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."
This is the greatest frist psot of all time. The best!
Trump 2016!
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.
for folks who don't use snapchat? I've read two articles and I still don't get it. Is this just something you can just put over a picture you post to the service? What keeps me from taking a photo of a dog's butt with it? I guess it at least still gets the "Crooked Hilary" meme out there though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Cooked Hillary? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The man wrote a book about conning people for fucks sake.
Be an alternative to Trump?
It's projection. Call others what you are, and they will look foolish calling you it back.
Learn to love Alaska
People still use Snapchat? I bailed when the Ads started.
Name one thing that Clinton has done *ever* that has benefited the American people?
Read her biography yourself. I may find the involvement with the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns a bit troublesome, but they did happen, and after that, she was involved in several charitable legal groups in Arkansas, and as first lady she did some more of that. She also attempted to reform the nation's healthcare system. She didn't succeed, but I can't call that a personal failure, just intransigent opposition. She did however succeed in establishing a program for children's insurance though.
If you want more, again, go read her biography.
PS, I just heard Trump claim he had not run a single commercial against Clinton. Is this an example of his Jedi Truth attitude?
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)
The media is reporting on what Trump did because all the rules have apparently changed for him. Even 4 years ago if a presidential candidate had done some of the shit trump has done their campaign would be over. As an example, he attacked a gold star family, he's attacked people that have served this country (called McCain, a former POW, a coward), and he lies about everything, in fact he's lied more than any presidential candidate in history. If Clinton did even half this stuff the Fox news propaganda wing would be running full time talking about how she doesn't respect the military or any of the million comments Trump has made that are easily proved false or any of the personal attacks he's engaged in.
And for what it's worth, those of us that are independent see something entirely different than the outrage machine coming from Fox News. I see a media that heavily favors Trump and lets Hillary off on nothing. The last town hall thing they did with NBC they were tossing Trump softballs and attacking Clinton and didn't call Trump on one of his lies. That's not even hard to do, half the shit he lies about is easily disproved and literally no journalist that interviews him calls him on it because he retaliates "for not being fair". In fact he's so effectively castrated the press that it's astounding the level of bullshit he gets away with.
To be honest, that's a skill she honed in the US Congress, where shoveling buckets full of money into the fire is the first line of action for any issue - good or bad.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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...
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.
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...
Oh goodness, somebody doesn't bother to check to see that Hillary was only Secretary of State for half of Obama's term, and you're all upset at them. Or they mistype eight instead of four. But you, you are disappointed that they vote, because they don't have perfect recall? Heavens no! That's so rare, the rest of us are like Commander Data, with positronic memory that never has an error!
Hey FlyHelicopters, how about Trump's command of numbers? He couldn't even get the homicides in New York City right (they have been dropping even since De Blaiso took office in 2013, been on a downward trend for years before that, and haven't consistently gone back up for any year, and are down this year), let alone be consistent on the "cash" to Iran (which was returning their money with interest after we refused to provide them what they paid for, a reasonable decision, but they were kinda entitled to a refund), as I heard him say we gave them 125 billion towards the end. Also, if he's bothered about the B-52 being the backbone of America's air fleet, you think he's troubled that we've chopped up around 90% of them due to treaties with Russia? Of course, those treaties were negotiated during the Reagan and GWHB years, so he can't blame Clinton for that. And at the very beginning, he made the accusation apparently Hillary Clinton has been fighting ISIS her adult life. Um...he's only a year older than he is. Did he think ISIS dates back from the 1960s?
I'll grant that the Mid-East has been full of terrorism and brutality for that long, but ISIS specifically? A bit much. And he left out how much of that time we've had Republican Presidents, and how Hillary wasn't you know, actually in charge of things, given that neither she, nor anyone else, has been absolute despot over America, let alone the world. Also, apparently he expects China to invade North Korea at our behest, which is just weird.
And he never did explain why he kept on about the birther nonsense AFTER the birth certificate came out, which apparently HE wants credit for, even though he denied it was real at the time. Huh.
I'm also confused, did he really suggest we invade Iraq and take all their oil? What's with that? Is he suggesting we violate their sovereignty for our own benefit? That's a scary thought.
