He argued against a dictionary.
I think there's a combination of Trump fatigue, not understanding all the details of what exactly they did, some acceptance that this is part of the price of modern society, and a little bit of denial - i.e. people not wanting to admit that they were heavily manipulated through social media.I’m surprised the Cambridge Analytics story isn’t bigger than it is. The focus seems to be more on The Zuck than what the relationship between Trump Campaign, CA, and Russia.
I know Mueller was looking into this months ago and has had CA people interviewed.
I’m surprised the Cambridge Analytics story isn’t bigger than it is. The focus seems to be more on The Zuck than what the relationship between Trump Campaign, CA, and Russia.
I know Mueller was looking into this months ago and has had CA people interviewed.
no intent to fuel any argument here but i think LN7 has made some very valid points here that nick should respond to. contradicting him on his own heritage with a bunch of internet links is some real bullshit.
I think Islam is stupid and oppressive and yadayadayada.
Dude...
WASHINGTON — The president’s lead lawyer for the special counsel investigation, John Dowd, resigned on Thursday, according to two people briefed on the matter, days after the president called for an end to the inquiry.
Mr. Dowd, who took over the president’s legal team last summer, had considered leaving several times in recent months and ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice, one of the people said. Mr. Trump has insisted he should sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea.
Now that I’ve gone back and read it again, I agree.
Nick, I hope you can take a minute to pause and reflect on how poorly/condescending it comes across when you attempt to lecture somebody on their homeland and heritage, all while completely misrepresenting their argument.
Second: write response based upon nick66 interpretation of what "speaking out" is
If I were an atheist male in Egypt, I would denounce the Muslim majority for oppressing women and the Christian minority. Of fucking course.
I'm saying that speaking out in the way you suggested, could (and probably would) land you in prison in Egypt these days, depending on how vocal you were and how much your criticism was aimed at the government (criticism of which is strictly illegal). And you couldn't speak out against the treatment of women & Christians without speaking out against the government.
Read Human Rights Watch's report on Egypt. It's not pretty.
Have you ever been to Egypt? Do you think I'm here defending Egypt? Based upon your response, and upon your prior posts, you seem fixated on the idea that liberal folks defend the wrongdoings of foreign cultures and nations. Just my take though, I won't say that's how you actually feel.
Anywho, you brought up LGBT issues in Egypt. Which aren't the same as religion and gender. You're attempting to explain not only my heritage and fatherland to me, but now you're attempting to explain how sexuality in said fatherland works. Do you think you know how that goes better than I do? I gay first generation descendant from Egypt? Nobody cares that you know how to google things, dude.
You're attempting to explain not only my heritage and fatherland to me, but now you're attempting to explain how sexuality in said fatherland works. Do you think you know how that goes better than I do? I gay first generation descendant from Egypt? Nobody cares that you know how to google things, dude.
Dude, you don't know anything about Egypt. Stop pretending like you do. That's total bullshit, you would not "most likely be in jail."
blah blah blah
When you quote me and start responding to my points of conversation in a fashion that suggests I don't know what I'm talking about... but the reality is that you've merely interpreted my words to your liking, I would say you're either trolling or you don't know what you're talking about.and that I don't know what I'm talking about by LN7.
And again, the suggestion that lectured anyone about their "heritage" is just false. Why don't you have a look at LN7 (who as far as I can see lives in Texas) lecturing Mama Cass about life in France.
I think we're closer than that, actuallyI think we're about 4-6 weeks away from Trump firing Mueller.
You can google irrelevant facts and make statements like this that seem relevant to your argument / your attempts at defamation of character all you want.
you construing things to portray someone in a negative light
Woah, dude. Him thinking you’re wrong and arguing his point is hardly defamation of character.
In fairness, this is not something unique to Nick in this argument.
I was telling mama casa my views based upon my experience.
meh mostly you were telling me that pretty much everything i was saying was not true
''Today you can sit down with an impressionable elite - a Harvard-educated lawyer, for example - and they know with absolute certainty that somehow Trump was laundering money with the Russians in exchange for help in the election.
'They have no evidence for these claims and yet they 'know' it just as strongly as elites once believed the earth was flat.
'So did the Russians need money? How, when $2.4billion was spent on the election campaign, would $100,000 worth of Facebook ads make a difference?
'It's illogical, and yet perhaps 40 per cent of those reading this paragraph have come to believe it, based on reports of completely classified un-knowable information. They just know it.'
Trump is an imbecile. This sort of trade war-mongering could realistically cause a totally avoidable recession.
Mark Penn, who was the Clinton's long time pollster & confidante, and ran HRC's 2008 Presidential run, has a new book out (about microtrends). He says some salacious things about the Clinton's "open marriage", which I don't care about, but what he said about the Russians supposedly swinging the election via Facebook caught my eye....
one of the big lessons of politics is that money doesn't really matter, or it doesn't always matter. that some candidates outspend their opponents and still lose. the big lesson of the week with CA is that date matters, so $100,000 on Facebook well-placed, targeted, and timed might be a much better use of money than millions on TV ads.
also, Mark Penn isn't held in terribly high regard these days, and this books seems to be some score settling with the Clintons.
This is no doubt true, but TV has nothing to do with it. The Clintons had their aggressive own social media campaign, supposedly the top minds in the business. They outspent Trump, and certainly outspent the Russians.
So if Trump's people were smarter and more targeted with less resources, or even the Russians were, whose problem is that? There's nothing illegal about trying to influence people via social media. And again, if Clinton spent more money on TV, and in the wrong states, that's on her and her campaign.
Don't mistake me, I don't like the idea of Russians trolling Facebook anymore than you do. But let's put it in perspective. Those Russian ads were effective, and deceptive, because they looked pretty much indistinguishable from "legitimate" ads with fake news put out by fringe elements. If American democracy can truly be subverted because 16 Russians trolled on Facebook and Twitter, then we've got real problems.
It renders Penn’s point about spending moot.
Not really. Where's the evidence that the 100K the Russians spent was more effective than the tens of millions HRC spent on social media?
Yes, Trump won, but there's no evidence that it was because of those Russians ads.