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."
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.
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.