2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWanna know why David Brock and Correct The Record are raising money to fight online smears?
It's because Bernie supporters are peddling conspiracy theories all over the place.
------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/berning-up-the-internet-c_b_9750218.html
<...>
Also note that tonights poll results, just like Ohio and Arizona are being reported as static % voting for Clinton over Sanders with a 21% lead. This is an impossibility tonight just as it was in the previous two odd elections where exit polling (usually highly accurate) shows a small vote differential or 3-6%. In truth the states different regions and precincts votes in very different patterns than the static 21% being shown. In some Clinton win by 60-40, in others Bernie won 60-40...and larger variable % differences have already been individually reported. If those were being accurately reported in the major media counts, the % difference between the candidates would be jumping around dramatically. The very static nature of the % the media is reporting is a definitive sign of collusion between the DNC/Clinton camps and those major media news outlets. Please Share and repost.
This is unedited. You can go and check this out yourself on her Facebook page, or on the page for Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Pennsylvania, which is where I tracked it down.
Of course, one of the biggest hazards of social media is repeating information from sources that may have zero credibility. Say what you will about the Mainstream Media, an editor will ask a journalist what is the source of this information in terms of news, and in terms of opinion, in what way do any of your assertions here resemble anything close to verifiable data?
Notice the classic hallmarks of paranoid fantasy without evidence: that the downloading of data from the Clinton campaign by a Sanders researcher was an inside job done by a closet Clinton operative, for what reason exactly? Oh, to create a false story that the Sanders campaign downloaded this stuff, so that the Clinton campaign could then in all likelihood download all of the Sanders voters database, which then would allow the Clinton campaign to work with the DNC to somehow purge only the Sanders voters from voters rolls in states like New York.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Why if there are smears and we know there are smears is there a problem with anyone raising money to challenge the smears?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)they're only smears or libel or slander if they're false.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)There may be exceptions to truthiness out in the vast wilderness of the Net during this campaign, of course. On all sides.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"If I can't have it, NO ONE WILL HAVE IT!!!!"
It's childish, short sighted, and ineffective--but Trump thanks them, nonetheless.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)have already turned our government into a plutocratic oligarchy.
We are fighting for saving the safety nets, jobs, homes, retirements, infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, and decent health care.
The Rich and Powerful have been cutting these programs back for decades and some are just ok with that.
By the way, if you lose the General, it's on you. You can't crap on the Left and expect them to like it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're trying to play spoiler (your last paragraph, with its dire, ineffectual threat, makes that entirely clear).
You're angry that your candidate didn't bring it home. You want to "blame" someone.
This isn't about "the rich and powerful." It's about who gets the most votes.
The Democrats will decide who their standard bearer is--and it will happen very soon.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You know you are backing a losing candidate and already looking for a scapegoat. We've told you all along that many republicons will vote for Sanders but will never, ever vote for Clinton. That has nothing to do with us "spoiling" anything. There are many many people on both sides that don't like your Establishment with it's corrupt culture and will support the anti-Establshment candidate, Trump or Sanders, you decide. But the hubris of the Clinton campaign thinking they can be rude and disparage the Left and then demand that we vote for your candidate.
I am angry, angry that Democrats can turn their backs on the 50 million Americans living in poverty and support the Rich Fat Cats.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Next Tuesday, that will become even more evident than it already is.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Everybody believes what they see on the internet.
This must stop. Now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The stuff has popped up here, too!
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)At the end of the day, this is all going to shake out with a nominee who will be the first woman nominated by a major party in the history of our nation.
It will bump along for a while longer, and I can wait. But the end result will be the same.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Come out, come out and own it.
I have a couple of ideas who it might be.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)On the issues lately. Hillary has been in Connecticut recently talking about gun violence.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... "smearing Bernie" and "lying about Bernie"? Weird, huh?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I remember some back and forth just this morning trying to debunk the FACT that NY affidavit ballots were already a federal law and was not a construct of any law suit. The poster was trying to tell me the law suit filed on Primary election day in NY, was settle law and the receipt of the affidavit votes were proof...duh
Then we have the continued mis information about Super Delegates.
Lots of shit the Bernie Bros are tossing around as if it were fact. They swarm the social media and other sites with the idiocy, and non wonks don't know better and read it thinking it's fact. Why is everyone so worried that lies are being cleared up?
jillan
(39,451 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/
Congrats - you are in good company.
ON EDIT - Jurors I'm sure this will be alerted on but I really hope you don't vote to hide the truth. Putin did pay for online trolls. So did David Brock.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What they do!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He launches online smears. Everything that weasel says is a lie.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Message discipline among your "supporters": Team Clinton has it, because they're paying good money for it.