Odds on Trump commuting Stone's sentence today?

If what Trump says is true, why doesn't his DOJ go after these other people?

(02-20-2020 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 04:08 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-19-2020 03:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I doubt their would have been much fuhrer ... I mean furor ... about it.

That kind of crap is totally disgusting.

I thought it was a pretty clever pun,

It wasn't.

Quote:particularly since it wasn't actually directed at an individual and the furor wasn't even expressed by Trump, but instead by the media and democrats. But I'll take lectures from you about disgusting crap as soon as you retract your various vile statements about Kamala Harris.

As soon as Kamala Harris quits being a vile person, I will happily retract them.

So where's the line for you with regards to name calling? Is it the names someone is called or the quality of their character?

If I understand your question correctly, I'd say quality of character.

(02-20-2020 10:40 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

Odds on Trump commuting Stone's sentence today?
If what Trump says is true, why doesn't his DOJ go after these other people?

Who says they are not?

I hope they do. But these things take time to put together. Right now those other people are hoping for a democrat victory in November so their actions will be swept under the rug.

millionaires

(02-20-2020 10:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 10:40 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

Odds on Trump commuting Stone's sentence today?
If what Trump says is true, why doesn't his DOJ go after these other people?

Who says they are not?

I hope they do. But these things take time to put together. Right now those other people are hoping for a democrat victory in November so their actions will be swept under the rug.

Two words:

John. Durham.

(02-20-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two words:

John. Durham.

Tell me more!

(02-20-2020 11:17 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two words:

John. Durham.

Tell me more!

There is wonderful technology that helps. it is called 'gifs'.... oops sorry wrong technology. It is called some weird name. Gogle or somefink like that.

(02-20-2020 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 11:17 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two words:

John. Durham.

Tell me more!

There is wonderful technology that helps. it is called 'gifs'.... oops sorry wrong technology. It is called some weird name. Gogle or somefink like that.

Seems like a nice guy. Would love to hear your take.

where your taxes go

FYI

Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:

Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.

Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:
Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.
Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

I guess "the Russians" are a lot smarter than Bloomberg.

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:

Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.

Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.

To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.

But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:

Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.

Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.

To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides.

But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

I am not on FB, so I do not know the effectiveness of them - but I do have a TV, so I fast-forwarded through a lot of Bloomberg ads. I have never yet voted for Bloomberg or Trump.

So how does one connect the 80,000 votes in three states with the FB ads.? If those 200K (less?) of ads turned 80K voters in 3 states, how many did they turn in 50? 80,000/3 x 50 = 1,333,333. damn good return on 200K (less?). I bet there detergent manufacturers who would die for those results.

I just think it silly that some blame the loss in those three states on FB ads.

I have seen lots of horse races. I have seen some won by 10 lengths, some won by a nose. The close ones did not indicate the winner cheated. Even if the winner were 50-1. Hillary was, to my surprise, only about a 2-1 (67%), 3-1(75%) or 4-1(80%) favorite. On election day, I thought she was a lock (100%). Guess I listened too much to the experts.

I think a bigger factor, by orders of magnitude, was the "deplorables" speech. Sure motivated a lot of people to get up from the recliner and go vote, IMO. Lots more motivation to vote against the person who thinks you are crap. But, JMHO.

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small.

If the numbers needed to be swayed were very, very small, then he was very, very close to begin with.

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:

Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.

Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.

To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.

But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

I look forward to your objective proof that the 80,000 were swayed by FB ads.

Even if only 3000 were swayed, it seems the Russkies were light years ahead of the Bloomberg campaign.

Perhaps Bloomberg should have contracted his ad dollars to the GRU.

(03-06-2020 06:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:

Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.

Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.

To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.

But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

I look forward to your objective proof that the 80,000 were swayed by FB ads.

Even if only 3000 were swayed, it seems the Russkies were light years ahead of the Bloomberg campaign.

Perhaps Bloomberg should have contracted his ad dollars to the GRU.

Asking for evidence?

I just find it funny that a communist despot would understand advertising so much better than a capitalist billionaire.

Well, I never asserted that the FB ads in question swung the election. I was merely pointing out that the margins in the 2016 election were very, very small so the various factors that swing the election didn’t need a Bloomberg-like effect. We mock Bloomberg, but his millions got him 10-20% on Super Tuesday and Bill de Blasio has been home picking daisies for months now. Bloomberg was a bad candidate for his race and it’s scary that but for the debate (that he almost missed), he might have cleared 20% nationwide.

As for 2016, I have no idea how much, if any, impact those specific Facebook ads had. There were tons and tons of anti-Clinton ads and memes from many sources (not just Russia). So I do not think there is any way to parse out just the Russia ads. I highly doubt just the Russia ads were enough to swing the election.

(03-06-2020 10:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Well, I never asserted that the FB ads in question swung the election. I was merely pointing out that the margins in the 2016 election were very, very small so the various factors that swing the election didn’t need a Bloomberg-like effect. We mock Bloomberg, but his millions got him 10-20% on Super Tuesday and Bill de Blasio has been home picking daisies for months now. Bloomberg was a bad candidate for his race and it’s scary that but for the debate (that he almost missed), he might have cleared 20% nationwide.

As for 2016, I have no idea how much, if any, impact those specific Facebook ads had. There were tons and tons of anti-Clinton ads and memes from many sources (not just Russia). So I do not think there is any way to parse out just the Russia ads. I highly doubt just the Russia ads were enough to swing the election.

There were tons and tons of antiTrump ads too

(03-06-2020 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Well, I never asserted that the FB ads in question swung the election. I was merely pointing out that the margins in the 2016 election were very, very small so the various factors that swing the election didn’t need a Bloomberg-like effect. We mock Bloomberg, but his millions got him 10-20% on Super Tuesday and Bill de Blasio has been home picking daisies for months now. Bloomberg was a bad candidate for his race and it’s scary that but for the debate (that he almost missed), he might have cleared 20% nationwide.

As for 2016, I have no idea how much, if any, impact those specific Facebook ads had. There were tons and tons of anti-Clinton ads and memes from many sources (not just Russia). So I do not think there is any way to parse out just the Russia ads. I highly doubt just the Russia ads were enough to swing the election.

There were tons and tons of antiTrump ads too

True ... do you have a point that I am missing?

(03-06-2020 10:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 10:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Well, I never asserted that the FB ads in question swung the election. I was merely pointing out that the margins in the 2016 election were very, very small so the various factors that swing the election didn’t need a Bloomberg-like effect. We mock Bloomberg, but his millions got him 10-20% on Super Tuesday and Bill de Blasio has been home picking daisies for months now. Bloomberg was a bad candidate for his race and it’s scary that but for the debate (that he almost missed), he might have cleared 20% nationwide.

As for 2016, I have no idea how much, if any, impact those specific Facebook ads had. There were tons and tons of anti-Clinton ads and memes from many sources (not just Russia). So I do not think there is any way to parse out just the Russia ads. I highly doubt just the Russia ads were enough to swing the election.

There were tons and tons of antiTrump ads too

True ... do you have a point that I am missing?

Yep.