GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: FALSE. 56% were purchased after the election, meaning there were roughly 4.4 million impressions before the election. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/ And how many of those 4.4 million impressions were in support of Bernie? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: FALSE. 56% were purchased after the election, meaning there were roughly 4.4 million impressions before the election. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/ Which do you believe had a bigger impact on the electorate: A few million dollars spent on obscure FB ads which hardly anyone saw? Or The hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the election by both parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, GG said: And how many of those 4.4 million impressions were in support of Bernie? Okay so we acknowledge you made a false statement in order stifle the opposing argument. That's good enough for me. Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Which do you believe had a bigger impact on the electorate: A few million dollars spent on obscure FB ads which hardly anyone saw? Or The hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the election by both parties? You mean the obscure ads that 4.4 million people saw? At least you acknowledge that those 4.4 million impressions had a tangible impact, regardless of how it compares. That's good enough for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: You mean the obscure ads that 4.4 million people saw? At least you acknowledge that those 4.4 million impressions had a tangible impact, regardless of how it compares. That's good enough for me. You didn't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You didn't answer the question. Because it was a stupid !@#$ing question that followed no relevant logic to your argument or to any argument any one else in their right mind would make. It was a stupid !@#$ing question that has no measurable answer, and that's why you asked it in the first place, hoping I was some kind of a moron. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: Okay so we acknowledge you made a false statement in order stifle the opposing argument. That's good enough for me. You mean the obscure ads that 4.4 million people saw? At least you acknowledge that those 4.4 million impressions had a tangible impact, regardless of how it compares. That's good enough for me. Not quite. You cannot make a straight correlation based on what FB disclosed, because they didn't specify whether the pre-election ads were seen equally as the post-election ads. Again, based on the total meltdown on Nov. 7, I can make an argument that the post-election ads were much more impactful and they still feed the TDS beast. Edited February 19, 2018 by GG 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, The Big Cat said: Because it was a stupid !@#$ing question that followed no relevant logic to your argument or to any argument any one else in their right mind would make. It was a stupid !@#$ing question that has no measurable answer, and that's why you asked it in the first place, hoping I was some kind of a moron. It's a relevant question to the issue at hand. The fact you won't answer it is interesting. Why won't you answer it? Is the cognitive dissonance butting against your brain making you stammer? Let's try another... because I'm trying to gauge you're positions since you're new down here. Do you believe Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, GG said: Not quite. You cannot make a straight correlation based on what FB disclosed, because they didn't specify whether the pre-election ads were seen equally as the post-election ads. Again, based on the total meltdown on Nov. 7, I can make an argument that the post-election ads were much more impactful and they still feed the TDS beast. Oh I see. You misspoke. It was an accident when you implied that all of the FB purchasing activity, according to the VP, came after the election. How far are you going to back track this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 You leave Greggy alone for 6 months and he turns into a monster with no off switch. Unbelievable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's a relevant question to the issue at hand. The fact you won't answer it is interesting. Why won't you answer it? Is the cognitive dissonance butting against your brain making you stammer? Let's try another... because I'm trying to gauge you're positions since you're new down here. Do you believe Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election? I gave you two reasons why not to answer. How many do you need? Oh wait, I'm being lectured about cognitive dissonance by the "deep state" guy. Okay, carry on. May be you can help explain why so many of Trump's guys have been caught lying...repeatedly. Why did they lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: I gave you two reasons why not to answer. How many do you need? Oh wait, I'm being lectured about cognitive dissonance by the "deep state" guy. Okay, carry on. You didn't give me any reasons. You said it was a stupid question. It isn't. It's directly tied to the point you were raising. To argue otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. Which is your right - but it's our right to call you out for it. 10 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: You leave Greggy alone for 6 months and he turns into a monster with no off switch. Unbelievable. (edited for prosperity: I'm a dumbass) Edited February 19, 2018 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 The only way to know for sure is to check the heat maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 You can keep arguing whether the Russian campaign to destabilize the government by calling the election in to question happened was more effective before or after the election. But in indulging this argument, you're all missing the salient point: The campaign is ongoing. Does anyone really think, having succeeded beyond their wildest dreams so far, the Russians aren't still actively attempting to manipulate American public opinion on the investigations in to such? How many here have honestly considered the possibility you're repeating memes that originated in St. Petersburg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I have no idea who you are. But thanks for the input. You haven't been around for six months and then come in here and pretend to know everything that's transpired? Good work. That's a double dose of stupidity. It was a compliment buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: I gave you two reasons why not to answer. How many do you need? Oh wait, I'm being lectured about cognitive dissonance by the "deep state" guy. Okay, carry on. May be you can help explain why so many of Trump's guys have been caught lying...repeatedly. Why did they lie? "Why did they get caught?" is the better question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: You can keep arguing whether the Russian campaign to destabilize the government by calling the election in to question happened was more effective before or after the election. But in indulging this argument, you're all missing the salient point: The campaign is ongoing. Does anyone really think, having succeeded beyond their wildest dreams so far, the Russians aren't still actively attempting to manipulate American public opinion on the investigations in to such? How many here have honestly considered the possibility you're repeating memes that originated in St. Petersburg? It absolutely is ongoing. We're at war - and have been for several years. Just now, jmc12290 said: It was a compliment buddy. Then I AM a monster! 9 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: Why did they lie? Are you asking me why a politician in the mother of all political races would lie? I guess my answer would be which lie are you talking about? Imagine you're an innocent man who's been accused non stop of doing something you KNOW you did not do by a 24/7 news cycle. Do you think you'd be defensive? Testy? Wanting to shout from the rafters that you're innocent? Or would you just shut up and take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "Why did they get caught?" is the better question. Because they're stupid, untalented and naive political hacks that existed on the fringe of American politics before the only presidential candidate that would stoop so low as to have them came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: Because they're stupid, untalented and naive political hacks that existed on the fringe of American politics before the only presidential candidate that would stoop so low as to have them came along. And in the process these untalented, stupid, naive political hacks beat not one but two American political dynasties in an election where the MSM, FBI, DOJ and former administration were actively trying to prevent such a victory. ... Yeah, that tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: And in the process these untalented, stupid, naive political hacks beat not one but two American political dynasties in an election where the MSM, FBI, DOJ and former administration were actively trying to prevent such a victory. ... Yeah, that tracks. This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that? Critical thinking is not your strong suit, is it. The indictment made clear the goal was chaos, not one candidate over the other. You never answered the question: do you believe Russia colluded with Trump or his team to fix the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) So, you're saying the Rooskies would have "backed" Mitt, or Jeb, or Marco, or Ted? Just ABC... right? 2 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that? And if that was the case, why did B. O. drag his Johnson on putting some pressure on Putin even though he was a lame duck... emphasis on lame. Edited February 19, 2018 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, Nanker said: So, you're saying the Rooskies would have "backed" Mitt, or Jeb, or Marco, or Ted? Just ABC... right? No. Nobody's saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: No. Nobody's saying that. You just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 So, it was only Trump. And did Putineski throw the GOP primaries for Trump then too? After all, the jacking off to our election started in 2014 according to sources and B.O. was still the POTUS and the Trumpeter hadn't even declared for the candidacy yet. Oh! It was Putin who talked him in to running for office. Right. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, Nanker said: So, it was only Trump. And did Putineski throw the GOP primaries for Trump then too? After all, the jacking off to our election started in 2014 according to sources and B.O. was still the POTUS and the Trumpeter hadn't even declared for the candidacy yet. Oh! It was Putin who talked him in to running for office. Right. Got it. That must be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Critical thinking is not your strong suit, is it. The indictment made clear the goal was chaos, not one candidate over the other. You never answered the question: do you believe Russia colluded with Trump or his team to fix the election? That's fundamentally incorrect. You're plainly ignoring direct language from the indictment that is impossible to misinterpret Page 17 Section a: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4380504/The-Special-Counsel-s-Indictment-of-the-Internet.pdf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Putin's hiding his SB ring in that photo. Collusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: Oh I see. You misspoke. It was an accident when you implied that all of the FB purchasing activity, according to the VP, came after the election. How far are you going to back track this one? Gee, look who's back for his annual beating. Remind me again how happy you were to share a bus with people of color in November 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: That's fundamentally incorrect. You're plainly ignoring direct language from the indictment that is impossible to misinterpret Page 17 Section a: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4380504/The-Special-Counsel-s-Indictment-of-the-Internet.pdf This is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: That's fundamentally incorrect. You're plainly ignoring direct language from the indictment that is impossible to misinterpret Page 17 Section a: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4380504/The-Special-Counsel-s-Indictment-of-the-Internet.pdf And you're ignoring the rest of the 36 pages which provide context for that cherry picked section. But please, yes, let's get into the weeds with primary source material and see which one of us has read more... Before we get there, why don't you answer the question you've now been dodging for over an hour... Do you, Big Cat, believe that Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election? I'm asking your opinion, not for you to prove it one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, GG said: Gee, look who's back for his annual beating. Remind me again how happy you were to share a bus with people of color in November 2008? I see. Get called out for making stuff up. Insult the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, The Big Cat said: This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that? No it is not. Out of all the candidates, Hillary would have been the 2nd best for Putin (next to Bernie) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: And you're ignoring the rest of the 36 pages which provide context for that cherry picked section. But please, yes, let's get into the weeds with primary source material and see which one of us has read more... Before we get there, why don't you answer the question you've now been dodging for over an hour... Do you, Big Cat, believe that Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election? I'm asking your opinion, not for you to prove it one way or the other. So you acknowledge that words "we support them" in reference to Trump, but that's no indication that they supported one candidate over another. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: So you acknowledge that words "we support them" in reference to Trump, but that's no indication that they supported one candidate over another. Interesting. And Sanders. Why won't you answer a very simple question posed to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Oh hey! Look who finally decided to get on board! Can't wait to see how you guys twist to acknowledge it was happening all along: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: I see. Get called out for making stuff up. Insult the person. Not quite. FB wouldn't have doubled down on their talking points if the pre-election impressions were equally effective. Never mind that if Putin cronies' goal was to help elect Trump, why did they increase FB placements AFTER the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: And Sanders. Why won't you answer a very simple question posed to you? Great so you understand now that you were unquestionably wrong to say the Russians didn't support Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, GG said: Not quite. FB wouldn't have doubled down on their talking points if the pre-election impressions were equally effective. Never mind that if Putin cronies' goal was to help elect Trump, why did they increase FB placements AFTER the election? Or why they held protests against him. Just now, The Big Cat said: Great so you understand now that you were unquestionably wrong to say the Russians didn't support Trump. Do you believe Trump and Russia actively colluded to fix the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, The Big Cat said: Oh hey! Look who finally decided to get on board! Can't wait to see how you guys twist to acknowledge it was happening all along: What in the world are you babbling about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts