Who are you voting for?

[Bocefish]

According to the 5pm news... the CIA is announcing it will cyber attack Putin along with his banking cohorts. Of course, POTUS is not sure if it's a good idea or not..

 

[justjoinedtopost]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...eatens-cyber-war-russia-save-hillary-campaign
http://www.infowars.com/cia-preparing-possible-cyber-attack-against-russia/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cyber-strike-against-russia-n666636
http://www.inquisitr.com/3596863/ww...e-against-russia-in-the-works-says-cia-video/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/issues-...-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-Clinton-rips-Republican-cheering-hacks.html

According to the 5pm news... the CIA is announcing it will cyber attack Putin along with his banking cohorts. Of course, POTUS is not sure if it's a good idea or not..

Wasn't surprised to hear that earlier. Curious, where did you hear POTUS doesn't think it's a good idea? May find an article spinning it that way before you answer.

I don't know what to think of this. If they are going to retaliate with a cyber attack, why announce it? Smacks of bs.

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...eatens-cyber-war-russia-save-hillary-campaign
http://www.infowars.com/cia-preparing-possible-cyber-attack-against-russia/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cia-prepping-possible-cyber-strike-against-russia-n666636
http://www.inquisitr.com/3596863/ww...e-against-russia-in-the-works-says-cia-video/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/issues-...-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-foreign-policy/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-Clinton-rips-Republican-cheering-hacks.html

Wasn't surprised to hear that earlier. Curious, where did you hear POTUS doesn't think it's a good idea? May find an article spinning it that way before you answer.

I don't know what to think of this. If they are going to retaliate with a cyber attack, why announce it? Smacks of bs.

POTUS is out campaigning for HRC, so it was the White House that announced plausible deniability.
.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

POTUS is out campaigning for HRC, so it was the White House that announced plausible deniability.
.

lol Guess Assange has got something they really worried about

 

[justjoinedtopost]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/usa-freedom-kids-lawsuit-trump/

More liberal lies? Another example of CNN smearing Trump at the behest of Hillary? Are these just three ugly little losers?

 

[Bocefish]

lol Guess Assange has got something they really worried about

lol?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

lol?

yes lol

 

[Bocefish]

yes lol

Fine... be that way, but please specify what you find so funny.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Fine... be that way

Oh for God's sake, all right then.

Lol. I waited up the other night to see what Assange was going to offer up . I was hoping for something that could not be denied, something along the lines of the Manning video. Instead I've had to read outlandish rumors, and shake my head at some pathetic interpretations of some of the things I have read so far.

 

[Mila_]

Now this is an interesting video. I agree with much of what he says here.
Yes the corporate media will lie, either by omission or commission. Sometimes for money. People need it, people want it. That's just the way it is.
"For years I have created videos on a range of topics; politics, religion (and antireligion), gardening, current events, and philosophy. As an early arrival to Youtube, I have always disliked the concept of ad revenue, but being compensated for the rather massive amount of material I create is now a necessity."
This in his own words. https://www.patreon.com/Styxhexenhammer666
That doesn't mean I reject everything he says.

There is an important difference between youtubers monetizing their videos and mainstream media colluding with a candidate's campaign for profit (or interests). Up until about a month ago Youtube did not enforce their editorial line. That meant that people got paid for views regardless of the content of their videos. Someone talking about their christian faith and a woman talking about her abortion got the same $$$ out of their videos if all other variables were the same. So Styxhexenhammer saying that he needs to generate revenue doesn't mean he will shoot different content. It only means he will shoot more of it. The only thing I would say youtube does incentivize is clickbait because the more clicks you get the more views you get, the more money you make. So maybe he is focusing more on the campaign now than he otherwise would. But his views are the same they were before he was trying to make money with his channel.

I said Youtube did not enforce their editorial line until a month ago because then they released the Youtube Heroes program and started to demonetize everyone's political content:



So perhaps things will change.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

There is an important difference between youtubers monetizing their videos and mainstream media colluding with a candidate's campaign for profit (or interests). Up until about a month ago Youtube did not enforce their editorial line. That meant that people got paid for views regardless of the content of their videos. Someone talking about their christian faith and a woman talking about her abortion got the same $$$ out of their videos if all other variables were the same. So Styxhexenhammer saying that he needs to generate revenue doesn't mean he will shoot different content. It only means he will shoot more of it. The only thing I would say youtube does incentivize is clickbait because the more clicks you get the more views you get, the more money you make. So maybe he is focusing more on the campaign now than he otherwise would. But his views are the same they were before he was trying to make money with his channel.

