Trump Takes On 'Crooked Hillary' With Snapchat Geofilter (arstechnica.com) 136
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."
Frist Psot (Score:4, Funny)
This is the greatest frist psot of all time. The best!
Trump 2016!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an ignorant idiot. I heard, on the radio, the morning in '93, hours *before* Bill was inaugurated for his first term, a Reptilian Congresscritter saying in so many words we're going to impeach him. Before he'd ever done anything.
The Gross Oligarchic Party seems to not have the ability to understand that not everyone agrees with them 110%, and are shocked, shocked I tell you, when they lose. They think they *own* it, and it MUST BE SOME KIND OF FRAUD when they lose.
Re:Name Calling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Name Calling (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I rather suspect he won't release his tax records because he's the pot calling the kettle black. My gut says that if he didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't need that bit of extraordinary privacy (extraordinary for a presidential candidate, anyway).
This is one of those rare exceptions where that phrase seems pretty accurate, particularly given how he has bragged about having politicians in his pocket. And, if convicted of bribery, that's grounds for automatic impeachment. Just saying.
Trump is Only a Millionaire (Score:1)
> I rather suspect he won't release his tax records because he's the pot calling the kettle black.
He wont' release them because they would reveal that he's not a billionaire.
He wasted over a million dollars to lose a libel suit against a reporter who did a lot of research and came up with a number of about $200M. [hollywoodreporter.com] That guy, by the way, has seen his tax returns, but he's under court order not to talk about the specifics. He deserves a crowd-funding campaign to encourage him to violate that court order.
Tr
Re: (Score:2)
Trump certainly has assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars.
Does he? Does he really own them? Or does he just have some sort of contractual control that can disappear with a lawsuit, and the stroke of a pen?
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I have assets that could be liberally valued at over a billion dollars. I just have to stretch the word "liberally" enough. Now, I've entered Nanowrimo [slashdot.org] and gotten complete novels that really aren't all that bad twice. Value each as a half billion, toss in what I actually own in hard assets, which is greater than zero, and I'm worth more than a billion.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, he seems really easy to bait on Twitter and uses lots of easily discovered scams like pretending to be his own press officer. His constant use of hollow threats to sue doesn't help either.
If he were up against Putin or the EU, I don't think he would do very well. He is used to negotiating from a position of wealth, which won't help in international politics. Even if he can force other countries to do what he wants, like the wall, all it will do is create bad relations that screw him (or his success
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, he seems really easy to bait on Twitter and uses lots of easily discovered scams like pretending to be his own press officer. His constant use of hollow threats to sue doesn't help either.
And yet he made it to a GOP candidate with the support of almost 50% of the country. Don't take the guy for granted, he can deliver bullshit like no one else.
I find Trump unfathomable as a presidential candidate, and still, here he is.
Re: (Score:2)
FIxed that for you. Fortunately for everyone involved, Republicans who vote in primaries aren't representative of the US in general.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Re:Name Calling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Name Calling (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
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:
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't write any part of that book, FYI. They had the author on one of the other channels talking about it.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Trump is a prick, and the guy hired ghost-writers for his book on how to cheat and bully. He's a bullshit-artist. TFTFY (I wouldn't have to if you bothered to check your facts - no guesses needed to know who you'll voter for. Good luck with that "job you want to go to everyday".
Re: (Score:2)
He wrote a book about negotiation. Doesn't mean he's any good at negotiation. Lots of people write books, even Hillary wrote a book. The book was about self promotion. Trump spent the majority of his adult life on the talk show circuit, reality shows, and entertainment, and self promotion is his primary business. He claims his greatest asset is his name. He doesn't show his tax returns because the IRS does not place a monetary value on one's name.
Meanwhile Trump had a university to teach how to negoti
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the guy is really good at verbally arguing. It doesn't matter if there's no substance to it or half his statements are bullshit - those simple projection tricks like AK Marc describe are eerily effective on some people. About half the US population, in fact.
Trump has literally talked his way to a GOP presidential runner. It's scary as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all. Simple words, simple grammar, repeating the same words and phrases multiple times in the same sentence. "100 per cent", "I guarantee it", "huge", "great", etc. This man needs a thesaurus. This is why he's such a conundrum to the typical legislator who grew up learning debate or being coached by debate champs only to see this person fumbling and breaking all the normal campaigning rules and succeeding at it.
