Misinformation

[JKLivin]

It’s almost like a corporate media that knowingly hyperinflates false crises can end up creating real ones.



There are seemingly now two outcomes that are (individually or in combination) much more likely than the rest: (1) Trump will carry out his stated plans, and cause inflation that is actually as broadly bad as what people were deceived into thinking occurred under Biden, and/or (2) Trump will NOT carry out his stated plans, and will take credit for the Trump
economy being something other than simply a continuation of the (quite robust!) Biden economy.

And of course of the bitch of it is that, in Scenario 1, Trump will likely succeed in convincing his flock that the inflation is the Democrats’ fault. Whether by the cake being baked, or by obstructing the full extent of His will.

Ya know, you can keep saying these things and posting data that are skewed to support your claims, but the fact remains that I don't know anyone who feels better off than they were in 2019, and, if exit polls and election results are to be believed, not many others did, either.

Might be a note for future Dim campaigns to file away: telling people that their perceptions are wrong, that the are too stupid to see that their bank accounts are not an accurate representation of how great their financial situations are, and to stop feeling that way isn't a solid strategy.

You people play just the silliest heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games.

The data is wrong.

You are certain that is true, because you claim to not "know anyone who feels better off than they were in 2019."

This is like 10th grade stuff, man.

And, newsflash: Trump did not win a plurality of the votes solely because a plurality of the country believed the false narrative about inflation. A huge part of Trump's plurality - I would guess, a majority among that plurality - was going to vote for the bigotry and chaos even if that group felt economically secure.

The data may be accurate for some people in some situations. Data is also easy to manipulate. In either case, you missed the point: people voted based on who they thought would help make their economic situation better.

Your side lost because you discounted and shamed them rather than acknowledging their pain. Re-labeling it as bigotry, misogyny, and stupidity may make you feel superior and even vindicated, but it will lead to more of this type of outcome.

[BiggDick]

what is going on here, exactly?

why would corporate media knowingly hyperinflate false crises?

What's the motive?

It's, ah, right there in your post.

wut?

[DeletedUser]

LOL

[jfish26]

Ya know, you can keep saying these things and posting data that are skewed to support your claims, but the fact remains that I don't know anyone who feels better off than they were in 2019, and, if exit polls and election results are to be believed, not many others did, either.

Might be a note for future Dim campaigns to file away: telling people that their perceptions are wrong, that the are too stupid to see that their bank accounts are not an accurate representation of how great their financial situations are, and to stop feeling that way isn't a solid strategy.

You people play just the silliest heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games.

The data is wrong.

You are certain that is true, because you claim to not "know anyone who feels better off than they were in 2019."

This is like 10th grade stuff, man.

And, newsflash: Trump did not win a plurality of the votes solely because a plurality of the country believed the false narrative about inflation. A huge part of Trump's plurality - I would guess, a majority among that plurality - was going to vote for the bigotry and chaos even if that group felt economically secure.

The data may be accurate for some people in some situations. Data is also easy to manipulate. In either case, you missed the point: people voted based on who they thought would help make their economic situation better.

Your side lost because you discounted and shamed them rather than acknowledging their pain. Re-labeling it as bigotry, misogyny, and stupidity may make you feel superior and even vindicated, but it will lead to more of this type of outcome.

Your perceptions may be accurate for some people in some situations. Perceptions are also easy to manipulate. You are correct that some people voted based on who they thought would make their economic situation better.

Your side won because just enough people - a few hundred thousand across a few states, out of a nation of 350 million people - held their nose at the bigotry and chaos because they perceived it would make their economic situation better.

It is quite relevant that, statistically speaking, our collective perception of the economy got a LOT less correlated with economic data right when Covid sent us all to our corners.

The reasons for that decoupling are muddled.

I suspect you and I will agree that one factor is the uneven distribution of both economic pain and economic success (during and coming out of Covid).

I also feel, which I do not expect you will agree with, that Covid cracked wide open civil and cultural fissures that had their utilitarian roots in movement conservatism, and were (as they came closer and closer to the surface) subsequently (but well before Covid) exploited by bad actors, foreign and domestic.

In other words, the divide between "sides" that exploded during Covid was not really about Covid at all.

