Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Dead Again

Dead Again

Active Member
Oct 10, 2017
93
116
Pitbull3744 said:
Sure there are crazy people everywhere but I don't really see us burning pictures of their leaders and burning their flags etc.
Click to expand...
I don't think burning a picture or burning a flag makes a difference in how cray someone is when they say they want to murder millions of people.

They say death to America and we think what horrible people they all are, we have plenty that type on their computers to kill all muslims and we just say eh, and move on with our day. To me it's the same thing. They want to eliminate what they see as a threat to them, eliminate people they believe hate them, and so do people Americans who say kill them all. Burning a picture doesn't make one more or less crazy than the other.
 
MMAHAWK

MMAHAWK

Real Gs come from California.America Muthafucker
Feb 5, 2015
15,236
33,218
Dead Again said:
I don't think burning a picture or burning a flag makes a difference in how cray someone is when they say they want to murder millions of people.

They say death to America and we think what horrible people they all are, we have plenty that type on their computers to kill all muslims and we just say eh, and move on with our day. To me it's the same thing. They want to eliminate what they see as a threat to them, eliminate people they believe hate them, and so do people Americans who say kill them all. Burning a picture doesn't make one more or less crazy than the other.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a big difference between someone who types crazy shit in anonymity and people who gather in giant groups publicly to call for death to people.
 
Pitbull9

Pitbull9

Daddy
Jan 28, 2015
9,831
14,090
You guys are making a joke about Trumps space patrol but if you are truly that crazy that you think we are the only species in the gigantic universe than I don't know what to tell you. You think just because movies are made about alien attacks that somehow it could never happen?
 
KWingJitsu

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,692
Zeph said:
Wait he hadn't done that already, or he had subpoenaed documents not about Russia before? What part of this is a bombshell?
Click to expand...
He had subpoenaed others outside the Trump's org. (Manafort, Flynn, etc).
Now the noose is tightening to actual direct connection i.e. collusion) from Trump Corp itself.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
This was once a beautiful place of shitposting.




I don't blame the president. I probably couldn't keep my hands to myself either...
 
Freeloading Rusty

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,589
How Trump consultants got banned by Facebook for exploiting millions of users’ data
As the upstart voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica prepared to wade into the 2014 U.S. midterm elections, it had a problem.

The firm had secured a $15 million (U.S.) investment from Robert Mercer, the wealthy Republican donor, and wooed his political adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, with the promise of tools that could identify the personalities of U.S. voters and influence their behaviour. But it did not have the data to make its new products work.

So the firm harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history. The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social-media activity of a huge swath of the U.S. electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.

An examination by The New York Times and The Observer of London reveals how Cambridge Analytica’s drive to bring to market a potentially powerful new weapon put the firm — and wealthy conservative investors seeking to reshape politics — under scrutiny from investigators and lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Christopher Wylie, who helped found Cambridge and worked there until late 2014, said of its leaders: “Rules don’t matter for them. For them, this is a war, and it’s all fair.”

“They want to fight a culture war in America,” he added. “Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war.”

Details of Cambridge’s acquisition and use of Facebook data have surfaced in several accounts since the business began working on the 2016 campaign, setting off a furious debate about the merits of the firm’s psychographic modelling techniques.

But the full scale of the data leak involving Americans has not been previously disclosed — and Facebook, until now, has not acknowledged it. Interviews with half a dozen former employees and contractors, and a review of the firm’s emails and documents, have revealed that Cambridge not only relied on the private Facebook data but also still possesses most or all of the trove.

As the upstart voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica prepared to wade into the 2014 U.S. midterm elections, it had a problem.

The firm had secured a $15 million (U.S.) investment from Robert Mercer, the wealthy Republican donor, and wooed his political adviser, Stephen K. Bannon, with the promise of tools that could identify the personalities of U.S. voters and influence their behaviour. But it did not have the data to make its new products work.

So the firm harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission, according to former Cambridge employees, associates and documents, making it one of the largest data leaks in the social network’s history. The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social-media activity of a huge swath of the U.S. electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.

An examination by The New York Times and The Observer of London reveals how Cambridge Analytica’s drive to bring to market a potentially powerful new weapon put the firm — and wealthy conservative investors seeking to reshape politics — under scrutiny from investigators and lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Christopher Wylie, who helped found Cambridge and worked there until late 2014, said of its leaders: “Rules don’t matter for them. For them, this is a war, and it’s all fair.”

“They want to fight a culture war in America,” he added. “Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war.”

Details of Cambridge’s acquisition and use of Facebook data have surfaced in several accounts since the business began working on the 2016 campaign, setting off a furious debate about the merits of the firm’s psychographic modelling techniques.

But the full scale of the data leak involving Americans has not been previously disclosed — and Facebook, until now, has not acknowledged it. Interviews with half a dozen former employees and contractors, and a review of the firm’s emails and documents, have revealed that Cambridge not only relied on the private Facebook data but also still possesses most or all of the trove.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom