Philosophical Vegan Forum

In 2012, Obama won the election, however, if Americans voted Romney instead, then he would be the Republican nominee in 2016. Not Trump. Technically, if you voted Democrat in 2012, you had a role in causing the Trump presidency.

And a butterfly flapping its wings technically causes a tornado the next week on the other side of the Earth.

Not sure what your point is. There are countless ways Democrats and Republicans caused Trump.

So you're claiming the butterfly effect explains how Trump get into office? Can you list an example other than Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's?

RedAppleGP wrote:So you're claiming the butterfly effect explains how Trump get into office? Can you list an example other than Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's?

I'm just saying distant causes are less meaningful.

Proximal causes like Comey's statements, the meme that Hillary is corrupt, fake news on Facebook, and Hillary's failure to resonate with the manufacturing and energy worker demographic (failure to engage with the issues instead of attacking, which didn't sway undecided voters much) are more meaningful to examine.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm just saying distant causes are less meaningful.

Proximal causes like Comey's statements, the meme that Hillary is corrupt, fake news on Facebook, and Hillary's failure to resonate with the manufacturing and energy worker demographic (failure to engage with the issues instead of attacking, which didn't sway undecided voters much) are more meaningful to examine.

Huh, so like the culmination of whoever Comey is' speeches, and the memes about Hilary Clinton have caused Trump, since they were closely related to the election. I think I get it.

Got any recommended books on the Butterfly Effect?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:So you're claiming the butterfly effect explains how Trump get into office? Can you list an example other than Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's?

I'm just saying distant causes are less meaningful.

Proximal causes like Comey's statements, the meme that Hillary is corrupt, fake news on Facebook, and Hillary's failure to resonate with the manufacturing and energy worker demographic (failure to engage with the issues instead of attacking, which didn't sway undecided voters much) are more meaningful to examine.

Fake news on Facebook didn't cost Hillary Clinton the election. Notice how literally nobody was talking about fake news until AFTER Hillary lost (as a scapegoat).
You can't just take what the mainstream media is saying about why Hillary Clinton lost as fact. Of course they're attacking news outlets that aren't their news outlets - they want more business.
Most of Trump's voters were older, and they're not the major demographic on Facebook. The Internet in general is used much more by younger people. There's no evidence that fake news had any substantial impact; it's just a talking point that has become a thing because of democratic politicians and the mainstream media.

Hillary Clinton lost because she was establishment and against change, which I essentially proved with statistics here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2709