You can worry about the Russians if you want,

[oggbashan]

First you have to consider that half of everyone you will ever meet is below the median for intelligence. IQ has been steadily declining in the western world. Levels of literacy as well.. very few people read any books at all. There is very little content to read on any given subject the majority of people formed their opinions with nothing more than a meme.

Modern society is a propagandist wet dream.

Half of everyone is always below the median, no matter how high general intelligence rises overall.

 

[Que]

Half of everyone is always below the median, no matter how high general intelligence rises overall.

Congratulations, you're in the upper half.

My point is people are far less bright than we give them credit for. It's ridiculous to assert that Madison Avenue (the home of ad agencies in the USA) can absolutely sway huge blocks of the population to buy one soap over the other, but somehow people are too smart and analytical to be swayed on issues and candidates like the sheep that they are.

People pay more attention to ads for Chevrolets than they do for candidates or issues.

Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 the only reason she's not president is she didn't spend the money in the right States, and didn't have a defined message that lends itself to salesmanship. More of the same when the same is economic malaise is not a message.

Obama was largely reelected on Facebook memes. Nobody voted for Obama they voted against the rich guy that was going to impoverish the masses, put Negroes back in chains, and outlaw birth control after personally impregnating the women...

 

[Luk]

Obama was largely reelected on Facebook memes. Nobody voted for Obama they voted against the rich guy that was going to impoverish the masses, put Negroes back in chains, and outlaw birth control after personally impregnating the women...

He was elected because he was a better candidate. Your dumb assertion that Facebook memes were the cause is noted and dismissed.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Wowzers. So many people (old cantankerous men) here shook over social media platforms they don't use, can't use or are too skeered to use. Maybe it's because "The Other" are too legion and adept.

Well, silver lining for them is that at least V-Bulletin formats will never go out of style like Netscape and Friendster!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Luk]

He was elected because he was a better candidate. Your dumb assertion that Facebook memes were the cause is noted and dismissed.

Hold on... If Obama was elected by Facebook memes then 45 was elected by Russian Facebook bots. Fair, Q-####?

 

[Que]

He was elected because he was a better candidate. Your dumb assertion that Facebook memes were the cause is noted and dismissed.

On what objective basis was he the "better candidate" for his re-election run? This is no longer the unknown candidate who had only voted present who had no negatives to defend. This is a guy presiding over the slowest recovery in history that was looking an awful lot like it was going to be a double dip recession. His only signature achievement the ACA had huge negatives and very shallow support even though he delayed all of the pain of Obamacare until after the election with illegal executive orders.

 

[Que]

Hold on... If Obama was elected by Facebook memes then 45 was elected by Russian Facebook bots. Fair, Q-####?

Not even close. Count up all of the page views and it's not even a drop in the bucket. However Facebook definitely helped elect Trump.

It was used for micro-targeting folders with data bought from Cambridge Analytica.

Your side was far ahead of the curve with both the first and second Obama elections the entire reason that social media platforms are clamping down now is because Republicans have figured out How to use Facebook to influence our she full. It was highly effective your side because as Carville points out your persuadables are much easier to persuade than our persuadables.

So nice try but no. It's a question of scale something you wouldn't understand because it involves arithmetic

 

[Luk]

On what objective basis was he the "better candidate" for his re-election run? This is no longer the unknown candidate who had only voted present who had no negatives to defend. This is a guy presiding over the slowest recovery in history that was looking an awful lot like it was going to be a double dip recession. His only signature achievement the ACA had huge negatives and very shallow support even though he delayed all of the pain of Obamacare until after the election with illegal executive orders.

He won the electoral and popular vote.

 

[Luk]

Not even close. Count up all of the page views and it's not even a drop in the bucket. However Facebook definitely helped elect Trump.

It was used for micro-targeting folders with data bought from Cambridge Analytica.

Your side was far ahead of the curve with both the first and second Obama elections the entire reason that social media platforms are clamping down now is because Republicans have figured out How to use Facebook to influence our she full. It was highly effective your side because as Carville points out your persuadables are much easier to persuade than our persuadables.

So nice try but no. It's a question of scale something you wouldn't understand because it involves arithmetic

Yeah, you're full of shit like usual.

 

[Que]

He won the electoral and popular vote.

Nice circular reasoning.

I explain why and how he won.

You say no he was a better candidate

I say on what basis and you say because he won.

Which I've already explained as to why and how he won.

Weak.

You should have at least claimed that it was based on his better charisma which I would have to grant that point but charisma alone would not have sold such a horrible candidate without the masses buying the disinformation that you still buy about his entire tenure in office.

 

[Que]

Yeah, you're full of shit like usual.

Tou<fuckin>che!

Not really any way for me to overcome your superior depth of knowledge on this (or really any other) subject.

 

[Luk]

Nice circular reasoning.

I explain why and how he won.

You say no he was a better candidate

I say on what basis and you say because he won.

Which I've already explained as to why and how he won.

Weak.

You should have at least claimed that it was based on his better charisma which I would have to grant that point but charisma alone would not have sold such a horrible candidate without the masses buying the disinformation that you still buy about his entire tenure in office.

If would be different if he only won the popular vote but you're a dishonest piece of shit so you will disparage Obama and prop up 45 every chance you get.

 

[Luk]

Tou<fuckin>che!

