I really love friendlyjordies most of the time, but I really can't agree with him on this. I wasn't surprised at all when he said the things he was saying, especially when he turned most of the video into a rant about the media.
He says that the reason he won is because liberals (both political normies and political pundits) used the talking point of "he's racist and sexist", and didn't focus on [del]economic[/del] "real" policy, only stuff like "BAN MUSLIMS" and "GRAB HER BY THE PUSSY" which is total bullshit for a multitude of reasons.
1. Trump never talked about actual policies. When he did, it was usually vague bullshit that could be taken both ways: Schrodinger's Policy if you will. He was so unclear in some of the things he would saying, the average Trump Voter thought he was a near perfect candidate because they could pick and choose what his policies were. The only policies that were clear was anything to do with outsourcing jobs, which both democrats and the alt-right both support. I'm not trying to defend the media, there is a lot of blame to be put on the media, but for a liberal to say that this election is the liberal's fault is political Stockholm Syndrome.
2. The Media =/= Liberals. Most liberals saw through the media's bullshit and wanted Bernie. But nope, it just had to be rigged by people out of our control. Don't even dare argue that liberals could've stopped this, because we assumed that a majority of democrats wanted Clinton anyways.
3. No one wanted Clinton, but she was the best thing we had against Trump. FriendlyJordies even admitted that she was a good candidate and had better policies than Obama, and admitted that he would vote for her in a heartbeat against Trump. Given his support for Bernie, he should know that she isn't the best choice. I don't think that he ever blamed Clinton for being a terrible candidate, he only blamed the media for supporting her because she's not Trump so it's a little hypocritical.
4. FriendlyJordies' ignores right-wing Alternative Media's role on this.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UrbTG5t.png[/img]
He used this graph to complain about how more than 50% of democrats trust mainstream media a fair amount or higher. Hell, I trust the media a fair amount but when it comes to election cycle, that's when skepticism arises. I would love to see the results to a question asking "Do you trust mainstream media's election coverage?" and not such a general question.
But lets use this graph to push another point that should've been pushed
Democrat Drop: 4 points
Independent Drop: 3 points
Republican Drop: [B]18 points[/B]
If there was truly ignorance on democrat's part, then the drop in independent trust would've been on par with republican. The only reason why trust in the media dropped for republicans by that amount, and not for independent/democrats, is because there was a massive rise in alternative news sources such as Breitbart and Infowars. What Breitbart and Infowars does basically do is call out the bullshit that the media does so you think they're an ultimate and trustworthy news source, then feed you their own bullshit so you could keep watching them. It's kinda like an abusive boyfriend/girlfriend who tells you that all your current friends are garbage, and he/she's the only friend you need.
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/27/levin-fox-news-imploding-megyn-kelly-control-auditioning-bigger-forum/[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/10/breitbart-beats-ny-times-cnn-fox-news-election-day-facebook-engagement/[/url]
Trump won not because liberals talked about "non-issues", Trump won because him and his allies played the american voters like a fiddle.
yep, pretty much sums it up
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51531367]I really love friendlyjordies most of the time, but I really can't agree with him on this. I wasn't surprised at all when he said the things he was saying, especially when he turned most of the video into a rant about the media.
He says that the reason he won is because liberals (both political normies and political pundits) used the talking point of "he's racist and sexist", and didn't focus on [del]economic[/del] "real" policy, only stuff like "BAN MUSLIMS" and "GRAB HER BY THE PUSSY" which is total bullshit for a multitude of reasons.
1. Trump never talked about actual policies. When he did, it was usually vague bullshit that could be taken both ways: Schrodinger's Policy if you will. He was so unclear in some of the things he would saying, the average Trump Voter thought he was a near perfect candidate because they could pick and choose what his policies were. The only policies that were clear was anything to do with outsourcing jobs, which both democrats and the alt-right both support. I'm not trying to defend the media, there is a lot of blame to be put on the media, but for a liberal to say that this election is the liberal's fault is political Stockholm Syndrome.
2. The Media =/= Liberals. Most liberals saw through the media's bullshit and wanted Bernie. But nope, it just had to be rigged by people out of our control. Don't even dare argue that liberals could've stopped this, because we assumed that a majority of democrats wanted Clinton anyways.