PS, do you think Trump forgot that NAFTA was negotiated by George H.W. Bush? I'm surprised Hillary Clinton didn't call him out on that one. It went into effect during Clinton's term of office, but it was also heavily bipartisan. Support was almost 50-50 from Republicans and Democrats. Not that he bothered to specify what terms NAFTA were wrong, but that's another problem. Of course, his solution is to increase tariffs, apparently. Not that his representation of taxes was very accurate, but that is what he suggested, isn't it?
I won't get into whether or not the things she did "benefited the American people", nor any other highly subjective stuff, but here's a list of the laws she sponsored during her eight years in the Senate:
S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway.
S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York.
In addition to those three laws, she also sponsored a bill the president did not sign:
2. S.Con.Res.27 â" 110th Congress (2007-2008) A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
Three laws in eight years might sound rather low. It is, the average Senator does quite a bit more.
You be the judge as to whether or not her eight years in the Senate "benefited the American people". Aside from those eight years, she has been in politics in 1977. Much of that has been running PR and especially damage control for the officeholder, her husband.
This. Trump may be very (not nice) things, but the guy literally wrote the book on negotiation. He's got this stuff down to an art.
Thank you for Correcting the Record. $1.20 has been deposited into your account.
BTW she did also sponsor several amendments to other people's bills. Those include:
requires the Federal Protective Service to have at least 1,200 officers protecting the Congressional Office Building, the Capitol, and other federal buildings.
requires the Comptroller General to study sharing border enforcement with Mexico and Canada.
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to require that DHS contracts require successful acquisition outcomes
Trump is his own worst enemy. He hangs himself with rope of his own making, every day. Don't pretend it's "the media" doing this to Trump, Trump does this to himself. In fact I have had to take issue with some of Trump's statements, clearly and at first pass being false, yet they don't always get called out that way by media commentators. Media hosts go out of their way to try to give Trump chances to explain, elaborate, correct or enhance.
Trump does none of those things. Ever.
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
I rather suspect he won't release his tax records because he's the pot calling the kettle black. My gut says that if he didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't need that bit of extraordinary privacy (extraordinary for a presidential candidate, anyway).
This is one of those rare exceptions where that phrase seems pretty accurate, particularly given how he has bragged about having politicians in his pocket. And, if convicted of bribery, that's grounds for automatic impeachment. Just saying.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And Trump bragged about paying bribes.
It's hard to know which is worse. I wouldn't hire either of them to mow my lawn. I'd rather choose a President by random number generator than elect either of these choices. We'd have a better chance of picking a good candidate.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
> Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".
Because he is a bully. He may be a good bully, even the best. But in my book, that is still bad, and it should be called bad.
I dunno, he seems really easy to bait on Twitter and uses lots of easily discovered scams like pretending to be his own press officer. His constant use of hollow threats to sue doesn't help either.
If he were up against Putin or the EU, I don't think he would do very well. He is used to negotiating from a position of wealth, which won't help in international politics. Even if he can force other countries to do what he wants, like the wall, all it will do is create bad relations that screw him (or his successor) in the future.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I dunno, he seems really easy to bait on Twitter and uses lots of easily discovered scams like pretending to be his own press officer. His constant use of hollow threats to sue doesn't help either.
And yet he made it to a GOP candidate with the support of almost 50% of the country. Don't take the guy for granted, he can deliver bullshit like no one else.
I find Trump unfathomable as a presidential candidate, and still, here he is.
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.
As opposed to FlyHelicopters who obviously lives in a magical land inside his own head where he's always right, and if he's wrong, reality magically transmutes itself to match. Yeah.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Trump gamed the system. That's what he stands for, after all--gaming the system as much as possible.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
> I rather suspect he won't release his tax records because he's the pot calling the kettle black.
He wont' release them because they would reveal that he's not a billionaire.
He wasted over a million dollars to lose a libel suit against a reporter who did a lot of research and came up with a number of about $200M. That guy, by the way, has seen his tax returns, but he's under court order not to talk about the specifics. He deserves a crowd-funding campaign to encourage him to violate that court order.
