Trump already has ads on Facebook!

[Lamb]

Yesterday came my first political ad for the year on Facebook and it was from Trump! He's preparing well ahead of time.

I don't like the thought of having to see political ads so far in advance and that means that by the end of October it will be completely intolerable to be online, watching tv, or listening to radio. I'm going to be on my Kindle at that time reading books instead

 

[vince284]

Yesterday came my first political ad for the year on Facebook and it was from Trump! He's preparing well ahead of time.

I don't like the thought of having to see political ads so far in advance and that means that by the end of October it will be completely intolerable to be online, watching tv, or listening to radio. I'm going to be on my Kindle at that time reading books instead

Time for more Netflix and DVR. The DVR, I can shoot right past the ads/commercials.

 

[tango]

Yesterday came my first political ad for the year on Facebook and it was from Trump! He's preparing well ahead of time.

I don't like the thought of having to see political ads so far in advance and that means that by the end of October it will be completely intolerable to be online, watching tv, or listening to radio. I'm going to be on my Kindle at that time reading books instead

Nothing much new there then. We still get phone calls from political canvassers, mostly recorded announcements. Faceache is little more than a barrage of people reposting opinion pieces as if they will change anything. Because, you know, people often change their minds when someone reposts a meme comparing them to Hitler or Stalin or some such. I'm often surprised Facebook even still exists given how many people seem to be giving up on it. Maybe I'm just one that turns things off because I'm really not interested in finding more ways to get my phone to beep at me during the day.

 

[Josiah]

The two ZILLIONAIRES are supersaturating TV ads here in California.... Nothing from Biden or Warren

 

[tango]

For good measure I also get to enjoy endless drivel from both sides of the Brexit debate. The ones that voted to remain in the EU and their endless spamming of reasons why Brexit is a bad idea, and the ones that voted to leave the EU and their spamming of why we need to just get on with it. Because, as above, the vote has been taken, the results counted, the last election dealt with, so now all there is to do about it is whine and gripe about some aspect of it.

 

[Josiah]

For good measure I also get to enjoy endless drivel from both sides of the Brexit debate. The ones that voted to remain in the EU and their endless spamming of reasons why Brexit is a bad idea, and the ones that voted to leave the EU and their spamming of why we need to just get on with it. Because, as above, the vote has been taken, the results counted, the last election dealt with, so now all there is to do about it is whine and gripe about some aspect of it.

Perhaps the Brits also have a problem accepting democracy.... The difference is with Trump, the election is less than 300 days away when we all get a RE-VOTE, the campaign is already well underway (over on this side of the pond, we have LONG, LONG campaigns!); democracy can handle this, the voters can decide if Trump is disqualified from being president. We vote on president every four years (a president however can only be re-elected once).


The People's Republic of California is a one-party state. And this party controls EVERYTHING (including the courts and press). Republicans are not illegal just irrelevant. We USE to have our primary ("winner take all" in nature) late when it was already pretty much settled who the Democrat Party nominee would be. Thus - there was no campaign here. None. No reason for any Republican to waste their time and money here (they won't win) and no reason for any Democrat to campaign here since California would vote for Satan if he was the Democrat running. The Democrat - ANY democrat - will get all the electorial college votes from CA. No matter what. Thus no campaign here. Candidates visited but ONLY to raise money (even Republicans can do fundraising here but they wont' win here). BUT (for reasons not clear to me) The People's Republic of California moved our primary to early. California is now the elephant in the room, and unlike the former early states - Iowa, New Hampshire - this is a state where personal appearances and local door to door work is impossible, campaigns here are on TV, a war of commercials. And for the first time in our history, this now includes the president, VERY expansive. The two zillionaires are supersaturating the commercials on TV and radio and beyond for one reason: they personally can pay for it, and they don't need any volunteers or such since here it's all done on mass media. Obviously, only the two zillionaires can afford it because we only hear from them.... constantly.... with commercials that are both illogical and illusive, and at times lies. It's the selling of a president.... done just like selling cigarettes. I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind but....




