Cambridge Analytica

[Spartanmack]

That's right in line with what I remember. They used these tools to help push the ground game.

isn't the issue more about how they got the data than how they used it?

 

[Gulo Blue]

better clarify you didn't mean this thread as a partisan attack on Trump.

I guess I do need to clarify. CA getting negative press over this is funny, because they don't seem to be able to manipulate the narrative with regard to themselves, which is what they claim to be able to do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

isn't the issue more about how they got the data than how they used it?

Tough call. I'm not sure which I'm more concerned with. Both matter.

 

[Spartanmack]

I just don't vote anymore.

That way no way can they use my data against me.

what if that was their plan all along? what if they used your data to convince you not to vote?

mind. blown. you're welcome.

 

[tinselwolverine]

what if that was their plan all along? what if they used your data to convince you not to vote?

mind. blown. you're welcome.

I probably wasn't going to vote anyway.

I don't have much of a social media footprint; DSF is pretty much it.

I almost never shop on line.

And also where I live my vote doesn't matter.

California's two parties are liberal Democrats and even liberaler Democrats.

This is reflected in the split between our Senate seats.

For Years it was liberal Diane Feinstein and liberaler Barbara Boxer, Who retired and was replaced by liberaler Kamala Harris, who defeated liberal Loretta Sanchez in the Democrat only general election runoff.

 

[Michchamp]

I probably wasn't going to vote anyway.

I don't have much of a social media footprint; DSF is pretty much it.

I almost never shop on line.

And also where I live my vote doesn't matter.

California's two parties are liberal Democrats and even liberaler Democrats.

This is reflected in the split between our Senate seats.

For Years it was liberal Diane Feinstein and liberaler Barbara Boxer, Who retired and was replaced by liberaler Kamala Harris, who defeated liberal Loretta Sanchez in the Democrat only general election runoff.

other than Boxer, who is still pretty centrist, none of those people are "liberal" as it's understood to be; as mayor of SF, Diane Feinstein defended flying the Confederate Flag over San Francisco. yes San Francisco, CA, a place as far removed from the South as you can get. she's done a lot of equally bad things since then.

as CA AG Harris took money from Mnuchin to drop her investigation and prosecution of his mortgage fraud business.

Loretta is... eh... we've discussed her before.

I saw a pretty good distinction made between "Liberals" and "liberals" and that was that the real role Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, etc. play is to defend Republicans from attacks on the left. aside from the handful of "wedge"
issues (guns, abortion, gay marriage) they favor the same economic policies, tax policies, "defense" spending, etc., and generally vote that way. they all take money from the same sort of corporations and super PACs that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan do, and like the majority of the GOP, they are owned by them and accountable only to them, not the people.

the "partisan" attacks the media complains about are really more like pro wrestling plotlines than actual disagreement between the parties. the outcome is decided behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms, but the speeches and votes make it appear to be legit.

There are a handful of actual liberals in Congress. very few. and perhaps even fewer actual conservatives on the GOP side (like Justin Amash in Michigan).

 

[Michchamp]

I was waiting for a chance to post the Diane Feinstein Confederate flag story, in case you were wondering.

she's cartoonishly awful.

She flew a Confederate Flag in San Francisco of all places! Get out!

 

[Spartanmack]

other than Boxer, who is still pretty centrist, none of those people are "liberal" as it's understood to be; as mayor of SF, Diane Feinstein defended flying the Confederate Flag over San Francisco. yes San Francisco, CA, a place as far removed from the South as you can get. she's done a lot of equally bad things since then.

as CA AG Harris took money from Mnuchin to drop her investigation and prosecution of his mortgage fraud business.

Loretta is... eh... we've discussed her before.

I saw a pretty good distinction made between "Liberals" and "liberals" and that was that the real role Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, etc. play is to defend Republicans from attacks on the left. aside from the handful of "wedge"
issues (guns, abortion, gay marriage) they favor the same economic policies, tax policies, "defense" spending, etc., and generally vote that way. they all take money from the same sort of corporations and super PACs that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan do, and like the majority of the GOP, they are owned by them and accountable only to them, not the people.

the "partisan" attacks the media complains about are really more like pro wrestling plotlines than actual disagreement between the parties. the outcome is decided behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms, but the speeches and votes make it appear to be legit.