Trump certainly has assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars. But he also has debt, upwards of half a billion in debt and he's added at least $50M just to finance his campaign.
And just to complete it, although it should be obvious. Just because one is bad does not make the other person good. They are both the worst possible choice, regardless.
I think that having a lottery and give ANY adult that has the US nationality and is born in the US the opportunity to win to become President would statistically be a better outcome. (Yes, including the people you think you want to exclude, like prisoners, politicians and your stoopid brother.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Trump may be very (not nice) things, but the guy literally wrote the book on negotiation.
No, he wrote *a* book on negotiation. Anyone can write a book.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This. Trump may be very (not nice) things, but the guy literally wrote the book on negotiation. He's got this stuff down to an art.
Trump is a prick, and the guy hired ghost-writers for his book on how to cheat and bully. He's a bullshit-artist. TFTFY (I wouldn't have to if you bothered to check your facts - no guesses needed to know who you'll voter for. Good luck with that "job you want to go to everyday".
It's hard to know which is worse.
It really isn't. Just because they both fall into the category of "bad" does not make them equivalently bad.
I'd rather choose a President by random number generator than elect either of these choices. We'd have a better chance of picking a good candidate.
Sure, but that still doesn't make them equivalently bad.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No she didn't. If she had done, he would be in prison now.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
If she deleted emails AFTER them being subpoenaed by Congress she would be in prison now.
If she deleted work related emails after being subpoenaed by the FBI, as Comey confirmed she did, she would be in prison now.
If she lied under oath to Congress, as confirmed by Comey, she would be in prison now.
Just because there is a different set of rules for her and she doesn't go to prison for committing crimes doesn't mean she didn't commit crimes.
And he didn't actually write that book either. He had someone ghostwrite it for him.
So if we want to accurately correct the poster's statement, it would be:
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There's two explanations for this phenomenon:
1. The media is as biased as you claim, and spins everything negative that the man does
2. Everything that the man does which is reported by the media, is actually negative.
At this point, it's hard to tell which, because he has done some truly awful things.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
He didn't write any part of that book, FYI. They had the author on one of the other channels talking about it.
And he didn't actually write that book either. He had someone ghostwrite it for him.
So if we want to accurately correct the poster's statement, it would be:
FTFY.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
> 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.
If she deleted emails AFTER them being subpoenaed by Congress she would be in prison now.
Perhaps. That's a question for Congress, and the Republican Congress has chosen not to pursue it.
If she deleted work related emails after being subpoenaed by the FBI, as Comey confirmed she did, she would be in prison now.
Clinton claims that the deleted emails were personal, not work-related. The DoJ found that she had the legal right to withhold and delete personal emails. Whether the emails actually were personal, of course, we'll never know. But barring existence of some evidence that they weren't personal, there is no prosecutable offense here.
If she lied under oath to Congress, as confirmed by Comey, she would be in prison now.
Almost nobody goes to prison for lying under oath to Congress. Comey has done it, and didn't go to prison, for example.
Just because there is a different set of rules for her and she doesn't go to prison for committing crimes doesn't mean she didn't commit crimes.
I don't see any evidence that there is a different set of rules. There's a lot of evidence that she is given every benefit of the doubt within the rules, probably more than others would. I suspect that some of that is due to the influence of a Democratic administration, but I think most of it arises from the fact that no one wants to destroy a major party's candidate for president without extremely clear cause. It seems entirely appropriate to allow the voters to hold a referendum on these issues in November... and, frankly, if her opponent were anyone other than Donald Trump voters would destroy her for it.
I should mention that I do not like Hillary Clinton, at all. I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian who generally votes for Republican candidates, so I disagree ideologically with Clinton, and as a person I consider her to be a cold, grasping, schemer. But I dislike the post-factual era that US (and world) politics seems to be entering even more.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Chris Stevens was not available for comment.
Created who knows how many jobs, which puts money in the hands of those who earned it. People like Trump sign the fronts of checks. People like Hillary have only ever signed the backs of checks.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You're read/heard how he underpays or fails to pay people and small contractors he's hired.
