27-03-2018, 06:41 PM
What is needed is a professional statistician or professional pollster to post some scientific information about the potential for such a "hacking" program to actually influence an election.
The question should be asked "how many votes can be swung by these hacking activities by comparison by percentage to the votes being swung by people like George Soros and/or the Koch Brothers.?"
Bad actors like CNN etc are spreading the idea that some very small amount of advertising is all that important in the election outcome. Cambridge spent $6 Million. But the total spent was at least a $Billion start to finish. If an election comes down to a 10,000 vote margin, then it's basically a crap-shoot anyway. You can look for any number of micro-details. Maybe somebody is paying the Weather Channel to falsely predict the weather on election day. Maybe somebody is paying a reporter to delay some news reports or paying newspapers to add an extra story the day before the election, etc. etc.
It just doesn't make any sense to me to blame micro-influences for swinging the election. After all, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Pope both came over and addressed the Congress a couple of weeks before the election. The former certified that "Trump is not an anti-Semite". That's an endorsement and much more significant than this made-up stuff.
If this is ok, then this type of open influence by Israel and the Pope dwarfs whatever made-up trivial "pop ups" or "bots" that may have been out there. And it is also dwarfed by what was done by Comey and the FBI. Even if the Pope did not endorse a candidate, then you could point to the difference in turnout brought about by the Pope's appearance. That's an influence, too. You can go around and around and around about all this "junk."
And besides, nobody is saying precisely what happened regarding the hacking. It's all just blowing smoke as far as I can determine. It's a convenient excuse to get the politicians off the hook from having to discuss real issues and problems. Why enable them?
James Lateer
The question should be asked "how many votes can be swung by these hacking activities by comparison by percentage to the votes being swung by people like George Soros and/or the Koch Brothers.?"
Bad actors like CNN etc are spreading the idea that some very small amount of advertising is all that important in the election outcome. Cambridge spent $6 Million. But the total spent was at least a $Billion start to finish. If an election comes down to a 10,000 vote margin, then it's basically a crap-shoot anyway. You can look for any number of micro-details. Maybe somebody is paying the Weather Channel to falsely predict the weather on election day. Maybe somebody is paying a reporter to delay some news reports or paying newspapers to add an extra story the day before the election, etc. etc.
It just doesn't make any sense to me to blame micro-influences for swinging the election. After all, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Pope both came over and addressed the Congress a couple of weeks before the election. The former certified that "Trump is not an anti-Semite". That's an endorsement and much more significant than this made-up stuff.
If this is ok, then this type of open influence by Israel and the Pope dwarfs whatever made-up trivial "pop ups" or "bots" that may have been out there. And it is also dwarfed by what was done by Comey and the FBI. Even if the Pope did not endorse a candidate, then you could point to the difference in turnout brought about by the Pope's appearance. That's an influence, too. You can go around and around and around about all this "junk."
And besides, nobody is saying precisely what happened regarding the hacking. It's all just blowing smoke as far as I can determine. It's a convenient excuse to get the politicians off the hook from having to discuss real issues and problems. Why enable them?
James Lateer