So let's treat this like a regular conspiracy theory. Either it works or it doesn't.
Step one is to generally gauge plausibility.
We know: Russia views the idea of popular democracy as a threat, and has worked, through various efforts at undermining it.
Donald Trump is very friendly towards Russia.
So here we have motive. Russia would have a clear preference of candidates, and an extra motive to monkey with US processes in order to create divisiveness and polarization.
Russia's intelligence services have retained a lot of their Cold War capability. It is about the only thing they have going for them, aside from enough drunk stupid conscripts to throw at the dinky countries that stand up to them.
This much is basic.
Russia has both motive, and capability to act. There is the first leg of plausibility.
Next leg is to see how plausible moving something as large as the US election is.
Electoral vote difference:
306 total trump electoral votes out of 270 needed.
Clinton won 232.
She would have needed 38 Electoral votes to cinch it with 270, and that would have taken Trump below the threshold.
Swap 38 electoral college votes and that would do it.
What is the minimum number of votes that would have to be changed to effect this election?
Sort vote totals by margin, considering states that voted for Trump, lowest to highest. Drop maine with its proportional vote system.
Then run a ulative total of delegates for each state until you get to, or exceed that magic number.
Took 3 states to do that. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, collectively award 46 electoral college votes.
Total margin of votes in those three states: 77744.
Divide that by two, to find the "flip" number. (i.e. subtract from Trump total, then add to Clinton)
38,000 people.
Out of total votes cast, in those states, that represents 0.278%
It is plausible that Russian efforts affected 0.278% of the electorate in just three states?
This is a finely balanced scale. One might discount the overall effect of anything the Russians did, but this is a very thin margin. It certainly wouldn't take some colossal ad buy, or boots on the ground effort.
Second leg of plausibility seems intact.
1) An actor that has motive and capability.
2) An election decided by a razor thin margin.
Easy to flesh out. As noted bull conspiracy theories fall apart, and usually pretty quickly.
Do you think nothing happened?
Pretty much
Everything you've posted above is part and parcel of almost any conspiracy theory.
Not denying the possibility but with a little ad background under my belt, a 0.278% return on a basic spam campaign would be pretty aamazing imo.
But within the realm of possibility, yes?
Remember we aren't trying to definitively pin anything down, merely evaluate the underlying plausibility, so we can figure out how much evidence we would generally need to firmly establish a theory as being a good one.
Spam ad campaigns though, generally aren't of "push button" emotional topics that play to human psychology's darker side of confirmation bias and such. Think of how effective a spam campaign would be, if you could get gullible old people to forward it endlessly.
Indeed. It is what makes them attractive to people.
But it is still the first step in evaluating any theory, yes?
A theory about magic invisible gnomes with wings pushing everything towards the center of the earth is not plausible on its face. As such it would require a LOT of evidence to prove to a reasonable degree.
Continuing an unbroken streak of not really contributing anything of value to any conversation ever.
No it's not. You have to have evidence not just su ion and not just motive.
I think you're misusing the term Theory.
(shrugs)
Working hypothesis.
Pick a working term, I'll roll with it.
If you have evidence that something happened, you need a working hypothesis to attempt to explain the "how". In this you are correct, evidence should come first.
We have that in the form of intelligence assessments, backed by various private and public organizations.
Regardless of the nitpicking about exact order, and terminology, a method of vetting such hypotheses is useful, especially when determining how much evidence is needed to get to a reasonable conclusion, yes?
(jumps)
GAAAH, quit sneaking up on me like that. Halloween is over.
The Ghost of Tautology Present.
From the Department of Redundancy DepartmentThe Ghost of Tautology Present.
Charisma Helps Corsi Promote Deep-State Conspiracy Theory
Right-wing media operation Newsmax is using Pentecostal publisher Charisma to promote Jerome Corsi’s latest conspiracy-theory book,
“Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump,”
which was released a few weeks ago.
A Newsmax promotional page promises that Corsi “lays it all out—
from the alarming evidence for the coup d’état to take out President Trump —
to the plan that will allow the president and patriots to destroy this dangerous shadow government for good.”
Newsmax is offering the book free ($4.95 for shipping) if you sign up for a trial subscription to Newsmax Magazine ($39.95/year).
A Thursday afternoon email from Newsmax promoting the book was identified as a sponsorship message to subscribers of Charisma Media’s newsletter.
The Newsmax/Charisma email includes a helpful graphic showing the “cast of characters” in Corsi’s book,
including
President Trump as “The Hero,”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “The Patsy,” and
guess who as “The Truth Teller”:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/c...piracy-theory/
Thar's Gold In Them Thar Conspiracies
Totally forgot randomguy got owned by Derptacular
Easy to forget something that never happened.
Poor OP
The poor guys thinks very little of himself
Read more like the conspira s having a circle jerk and acting like smilies are a convincing emotional disposition.
I kind of enjoy hater presenting all this utterly stupid .
Its good comedy. The US will learn something about people purposely enjoying the most bizarre theories. It’s helpful to know hater is free to be a wacko if he wishes.
Yea, he realizes that you need a coping mechanism.
Nah, he got slapped
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