I said Youtube did not enforce their editorial line until a month ago because then they released the Youtube Heroes program and started to demonetize everyone's political content:



So perhaps things will change.

Yes. I was taking a little dig at you there about Styxhexenhammer's looks. A cheap shot, inspired by the deplorable conduct of Donald Trump over the last couple of days.

Styxhexenhammer has got some interesting videos up. Smart guy. Plan on digging through some more of his stuff.

I don't think he will shoot biased content for revenue like CNN does. I brought up the bit about him and ad revenue to point out in a roundabout way that he is biased too; if not for revenue, then certainly for his interests. We all are biased.

Of course he is right about the corporate media outlets. You have no idea how much contempt I have for CNN, and the way they advertised the runup to the first debate like it was a prizefight, or the 24-7 coverage of Pussygate. Or Fox, who hates the mainstream media so much they can't even look in the mirror.

If legacy media is saying Clinton and social media is saying Trump, and either side wins, you can chalk it up to gullibility. And I would say that there is a 99.999% chance that credibility is going to lose, since it's hard as hell to stop one stampede, much less two.

 

[Mila_]

Yes. I was taking a little dig at you there about Styxhexenhammer's looks. A cheap shot, inspired by the deplorable conduct of Donald Trump over the last couple of days.

Styxhexenhammer has got some interesting videos up. Smart guy. Plan on digging through some more of his stuff.

I don't think he will shoot biased content for revenue like CNN does. I brought up the bit about him and ad revenue to point out in a roundabout way that he is biased too; if not for revenue, then certainly for his interests. We all are biased.

Of course he is right about the corporate media outlets. You have no idea how much contempt I have for CNN, and the way they advertised the runup to the first debate like it was a prizefight, or the 24-7 coverage of Pussygate. Or Fox, who hates the mainstream media so much they can't even look in the mirror.

If legacy media is saying Clinton and social media is saying Trump, and either side wins, you can chalk it up to gullibility. And I would say that there is a 99.999% chance that credibility is going to lose, since it's hard as hell to stop one stampede, much less two.

We don't have a shortage of beautiful people on the Trump Train... if that is what you are into you can start by following the epitome of FUCKING WHITE MALE:

PewDiePie



Or if you are into women take a walk through Rebel Media's Lauren Southern videos



Or, if gay men is what you are after you can always check Milo:



Or Blair White if you are into trannies:



As of legacy media vs social media... the big difference is one is controlled by the elites, the other one is the voters themselves. It is nearly impossible to coordinate and come up with a strategy that will unify social media voices, which is precisely why we find dissent there. As the Wikileaks emails proved, legacy media do strategize, plan ahead, and cooperate to let only one side of the story be heard, regardless of the outlet. Which is why Fox news is also hellbent on destroying Trump even though he is the republican candidate.

So the gullibility idea that you are proposing doesn't really have much to do with the way social media works.. If Trump wins it will mean that the legacy media is not as powerful as they used to be. That they will have to start policing Facebook, Twitter and Youtube even harder than they are policing them already. And they are getting nervous... Facebook is sliding news that portray Clinton in a bad light or that go against their multi-culti, open borders agenda, Twitter banned Milo from their network after having a fight against Leslie Jones and calling her a man, and Reddit's news board goes as far as to delete any comments or threads on news that they don't find PC compliant (for example they deleted any comment or thread that said the Orlando shooting was perpetrated by a muslim) True dissent right now is possible only in places like 4chan, and other boards that remain outside the sphere of control of google/facebook/twitter/reddit. But social media still allows for people to doubt and question the main narrative. Which is why this guy is saying that if Trump wins it will be a victory against mainstream media. Just like Brexit was. And he is right.

 

[Osmia]

. . . .
I don't know what to think of this. If they are going to retaliate with a cyber attack, why announce it? Smacks of bs.

The explanation I heard was that Russia's attacks have been so public, that our response needs to be public. Russia's attacks have not only been public, Russia hasn't even put much effort into concealing the origin of the attacks, which has allowed these acts to be associated with Trump and thereby politicizing them.