.

 

[tango]

Perhaps the Brits also have a problem accepting democracy.... The difference is with Trump, the election is less than 300 days away when we all get a RE-VOTE, the campaign is already well underway (over on this side of the pond, we have LONG, LONG campaigns!); democracy can handle this, the voters can decide if Trump is disqualified from being president. We vote on president every four years (a president however can only be re-elected once).

I think the UK and the US have similar problems in that so much of what is said online is the furthest thing from a useful discussion imaginable. Just like when Obama stood for election in 2008 and the number of people offering such useful insights as "it's about time we had a black president" or "I don't want no (expletive) (racial slur) in the White House" rather than actually discussing the merits or otherwise of his platform, so the Brexit "discussion" seemed to be little more than a battle between lists of establishment figures who thought we should stay (hey, establishment figures vote to preserve the establishment - whoever saw that one coming?) or various gripes about the EU being distant and unrepresentative.

One thing I really came to notice is that the question "is membership of the EU a good thing or a bad thing?" doesn't have a simple universal answer. If you're an architect living in London the chances are having the freedom to compete for work across the EU is a really good thing, and having European architects bidding on local projects is an acceptable price to pay. If you're a plumber the chances are you're going to struggle when you face competition from plumbers fom eastern European nations who are working to raise money fast, sending money home to their families, and living in rented accommodation as cheaply as possible because they're only here for a few years before heading back home. There isn't even much to counter it - the freedom to do plumbing work in Paris or Warsaw isn't worth much to a local handyman.

Where the Brexit vote was concerned there were more than a few voices claiming that the only reason to vote to leave was racism, much like the people who apparently couldn't understand that a rejection of Obama's political platform was a matter of politics and didn't necessarily have anything to do with the color of his skin, just like they failed to grasp it's perfectly possible to be happy with a female president without wanting Hillary Clinton to be president.

The People's Republic of California is a one-party state. And this party controls EVERYTHING (including the courts and press). Republicans are not illegal just irrelevant. We USE to have our primary ("winner take all" in nature) late when it was already pretty much settled who the Democrat Party nominee would be. Thus - there was no campaign here. None. No reason for any Republican to waste their time and money here (they won't win) and no reason for any Democrat to campaign here since California would vote for Satan if he was the Democrat running. The Democrat - ANY democrat - will get all the electorial college votes from CA. No matter what. Thus no campaign here. Candidates visited but ONLY to raise money (even Republicans can do fundraising here but they wont' win here). BUT (for reasons not clear to me) The People's Republic of California moved our primary to early. California is now the elephant in the room, and unlike the former early states - Iowa, New Hampshire - this is a state where personal appearances and local door to door work is impossible, campaigns here are on TV, a war of commercials. And for the first time in our history, this now includes the president, VERY expansive. The two zillionaires are supersaturating the commercials on TV and radio and beyond for one reason: they personally can pay for it, and they don't need any volunteers or such since here it's all done on mass media. Obviously, only the two zillionaires can afford it because we only hear from them.... constantly.... with commercials that are both illogical and illusive, and at times lies. It's the selling of a president.... done just like selling cigarettes. I'm not sure this is what our founding fathers had in mind but....

I wonder how long a system can survive when everything is so divided along clear geographical lines. Just like the US can be politically divided into "big city Democrat areas" and "rural Republican areas", so the UK's vote where Brexit was concerned was equally remarkable - London and Scotland voted to stay, most of the rest of the nation voted to leave. How long can a system last when it turns into little more than a fine balancing match whether the cities get to impose on the countryside or vice versa? If anything it seems like a perfect reason to have smaller government, so the cities and countryside can do their own things to the extent that central law permits and neither gets to create great impositions on the other.