[jfish26]

what is going on here, exactly?

why would corporate media knowingly hyperinflate false crises?

What's the motive?

It's, ah, right there in your post.

wut?

A good thought exercise to get you started might be to consider why bookmakers set (and later move) the spreads where they do.

[JKLivin]

You people play just the silliest heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games.

The data is wrong.

You are certain that is true, because you claim to not "know anyone who feels better off than they were in 2019."

This is like 10th grade stuff, man.

And, newsflash: Trump did not win a plurality of the votes solely because a plurality of the country believed the false narrative about inflation. A huge part of Trump's plurality - I would guess, a majority among that plurality - was going to vote for the bigotry and chaos even if that group felt economically secure.

The data may be accurate for some people in some situations. Data is also easy to manipulate. In either case, you missed the point: people voted based on who they thought would help make their economic situation better.

Your side lost because you discounted and shamed them rather than acknowledging their pain. Re-labeling it as bigotry, misogyny, and stupidity may make you feel superior and even vindicated, but it will lead to more of this type of outcome.

Your perceptions may be accurate for some people in some situations. Perceptions are also easy to manipulate. You are correct that some people voted based on who they thought would make their economic situation better.

Your side won because just enough people - a few hundred thousand across a few states, out of a nation of 350 million people - held their nose at the bigotry and chaos because they perceived it would make their economic situation better.

It is quite relevant that, statistically speaking, our collective perception of the economy got a LOT less correlated with economic data right when Covid sent us all to our corners.

The reasons for that decoupling are muddled.

I suspect you and I will agree that one factor is the uneven distribution of both economic pain and economic success (during and coming out of Covid).

I also feel, which I do not expect you will agree with, that Covid cracked wide open civil and cultural fissures that had their utilitarian roots in movement conservatism, and were (as they came closer and closer to the surface) subsequently (but well before Covid) exploited by bad actors, foreign and domestic.

In other words, the divide between "sides" that exploded during Covid was not really about Covid at all.

You're so determined to find a face-saving explanation for an overwhelming repudiation of your candidate and your philosophy that you're going to exchange a relatively simple fix for a complex one. So be it. It will lead to more of the same, which is just fine with me.

[jfish26]

You can keep using words like "overwhelming" and "landslide" and it will not make those descriptions accurate.

But it sure does shine a light on misperceptions.

How easily they're created. How durable they are. And how simple they are to exploit.

For example: tell me whether ("yes" or "no") you think Trump has a "mandate" to pursue the Project 2025 playbook.

[JKLivin]

You can keep using words like "overwhelming" and "landslide" and it will not make those descriptions accurate.

But it sure does shine a light on misperceptions.

How easily they're created. How durable they are. And how simple they are to exploit.

For example: tell me whether ("yes" or "no") you think Trump has a "mandate" to pursue the Project 2025 playbook.

He won the Electoral College vote by a landslide - the only metric that matters. He also won the popular vote. Those two definitely imply a mandate.

As to the Project 2025 stuff, I think it is a canard. He publicly repudiated it early in the campaign, but the Dims kept flailing away at it. We see now how much good that did.

[jfish26]

You can keep using words like "overwhelming" and "landslide" and it will not make those descriptions accurate.

But it sure does shine a light on misperceptions.

How easily they're created. How durable they are. And how simple they are to exploit.

For example: tell me whether ("yes" or "no") you think Trump has a "mandate" to pursue the Project 2025 playbook.

He won the Electoral College vote by a landslide - the only metric that matters. He also won the popular vote. Those two definitely imply a mandate.

As to the Project 2025 stuff, I think it is a canard. He publicly repudiated it early in the campaign, but the Dims kept flailing away at it. We see now how much good that did.

That is neither "yes" nor "no" to a yes/no question. But you know that.

Trump won the popular vote (with a plurality, NOT a majority) by the fifth-smallest margin since 1900. This was an improvement over his 2016 performance, in which he lost the popular vote (and, naturally, had the poorest margin of any winner since 1900).

To describe his 2024 Electoral College result as a "landslide" is not so unlike a Kansas fan crowing about beating Memphis by 7 in the 2008 title game. It is simultaneously true and wholly uninstructive as to how the game actually went.