Here, Chuck Todd interviews retired Admiral James G. Stavridis,
http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_mtpd_russhack_161014

 

[zippypinhead]

PewDiePie is a Swedish national living in England. His thoughts on Trump matter about as much as, well, a Swedish national living in England.

Couldn't find a charming example among voting-eligible US citizens?

 

[JoleneBrody]

Wait what do good looking people what to do with JJTP's joke?

I think the jab joke flew over some heads here. Justjoined wasn't insulting the looks of Trump supporters, Justjoined was taking a sarcastic jab at how acceptable and celebrated and frequent attacks and insults on a persons physical appearance spew out of the Toad Lords mouth. And since he had just finished watching Trump shit talk like a mean girl for an hour, it had infected him... *DEEP BREATH*

Am I right @justjoinedtopost or am I the idiot with planes flying over my head?

 

[zippypinhead]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

 

[JoleneBrody]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

Oh yeah well I get that too but @Kitsune falls under that umbrella as well. However I somewhat disagree, to a degree. While the affect on how people treat one another on the street is not as important to a person living outside of the US, the United States is so so deeply involved in the entire worlds politics. Maybe no say, but an opinion makes perfect sense to me. If I lived outside of the U.S I sure as shit would be watching.
That's why the whole world pays attention to US politics, because we influence everything in some way. Whatever happens here WILL affect the entire world in some way.

 

[fandango]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

Pewdiepie doesn't get a say in the outcome because he can't vote. There is nothing to stop him from having an opinion and sharing it. Or are you also saying non US citizens shouldn't be allowed to share their opinions in any place where it may influence the thinking of someone who can vote?

 

[Gen]

If I lived outside of the U.S I sure as shit would be watching.

The frustrating thing is when you want to stop but it's nearly impossible to ignore if you use the internet, watch tv, etc. Our media is so saturated with Trump, it's all over social media. It sucks in its own way to be embedded in it but also have no say. It's also talked about a lot in my classes, sometimes as off-hand jokes but last week we did a whole segment on how the media is talking about the candidates. What's most interesting to me is it assumes students have quite a lot of knowledge about the election, and most do - just interesting how even non-political folks have a fair bit of knowledge of the main talking points.

Last year before our election, there was a republican primary debate (I think? A bunch of the Republican dudes) the same night as one of our all-leader debates (all four major party leaders) and I'd say of my Canadian pals, more were live-tweeting the American debate than the Canadian one. This was about a month or a month and a half before our election, iirc, so hypothetically it'd be comparable to the debates that are happening in the US now. It is frustrating at times that many canadians are more informed and opinionated about your elections than our own. Ours are much less dramatic though and less "entertaining". (Also seems crazy how long your election lead ups last. Seems like there's a year between campaigns!)

Anyway PewdiePie still seems important since he has such a large following; dont have to be american to influence Americans. Not sure how any non-American who hangs out on American websites could avoid forming an opinion, really. And what else to do on social media but share it, haha.

 

[zippypinhead]

There is a difference between having opinions and expressing those opinions, and being used as an example of a voice of influence in the conversation. Obviously, the outcome of this election is going to have worldwide consequences, and people who live outside of the US are absolutely entitled to have opinions on it. But, to make an metaphor, PewDiePie might be watching the races, and even have a bet placed, but he doesn't have a dog on the track.

PewDiePie speaking his mind on world politics is not nearly as egregious a use of outside influence as the Putin regime trying to directly impact this campaign, but if not dangerous, I still think it's at least disingenuous to point at someone like PewDiePie as an example of a Trump supporter.

 

[Mila_]

I understood @justjoinedtopost's point, but I wasn't responding to him. The idea that people who exist outside our political system should have a say in its outcome is what I was responding to.

Oh yeah well I get that too but @Kitsune falls under that umbrella as well. However I somewhat disagree, to a degree. While the affect on how people treat one another on the street is not as important to a person living outside of the US, the United States is so so deeply involved in the entire worlds politics. Maybe no say, but an opinion makes perfect sense to me. If I lived outside of the U.S I sure as shit would be watching.
That's why the whole world pays attention to US politics, because we influence everything in some way. Whatever happens here WILL affect the entire world in some way.