I guess bulls
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a surprise because his manner of speaking is not very sophisticated at all.
Agreed. That, sadly, speaks more about the US voters than Trump.
This years' elections are shit. Clinton would be on any other occasion a bland candidate, at most. And Trump... i still can't believe the guy is running for president. Or that there's people actually buying his horseshit.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Probably because everything he says or does in the public sphere is cringeworthy.
Why don't you go one step further and claim that his own words were placed in his mouth by the liberal media conspiracy. You guys are practically that dumb already.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Liberals and their insults (Score:1)
Name one thing that Clinton has done *ever* that has benefited the American people?
Read her biography yourself. I may find the involvement with the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns a bit troublesome, but they did happen, and after that, she was involved in several charitable legal groups in Arkansas, and as first lady she did some more of that. She also attempted to reform the nation's healthcare system. She didn't succeed, but I can't call that a personal failure, just intransigent opposition. She did however succeed in establishing a program for children's insurance though.
If you wan
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
>
Liberals. Always with the insults.
Other than name calling, what have you got? Name one thing that Clinton has done *ever* that has benefited the American people?
Eight successful years as Secretary of State. What has Trump ever done that benefited the American people?
Also, namecalling is the primary tactic of Republicans, and it's the only way Trump responds to any situation at all, as anyone who's watching the debate right now can attest. The fact that you try to paint this as a "liberal" thing is not good for your credibility.
Re:Liberals and their insults (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
So sad (Score:2, Informative)
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 ad
Probably mining rights (Score:1, Troll)
Okian Warrior, off the top of your head, answer me right now:
Do you think that one/third of US Uranium reserves were actually physically sent to Russia?
I do not.
Why - is it important?
(I'm not mentioning that a Russian bank paid Clinton $500,000 for a speech right [breitbart.com] before the deal, because she says there was no conflict of interest.)
Funny how if you add up all of Trumps indiscretions, they don't even total one of Hillary's speaker fees.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have any newssource to back up that story that DOESN'T have a huge popup on the front page asking for Trump campaign donations?
Re:Probably mining rights (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the Secretary of State has zero authority to order anything. Perhaps you misspelled "Obama"? :-)
All snark aside, she gave an opinion; others gave different opinions. Obama made the call. Right or wrong, the blame rests there. This is not to say that I trust Clinton's judgment in these matters, though. On the other hand, I explicitly distrust the judgment of the sort of person who w
Re: (Score:1)
> 1) Sold 1/3 of our Uranium reserves to Russia
The truth is: [politifact.com]
(a) Not 1/3 of "our reserves" more like controlling interest in a mining company with mineral rights for about 20% of the uranium in the ground and it is staying in the ground.
(b) NINE other federal agencies also had to sign off on the deal, along with state and local agencies.
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Oh goodness, somebody doesn't bother to check to see that Hillary was only Secretary of State for half of Obama's term, and you're all upset at them. Or they mistype eight instead of four. But you, you are disappointed that they vote, because they don't have perfect recall? Heavens no! That's so rare, the rest of us are like Commander Data, with positronic memory that never has an error!
Hey FlyHelicopters, how about Trump's command of numbers? He couldn't even get the homicides in New York City right (
Re: (Score:1)
That's a scary thought.
You have many scary thoughts, most of them dreamed up in your fantasy land...
You're an idiot, but that's ok, Clinton loves idiots, so you'll do well with her... Or not actually, but you won't figure that out either...
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to FlyHelicopters who obviously lives in a magical land inside his own head where he's always right, and if he's wrong, reality magically transmutes itself to match. Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Stevens was not available for comment.
Created who knows how many jobs, which puts money in the hands of those who earned it. People like Trump sign the fronts of checks. People like Hillary have only ever signed the backs of checks.
Hillary's actual Senate laws, good or bad (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
PS - Several amendments (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:PS - Several amendments (Score:4, Interesting)
You forgot a few bills that she sponsored but didn't successfully pass, like the Family Entertainment Protection Act....
the average Senator does quite a bit more. (Score:2, Informative)
> 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 nam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Everything Trump does is bad (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And Trump bragged about paying bribes.
It's hard to know which is worse. I wouldn't hire either of them to mow my lawn. 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the separation of powers greatly limits the damage either one can do. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're right. Each of them is bad in their own special way.
Re: (Score:2)
No she didn't. If she had done, he would be in prison now.