[JKLivin]

You can keep using words like "overwhelming" and "landslide" and it will not make those descriptions accurate.

But it sure does shine a light on misperceptions.

How easily they're created. How durable they are. And how simple they are to exploit.

For example: tell me whether ("yes" or "no") you think Trump has a "mandate" to pursue the Project 2025 playbook.

He won the Electoral College vote by a landslide - the only metric that matters. He also won the popular vote. Those two definitely imply a mandate.

As to the Project 2025 stuff, I think it is a canard. He publicly repudiated it early in the campaign, but the Dims kept flailing away at it. We see now how much good that did.

That is neither "yes" nor "no" to a yes/no question. But you know that.

Trump won the popular vote (with a plurality, NOT a majority) by the fifth-smallest margin since 1900. This was an improvement over his 2016 performance, in which he lost the popular vote (and, naturally, had the poorest margin of any winner since 1900).

To describe his 2024 Electoral College result as a "landslide" is not so unlike a Kansas fan crowing about beating Memphis by 7 in the 2008 title game. It is simultaneously true and wholly uninstructive as to how the game actually went.

Spoken like a sore looser.

[jfish26]

That's projection.

You were a sore loser about 2020. You've been a sore winner about 2024.

If Harris had won by Trump's 2024 margin, you would be here describing her victory as illegitimate, fraudulent, stolen, etc. We know that because (1) that's what you did in/after 2020 (when Biden won by essentially Trump's 2024 EC margin and a multiple of Trump's 2024 popular vote margin), and also (2) you have said as much about Harris' 2024 votes!

None of the people on the other "side" of you here are doing anything like that.

And you are still not answering a very straightforward yes or no question. The reason is that you can't answer the question: either answer, given straightforwardly and without qualification, puts you in a box of your own making.

[BiggDick]

It's, ah, right there in your post.

wut?

A good thought exercise to get you started might be to consider why bookmakers set (and later move) the spreads where they do.

ok?

thanks for the suggestion, I guess.

All I know is, this "almost like a corporate media that knowingly hyperinflates false crises" sorta post in none other than the Misinformation thread itself is...yea

[JKLivin]

That's projection.

You were a sore loser about 2020. You've been a sore winner about 2024.

If Harris had won by Trump's 2024 margin, you would be here describing her victory as illegitimate, fraudulent, stolen, etc. We know that because (1) that's what you did in/after 2020 (when Biden won by essentially Trump's 2024 EC margin and a multiple of Trump's 2024 popular vote margin), and also (2) you have said as much about Harris' 2024 votes!

None of the people on the other "side" of you here are doing anything like that.

And you are still not answering a very straightforward yes or no question. The reason is that you can't answer the question: either answer, given straightforwardly and without qualification, puts you in a box of your own making.

Your question is based on a faulty premise. No one in the Trump admin is backing Project 2025. Pretty tough to answer that one yes or no.

[KUTradition]

giggles

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/us/p ... -2025.html

[jfish26]

giggles

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/29/us/p ... -2025.html

Right. When you are (just for example!) putting Russ Vought in charge of OMB, you ARE pursuing Project 2025. Regardless of what you call it.

Which makes all of the post-election obfuscation and misdirection just...one might say, a clumsy exercise in dissembling?

[Overlander]

That's projection.

You were a sore loser about 2020. You've been a sore winner about 2024.

If Harris had won by Trump's 2024 margin, you would be here describing her victory as illegitimate, fraudulent, stolen, etc. We know that because (1) that's what you did in/after 2020 (when Biden won by essentially Trump's 2024 EC margin and a multiple of Trump's 2024 popular vote margin), and also (2) you have said as much about Harris' 2024 votes!

None of the people on the other "side" of you here are doing anything like that.

And you are still not answering a very straightforward yes or no question. The reason is that you can't answer the question: either answer, given straightforwardly and without qualification, puts you in a box of your own making.

No one in the Trump admin is backing Project 2025.

So, you fell for that one too….

[jfish26]

wut?

A good thought exercise to get you started might be to consider why bookmakers set (and later move) the spreads where they do.

ok?

thanks for the suggestion, I guess.