Hell just froze cause I agree with the above.

PewDiePie is swedish. Sweden is probably the country in Europe that has both embraced the DiVeRSiToPiA! ideology more fully and also the country that has seen the fastest social decay as a result of it with the open borders policy. To name one concern, Sweden is currently the rape capital of Europe, it is the second country in the world when it comes to rape only followed by South Africa. It went from having around 70 reported rape cases per year in the 80s, to over 5,000 today and it continues to be on the rise. The muslim immigrants are overrepresented in these cases at 77% of sexual attacks reported have been perpetrated by muslim immigrants or second generation muslim immigrants.

The US establishment and the international elites have pushed this shit on the entire region with their massive immigration policies. If Hillary Clinton wins, the trend will continue because she will continue to push the same agenda on Europe. If Trump wins not only will he stop pressuring the EU to keep borders open, other countries in Europe will feel justified in taking a more conservative stance when it comes to their own borders. The Trump campaign + Brexit is already doing the trick with Sarkozy who is an establishment politician in France changing his approach toward borders and adopting a stance closer to the National Front on the matter.

So yeah... PewDiePie has an interest in US politics. All Europeans do. And I would say it does matter what he says considering he has millions of american subscribers who listen to him. I am not saying people will actually listen considering all he does is play video games and wear Trump caps or repeat /pol/ memes, but it is a voice that breaks the monotony of the mainstream media. Maybe it will spark some curiosity among people.

At it's core, this is an international movement, just like progressivists are. The fact that Trump has so many international supporters only goes to show in how much shit the left is in.

 

[zippypinhead]

Except that PewDiePie's fanbase skews quite young. They aren't voters.

 

[Mila_]

Except that PewDiePie's fanbase skews quite young. They aren't voters.

The guy has 48 million subscribers.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Hell just froze cause I agree with the above.

PewDiePie is swedish. Sweden is probably the country in Europe that has both embraced the DiVeRSiToPiA! ideology more fully and also the country that has seen the fastest social decay as a result of it with the open borders policy. To name one concern, Sweden is currently the rape capital of Europe, it is the second country in the world when it comes to rape only followed by South Africa. It went from having around 70 reported rape cases per year in the 80s, to over 5,000 today and it continues to be on the rise. The muslim immigrants are overrepresented in these cases at 77% of sexual attacks reported have been perpetrated by muslim immigrants or second generation muslim immigrants.

The US establishment and the international elites have pushed this shit on the entire region with their massive immigration policies. If Hillary Clinton wins, the trend will continue because she will continue to push the same agenda on Europe. If Trump wins not only will he stop pressuring the EU to keep borders open, other countries in Europe will feel justified in taking a more conservative stance when it comes to their own borders. The Trump campaign + Brexit is already doing the trick with Sarkozy who is an establishment politician in France changing his approach toward borders and adopting a stance closer to the National Front on the matter.

So yeah... PewDiePie has an interest in US politics. All Europeans do. And I would say it does matter what he says considering he has millions of american subscribers who listen to him. I am not saying people will actually listen considering all he does is play video games and wear Trump caps or repeat /pol/ memes, but it is a voice that breaks the monotony of the mainstream media. Maybe it will spark some curiosity among people.

At it's core, this is an international movement, just like progressivists are. The fact that Trump has so many international supporters only goes to show in how much shit the left is in.

I may not agree with all of your opinions but I respect your right to have them and understand at least where you are coming from, even if where you are coming from is a very very very different place than where I am.

 

[zippypinhead]

The guy has 48 million subscribers.

That's a global statistic, and it's still mostly children.

 

[EspiKvlt]

Except that PewDiePie's fanbase skews quite young. They aren't voters.

The guy has 48 million subscribers.

And I'm one of them. Really tired to people dismissing a fanbase due to supposed "target audience." It's like when people say every person on tumblr is the same - no, there's millions of people on that website, that is absurd. So is saying all of Pewdiepie's audience can't vote.

 

[zippypinhead]

This is getting out of hand.

And I'm one of them. Really tired to people dismissing a fanbase due to supposed "target audience." It's like when people say every person on tumblr is the same - no, there's millions of people on that website, that is absurd. So is saying all of Pewdiepie's audience can't vote.

