Slashdot Mirror
Trump Takes On 'Crooked Hillary' With Snapchat Geofilter (arstechnica.com)
In an effort to appeal to more young voters, U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has unveiled a "geofilter" ad campaign for Snapchat that slaps on the banner phrase "Donald J. Trump vs. Crooked Hillary" to a user's photo and video Snaps. Ars Technica reports: "The ad rolled out to American Snapchat users today, just ahead of the 2016 presidential election's first major debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton (the debate starts tonight at 9pm EDT). The ad joins the usual geofilter available to Snapchat users, which usually list the name of a city or a nearby event as determined by GPS and time information. The campaign differs from the deluge of text, photo, and video ads that politicans have relied on in recent years, as it doesn't publish or display to the public without a personal photo or video attached. While other political campaigns have paid for geofilter ad campaigns on Snapchat in the past, including Clinton and Bernie Sanders, those have been timed and targeted for smaller-scale events like political conventions and primary voting periods. In a statement to CNN, the Clinton campaign said that Trump was "throwing his money into a fire pit," and it pointed out the ad's potential for backfiring, since "given Trump's deep unpopularity with young voters, [the ad's phrasing] will be used mainly at [his] own expense."
Probably because everything he says or does in the public sphere is cringeworthy.
Why don't you go one step further and claim that his own words were placed in his mouth by the liberal media conspiracy. You guys are practically that dumb already.
Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".
A) Demagoguery and name calling are generally frowned upon by society.
B) Trump has a tendency to mislead and sometimes tell boldface lies.
C) Newspapers almost exclusively focus on things people think are bad. Much of what Trump has said is extremely negative and offensive to many.
It seems like everything he does has a negative editorial comment nowadays.
Are Clintons actions editorialized as well? I haven't seen any good examples.
Turn on Fox News, they have been harping on Hillary Clinton for at least the past four years.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
>
Liberals. Always with the insults.
Other than name calling, what have you got? Name one thing that Clinton has done *ever* that has benefited the American people?
Eight successful years as Secretary of State. What has Trump ever done that benefited the American people?
Also, namecalling is the primary tactic of Republicans, and it's the only way Trump responds to any situation at all, as anyone who's watching the debate right now can attest. The fact that you try to paint this as a "liberal" thing is not good for your credibility.
A) Demagoguery and name calling are generally frowned upon by society.
Clinton called 10s of millions of Americans deplorable and irredeemable and laughed about it. Who is doing the name calling?
B) Trump has a tendency to mislead and sometimes tell boldface lies.
Clinton lied on every single step about her email, even when shown her lies she still lied about it. She lied about her health until she collapsed and suddenly had "pneumonia" but said she was healthy until that video was released.
C) Newspapers almost exclusively focus on things people think are bad. Much of what Trump has said is extremely negative and offensive to many.
Did you know Hillary took nearly $600 million in bribes while Secretary of State? Haven't seen the media focus on that, and that is something most people would think is bad.
I think you need to recheck your talking points memo (Obviously you didn't get one) because the points you bring up are far worse for Clinton. Here is a free tip for you too... don't bring up Trump university either, her role in Laureate University is far more crooked and ended with her taking home personally over $16 million in taxpayer money (in case you wondered why her campaign dropped that issue like a hot potato)
Eight successful years as Secretary of State.
What is so bloody sad is that you aren't even right about THIS thing, and you probably vote...
Remind me again HOW LONG she was Secretary of State for?
And that is ignoring the "Why were they successful?" point...
Not to bring facts into the argument, but during her stint as SoS, Clinton:
1) Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia
2) Sold dual use (civil/military) tech to Russia
3) Overrode expert opinion and ordered military intervention into Libya that led to the downfall of Gaddafi
That #3 is interesting. Clinton was advised that Gaddafi was the only thing keeping militant islamists at bay, and that taking him out would result in them forming a separate state based on terrorism.
We now know that by overriding the advice of experts, Clinton essentially caused the formation of ISIS and the subsequent deaths of hundreds of people, here and abroad.
Here's what the Washington Times reported at the time:
“I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an intervention that was going to be disastrous,” Mr. Kucinich told The Times. “What was being said at the State Department — if you look at the charge at the time — it wasn’t so much about what happened as it was about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya to justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal.”
People say that Trump is scary and will lead us into war, but they conveniently forget that Hillary Clinton actually *did* lead us into war - under false pretenses!
Oh, and let's not forget all the people who had access to top secret classified information on Hillary's server.
Trump has turned a $150M inheritance into $10M and a "brand". He's a loser who won't release his tax records because it will expose his life is one huge lie. His negotiation is "lie until they agree, then break the agreement" and "It's cheaper to lose in court than to lose at the negotiation table" Tactics that are short on ethics, and often short on results.
Learn to love Alaska
If you have to link to Breitbart as proof, then you've already disproven your own claim.
It's also a bit misleading of you to say only that "a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech" to make it sound like it was *Hillary* who got paid when it fact it was *Bill* who gave the speech and got paid for it, something that even Breitbart managed to get correct.
So... you not only need to cite Breitbart, but to cherry-pick even then? That's pretty sad.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Irony meter just exploded.
Surely you mean "metre"?
Surely he does not [boldface added]:
For the unit of measurement equaling approximately 1.094 yards, meter is the American spelling, and metre is preferred everywhere else. The same distinction applies to the terms used in poetry and music—meter in American English, and metre everywhere else. Here’s the tricky part: For any type of device (i.e., an actual machine or gadget) designed to measure time, distance, speed, or intensity or to regulate current, meter is the preferred spelling everywhere.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
> Three laws in eight years might sound rather low. It is, the average Senator does quite a bit more.
You are right. The average senator does a lot more. Sponsoring a bill is just a teeny-tiny part of the work of getting laws passed. Most of it is negotiation, and coordination with all the stakeholders (and plenty of non-stakeholders who just happen to have a say because they are part of the process). That's the real work of being a senator and that's what clinton spent her time on. Putting their name on everything in site no matter how little they had to do with it -- that's Trump's schtick.