3. No one wanted Clinton, but she was the best thing we had against Trump. FriendlyJordies even admitted that she was a good candidate and had better policies than Obama, and admitted that he would vote for her in a heartbeat against Trump. Given his support for Bernie, he should know that she isn't the best choice. I don't think that he ever blamed Clinton for being a terrible candidate, he only blamed the media for supporting her because she's not Trump so it's a little hypocritical.
4. FriendlyJordies' ignores right-wing Alternative Media's role on this.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/UrbTG5t.png[/img]
He used this graph to complain about how more than 50% of democrats trust mainstream media a fair amount or higher. Hell, I trust the media a fair amount but when it comes to election cycle, that's when skepticism arises. I would love to see the results to a question asking "Do you trust mainstream media's election coverage?" and not such a general question.
But lets use this graph to push another point that should've been pushed
Democrat Drop: 4 points
Independent Drop: 3 points
Republican Drop: [B]18 points[/B]
If there was truly ignorance on democrat's part, then the drop in independent trust would've been on par with republican. The only reason why trust in the media dropped for republicans by that amount, and not for independent/democrats, is because there was a massive rise in alternative news sources such as Breitbart and Infowars. What Breitbart and Infowars does basically do is call out the bullshit that the media does so you think they're an ultimate and trustworthy news source, then feed you their own bullshit so you could keep watching them. It's kinda like an abusive boyfriend/girlfriend who tells you that all your current friends are garbage, and he/she's the only friend you need.
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/27/levin-fox-news-imploding-megyn-kelly-control-auditioning-bigger-forum/[/url]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/10/breitbart-beats-ny-times-cnn-fox-news-election-day-facebook-engagement/[/url]
Trump won not because liberals talked about "non-issues", Trump won because him and his allies played the american voters like a fiddle.[/QUOTE]
You're both right to be honest.
You can't boil such complicated issues down to a single factor, there were many, many different things involved.
He's right that one factor involved was that Clinton's side of the election focused a lot of inane bullshit. You're right that another factor involved was that at least a portion of Trump's camp was borderline insane. And there were many other things at play.
[QUOTE=elowin;51531735]You're both right to be honest.
You can't boil such complicated issues down to a single factor, there were many, many different things involved.
He's right that one factor involved was that Clinton's side of the election focused a lot of inane bullshit. You're right that another factor involved was that at least a portion of Trump's camp was borderline insane. And there were many other things at play.[/QUOTE]
The only thing that liberals are responsible for is unwillingly supplying bullet casings and primers to the alternative news factory, where blank cartridges are produced. Sure, they make a hell of a bang that scares the living shit out of anyone who doesn't understand that it's a bullet without a projectile.
I can agree with alot of the points on here, but the whole fake news narrative having a huge impact in this election is still hilarious to me. If you don't think that liberal news was putting absolute garbage aswell, then honestly you need to learn that there are "bullet farms" of Vox/Huffington Post/Slate/Mother Jones/Occupy Democrats/TYT that put out their own full metal jackets bullshit.
Hillary Clinton had enough real problems for people not like her. Especially when you have to explain the silent majority that gave their vote in WI, MI, and PA that were previously democrats. Extreme alt-right news did not affect those people's decision making most likely.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51532409]I can agree with alot of the points on here, but the whole fake news narrative having a huge impact in this election is still hilarious to me. If you don't think that liberal news was putting absolute garbage aswell, then honestly you need to learn that there are "bullet farms" of Vox/Huffington Post/Slate/Mother Jones/Occupy Democrats/TYT that put out their own full metal jackets bullshit.[/quote]
I never said anything good (or anything at all tbh) about liberal news lol, so I don't get how that disproves anything.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51532409]Hillary Clinton had enough real problems for people not like her. Especially when you have to explain the silent majority that gave their vote in WI, MI, and PA that were previously democrats. [B]Extreme alt-right news did not affect those people's decision making most likely.[/B][/QUOTE]
"[B]Extreme[/B] alt-right news did not affect those people's decision making [B]most likely[/B]."
Man, you're adding so many modifiers to your goalpost er I mean post.
From the mouth of the beast itself:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/IVhqz4I.png[/img]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/10/breitbart-beats-ny-times-cnn-fox-news-election-day-facebook-engagement/[/url]
and that only includes "real" news with alt-right spin. Let's look at fake news with alt-right spin.
