Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it was RosieSD that said it is very odd the fund the Mercers founded year in and year out did so well.
The fact that it is all one big giant Ponzi that has yet to crash is feasible. Madolf ran his Ponzi for many years and no one figured it out.
I wonder if too many people pulled out of his fund at the same time whether it would all come crashing down and everyone will be asking wasn't it obviously a scam?
Of course investors with Madolf refused to believe they were scammed until after it was too late.
There is suggestion that the Heritage fund (think that is the name) is hugely successful because Mercer and his partner are laundering money for Putin and his friends with the 'investments"
And they aren't really making money--they are just using Putin's illegal money (like Russian oil for North Korea) and cleaning it up by making the fund look profitable...
It won't ever really "crash" like Madoff did because Putin has enough money and the investors KNOW what the deal is...
Madoff wound up having to pay out more and more investors (as well as support his own lavish lifestyle) and he was not taking in as much money because of the market downturn/crash at that time...
People couldn't understand how their shares of Apple or whatever could make money when everyone else's were losing---and they had other investments--wanted to get their money out of Maddoff's fund...
He didn't have that money to give...
Mercer has supposedly sold out of CA and out of his hedge funds
So someone else is carrying Putin's money to the laundromat...
You are so far from the truth and so late to the party
We all know that Obama did data mining, so did Romney - the difference is that anyone joining the the Romney or Obama facebook page were given the choice of what data they would share and they were advised how it would be used. Data mining is not inherently evil or machiavellian; but using data to profile 50 million people when they had been told their data would only be used for research is unethical if not illegal.
We all know that Obama did data mining, so did Romney - the difference is that anyone joining the the Romney or Obama facebook page were given the choice of what data they would share and they were advised how it would be used. Data mining is not inherently evil or machiavellian; but using data to profile 50 million people when they had been told their data would only be used for research is unethical if not illegal.
In my opinion and I know it’s not gonna be popular Facebook was far more unethical because FB made their systems so complex, most people didn’t know what data was being shared.
I don't. Please, I've asked over and over how they influenced anyone to change their vote. No one has even attempted to answer me.
I doubt if your vote could easily be changed, you seem to have a pretty solid idea of who you would or would not vote for. But not everyone is like that, there are people who are persuadable, some are single issue voters others just haven't thought much about the election. Those are the voters that Cambridge Analytica has claimed they can identify. I don't buy that or most of their BS but nonetheless it appears that they have sold politicians on the idea that it works, and they have admitted that using 'fake news' to influence those voters is acceptable as long as it works.
I've been a volunteer for several political campaigns and I've made a lot of phone calls and knocked on many doors. Over time I got pretty good at reading people just by the way they answered the phone or their attitude when they opened the door. I never lied to them but I would carefully tailor my message to address what I thought might appeal to them, and I was very successful and ended up not only getting a lot of people to support my candidate but to volunteer to work for the campaign.
I doubt if your vote could easily be changed, you seem to have a pretty solid idea of who you would or would not vote for. But not everyone is like that, there are people who are persuadable, some are single issue voters others just haven't thought much about the election. Those are the voters that Cambridge Analytica has claimed they can identify. I don't buy that or most of their BS but nonetheless it appears that they have sold politicians on the idea that it works, and they have admitted that using 'fake news' to influence those voters is acceptable as long as it works.
So they fleeced some politicians. Good on them.
Quote:
I've been a volunteer for several political campaigns and I've made a lot of phone calls and knocked on many doors. Over time I got pretty good at reading people just by the way they answered the phone or their attitude when they opened the door. I never lied to them but I would carefully tailor my message to address what I thought might appeal to them, and I was very successful and ended up not only getting a lot of people to support my candidate but to volunteer to work for the campaign.
I've worked for a candidate also.......as have people for decades.
I've worked for a candidate also.......as have people for decades.
I never said I was the only campaign volunteer in history; not sure why you would take it that way. I was using my experience to explain that there are definitely persuadable voters. You previous comment made it sound that you didn't believe that was possible
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I don't. Please, I've asked over and over how they influenced anyone to change their vote. No one has even attempted to answer me.
I never said I was the only campaign volunteer in history; not sure why you would take it that way. I was merely offering my opinion that there are definitely persuadable voters. You previous comment made it sound that voters are not persuadable.
There have always been ads trying to pursuade voters.
If they accessed info from Facebook they were not permitted to, bad on Facebook. I'm still trying to figure out why there are so many threads with so many pages on this.
There have always been ads trying to pursuade voters.
If they accessed info from Facebook they were not permitted to, bad on Facebook. I'm still trying to figure out why there are so many threads with so many pages on this.
Yet Obama was hailed as a genius for doing the same thing...only with Zuck's help.
British lawmakers have demanded that Alexander Nix, the suspended chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, return to Parliament for additional questioning in its fake news inquiry. The Parliament's probe led to disclosures that Facebook had allowed Cambridge Analytica unauthorized access to up to 50 million user records, igniting a firestorm over user data privacy and possible U.S. voter manipulation.
Collins warned Nix that "giving false statements to a Select Committee" was a very serious matter. He asked for a response by March 27.
Yet Obama was hailed as a genius for doing the same thing.
Obama hired Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group? I must have missed that. Can you please provide a source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