There are a handful of actual liberals in Congress. very few. and perhaps even fewer actual conservatives on the GOP side (like Justin Amash in Michigan).

this post might be the perfect example of the split between the liberal and liberaler democrats. Although I prefer "leftist" and "leftister" since neither is really liberal in the classical sense. Both are simply power hungry demagogues - just like establishment Republicans.

Here's an interesting piece about a recent town hall event where 3 uber wealthy (presumably "true liberals" in your estimation - please correct me if I'm wrong) talk about inequality in America...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28442/watch-sanders-warren-michael-moore-hold-townhall-ben-shapiro

 

[Michchamp]

it's not an interesting piece.

ben shapiro is trash.

Sanders', Moore's, and Warren's personal income and wealth have nothing to do with anything.

Doesn't it speak more to person's sincerity when they advocate positions that would not benefit them financially? makes sense, no?

I'd trust a person who says "Taxes are too low. we should raise them, even though this means I will pay more taxes."

...more than a person who says "Taxes are too high, we should lower them so I have more money."

 

[Gulo Blue]

Yeah, but states that would benefit most from more safety net spending tend to vote against them too. Doesn't that make them the more trustworthy voters?

 

[TheVictors]

it's not an interesting piece.

ben shapiro is trash.

Sanders', Moore's, and Warren's personal income and wealth have nothing to do with anything.

Doesn't it speak more to person's sincerity when they advocate positions that would not benefit them financially? makes sense, no?

I'd trust a person who says "Taxes are too low. we should raise them, even though this means I will pay more taxes."

...more than a person who says "Taxes are too high, we should lower them so I have more money."

^^ This ^^

 

[tinselwolverine]

it's not an interesting piece.

ben shapiro is trash.

I don't pay much attention to Ben Shapiro; I have read over some of his numerous contributions to The Jewish Journal.

According to The Anti-Defamation League, Shapiro was the top online target of the alt right after criticizing Trump:


After criticizing Mr. Trump, conservative writer Ben Shapiro became the target of a wave of anti-Semitic tweets calling him a “Christ-Killer” and a “kike.” Jake Tapper, John Podhoretz and Noah Rothman have all received similar messages after voicing opinions perceived to be critical of Mr. Trump. In the midst of the attacks, Rothman tweeted: “It never ends. Blocking doesn’t help either. They have lists, on which I seem to find myself.”

 

[Spartanmack]

I probably wasn't going to vote anyway.

this is exactly what they want you to think.

 

[Gulo Blue]

this is exactly what they want you to think.

This is ALL probably what they want us to think. Cambridge Analytical is probably thrilled people think they are so influential. They probably aren't half as influential as they claim. And Trump is probably the one leaking all the stuff about him being upset about leaks and how he was advised in all caps to not congratulate Putin. If he's going to do something boring Obama and previous presidents have done, you have to find a way to turn it into a headline. He need 'liberal tears' to keep his base happy and the appearance that's he's angry to keep liberals happy.

 

[Spartanmack]

Their personal wealth has everything to do with this subject. And Ben Shapiro's kids (I believe both are in pre-k) are probably already smarter than you. The guy makes mince meat of your leftist trash so you have to impugn his character in order to dismiss him offhand.

No it doesn't speak more to a person's sincerity not does it make sense - they're advocating taxing people less wealthy than themselves to give to others even less wealthy. They're clueless and out of touch. And never mind that, their arguments are moronic. Sanders pisses and moans about inequality and makes b.s. claims that only morons buy into - even Politico (a left wing news outlet) called his claims about inequality "mostly false". Inequality itself is not a problem nor is it a necessary outcome of evil capitalism (nothing compares to the inequality b/w the ruling class and the poor (i.e. everyone else) in socialist and communist societies). These people are seeking power and stoking class warfare to gain it.