[url]http://uk.businessinsider.com/fake-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook-before-us-election-report-2016-11[/url]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/07/why-conservatives-might-be-more-likely-to-fall-for-fake-news/?utm_term=.b165083beb56[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51532487]I never said anything good (or anything at all tbh) about liberal news lol, so I don't get how that disproves anything.
"[B]Extreme[/B] alt-right news did not affect those people's decision making [B]most likely[/B]."
Man, you're adding so many modifiers to your goalpost er I mean post.
From the mouth of the beast itself:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/IVhqz4I.png[/img]
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/11/10/breitbart-beats-ny-times-cnn-fox-news-election-day-facebook-engagement/[/url]
and that only includes "real" news with alt-right spin. Let's look at fake news with alt-right spin.
[url]http://uk.businessinsider.com/fake-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook-before-us-election-report-2016-11[/url]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/07/why-conservatives-might-be-more-likely-to-fall-for-fake-news/?utm_term=.b165083beb56[/url][/QUOTE]
Hey, I am being honest about my conjecture. Ironically, you are the one just showing off correlations, but no solid evidence these numbers mean changed votes. For example, I could take your chart and just point out that the sheer number of hard left-leaning sites (HP and Buzzfeed) is far greater than Breibart, so logically this should easily have a far greater impact.
Also my "goal post" statement I feel comfortable on. To really think that the 2 time Obama voting workers in the midwest states picked up a appetite of taking Breibart seriously all the sudden is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51532509]Hey, I am being honest about my conjecture. Ironically, you are the one just showing off correlations, but no solid evidence these numbers mean changed votes.[/quote]
It's evidence to disprove the notion that the coverage of the 2016 election caused people to vote Trump to the point where it decided the election on the basis that it's the question includes normal coverage and political coverage, and the fact that independents were only affected by a smudge.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51532509]Also my "goal post" statement I feel comfortable on. To really think that the 2 time Obama voting workers in the midwest states picked up a appetite of taking Breibart seriously all the sudden is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that Breitbart is the sole reason why Trump won. The reason why Trump won is misinformation and unrealistic expectations of a Trump administration.
2 time working class Obama voters voted for Trump because they genuinely thought he cared more about the middle class than Clinton did. Everyone agrees that it was Clinton's fault for not giving them enough attention for their vote. She, among others, thought the fact that Trump is a lying billionaire who's fucked over so many of his workers didn't need to be said.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51532532]It's evidence to disprove the notion that the coverage of the 2016 election caused people to vote Trump to the point where it decided the election on the basis that it's the question includes normal coverage and political coverage, and the fact that independents were only affected by a smudge.[/quote]
Honestly don't know what your trying to say here with some confusing wording.
[quote]
I'm not saying that Breitbart is the sole reason why Trump won. The reason why Trump won is misinformation and unrealistic expectations of a Trump administration.
2 time working class Obama voters voted for Trump because they genuinely thought he cared more about the middle class than Clinton did. Everyone agrees that it was Clinton's fault for not giving them enough attention for their vote. She, among others, thought the fact that Trump is a lying billionaire who's fucked over so many of his workers didn't need to be said.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with these statements. My only argument is the scale of which these played a role.
Cause you know me, I would argue Hillary did far more damage being the canidate and her history/character being distasteful for many people.
My favorite part of the video was when he insulted the majority of Clinton supporters for being dumb idiot sheep that watch the mainstream media then references a false story from state owned Russia Today.
Second fav was when he called Trump the substantive candidate. Stopped watching there.
Theirs a lot of factors but I think overall Trump just had a better election strategy that redefined the map by getting the so called "rust belt". The perception that Clinton represented wall streets interest and Trump did not was her ultimate demise because it lost her those states.
I'm so tired of "THIS IS WHY TRUMP WON" because it [B]always[/B] is just trying to boil down a very complex and multi-faceted election cycle that had literally years of build up and influence from every single possible angle into an incredibly biased point of individual conjecture that's usually just some self-righteous blowhard trying to shame people for saying something they disagree with. And even when they're not trying to do this for their own selfish end they're trying to teach us some profound lesson about the media or political correctness that had a negligible impact on society at large, much less on the preceding election cycle. It's a prime, textbook example of confirmation bias.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51532627]My favorite part of the video was when he insulted the majority of Clinton supporters for being dumb idiot sheep that watch the mainstream media then references a false story from state owned Russia Today.