 

[Josiah]

Tempo,

I'm no historian, but as I understand it, American politics has ALWAYS been dirty and very geographical..... I recall a bit a story about some very early presidential election here, one of the first, and the "mud" was worse than now. And we have had - at times - VERY divisive politics - certainly during the slavery debate and issue. BUT.... talking to my parents and older generations, they CLAIM (at least) that politics in the 50's was much more polite and cooperative, they CLAIMED politics was more civil and that elected folks at least tried to work together. I get the impression the "divide" and extremism we see today has its roots in the 60's and has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. To me, the political atmosphere here is pretty toxic..... in my work and social relations (even at church) everyone has to be very careful what they say. ALSO, "popularism" (a sort of "anti-goverment" approach to government) is DEEP in the DNA of the USA (it's how we began) and popularism rises up periodically in our history - but rarely does this get all the way to the White House as it did 3 years ago (Ronald Reagan had a bit of this, but he very much played within the rules and worked WITH the Republican Party).



Perhaps another thread could address Brexit. In my former job, I got to travel a bit to Europe (I was there several times) and got to talk about European matters..... I also have a very close friend who lives in Spain and some relatives in Europe.... and my wife's family is very Scottish with connections there. I've under the impression that the unification of European countries (begun perhaps 500+ years ago) was motivated by military and economic reasons: bigger meant stronger in political, military, economic terms - and so local identities simply became secondary or even lost (along with their languages). The creation of the EU in some ways is the zenith of this but ALSO the unraveling of this. TODAY the impression I've gotten is that those ancient, regional identities are being reborn and embraced anew (in Spain this is really seen in Catalonia for example). Reality seems to be that military and economic things really don't depend on boarders anymore; a small country (like Denmark) can thrive and be secure in spite of being small. Iceland enjoys a very high standard of living and military security with only about 150K people. I've heard voices that Scotland should be independent from UK BUT be in the EU and Nato, etc. I don't sense this in the USA but then we just don't have those very historic, old, separate nations. When the US joined together, the 13 colonies were all pretty new and all British. Anyway.... maybe this "one world" and this "historic identity" tension ebbs and flows or maybe we're just in a "pull back" period of sorts?

 

[tango]

Tempo,

I'm no historian, but as I understand it, American politics has ALWAYS been dirty and very geographical..... I recall a bit a story about some very early presidential election here, one of the first, and the "mud" was worse than now. And we have had - at times - VERY divisive politics - certainly during the slavery debate and issue. BUT.... talking to my parents and older generations, they CLAIM (at least) that politics in the 50's was much more polite and cooperative, they CLAIMED politics was more civil and that elected folks at least tried to work together. I get the impression the "divide" and extremism we see today has its roots in the 60's and has suddenly taken a turn for the worse. To me, the political atmosphere here is pretty toxic..... in my work and social relations (even at church) everyone has to be very careful what they say. ALSO, "popularism" (a sort of "anti-goverment" approach to government) is DEEP in the DNA of the USA (it's how we began) and popularism rises up periodically in our history - but rarely does this get all the way to the White House as it did 3 years ago (Ronald Reagan had a bit of this, but he very much played within the rules and worked WITH the Republican Party).

Dirty and geographical is one thing but in recent years it seems to have become a lot more divisive. It's as if both sides are seeking to dominate the other despite lifestyles being totally different. The simple reality is that city life is, by its very nature, totally different to country life. Things that work in the city don't necessarily work in the country and vice versa. To take a very basic example, public transport in a city of millions of people makes sense while in a rural village with maybe a couple of thousand people it doesn't make sense.

There's also much more of a sense of people taking offense at comments that are inherently inoffensive and trying to make far more of them than they are worth. If you voted for Trump or Clinton or wrote in another name, that doesn't make you a good person or a bad person. If you voted for one candidate and I voted for the other one it doesn't mean we have to be enemies, it doesn't mean we can't fellowship at church or sit and chat over a beer. The way some people talk you'd be forgiven for thinking that voting for The Wrong Candidate was a mortal sin deserving of nothing less than total ostracization. That's the part that's the problem, far more than any sense of how clean or dirty the fight for the top job might be.

