45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[Eric Mc]

Escapegoat said:

Eric Mc said:

Are you really suggested that Trump was making different election promises on the internet compared to on other media during his campaign?

I'm simply telling you that in a world where the MSM is losing influence, there's a reason why Cambridge Analytics is paid so much. For old fogeys like you and me, who view social media with distate and/or suspicion, we are 'out of the loop' on direct voter advertising.

For instance, if 5oh keeps liking Facebook postings about guns, he may get social media adverts with claims/promises that do not figure in the MSM advertising campaigns we see.

It (the big data analysis and direct advertising) is how Trump won the election:

Cambridge Analytics said:

We are thrilled that our revolutionary approach to data-driven communication has played such an integral part in President-elect Trump's extraordinary win.

The genie is out of the bottle. Remember Mercer's speciality? Big data means that your/my understanding of political campaigning and democracy are out of date.

I'm not denying any of the influence of the internet. Not at all.

What I find strange is your assertion as to how its effect cannot be measured.

In fact, your assertion is actually a statement that it IS effective - so how do YOU know that? Have YOU measured it somehow?

The internet is not magic. It is a man made knowledge and information distribution system. Like any such man made system, it can be measured and analysed - and no doubt, that is being done right now - despite what you might think.

And don't underestimate the abilities of PROFESSIONAL journalists or media investigators to do their job properly. The internet is full of amateurs opinionists - some of them frankly unhinged - spouting the most wild and plainly nutty assertions.

Just because they have the ability to shout and be heard does not mean they are right - or even worth listening to.

[Eric Mc]

PurpleAki said:

Eric Mc said:

PurpleAki said:

Eric Mc said:

hornetrider said:

How do you solve a problem like N Korea?

How do you hold a loony in your hands?

Isn't loony (or looney) slang for cock?

It derives from "luna" - the Latin for moon, via "lunatic".

I know, hence me making clear that I was only referring to a slang term, rather than looking for a history lesson.

Perhaps you MIGHT have needed a history lesson. It turned out you didn't - but how was I to know that?

[Eric Mc]

p1stonhead said:

Amazing reporting. The real story.

Does he want ANY friends?

[unrepentant]

Eric Mc said:

p1stonhead said:

Amazing reporting. The real story.

Does he want ANY friends?

I think he's praising FOX.

[scherzkeks]

zygalski said:

As a lefty I can't thank Trump enough for the work he's doing against the bonkers right.

As a fellow lefty, I agree. Neocon and neoliberal influence is waning, and the bought-and-paid for MSM as we currently know it is being swept into the dustbin of history.

Good times.

[Byker28i]

unrepentant said:

Eric Mc said:

p1stonhead said:

Amazing reporting. The real story.

Does he want ANY friends?

I think he's praising FOX.

Does this follow Trumps tweet commenting on a Fox New report that a high up official was behind the unmasking of a source that Numes heroically reported to Trump on.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates...

Republican Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Saturday she is “absolutely convinced” the White House generated the bizarre scenario that has embroiled committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes — in which he reportedly obtained information from administration officials regarding foreign surveillance of Trump campaign officials and then presented it to the president.

"I am absolutely convinced it started in the Oval Office,'' Speier (D-Calif.) said of what she called the resulting "wild goose chase" in the three weeks since President Donald Trump launched an unfounded tweet accusing former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower.


“There’s no question in my mind that the president, with the aid of his national security adviser staff, came up with some kind of a ruse to try and suggest there was some kind of validity” to his accusation, which has been debunked by intelligence officials, Speier said after a town-hall event in which she and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul examined Russia-Trump connections.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...n-nunes-inte...


One of the sources of the documents given to Numes, Ezra Cohen-Watnick has a wife who works for Ketchum, a PR and marketing firm in Washington who are currently providing PR and marketing for Russia in the US.

Is there anyone in that administration hasn't a link to Russian Money?

[Byker28i]

Speaking of Russian links

Did anyone spot the story of Roger Stone appearing on ABC news last week and refered to Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 as 'her' having previously saying he'd had no contact with them. That had to be retracted after his twitter direct messages with 'her' were exposed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigati...

So he had contact with WikiLeaks and the hacker who got the democrat emails, the best contact, so good he knows she was a woman, despite claiming no contact with either. The man who knew before hand about leaks, damaging exposures to the democrats before they happened during the campaign.

[PurpleAki]

Eric Mc said:

PurpleAki said:

Eric Mc said:

PurpleAki said:

Eric Mc said:

hornetrider said:

How do you solve a problem like N Korea?

How do you hold a loony in your hands?

Isn't loony (or looney) slang for cock?

It derives from "luna" - the Latin for moon, via "lunatic".

I know, hence me making clear that I was only referring to a slang term, rather than looking for a history lesson.

Perhaps you MIGHT have needed a history lesson. It turned out you didn't - but how was I to know that?

Why on earth would you take it upon yourself to dish out lessons to people?

Comes across as arrogant and weird.

[Eric Mc]

That's because I AM arrogant and weird.

[jmorgan]

Byker28i said:

Speaking of Russian links

Did anyone spot the story of Roger Stone appearing on ABC news last week and refered to Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 as 'her' having previously saying he'd had no contact with them. That had to be retracted after his twitter direct messages with 'her' were exposed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigati...

So he had contact with WikiLeaks and the hacker who got the democrat emails, the best contact, so good he knows she was a woman, despite claiming no contact with either. The man who knew before hand about leaks, damaging exposures to the democrats before they happened during the campaign.

Stone is not out in front with the press enough, that is to say they seem to slip off him. Used to or still does stints on Alex Jones show, has the ear of the president and a strongly fortunate set of circumstances surround the release of the emails and how tweets. Be interesting when the question him.

[jmorgan]

unrepentant said:

Eric Mc said:

p1stonhead said:

Amazing reporting. The real story.

Does he want ANY friends?

I think he's praising FOX.

Did they say anything useful or was it commentary again? They are not exactly trumpeting on their web site. Unless I am missing it.

[Byker28i]

jmorgan said:

unrepentant said:

Eric Mc said:

p1stonhead said:

Amazing reporting. The real story.

Does he want ANY friends?

I think he's praising FOX.

Did they say anything useful or was it commentary again? They are not exactly trumpeting on their web site. Unless I am missing it.

Classic Trump distraction, Blame Obama/Clinton. Not sure it's going away though. Little by little it's coming out.



Flynns in deep trouble after it was revealed this weekend that he left at least $150,000 in income off the financial disclosure forms he filled out when he took the National Security Adviser position in Donald Trump’s White House. Even more strangely, he submitted the falsified disclosure forms two days after he was publicly exposed as having discussed sanctions during the transition period with the Russian Ambassador, suggesting he lied to cover it up when the russian story was big in the media.

http://time.com/4722069/michael-flynn-russia-turke...
Is that strike 3 - no wonder he wants immunity

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 3rd April 14:35

[Eric Mc]

WitnessProtection said:

I don't think that's the suggestion, rather that data analytics helped the plethora of foundations, PR firms and front groups tasked with driving public opinion (on both sides, but in this case Trump) to know where best to target their resources in order to control the narrative. Once the narrative was captured, they were then able to disseminate information in such a way as to further shape public opinion to fit Trump's rhetoric. That could be anything from targeted adverts on Facebook, careful placement of talking heads on radio and TV discussion shows and sponsored Tweets, through to ghost writing and subsequently bulk buying books by sympathetic authors in order to drive them up the best sellers lists and make their opinion appear to be the prevailing view. If you're not exposed to the particular areas being targeted, then you wouldn't be getting the same message. You'd be seeing the same mainstream coverage of Trump, but not the hyper-nuanced versions of it being pumped out on a granular level.

But how do you know who to "narrowcast" to. And if you pursue that route - you end up making your base smaller rather than larger as you target those who agree with you already.

The crash in Trump's approval ratings seems to indicate that trying to please your hard core "narrow" base is self defeating.

[Halb]

Bill Maher was good this week.

[p1stonhead]

God he is so desperate isn't he.

I can't imagine getting through a day with such thin skin. I'd love to understand the world he inhabits which leads him to believe this is a good thing to tweet as PRESIDENT.

[glazbagun]

Eric Mc said:

WitnessProtection said:

I don't think that's the suggestion, rather that data analytics helped the plethora of foundations, PR firms and front groups tasked with driving public opinion (on both sides, but in this case Trump) to know where best to target their resources in order to control the narrative. Once the narrative was captured, they were then able to disseminate information in such a way as to further shape public opinion to fit Trump's rhetoric. That could be anything from targeted adverts on Facebook, careful placement of talking heads on radio and TV discussion shows and sponsored Tweets, through to ghost writing and subsequently bulk buying books by sympathetic authors in order to drive them up the best sellers lists and make their opinion appear to be the prevailing view. If you're not exposed to the particular areas being targeted, then you wouldn't be getting the same message. You'd be seeing the same mainstream coverage of Trump, but not the hyper-nuanced versions of it being pumped out on a granular level.

