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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.