Perhaps another thread could address Brexit. In my former job, I got to travel a bit to Europe (I was there several times) and got to talk about European matters..... I also have a very close friend who lives in Spain and some relatives in Europe.... and my wife's family is very Scottish with connections there. I've under the impression that the unification of European countries (begun perhaps 500+ years ago) was motivated by military and economic reasons: bigger meant stronger in political, military, economic terms - and so local identities simply became secondary or even lost (along with their languages). The creation of the EU in some ways is the zenith of this but ALSO the unraveling of this. TODAY the impression I've gotten is that those ancient, regional identities are being reborn and embraced anew (in Spain this is really seen in Catalonia for example). Reality seems to be that military and economic things really don't depend on boarders anymore; a small country (like Denmark) can thrive and be secure in spite of being small. Iceland enjoys a very high standard of living and military security with only about 150K people. I've heard voices that Scotland should be independent from UK BUT be in the EU and Nato, etc. I don't sense this in the USA but then we just don't have those very historic, old, separate nations. When the US joined together, the 13 colonies were all pretty new and all British. Anyway.... maybe this "one world" and this "historic identity" tension ebbs and flows or maybe we're just in a "pull back" period of sorts?

I think the trouble comes when people sense a loss of their own cultural identity. We hear all about how important it is for this race or that race or the other race to maintain their cultural heritage but apparently whitey doesn't get to keep his. A Europe-wide association of countries coming together for the purposes of trade is a good idea. Coming together for mutual defense is a good idea. When everything becomes more and more about ever-closer integration with ever-more centralized control people start to object. After all, the whole point of trading with the French and the Germans is that there are some things we do well (i.e. the French and Germans want them because we do it better), and some things the French do best and some things the Germans do best. If our product was better than the French product we wouldn't be buying the French version, we'd be selling them ours.

Around the world nations have been breaking up as people seek out their own future (as evidenced by the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia just to name three). When politicians try and force people to come together in ways they don't want the chances are it isn't going to end well. It's not even as if one group inherently hates another group - the Czech people don't necessarily hate the Slovaks, they just want their own nation and their own identity. Even uniting East Germany with West Germany wasn't plain sailing.

ETA: If this needs to be in another thread feel free to ask a friendly mod/admin to break it apart

 

[NewCreation435]

I've seen more ads from Bloomberg than Trump

 

[Lamb]

I've seen more ads from Bloomberg than Trump

I think on Facebook they have some formula that labels you as conservative or liberal so the ads will reflect that.

 

[tango]

I think on Facebook they have some formula that labels you as conservative or liberal so the ads will reflect that.

They label you conservative or liberal but it doesn't seem to make any difference to the ads you see. Every once in a while I delete my Faceache details so they can start over, and I often click on things that don't interest me at all just to pollute their data. Whether they think I'm conservative or liberal (and it does change, based on how I'm click-baiting them back) I see more or less the same frequency of ads.

For a time I was seeing endless Marianne Williamson ads. I think that was because a friend of mine was a huge fan of her presidential bid. I vaguely recall hearing she dropped out of the race, which is probably why I haven't seen her for a while. Either that or because I put my friend on timeout because I got sick of the endless "Marianne Williamson is great" posts.

 

[Josiah]

In California, the television is supersaturated, flooded with commercials of TWO: Tim Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.

Over and over and over and over. many times an hour.

Don't recall hearing from anyone else - in any form of ad or promotion. So are, only those two seem to be running here in California. NOTHING from any Trump campaign (which I'd expect, no Republican runs for president here - even Jesus would loose if he had an "R" after his name).

Both are zillionaires who are largely self-funded (TV ads here at incredibly expensive).

 

[NewCreation435]

I think on Facebook they have some formula that labels you as conservative or liberal so the ads will reflect that.

quite possibly they do, but they would be wrong in thinking I would vote for Bloomberg