But how do you know who to "narrowcast" to. And if you pursue that route - you end up making your base smaller rather than larger as you target those who agree with you already.

The crash in Trump's approval ratings seems to indicate that trying to please your hard core "narrow" base is self defeating.

I do think that Trump did brilliantly at grabbing the media narrative. I thought he'd be toast after the Pussy Grabbing quote, but Hillary passing out was equally damaging. He was throwing so much nonsense out that even when the media were debunking it, they were still talking about him.

It wouldn't surprise me if targeted alt-news drove the traffic which the media picked up on and then further shared- they need to cover what's popular, after all, and have 24 hours and short attention spans to battle with.

The Politifact Truthometer had Trump spewing so much bullst that I genuinely felt it was impossible for him to be elected in a rational society but, "truthiness" seems to be more important in the modern world.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/peop...

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 3rd April 16:05

[jmorgan]

Byker28i said:

Classic Trump distraction, Blame Obama/Clinton. Not sure it's going away though. Little by little it's coming out.



Flynns in deep trouble after it was revealed this weekend that he left at least $150,000 in income off the financial disclosure forms he filled out when he took the National Security Adviser position in Donald Trump’s White House. Even more strangely, he submitted the falsified disclosure forms two days after he was publicly exposed as having discussed sanctions during the transition period with the Russian Ambassador, suggesting he lied to cover it up when the russian story was big in the media.

http://time.com/4722069/michael-flynn-russia-turke...
Is that strike 3 - no wonder he wants immunity

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 3rd April 14:35

Not as if it was a few bob under the settee and not forgetting the lady in Cambridge.

[Eric Mc]

glazbagun said:

I do think that Trump did brilliantly at grabbing the media narrative. I thought he'd be toast after the Pussy Grabbing quote, but Hillary passing out was equally damaging. He was throwing so much nonsense out that even when the media were debunking it, they were still talking about him.

It wouldn't surprise me if targeted alt-news drove the traffic which the media picked up on and then further shared- they need to cover what's popular, after all, and have 24 hours and short attention spans to battle with.

The Politifact Truthometer had Trump spewing so much bullst that I genuinely felt it was impossible for him to be elected in a rational society but, "truthiness" seems to be more important in the modern world.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/peop...

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 3rd April 16:05

As I keep saying, you can only thrive off so much steaming bullst. Eventually, it will get you.

[Escapegoat]

Eric Mc said:

But how do you know who to "narrowcast" to. And if you pursue that route - you end up making your base smaller rather than larger as you target those who agree with you already.

You know because it's done online, on a person-by-person basis, through social media history (which "Like" buttons they have have pressed in the past).

You need to read this: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our...

What Mercer/Bannon have discovered is that using MSM and conventional campaigning in some areas is a waste of money and effort. Especially when they can speak directly (and privately) to individual voters as they browse on their laptops. No point paying money to fight somewhere you won't win.

Cambridge Analytics said:

"Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven," Alexander Nix remembers. On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook.

Big data has changed politics. Forget old-fashioned pollsters.

Edited to add: Remember last week, how the US government decided to allow ISPs to sell every customer's info: contact details, web browsing history, etc? Now add 2 and 2.

Edited by Escapegoat on Monday 3rd April 16:28

[Countdown]

Eric Mc said:

glazbagun said:

I do think that Trump did brilliantly at grabbing the media narrative. I thought he'd be toast after the Pussy Grabbing quote, but Hillary passing out was equally damaging. He was throwing so much nonsense out that even when the media were debunking it, they were still talking about him.

It wouldn't surprise me if targeted alt-news drove the traffic which the media picked up on and then further shared- they need to cover what's popular, after all, and have 24 hours and short attention spans to battle with.

The Politifact Truthometer had Trump spewing so much bullst that I genuinely felt it was impossible for him to be elected in a rational society but, "truthiness" seems to be more important in the modern world.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/peop...

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 3rd April 16:05

As I keep saying, you can only thrive off so much steaming bullst. Eventually, it will get you.

it's not got him yet. Granted, it's a train crash of a Presidency and pretty much what most sane onlookers assumed it would be but his core supporters are perfectly happy with him so (as far as he's concerned, All Good.