Hillary reacted to something in a way I didn't agree with, that means she was definitely planning to start another world war" is a logical fallacy.
Most of the negative things I hear people say about Hillary seem to stem from either misinformation, or biased from people's dislike of her on a personal level.
File: 1572214009480.jpg (295.67 KB, 950x1000, 19:20, 1487054816260.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3875>"Hillary reacted to something in a way I didn't agree with, that means...
Whether I agree or disagree doesn't have any bearing on whether "she was definitely planning to start another world war". And I didn't even say whether I agree or disagree with shooting down Russian planes over Syria. I just said that lots of people could be concerned with her willingness to do so.>>3871>means she was definitely planning to start another world war
I said "willing to risk WW3", not "definitely planning to start".
I would appreciate it if you take the effort to avoid strawmanning people's positions in the future.
Wasn't my intent to "strawman", but I apologize.
Could you describe, in your own words, how this situation with Hillary played out. And then I will check it against a news article about the same event. Just to make sure we are on the same page.
File: 1572215366308.jpg (534.37 KB, 800x860, 40:43, 016lzpifztdos.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
In the debates and on interview(s), Hillary refused to disavow the possibility of ordering the US military to shoot down Russian aircraft over Syria.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war>>3877>Wasn't my intent to "strawman", but I apologize.
Apology accepted. I know it wasn't your intention to strawman me, but it is still annoying when you do it by accident. For the future, I recommend that, after you write a post, to read again the post that you're replying to, to make sure that you accurately captured what the person was saying, to catch discrepancies such as "willing to risk" vs "defintely planning to".
So as far as I can tell, the only thing Hillary proposed is creating a "no fly zone" over Syria.
Without knowing her motivations for doing so, or the current political situations in Syria, I cannot say whether or not I disagree with this proposed action. I will say that it's probably likely that some news outlets took her proposal and took it out of context to assert something she didn't, or blew it out of proportion.
The same social media that also
has spent almost four years non-stop slandering Trump?
Social media is social
. People sharing things they like. There's just as many social media posts praising Trump as there is bashing him, if not more. Russia was spreading pro-Trump, anti-Hillary rhetoric on these platforms, stuff that is still widely believed by some groups.
Because she's still popular with many people, despite all the misinformation spread about her. She got more votes than the current president, after all.
It doesn't mean she'll run again. She would have had to announce that months ago and start raising funds.
File: 1572577064919.png (27.07 KB, 128x151, 128:151, snail-concept-orange-shoot….png) ImgOps Google
>>3938>She would have had to announce that months ago and start raising funds.
If you're so sure, you can literally put your money where your mouth is, and stake a position on PredictIt against her running and/or winning. Lots of other people are betting (again, with their own hard-earned money) that she will run and/or win the nomination, so I'm inclined to believe that there is at least a chance of it happening.
I don't gamble.
But this same site has people voting on Oprah Winfrey, Kanye West and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson running as well.
It's not impossible any of these people, including Hillary will run, but it seems very unlikely. People being willing to spend money on something doesn't give it credibility. Some people are compulsive gamblers, or have money to risk on a laugh. This is how crappy mobile games stay in business.
>>3940>I don't gamble.
PredictIt isn't gambling, certainly not by US law at least. It's more like picking individual stocks in the stock market.>But this same site has people voting on Oprah Winfrey, Kanye West and Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson running as well.
The market price for those people winning is indistinguishable from zero. This is in contrast to Hillary, whom the market indicates has a 9%–10% chance of winning the nomination.>People being willing to spend money on something doesn't give it credibility. Some people are compulsive gamblers, or have money to risk on a laugh.
Are you aware of how prediction markets like PredictIt work? If not, I'd suggest reading up on them; they're quite interesting! Briefly, to buy a position, there needs to be someone else willing to take the opposite position. If foolish people want to bet $0.10 that Hillary will win when she has no chance, smart people will swoop in to stake $0.90 on the opposite position and collect profit when the contract closes. That there is market equilibrium around $0.09–$0.10 indicates a market consensus that her probability of winning is 9%–10%.
It sounds like gambling to me. I'm wagering money on a desired outcome. >>The market price for those people winning is indistinguishable from zero.
I don't see how you figure that, since it's non-zero. People have bet on them running.
10% really isn't all that much. 21% of American believe in Bigfoot! https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/
>>3947>I don't see how you figure that, since it's non-zero. People have bet on them running.
Are you familiar with the concept of bid-offer spread? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid-ask_spread
If you want to buy "yes" shares, people will gladly sell them to you for $0.01. If you want to buy "no" shares, there is no availability. (That's what the "N/A" means.) Since PredictIt prices are quantized to $0.01, that means that the market price is indistinguishable from zero.>>3947>It sounds like gambling to me. I'm wagering money on a desired outcome.
Do you consider buying growth stocks to be gambling?>>3947>10% really isn't all that much.
Well it's more than some other candidates who are actually running and participated in the last debate, like Beto O'Rourke (who has less than 1% chance of winning according to PredictIt) and Cory Booker (who is between 1% and 2%).
Some people DO consider the stock market gambling. Since I don't own any stocks, it's not really an issue for me.
And again, willingness to gamble on something doesn't necessarily mean there's a significant chance of it happening. Some people don't follow politics very closely. This is a silly argument. If you want to believe Hillary will run again, you can.
But i'm choosing to see that as very unlikely to a high degree based on what I know about presidential campaigns. Hillary has already announced she will not run, changing her mind this close to the election would be silly. Not only that, she's not raised any money for a campaign that i can see, something that costs millions and she has missed a bunch of the democratic debates at this point. There's literally no evidence she will beyond that website, which isn't run by political scientists, just people with money to burn.
File: 1572804264205.jpg (35.27 KB, 600x375, 8:5, Glaceon.600.140942.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3951>And again, willingness to gamble on something doesn't necessarily mean there's a significant chance of it happening. Some people don't follow politics very closely. This is a silly argument.
Studies show that prediction markets are pretty good at predicting what will happen. Again, I suggest you read up on prediction markets; it's a really interesting subject!>If you want to believe Hillary will run again, you can.
The market equilibrium for Hillary running is only 20%; that means that it's much more likely that she won't
run.>But i'm choosing to see that as very unlikely to a high degree based on what I know about presidential campaigns.
I don't think you're choosing. In general, humans can't consciously choose to believe something; they need to be convinced that the belief is true. I think you just have different priors ("priors" in the Bayesian sense) and weigh the evidence differently than I.