Ok, so this makes more sense. The previous articles I’ve read, in my opinion framed it in a way that seemed to imply the hacking that was done, was in regards to voting equipment. I was not understanding how that could be proven and no action being taken. This article makes it clearer that the hacking, in question, was just the emails from Clinton and others in the DNC.
If it’s just the emails then it seems basically a battle of propaganda.
I find it less than believable that so many people consciously said that Clinton is untrustworthy and a liar but that Trump isn’t. The same way I have an immense impediment to believing that so many people trusted that their voting for Trump equalled a vote for draining the metaphorical swamp. You can’t sit there and tell me that a supposed billionaire is going to dismantle the system that allowed him to get where he is. As gullible as I think many people are, I don’t believe so many people had trust in that. I can see believing the propaganda uncritically; I can’t see consciously rationalizing trumps statements and accepting them wholesale.
It just doesn’t add up for me still though. I think 100％ of the news sources I follow had article after article bashing Trump (and for good reason) to the point where even trump bashing, the same as trump praise, sounds like nails on a chalkboard. Yet despite the plethora of Trump bashing it didn’t have enough of an adverse effect on his campaign? I’m supposed to believe that, the comparatively little, bashing of Clinton and the DNC turned people to support Trump? I sorry, I can’t believe that without explicit proof.
The rationalization that people are giving for this election doesn’t make sense to me. I wonder about two possible scenarios. 1. What I would succinctly term as vote-flipping (I’m sure there’s probably an established phrase I’m just not remembering at the moment), which comes from the impression I had about the hacking of voting equipment prior to this article. 2. A simultaneous major drop in the amount of people who would have voted for Clinton and a major rise in people who typically don’t vote, who supported Trump.
Now I’m not saying either scenario is likely but those two scenarios make more sense to me than a large group of people trying to decide “am I gonna vote for Clinton or trump?” I don’t see how they were similar enough to warrant any deliberation between the two. It’s not like debating, “do I want cranberry-apple juice or cranberry-grape juice?” It’s more like “do I wanna bite into this mushroom or do I want to take a bite of this orange?”