All I know is, this "almost like a corporate media that knowingly hyperinflates false crises" sorta post in none other than the Misinformation thread itself is...yea

Where exactly should a discussion about "a corporate media that knowingly hyperinflates false crises," and the consequences of doing that, go, if not in the Misinformation thread?

[japhy]

Round up the rubes and get them in the barn and into their stanchions. It's milking time again.

MAGA filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza issued a statement on Sunday admitting that his most notorious project — the 2020 election conspiracy film 2,000 Mules —- was produced “on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me and my team.”

The statement includes an apology to Mark Andrews, a Georgia man who sued D’Souza, Salem Media Group, and True The Vote (his partners on the film) for defamation in 2022.

Released in May 2022, 2,000 Mules claimed that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump in part through the use of “mules” who were paid to stuff ballot drop-boxes with ballots favoring Joe Biden. The film’s claims hinged on supposed “data” from True The Vote, a Trump-aligned election monitoring group, tracking cell phone data around drop boxes. 2,000 Mules provided no concrete evidence related to their claims of ballot harvesting, paid mules, and stash houses for fraudulent ballots, instead relying on sensationalist accusations and conjecture to stir up conservative rage — and a profit.

Profit it did, politically and financially. According to Salem Media Group, the film grossed over $10 million in revenue. Trump himself heavily promoted 2,000 Mules on social media, and even held a private screening of the “documentary” for his most outspoken election deniers at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The president-elect called the film “the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time,” going so far as to cite its claims in a personal rebuttal to the Jan. 6 investigative congressional hearings held in 2022.

Andrews, who was one of the alleged “mules” highlighted in the film, sued D’Souza and others involved in the film in 2022. The film used surveillance footage of Andrews dropping off his and his family’s ballots (with his face blurred), claiming it was evidence of ballot fraud. The lawsuit also alleges that D’Souza and the film’s promotional team used images of Andrews’ unblurred face and video featuring his license plate number in the promotion of the film. Days before the film’s release, the Georgia State Board of Elections rejected several of the film’s allegations of illegal ballot harvesting as false — including the accusations against Andrews.

In May, the distributors of 2,000 Mules, Salem Media Group, reached an undisclosed settlement with Andrews and pulled the film from distribution. As part of the settlement agreement, the distribution company also issued a public apology to Andrews. D’Souza has now apologized to Andrews himself.

“I apologize to Mr. Andrews. I make this apology not under the terms of a settlement agreement or other duress, but because it is the right thing to do, given what we have now learned,” he writes. “While I do not believe Mr. Andrews was ever identified by the film or book, I am sorry for any harm he believes he and his family has suffered as a result of ‘2000 Mules.’”

D’Souza claims that he had no idea the data provided by True The Vote was faulty at the time the film was released.

“True the Vote provided my team with ballot drop box surveillance footage that had been obtained through open records requests. We were assured that the surveillance videos had been linked to geolocation cell phone data, such that each video depicted an individual who had made at least 10 visits to drop boxes,” D’Souza writes. “We recently learned that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.”

That D’Souza didn’t know the claims in his film were faulty until “recently” is laughable. Andrews was exonerated of the accusations against him days before the films premiere, and the misuse of geolocation data by 2,000 Mules was quickly clockedas false by fact-checkers (and by any viewer with a functional cerebral cortex).

Despite the public admission that his film is predicated on bunk data and junk pseudoscience, D’Souza still refuses to commit the capital sin of Trumpworld: admitting the 2020 election was not fraudulently stolen from Trump.

And thank you for your debt service rubes.

We are enriched on the unceded finances of the roadkill rube peoples. I ask you to join me in acknowledging the roadkill rube community; their elders both past and present, as well as future generations. The Japhy Empire also acknowledges that it was founded upon the trickling up of their monies. This acknowledgement demonstrates a non-commitment to beginning the process of working to dismantle the ongoing legacies of trickle up economics; cuz the rubes likes it this way.

[MICHHAWK]

i have come to learn that "misinformation" is in the eyes of the beholder.

one mans misinformation is another mans "not" misinformation.

it's just so subjective. whatever that means.

[pdub]

i have come to learn that "misinformation" is in the eyes of the beholder.

it's just so subjective. whatever that means.

Except, no, this is how a society completely degrades.