Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Didn't Obama use Facebook in 2012 to win? What methods do you think we're employed then?

Of course Cambridge is backing away. This collusion investigation is toxic and nobody wants to be associated innocent or not. That's not an admission of wrongdoing in any sense of ready and you know this. This is the type of 'evidence' that is being leveraged to further this disgraceful investigation.
 
thethe said:
Didn't Obama use Facebook in 2012 to win? What methods do you think we're employed then?

Of course Cambridge is backing away. This collusion investigation is toxic and nobody wants to be associated innocent or not. That's not an admission of wrongdoing in any sense of ready and you know this. This is the type of 'evidence' that is being leveraged to further this disgraceful investigation.
Click to expand...

How come you stopped referring to him as Hussein. I miss that.

Disgraceful investigation? Hardly. What this is is a witch hunt into a nothing burger. Please refer to it by its proper name.
 
nsacpi said:
How come you stopped referring to him as Hussein. I miss that.

Disgraceful investigation? Hardly. What this is is a witch hunt into a nothing burger. Please refer to it by its proper name.
Click to expand...

I was fine with the investigation happening. We needed to find out but based on the everything that has come out there is not a sliver of evidence for collusion. Now it's a disgrace.

I wish I didn't even have to refer to obama. We would have all been better off had that piece of scum not been president.
 
When questioned on where the social responsibility in preying on emotions was, Nix claimed it was an “unfair question” and painted the micro-targeting of voters as beneficial to democracy. He launched into whataboutery, citing the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns and mentioning Clinton's digital operations in 2016.
 
Nix told the committee the datasets held in the UK are not as substantial in the US, and when pressed on Facebook stated they could not access mentions and likes from the social media giant. He referred specifically to the work of an academic in this field, but not by name – which is Michael Kosinski.

Remember that name: Michael Kosinski. I predict he will become very famous.
 
nsacpi said:
Should Trump shut it down?
Click to expand...

Initially I said no because I had faith at some point these wild goose chases would have stopped. Now I'm not so sure. This is just driven to drive turnout for the mid terms. You know this but your disdain for anything trump has clouded your judgement in the matter.
 
thethe said:
Is Cambridge now a part of the Trump campaign? What's the actually story here?
Click to expand...

They were hired by his campaign. They're the pet of his biggest financial backers, the Mercers. IIRC Steve Bannon was on their board. That seems to walk, swim, and quack like the relevant aquatic fowl.
 
thethe said:
Initially I said no because I had faith at some point these wild goose chases would have stopped. Now I'm not so sure. This is just driven to drive turnout for the mid terms. You know this but your disdain for anything trump has clouded your judgement in the matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have come to the conclusion he is a career criminal, a misogynist, a collaborator with a hostile foreign power and an idiot. Thank God for that last part. I am rather firm in these conclusions and I suppose having reached them that my judgement could be clouded. It is possible but I think not. If there were evidence that he is not a career criminal, a misogynist, a collaborator and an idiot, I believe I would actually be able to process that information and change my conclusions.
 
Julio3000 said:
They were hired by his campaign. They're the pet of his biggest financial backers, the Mercers. IIRC Steve Bannon was on their board. That seems to walk, swim, and quack like the relevant aquatic fowl.
Click to expand...

I guess another unwitting conspirator then.
 
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but political consulting is cutthroat and CA absolutely delivered using available data. They didn't hack accounts, they manipulated a ****ty system and harvested information using a predictive algorithm.

There is no story here.
 
thethe said:
Evidence for collaboration is what again? Hard to argue with the other negatives.
Click to expand...

It should go without saying that all of the below is in my opinion. With that as a disclaimer, here goes:

1) It is exceedingly likely that the information the Russians gave to Papadopoulos about having Clinton emails was passed up the chain of command of the Trump campaign to very high levels. If he shared it with the Australian ambassador he surely shared it with the people in the campaign.

2) Consequent to this information being shared, the GOP plank on Ukraine was altered.

3) The chain of events (including emails preceding the meeting and those exchanged after the meeting) surrounding the Trump Tower meeting show a strong desire (eagerness) on the part of the Russians to provide help to the campaign and equally strong desire (eagerness) on the part of the campaign to receive such information. It is exceedingly likely that adoptions were not the main topic of conversation. It is very likely that the participants have not shared with the public the entire agenda of the meeting.

4) Trump openly and very frequently invited the Russians to release the Clinton emails. I would note that the fact that a crime is committed brazenly and openly does not make it less a crime. And yes it is illegal to receive in the course of a political campaign assistance from a foreigner or foreign entity.

The above are things we know or that I believe are exceedingly likely. They are enough to satisfy me that Trump and others in his campaign collaborated with the Russians.

I think there is compelling public interest in having a thorough investigation.
 
Hawk said:
Maybe I'm just a cynic, but political consulting is cutthroat and CA absolutely delivered using available data. They didn't hack accounts, they manipulated a ****ty system and harvested information using a predictive algorithm.

There is no story here.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with this. I think the party that ends up looking the worst here is FB. CA practices are awful and Nix is as shady as they come. But in terms of the topic this thread is devoted to (narrowly construed) the revelations of the past few days do not advance the story much.

I do think that people associated with CA will end up being among the "witting" who collaborated with the Russians. But the recent information does not bear directly on this issue. Not as far as I'm aware.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...706877db618_story.html?utm_term=.f6e18f2224f4

Special counsel investigators have told Trump’s lawyers that their main questions about the president fall into two simple categories, the two people said: “What did he do?” and “What was he thinking when he did it?”

Trump’s lawyers expect Mueller’s team to ask whether Trump knew about Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition, for example, and what instructions, if any, the president gave Flynn about the contact, according to two advisers.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
nsacpi said:
I somewhat agree with this. I think the party that ends up looking the worst here is FB. CA practices are awful and Nix is as shady as they come. But in terms of the topic this thread is devoted to (narrowly construed) the revelations of the past few days do not advance the story much.

I do think that people associated with CA will end up being among the "witting" who collaborated with the Russians. But the recent information does not bear directly on this issue. Not as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not hard to imagine where a group with CA's purported immoral practices might go to sinister lengths.

Facebook has been yammering about data privacy for a decade, but left their userbase exposed in one of the most profound ways imaginable. This should be a lesson to all social media platforms - and participants. But it won't be.

Data harvesting is an incredibly efficient way to spend marketing dollars. It's the future. The onus is on the consumer to minimize the outflow of predictive/typifying material (for example, you might start by not putting your political rants on Facebook, or by creating a dummy Twitter account to do your media curation.) Companies can invest in data security, but what's public is public. This is the essence of the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top