Re:Everything Trump does is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If she deleted emails AFTER them being subpoenaed by Congress she would be in prison now.
Perhaps. That's a question for Congress, and the Republican Congress has chosen not to pursue it.
If she deleted work related emails after being subpoenaed by the FBI, as Comey confirmed she did, she would be in prison now.
Clinton claims that the deleted emails were personal, not work-related. The DoJ found that she had the legal right to withhold and delete personal emails. Whether the emails actually were personal, of course, we'll never know. But barring existence of some evidence that they weren't personal, there is no prosecutable offense here.
If she lied under oath to Congress, as confirmed by Comey, she would be in prison now.
Almost nobody goes to prison for lying under oath to Congress. Comey has done it, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for Correcting the Record. $1.20 has been deposited into your account.
Re: (Score:1)
I see you've received a couple of -1, I'm Butthurt by Uncomfortable Truths mods. Stand tall, son, and wear them proudly.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is his own worst enemy. He hangs himself with rope of his own making, every day. Don't pretend it's "the media" doing this to Trump, Trump does this to himself. In fact I have had to take issue with some of Trump's statements, clearly and at first pass being false, yet they don't always get called out that way by media commentators. Media hosts go out of their way to try to give Trump chances to explain, elaborate, correct or enhance.
Trump does none of those things. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why is it that, in the media, everything Trump does is "bad".
Because he is a bully. He may be a good bully, even the best. But in my book, that is still bad, and it should be called bad.
Re: (Score:2)
There's two explanations for this phenomenon:
1. The media is as biased as you claim, and spins everything negative that the man does
2. Everything that the man does which is reported by the media, is actually negative.
At this point, it's hard to tell which, because he has done some truly awful things.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump gamed the system. That's what he stands for, after all--gaming the system as much as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone want to explain this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Snapchat filters are effects that can be applied to pictures and short videos. Filters may be something as simple as an overlay or some stylized text, but usually they employ some tracking of facial features to distort or alter the subject's appearance. Recent filters have included dog, cat, bee, a sad effect that makes you look like you have down syndrome, drag queen, Harley Quinn, face swapping, and more.
Some filters are available for long periods of time pretty much anywhere you go. Other filters, the ge
Re: Anyone want to explain this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cooked Hillary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY. I'd have a touch more respect for the guy if he'd written it himself, even with a coauthor.
Re:Cooked Hillary? (Score:5, Funny)
People who can't spell shouldn't post, yet here we are. Our colletive geese cooked.
Irony meter just exploded.
Re: Cooked Hillary? (Score:5, Informative)
Irony meter just exploded.
Surely you mean "metre"?
Surely he does not [grammarist.com] [boldface added]:
For the unit of measurement equaling approximately 1.094 yards, meter is the American spelling, and metre is preferred everywhere else. The same distinction applies to the terms used in poetry and music—meter in American English, and metre everywhere else. Here’s the tricky part: For any type of device (i.e., an actual machine or gadget) designed to measure time, distance, speed, or intensity or to regulate current, meter is the preferred spelling everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If the irony is poetic.
People still use it? (Score:2)
People still use Snapchat? I bailed when the Ads started.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not in our age group (assuming we share an age group,) but my wife and kids use it all the time. They love those damn filters.
Hillary "crooked? Trump is a crook, demostrably (Score:2)
You're read/heard how he underpays or fails to pay people and small contractors he's hired.
Here's another one: my PT and I were talking this morning, and he told me his father's an industrial contractor - paints bridges, drywall buildings, etc, and more than once, he's done a job for Trump, and then, when it was done, Trump comes in, says yeah, he's satisfied... but that he thinks he's already paid him enough, never mind the signed contract.
Tell me that's not criminal fraud?
He is a crook. And his wife doesn
Re: (Score:2)
You're read/heard how he underpays or fails to pay people and small contractors he's hired.
Here's another one: my PT and I were talking this morning, and he told me his father's an industrial contractor - paints bridges, drywall buildings, etc, and more than once, he's done a job for Trump, and then, when it was done, Trump comes in, says yeah, he's satisfied... but that he thinks he's already paid him enough, never mind the signed contract.
Tell me that's not criminal fraud?
He is a crook. And his wife doesn't wear a cloth coat....
mark
First, he should sue Trump for his outstanding debts. Second, how does that saying go, fool me once...?
Breitbart influence? (Score:2)
Trumps plan for "growth" (Score:1)