Trump’s election consultants filmed saying they use bribes and sex workers to entrap

[shunyadragon]

Isn't this where, if I were a liberal and this was about admitting to massive voter fraud or what employees from Planned Parenthood say and do, I should say it was all taken out of context, it's nothing but a right wing meme, or just ignore and deny? Give me a hand here, since I'm kinda new to how this is played.

I seeeee! When you can provide a coherent answer you change the subject!

[shunyadragon]

They're!

. . . and records of payments from Republican Party.

[shunyadragon]

To do what?



Again... to do WHAT?

To influence the elections. Legally you do not need to demonstrate that the election was influence. ALL that is needed is to legally demonstrate the intent.

[rogue06]

Isn't this where, if I were a liberal and this was about admitting to massive voter fraud or what employees from Planned Parenthood say and do, I should say it was all taken out of context, it's nothing but a right wing meme, or just ignore and deny? Give me a hand here, since I'm kinda new to how this is played.

I seeeee! When you can provide a coherent answer you change the subject!

Well, you certainly were no help whatsoever. I'm just trying to figure out how I should respond in the liberal approved manner.

[Tassman]

Still no evidence that votes were changed.

There's every good reason to think that votes were influenced given the massive interference of the St Petersburg troll factory and Cambridge Analytica on social media. They were not interfering just for the fun of it, they undoubtedly expected results...and got them.

[Juvenal]

Democrats regarding Bill Clinton - "but, it's JUST SEX!!!!"
Democrats regarding Donald Trump - "but it's SEX!!!!!"

That's an odd way to spell paying off a porn star a week before the election.

Conservative Christian preachers: "Character matters."

When you put your politics in front of your religion, both of them suffer.

[One Bad Pig]

That's an odd way to spell paying off a porn star a week before the election.

Conservative Christian preachers: "Character matters."

When you put your politics in front of your religion, both of them suffer.

I think you'll find that Cow Poke has been pretty consistent in not being an apologist for Trump's personal life, having stated on numerous occasions that he opted on voting for the lesser of two evils. All he's doing here is pointing out Democrat hypocrisy, which you presumably do not condone.

[Sparko]

And you think that justifies the methods used? If only there is no evidence then feel free to use protitutes and all other sorts of dirty methods?

Is there any evidence they used any such dirty tactics in Trump's campaign? I watched the interview. They pretended they were election officials for some election in Sri Lanka and were getting a sales pitch from CA. Most of what CA said during their meeting sounded like self-serving sales bragging about what they could do and how much influence they had in Trump's campaign. Most of it sounded like pure BS, taking credit for everything. They were trying to sell themselves to a client (the reporters)

But if they do use dirty tactics, that doesn't mean they did anything like that in Trump's campaign. I don't recall any prostitute scandals attributed to Hillary, do you? The only scandals regarding Hillary were of her own making with her server in a bathroom and wiping of her emails and destroying phones with hammers. None of that had anything to do with CA.

[Sparko]

Cambridge Analytics emphatically denies these allegations. Is there any evidence that anything this guy said is actually true? Any documents or corroborating witnesses? Or are we just supposed to take him at his word?

As for gathering data from Facebook, the Obama campaign did the exact same thing with Facebook's blessing, so nothing to see there.

And back then the press praised Obama's campaign for their use of digital analytics and social media to target their campaign:

To understand how it works, you must first understand the vast technological engine that powered the campaign but remained largely out of view of the public and the press. Messina, the campaign manager, often boasted about how the Obama 2012 effort would be “the most data-driven campaign ever.” But what that truly meant — the extent to which the campaign used the newest tech tools to look into people’s lives and the sheer amount of personal data its vast servers were crunching — remained largely shrouded. The secrecy around the operation was partly because the president’s strategists wanted to maintain their competitive edge. But it was also no doubt because they worried that practices like “data mining” and “analytics” could make voters uncomfortable.