I'm not saying there aren't adults who watch his channel. Let me restate what I am saying:

Pointing out PewDiePie as a voice of influence in this election is a false equivalence. PewDiePie is not a citizen of the US, and even though he is a popular personality, his endorsement of a certain candidate can not hold the same weight as someone with the voting power to back up his endorsement. In other words, he can say all he wants, but he can't put his money where his mouth is. That lack of personal investment in the outcome is an important point, and it was the first point I made. Secondly, while I and everyone else here understands that he is incredibly popular, the fact still remains that he is ostensibly a children's entertainer. That's demographics. His audience is primarily made up of young teens. They can't vote. Does that mean that everyone who likes him can't vote? No, obviously it doesn't mean that. However, we're talking about the man as a voice of influence over the voting public. Does his input have an effect on votes? I maintain that it doesn't -- at least not in any demonstrable fashion.

TL;DR: PewDiePie is still not living or able to vote in the US, and he's still a children's entertainer. Find a better example of a cool Trump supporter.

 

[Gen]

Getting youngins familiar with politics, let alone interested, is pretty indisputably a good thing to do? Like if PewdiePie gets some youth involved then great. Even if his message falls flat and nobody cares...so what? No loss except his time which he seems to be putting in anyway, if he's just mixing political messages into his regular programming. I don't even totally understand the argument. His fanbase skews young so...?

Are you pulling from a stat about them being children or just guessing? I would've guessed the majority would be over 18. I'd also guess many can't vote (not American) but again don't think that really matters.

ETA; just saw your reply, answers most of my questions.

 

[Mila_]

This is getting out of hand.



I'm not saying there aren't adults who watch his channel. Let me restate what I am saying:

Pointing out PewDiePie as a voice of influence in this election is a false equivalence. PewDiePie is not a citizen of the US, and even though he is a popular personality, his endorsement of a certain candidate can not hold the same weight as someone with the voting power to back up his endorsement. In other words, he can say all he wants, but he can't put his money where his mouth is. That lack of personal investment in the outcome is an important point, and it was the first point I made. Secondly, while I and everyone else here understands that he is incredibly popular, the fact still remains that he is ostensibly a children's entertainer. That's demographics. His audience is primarily made up of young teens. They can't vote. Does that mean that everyone who likes him can't vote? No, obviously it doesn't mean that. However, we're talking about the man as a voice of influence over the voting public. Does his input have an effect on votes? I maintain that it doesn't -- at least not in any demonstrable fashion.

TL;DR: PewDiePie is still not living or able to vote in the US, and he's still a children's entertainer. Find a better example of a cool Trump supporter.

These are Youtube's global demographics:



I think we can safely assume PewDiePie's audience follows this graph in rough terms considering his videos are in english and he targets them to a US audience. So let's say 19% of his audience is american. That leaves us with roughly 9 million subscribers. From those, let's assume the vast majority of his audience is not old enough to vote, let's assume only 10% of his audience is 18 or older... that would still be 900,000 people that can vote and watch his videos. I would dare to say this is pretty impressive. I don't think many models here have 900k followers on twitter, for example. On my best days on cam I have 4000 viewers at most. I would dare to say that the opinion of a swedish guy that lives in England and cannot vote in the US matters more than the opinion of anyone on these forums if his voice is heard by 900,000 voters. If PewDiePie's opinion is unimportant then so is John Oliver's because he is english, regardless of how many people watch his talk show.

The great thing about the internet is everyone can weigh in on issues, and you get to hear other people's point of view. If you only limit what you hear to whether or not that person is an american citizen of voting age you will miss a lot of stuff. There are tons of minors with interesting voices, I have followed Tavi Gevinson (who, by the way, is the most hardcore progressive) since she was 14. She is 20 now, is still a hardcore progressive, and I still read what she writes. Even at 14 she was more articulate and interesting than many adults I know.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

If PewDiePie's opinion is unimportant then so is John Oliver's because he is english, regardless of how many people watch his talk show.

This is the most correct thing typed in this entire thread. Their opinions aren't important. Personally I think it's stupid to be getting political advice from anyone in entertainment.

But then again I don't tend to be swayed by anyone's opinion. I prefer reading up and making up my own mind.



In general, this is what I think of celebrities trying to push their political agenda on people. They may make great entertainment, beyond that they hold no sway with me.