Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Cambridge Analytica
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vantexan" data-source="post: 3422129" data-attributes="member: 24302"><p>It's funny how y'all focus on this but don't mention the dirty tricks played by the Clinton campaign. A guy she hired to do things like start fights with minorities at Trump rallies was a known Democrat operative for decades. He screwed up telling an undercover guy what kind of tricks they pulled to make the people backing Trump look bad. Clinton had to fire him then. And of course there was the Steele dossier. So both were guilty of using any means necessary to influence the election. But it still comes down to people surveyed in key swing States saying she didn't seem interested in the problems their area was having but he came there and said he'd try very hard to make things better. He threw them a lifeline, she ignored them. And these were decades long Democrat union voters. Highly doubtful they were spending a huge amount of time on Facebook. I'd give FOX News more weight than the fairly minimal Facebook ads. It was during the campaign that Clinton stopped speaking to reporters after it came out about the emails and she responded very badly about it at a press conference. And she wasn't exactly inspiring in the debates. Comparing what she spent on ads to what went on Facebook is extremely lopsided in her favor. Just another example of her side grabbing at anything to blame but her for losing. That being said they should do everything possible to stop this kind of stuff. Next time Bolivia might throw a couple hundred grand at Facebook to get in a pro coca candidate now that it's been demonstrated how easy it is to sway millions of voters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vantexan, post: 3422129, member: 24302"] It's funny how y'all focus on this but don't mention the dirty tricks played by the Clinton campaign. A guy she hired to do things like start fights with minorities at Trump rallies was a known Democrat operative for decades. He screwed up telling an undercover guy what kind of tricks they pulled to make the people backing Trump look bad. Clinton had to fire him then. And of course there was the Steele dossier. So both were guilty of using any means necessary to influence the election. But it still comes down to people surveyed in key swing States saying she didn't seem interested in the problems their area was having but he came there and said he'd try very hard to make things better. He threw them a lifeline, she ignored them. And these were decades long Democrat union voters. Highly doubtful they were spending a huge amount of time on Facebook. I'd give FOX News more weight than the fairly minimal Facebook ads. It was during the campaign that Clinton stopped speaking to reporters after it came out about the emails and she responded very badly about it at a press conference. And she wasn't exactly inspiring in the debates. Comparing what she spent on ads to what went on Facebook is extremely lopsided in her favor. Just another example of her side grabbing at anything to blame but her for losing. That being said they should do everything possible to stop this kind of stuff. Next time Bolivia might throw a couple hundred grand at Facebook to get in a pro coca candidate now that it's been demonstrated how easy it is to sway millions of voters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Cambridge Analytica
Top