Using data wasn’t new for the Obama strategists. The 2008 campaign developed the most sophisticated system to date to identify tens of millions of voters and place them into useful categories: those most likely to vote Republican, who would be ignored; those supporting Obama — and how likely they were to vote. That system — based on a complicated scoring method that relied on the processing of reams of data — was first devised by an outside consultant, Ken Strasma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/ma...s-cash-in.html

[Mountain Man]

And back then the press praised Obama's campaign for their use of digital analytics and social media to target their campaign:

To understand how it works, you must first understand the vast technological engine that powered the campaign but remained largely out of view of the public and the press. Messina, the campaign manager, often boasted about how the Obama 2012 effort would be “the most data-driven campaign ever.” But what that truly meant — the extent to which the campaign used the newest tech tools to look into people’s lives and the sheer amount of personal data its vast servers were crunching — remained largely shrouded. The secrecy around the operation was partly because the president’s strategists wanted to maintain their competitive edge. But it was also no doubt because they worried that practices like “data mining” and “analytics” could make voters uncomfortable.

Using data wasn’t new for the Obama strategists. The 2008 campaign developed the most sophisticated system to date to identify tens of millions of voters and place them into useful categories: those most likely to vote Republican, who would be ignored; those supporting Obama — and how likely they were to vote. That system — based on a complicated scoring method that relied on the processing of reams of data — was first devised by an outside consultant, Ken Strasma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/ma...s-cash-in.html

And Facebook has been turning a blind eye to that sort of thing for years.

Source: Former Employee: ‘Horrifying’ Misuse of User Data Was Routine at Facebook

Sandy Parakilas, a former Facebook platform operations manager, claimed the company’s “horrifying” misuse of user data was routine, and that Facebook preferred to have “no idea” what third parties were doing with the freely available data.

In their report, the Guardian noted that “hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica.”

“My concerns were that all of the data that left Facebook servers to developers could not be monitored by Facebook, so we had no idea what developers were doing with the data,” claimed Parakilas. “It has been painful watching… Because I know that they could have prevented it.”

“Once the data left Facebook servers there was not any control, and there was no insight into what was going on,” he continued, adding, “Facebook was in a stronger legal position if it didn’t know about the abuse that was happening.”

“They felt that it was better not to know. I found that utterly shocking and horrifying,” Parakilas declared, also estimating that “a majority of Facebook users” probably had their data used by third party companies and developers.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...e-at-facebook/

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

That's an odd way to spell paying off a porn star a week before the election.

Conservative Christian preachers: "Character matters."

When you put your politics in front of your religion, both of them suffer.

Didn't get enough exercise this week, so you opted to do some Olympic conclusion jumping?

[Bill the Cat]

To influence the elections. Legally you do not need to demonstrate that the election was influence. ALL that is needed is to legally demonstrate the intent.

EVERYONE influences elections... heck, a commercial influences it. Big freakin deal! If you vote for a candidate because a hooker told you to, you're an idiot.

[Bill the Cat]

There's every good reason to think that votes were influenced given the massive interference of the St Petersburg troll factory and Cambridge Analytica on social media.

Speculation at VERY best.

They were not interfering just for the fun of it, they undoubtedly expected results...and got them.

So what? Advertising is legal. Manipulation is even legal. Heck, seeing the source of the dossier and who paid for it, downright lies are legal. Unless someone paid someone else to vote a certain way, information is perfectly legal. That it happened to be exploited in that legal manner is inconsequential. If you are stupid enough to have your vote swayed by advertisements, you are an idiot.

[Sparko]

EVERYONE influences elections... heck, a commercial influences it. Big freakin deal! If you vote for a candidate because a hooker told you to, you're an idiot.

26um56.jpg

[rogue06]

There's every good reason to think that votes were influenced given the massive interference of the St Petersburg troll factory and Cambridge Analytica on social media. They were not interfering just for the fun of it, they undoubtedly expected results...and got them.

Madison Avenue and Hollywood need to take lessons from them. According to the left at least they can spend what amounts to chump change (less than what a local restaurant might spend advertising) and have this supposed profound effect whereas our people can spend tens of millions of dollars or more and have little to no effect whatsoever.