DiscussMormonism.com

USA Today was analyzing the ads placed by the Russian agency charged with messing up the 2016 Presidential elections.

The most popular ad was one called "Back the Badge" It targeted 20 to 65-year-olds interested in law enforcement who had already liked pages such as “The Thin Blue,” “Police Wives Unite” and the “Officer Down Memorial Page.”

That made me think of the racially divisive ads which would help inflame the Trump base of voters. As USA Today pointed out:

Divisive racial ad buys averaged about 44 per month from 2015 through the summer of 2016 before seeing a significant increase in the run-up to Election Day. Between September and November 2016, the number of race-related spots rose to 400. An additional 900 were posted after the November election through May 2017.

This made me wonder if these ads were targeted to specific groups. I was wondering if Bach, Ajax, Subgenius, and LDSfaqs received these ads? Please answer da or nyet and then the specifics.

I know this would have been less effective than sending a free white hood with the slogan Make America Great Again, but still, these racial ads must have provided some stimulation for those with a proclivity toward racism.

Stupidity is to racism what grapes are to wine.

People consumed with racist thoughts are the victims and perpetrators of the most insidious cultural idiocy. They deserve no attention or sympathy. It's one thing to be stupid, it's another to be an asshole. Racists revel in combining the two into one spastic package.

And as a result, we have a bunch or morons in this country who are voluntarily influenced by Russian oligarchs, have no idea they are willing rubes, and fight angrily against the idea they're disposable marks - a means to an end.

A really effective ad that the Russians missed out on would have been to dress both Donald and Ivanka in tuxedos, with top hats and walking canes. They would stroll out on stage and perform the classic Broadway number, "Putin on the Ritz".

I heard Drumpf was afraid of Broadway, simply because he's confused by the name. He thinks "Broadway" means it's all controlled by women.

Some Schmo wrote: who are voluntarily influenced by Russian oligarchs.

wow, your like a vineyard then.

If you believe that a Facebook ad(s) actually got someone to vote for Trump, or even dumber, got someone to change their vote. Besides, 8 years if Obama provided all the motivation necessary.

Now go finish stomping your sour grapes ya rube.

subgenius wrote:

Some Schmo wrote: who are voluntarily influenced by Russian oligarchs.

wow, your like a vineyard then.

If you believe that a Facebook ad(s) actually got someone to vote for Trump, or even dumber, got someone to change their vote. Besides, 8 years if Obama provided all the motivation necessary.

Now go finish stomping your sour grapes ya rube.

First, the Russians didn't interfere.

Now they interfered, but it couldn't possibly have affected anything. People always want to claim that people are above being influenced by advertising when it comes to their vote. Perhaps most people are. Many people are not. The sad fact is that many people do not get a lot of their information from reliable resources. You dismiss concern about Russian interference because you think people are not gullible enough to be swayed by advertising? In a culture where many people bought the Obama birth certificate hoax?

The argument "as if anyone would be influenced by advertising on Facebook" must be quite the shock to those large businesses spending all that money advertising on Facebook.

I've stopped being surprised that morons say moronic things.

Some Schmo wrote:The argument "as if anyone would be influenced by advertising on Facebook"

that is not the argument you imbecile...the argument is whether a voter would be manipulated to either vote or vote differently due to a Facebook ad. So, while your weak minded logic might exhibit a justification for exclaiming "yes, there are such morons, just look at Schmo's post" - the reality still does not support your fantasy.

Other than that, you obviously have not even the most fundamental knowledge of how advertising works.

MeDotOrg wrote:First, the Russians didn't interfere.

yes, this still stands...they may have tried, but even Obama admitted they did not "interfere", at least not to the nefarious levels you are trying to insinuate here.

MeDotOrg wrote:Now they interfered, but it couldn't possibly have affected anything.

Facebook ads do not support the charge of "interfere", any more than newspaper "ads" from decades ago support the same. Again, preaching to the choir does not increase church attendance.

MeDotOrg wrote: People always want to claim that people are above being influenced by advertising when it comes to their vote.

mainly because it is true. To assert that it would only take a clever Facebook ad campaign to get a modern day nazi to vote for Hillary is kinda funny....in an SNL skit kinda way.

MeDotOrg wrote: Perhaps most people are. Many people are not. The sad fact is that many people do not get a lot of their information from reliable resources.

yes, i get your point - gossip and rumor being a totally new phenomenon.

MeDotOrg wrote: You dismiss concern about Russian interference because you think people are not gullible enough to be swayed by advertising?

My point was clear so do not conflate it - i did not state anything about the gullibility of people, except that apparently many people are gullible enough to believe that Facebook ads had any influence on how people voted. Yes, people can be swayed by advertising, but that is a completely different topic. These were not "advertisements" per se and your insistence that these Facebook ads are tantamount to an online promotion of a 2-4-1 dominos pizza event is absurd.

MeDotOrg wrote: In a culture where many people bought the Obama birth certificate hoax?

Pretty sure Facebook ads are not what gave that story legs.

MeDotOrg wrote: People always want to claim that people are above being influenced by advertising when it comes to their vote.

Of course, subs is correct. This is why spending on political advertising and messaging is completely nonexistent these days.