Not really any way for me to overcome your superior depth of knowledge on this (or really any other) subject.

You try way too hard.

 

[Que]

You try way too hard.

You put in far too little effort.

Russians: $100,000

Trump and Clinton campaigns: $81,000,000. 810 to 1 in spending. Plus, they played both sides.

"But, but, the Russians cleverly TARGETED those ads so that $100K gave them SO MUCH more impact!!"

Oh, really?

...and the $81 MILLION spent by highly knowledgeable political consultants for the two major campaigns didn't target theirs?

 

[Luk]

You put in far too little effort.

Russians: $100,000

Trump and Clinton campaigns: $81,000,000. 810 to 1 in spending. Plus, they played both sides.

"But, but, the Russians cleverly TARGETED those ads so that $100K gave them SO MUCH more impact!!"

Oh, really?

...and the $81 MILLION spent by highly knowledgeable political consultants for the two major campaigns didn't target theirs?

You were *told* $100k and you believe because you're nothing but a useful idiot. It costs virtually nothing to place social media ads and deploy bots.

Watch the doc Active Measures and get back to me when you do.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If would be different if he only won the popular vote but you're a dishonest piece of shit so you will disparage Obama and prop up 45 every chance you get.

That's what "NotRepublicans" like Que do. They don't bother to show up at the polls but they're experts on politics. The world is full of unmarried marriage counselors.

 

[Rightguide]

Que demonstrates the patience of Job as he deconstructs Luk's stopped clock in minute detail.

 

[Que]

If would be different if he only won the popular vote but you're a dishonest piece of shit so you will disparage Obama and prop up 45 every chance you get.

There is nothing "dishonest" about know in far more than you what actual political consultants say about very selections and why each candidate that won was successful.

No one is arguing he did not win.

You haven't even offered a weak guess as to why Obama was re-elected despite economic numbers that have sunk candidates with better numbers. On paper he would have lost on the (polled results) of " is this country on the right track or the wrong track?" Ditto every question you can think of on the economy, jobs, etc.

It's okay that you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation I wouldn't expect that from you.

Waving your arms and name-calling is not an argument.

 

[Luk]

There is nothing "dishonest" about know in far more than you what actual political consultants say about very selections and why each candidate that won was successful.

No one is arguing he did not win.

You haven't even offered a weak guess as to why Obama was re-elected despite economic numbers that have sunk candidates with better numbers. On paper he would have lost on the (polled results) of " is this country on the right track or the wrong track?" Ditto every question you can think of on the economy, jobs, etc.

It's okay that you have nothing substantive to add to the conversation I wouldn't expect that from you.

Waving your arms and name-calling is not an argument.

Lying and pisting falsehoods does not mean you know more than me about anything.

 

[Luk]

That's what "NotRepublicans" like Que do. They don't bother to show up at the polls but they're experts on politics. The world is full of unmarried marriage counselors.

And non biological fathers.

 

[Que]

And non biological fathers.

Pretty funny coming from a guy who's never had a woman want him to sire her children.

Sad!

 

[Luk]

Pretty funny coming from a guy who's never had a woman want him to sire her children.

Sad!

Another lie from the mentally challenged tweaker. I've coat hangered more babies than you've sired.

 

[von_Bismarck]

On what objective basis was he the "better candidate" for his re-election run? This is no longer the unknown candidate who had only voted present who had no negatives to defend. This is a guy presiding over the slowest recovery in history that was looking an awful lot like it was going to be a double dip recession. His only signature achievement the ACA had huge negatives and very shallow support even though he delayed all of the pain of Obamacare until after the election with illegal executive orders.

Lol at Queef fail. Obama winning implies he was the stronger candidate. Why he was the stronger candidate is a poorly formed question. A better question is for what reasons why he was regarded as the better candidate by the voting public.

 

[Sean]

Google it. It's all over the Internet and happening to conservatives everywhere. Chris Paronto was just banned for criticizing Obama. Sessions is meeting with State Attorneys General to discuss regulating the practice.

LMAO. Qanon is all over the internet too.

 

[Que]

Another lie from the mentally challenged tweaker. I've coat hangered more babies than you've sired.

1) Doesn't know that "to sire" does not equal "to impregnate."

2) Calls a "collection of tissue" a baby. Whatever will your baby-killing buddies think?

3) I strongly support a woman's right to choose not to have Luk sire their child.

Lol at Queef fail. Obama winning implies he was the stronger candidate. Why he was the stronger candidate is a poorly formed question. A better question is for what reasons why he was regarded as the better candidate by the voting public.

Aside from the fact that both are the same question, I notice you offered no answer to either or repudiated my explanation as to why that was.

...and more to the point, how the information disseminated in memes help to guide them in that direction. At that time the social media platforms weren't even pretending to be neutral there were Zuckerberg employees working directly for the Obama campaign.

No political Consultants a girdled with the baggage of the first Obama administration wood be delighted with that candidate on paper. I guess they might have perked up if they had been told oh but by the way he is "an attractive black man with no negro dialect unless he wants to."

It's possible that voters did not want to fire the historic black guy. I have to admit that that's a reasonable explanation as well. Maybe nobody read any of the memes and they just were reluctant to fire him. It is impossible that fully informed voters would have reelected him based on his actual, measurable job performance.