Here's another one: my PT and I were talking this morning, and he told me his father's an industrial contractor - paints bridges, drywall buildings, etc, and more than once, he's done a job for Trump, and then, when it was done, Trump comes in, says yeah, he's satisfied... but that he thinks he's already paid him enough, never mind the signed contract.
Tell me that's not criminal fraud?
He is a crook. And his wife doesn't wear a cloth coat....
mark
Yeah, that notorious liberal Donald J. Trump came up with "Trump dat bitch!" and "Lyin' Ted" and "Crooked Hillary". They're always name-calling, those filthy liberals!
He wrote a book about negotiation. Doesn't mean he's any good at negotiation. Lots of people write books, even Hillary wrote a book. The book was about self promotion. Trump spent the majority of his adult life on the talk show circuit, reality shows, and entertainment, and self promotion is his primary business. He claims his greatest asset is his name. He doesn't show his tax returns because the IRS does not place a monetary value on one's name.
Meanwhile Trump had a university to teach how to negotiate and yet it has backfired and is being sued for fraudelent practices. He has a line of businesses with him supplying just his name and no investment, and other investors go along with it because they think "Trump" is a name of value, and then those businesses fail. He has managed to turn a a large amount of money into a larger amount of money, but most people with several million dollars are able to do that just as well or better.
And finally, negotiating real estate deals has no relevance to actually running a country, negotiating with other countries, and so on. He's deluding himself if he thinks he can easily negotiate with China or convince Mexico to build a wall. And I don't think he does believe it but he does believe that this followers eat this stuff up. Overall, I don't want to see a country I live in being run like a business. Most business are badly run, they are run to the detriment of their own employees, they often screw the actual investors when they can, the leadership of the large businesses are there for financial reasons rather than being able to manage day to day affairs. Most CEOs get their start as sales people: shmoozers, brown nosers, purveyors of snake oil. Even an actor would be better suited to be president than a CEO.
I meant the guy is really good at verbally arguing. It doesn't matter if there's no substance to it or half his statements are bullshit - those simple projection tricks like AK Marc describe are eerily effective on some people. About half the US population, in fact.
Trump has literally talked his way to a GOP presidential runner. It's scary as hell.
Is this campaign being run by the campaign CEO Steve Bannon? While Conway runs the physical campaign, he runs the virtual one. So it would be interesting if he puts on the Breitbart campaign on overdrive against Crooked Hilary
FIxed that for you. Fortunately for everyone involved, Republicans who vote in primaries aren't representative of the US in general.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fortunately, the separation of powers greatly limits the damage either one can do. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all. Simple words, simple grammar, repeating the same words and phrases multiple times in the same sentence. "100 per cent", "I guarantee it", "huge", "great", etc. This man needs a thesaurus. This is why he's such a conundrum to the typical legislator who grew up learning debate or being coached by debate champs only to see this person fumbling and breaking all the normal campaigning rules and succeeding at it.
I guess bullshit works. I want someone smart, nerdy, and skilled to be my brain surgeon, I wonder if the Trump supporters think the same way?
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all.
Agreed. That, sadly, speaks more about the US voters than Trump.
This years' elections are shit. Clinton would be on any other occasion a bland candidate, at most. And Trump... i still can't believe the guy is running for president. Or that there's people actually buying his horseshit.
Trump says he'll attract companies back to the US. This will only happen by lowering the minimum wage and giving executives tax cuts. He's publicly stating that he will give the rich tax cuts. No mention of how he will make manufacturing in the US profitable. Trickle down has not, and will never work, Giving the rich more money does not mean they invest in jobs, they invest in yachts.
It's hard to know which is worse.
It really isn't. Just because they both fall into the category of "bad" does not make them equivalently bad.
I'd rather choose a President by random number generator than elect either of these choices. We'd have a better chance of picking a good candidate.
Sure, but that still doesn't make them equivalently bad.
You're right. Each of them is bad in their own special way.
Stop! Dremel time!
He's polling at 47% in a LA Times national poll, 46% in a handful of others, which are all purported to represent all US registered and likely voters. His statement was quite accurate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html