Second fav was when he called Trump the substantive candidate. Stopped watching there.[/QUOTE]
FriendlyJordies does this with everyone he disagrees with, including republicans. He likes to generalize and insult, probably because he's so angry all the time with the shit that goes on in Australia. Like when I first saw him, it was a video about him talking about how liberals are trash or w/e, so I ignored it. Then I learned that liberals in australian were basically extreme conservatives in America so I started watching him. Hypocritical of me, but he has some good skits.
[QUOTE=Saxon;51532655]Theirs a lot of factors but I think overall Trump just had a better election strategy that redefined the map by getting the so called "rust belt". The perception that Clinton represented wall streets interest and Trump did not was her ultimate demise because it lost her those states.[/QUOTE]
It really comes down to this. People are seeing a huge electoral vote gap and are responding to polls that showed the chances of Trump's victory ranging from 1% to 30% and are acting like America has experienced a dramatic shift in politics and that the left has to flagellate themselves with the whip of contrition when in reality Trump won in states he fought hard in, by numbers that fell within the margin of error for some of the less predictable polls, in a handful of swing states, that his opponent didn't bother to campaign in.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51532805]FriendlyJordies does this with everyone he disagrees with, including republicans. He likes to generalize and insult, probably because he's so angry all the time with the shit that goes on in Australia. Like when I first saw him, it was a video about him talking about how liberals are trash or w/e, so I ignored it. Then I learned that liberals in australian were basically extreme conservatives in America so I started watching him. Hypocritical of me, but he has some good skits.[/QUOTE]
I also think he gets a bit overboard but it's understandable when our Liberals aren't very liberal. There more the "help greedy retires with 6 investment homes because there's a lot of them and they'll vote for us" party. They really don't give a shit about anyone else (aside their rich buddies) so it's pretty understandable why he's pissed off at them.
Fuck, I'm pissed at them and I don't really like getting very political. I could go on about all the promises they broke (fucked with the National Broadband Network and ABC after saying they wouldn't) or how they got in power by saying "stop the boats" and then put asylum seekers in a concentration camp for pretty much eternity to deter others and considered it a success, or how they also got in by saying "budget emergency" over and over and then proceeded to drastically increase the country's debt via pissing money up the wall, or how Tony Abbott got in because he was buddy buddy with Rupert Murdoch who owns over 70% of media in Australia, But that's not going to change anything because baby boomers will still vote for them because they want their money houses.
In short we currently have a government in power that actively avoids helping anyone who isn't a baby boomer or super rich. Everyone goes on about how Trump got in on a bunch of lies and racism but we've pretty much done it already in Australia, it's just a lot more subtle and less shouty.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
Sorry if I come off as angry but I'm genuinely worried I won't be able to get a decent job in the field I want (graphic design/advertising) unless I move somewhere else cause The Liberals sure ain't helping the economy right now.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51532825]It really comes down to this. People are seeing a huge electoral vote gap and are responding to polls that showed the chances of Trump's victory ranging from 1% to 30% and are acting like America has experienced a dramatic shift in politics and that the left has to flagellate themselves with the whip of contrition when in reality Trump won in states he fought hard in, by numbers that fell within the margin of error for some of the less predictable polls, in a handful of swing states, that his opponent didn't bother to campaign in.[/QUOTE]
honestly all this shit about "why Trump won" feels like a bunch of snake-oil salesmen, reading as deeply as they can until they find something that helps push their own political cure-all
[I]
"come one come all, it's Doctor Demagogue's patented [B]MEDIA TRANSPARENCY[/B], the bedazzling-bewitching-officially-certified [B]NUMBER-ONE[/B] remedy for Trumpism in YOUR home country, rich in essential proteins and paradigms!"[/I]
To boil down a complex election to one factor is obviously one, but if I would boil it down to one, it would be this: Clinton didn't encourage people to vote for her. She encouraged people [I]not to vote for Trump[/I], which easily turned into [I]not vote at all.[/I].
She shouldn't have focused on him so much and should have instead focused on promoting herself and reuniting her party. She failed to do this, and lost because of it, despite having the popular vot .
Not gonna lie, this dude is too Australian for me to understand. Then again, I was half asleep trying to watch this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