The issue is, are the less fortunate better off than they were? And the answer is YES. Sanders would have you believe that poverty is a rampant issue in America today and people are dying in the streets due to hunger and access to healthcare - that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Nonsense. The rich may be getting richer at a faster rate (due to things like stock market performance and higher stock ownership) but the poor in America are also getting richer and are better off today than they have been at any point in history, regardless of whether or not your parents can afford to keep your grandparents cottage. The stat Sanders abuses has to do with "relative" poverty which is an arbitrary stat that measures the number of people living on less than 50% of a country's median income, which in America is still a high standard of living - that's not actual poverty. Even Politico is honest enough to call bull shit on him. The poor in America today live better than the wealthiest Americans did 100 years ago.

Personally, I trust people who know what they're talking about when they talk about taxes. Taxes are too high, we should lower them so everyone has more money - that is way more sincere than advocating to take someone else's $ and give it to a third person because you think that's fair. If you trust the other guy, it's because you don't understand basic economics, who is best suited to make decisions with their money, the level of incompetence and corruption in government or how that gets worse when you feed the leviathan. I'll believe those greedy, power hungry hypocrites are sincere when they sell their assets and give every dime in excess of a median income lifestyle either to the less fortunate or the US government.

Of course, your response will be something along the lines of "Spartanmack doesn't think poor people exist in America" or "Spartanmack doesn't care about poor people or want to help them." Of course, this too is a lie. Your problem is you can't debate the merits of any political or economic discussion so you attempt to impugn your opposition with unsubstantiated attacks on their character. You're trash.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The poor are better off now, but inequality could be a problem even if the poor were doing great. Since money gets you access to political power and publicity (and analytics), wealth inequality and democracy are at odds. Some wealth inequality is important, so strong firewalls between money and politics seems like a goal we should push for, but we all know that ain't happening.

 

[Spartanmack]

The poor are better off now, but inequality could be a problem even if the poor were doing great. Since money gets you access to political power and publicity (and analytics), wealth inequality and democracy are at odds. Some wealth inequality is important, so strong firewalls between money and politics seems like a goal we should push for, but we all know that ain't happening.

OK, but as you say, that's a reason to get money out of politics, not a reason to try to force equality through redistribution.

If you think draining the swamp ain't happening, do you really think the Sanders/Moore/Warren plan to grow the swamp will "level the playing field?" No chance and if it ever does, the level playing field will end up being worse for everyone (except the government overlords), not better.

 

[Gulo Blue]

OK, but as you say, that's a reason to get money out of politics, not a reason to try to force equality through redistribution.

If you think draining the swamp ain't happening, do you really think the Sanders/Moore/Warren plan to grow the swamp will "level the playing field?" No chance and if it ever does, the level playing field will end up being worse for everyone (except the government overlords), not better.

I don't know what that plan is.

I think McCain was big on campaign finance reform. I could be wrong, but I think Bernie Sanders said things on the issue I agreed with. But either way, I don't think anyone is making any changes any time soon.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know what that plan is.

I think McCain was big on campaign finance reform. I could be wrong, but I think Bernie Sanders said things on the issue I agreed with. But either way, I don't think anyone is making any changes any time soon.

c'mon, we talk about that plan all the time - maybe not with their names attached to it but we talk about it a lot here. The plan to reduce inequality by taxing the wealthy and growing the welfare state. That should ring a bell for anyone who posts here.

it's a different plan from the political reform plan - I'm all for campaign finance reform, so long as it's equitable (has to apply to everyone, corps, unions, super PACs, NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) and I think there should be term limits at least for every elected position at virtually every level of government and we should abolish government employee unions altogether - even FDR saw what a bad idea that was.

 

[Spartanmack]

This is ALL probably what they want us to think. Cambridge Analytical is probably thrilled people think they are so influential. They probably aren't half as influential as they claim. And Trump is probably the one leaking all the stuff about him being upset about leaks and how he was advised in all caps to not congratulate Putin. If he's going to do something boring Obama and previous presidents have done, you have to find a way to turn it into a headline. He need 'liberal tears' to keep his base happy and the appearance that's he's angry to keep liberals happy.

there's a lot of truth to this - same goes for the people pushing the Russian interference narrative. There's no evidence to suggest what the Russian bots did on FB or wherever had any effect on the election - supposedly their reach, in terms of how many people actually saw the ads, was negligible.

Hacking the DNC is a different story, but there again people who think the hacking and not what the DNC actually did is the problem are really missing the point.