A Look At Cambridge Analytica

[Thomas savage]

He considers that foreplay.

Tactical error as likely to fall asleep and waste your money , let’s just hope he don’t look at the shark then look at the porn star and think ‘bait ‘ though he would do well with the ‘trucker’ vote if that was the case.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

So you admit America is not great? Sell more flags and wave them harder. Seriously, the past is past. America is doing fine, comparatively, in modern times. Most countries are doing it harder than America. The Golden Age is over, planet wide.

Of course your defence spending is outrageous. Russia GDP is less than Australia's, China and Russia traditionally are about securing their borders. They are not going to invade the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/Russia/Economy

Big bogey-man stuff with no substance.

Stop the fear and loathing . Ralph Steadman pegged it decades ago. Get over it. The world has moved on.

Move to Fight Club, now?

The question is, when was "again"? Times of war... maybe slavery? How about the great depression? The Dust Bowl? Like to know when this very special "again" time was.

 

[Thomas savage]

I guess so. I’d hope when I’m 60, I’d do a little more with a 27 year old porn star than watch an hour’s worth of shark TV.

Well if that ever happens know il be rooting for you,” go Michael , get stuck in lad”.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

View attachment 11672
View attachment 11674

Thanks, Ray. Here is a different view using total viewership, not just one age demographic:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/febr...as-the-most-watched-cable-news-network/358292

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Tactical error as likely to fall asleep and waste your money , let’s just hope he don’t look at the shark then look at the porn star and think ‘bait ‘ though he would do well with the ‘trucker’ vote if that was the case.

Well I guess they could have watched the Deadliest Catch, but since he is an expert at catching crabs he went with shark week!

 

[Sal1950]

The question is, when was "again"? Times of war... maybe slavery? How about the great depression? The Dust Bowl? Like to know when this very special "again" time was.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Only the strongest survive, the rest get eaten.
Wake up to the realities of the world and human race.

 

[RayDunzl]

Thanks, Ray. Here is a different view using total viewership, not just one age demographic:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/febr...as-the-most-watched-cable-news-network/358292

"The ratings for Feb., 2018 (Nielsen Live + Same Day data):

• Prime time (Mon-Sun): 2,766,000 total viewers / 576,000 A25-54
• Total Day (Mon-Sun): 1,548,000 total viewers / 330,000 A25-54"

Less than 1% of the country of 320 million watches them in the evening, and 1/2% over a whole day?

I suppose I may not understand the metrics involved.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

"The ratings for Feb., 2018 (Nielsen Live + Same Day data):

• Prime time (Mon-Sun): 2,766,000 total viewers / 576,000 A25-54
• Total Day (Mon-Sun): 1,548,000 total viewers / 330,000 A25-54"

Less than 1% of the country of 320 million watches them in the evening, and 1/2% over a whole day?

Ok, but that is still the 25-54 age demographic, not total viewership. We should count all those grannies sitting in old folks' homes with the TV on all day, too.

 

[Thomas savage]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Only the strongest survive, the rest get eaten.
Wake up to the realities of the world and human race.

no wife number 3 for sal then

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think US citizens get a bum rap. Because of something Ray pointed out. We only have two choices. If I sat down and listed 20 things I think important and my representatives could make a difference on I probably would end up with 12 fitting with policies of one party and 8 another. Might even be 50/50. I think that would be true of 80% of the voting public. But you only have two choices and politicians are adept at firing up people on a couple hot button issues and people vote for the lesser of two evils.

Except wait a minute. When did I last have two choices. Gerrymandering has become far worse in the last 30 years. My state representative for state congress is going to be a Republican Christian right wing nutter. The other party hasn't run anyone in this voting district for 18 years. In the primaries I can help choose between several nutters to determine how nutty they will go.

I have an odd, but not terribly uncommon situation with my representative to federal congress. A district was created so it would be majority black (to maintain majority white areas elsewhere). So I am in a district that is composed of 3 heavily black urban areas, but to make it a single district long thin areas run across more than 120 miles stretched more than halfway across the state I live in. Where I live I am in that district, but it is only 1.5 miles wide. My representative is going to be a black female Democrat who best represents the desires of black women on welfare. The other party sometimes run a candidate though usually not. They get about 25% of the vote.

So where exactly is my real choice.

And it is of course no surprise that politicians say one thing and do another. Most have some hot button issues like the 2nd amendment or abortion or welfare they'll abide by pretty well. Otherwise what they say and what they do about issues have no connection. Now give me a list of top donations and I can tell you how they vote. About that they are more faithful than wives are to husbands. Someone introduces a proposal to legalize marijuana or even decriminalize it? Those guys whose top contributors are what appear to be doctors groups (but are actually funded by pharma) and actual pharma associations. He's going to vote no. A party that champions worker's rights vote on a proposal to give more protection to workers, if the top donations come from large companies wanting low wages she's going to vote no. All the big corps give money to both party candidates to have access. Having only two or locally one is economical for them.

Now I think it got this way because donations from corps has been ok'd by Citizens v United. Was happening before that. That is how it ties in with the Cambridge Analytica thing. Having such info keeps current parties in a position to have the best data to manipulate things to their liking. To know how to keep people's eyes on stupid hot button issues and ignore what is really going on. I don't think CA did anything different in kind that what was done for Obama though it was more intensive. Both were wrong.

So polarizing politics with only two parties shouldn't be too surprising. The media has become polarized itself (though here by US standards the majority of the media are far more left than the general population). Look at a site like: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

You can just go down the articles on the home page and go: this one is leftist, this one is rightest so on and so forth just from the titles. You'll have to look hard to find centrist positions.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Only the strongest survive, the rest get eaten.
Wake up to the realities of the world and human race.

Sorry to hear you have had such a rough life. First you are doomed then you need all of your strength to avoid being eaten by cannibals.
Sounds like a happy retirement community. At least I hope the local diner has an early bird special. We all need something to look forward to.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

I think US citizens get a bum rap. Because of something Ray pointed out. We only have two choices. If I sat down and listed 20 things I think important and my representatives could make a difference on I probably would end up with 12 fitting with policies of one party and 8 another. Might even be 50/50. I think that would be true of 80% of the voting public. But you only have two choices and politicians are adept at firing up people on a couple hot button issues and people vote for the lesser of two evils.

Except wait a minute. When did I last have two choices. Gerrymandering has become far worse in the last 30 years. My state representative for state congress is going to be a Republican Christian right wing nutter. The other party hasn't run anyone in this voting district for 18 years. In the primaries I can help choose between several nutters to determine how nutty they will go.

I have an odd, but not terribly uncommon situation with my representative to federal congress. A district was created so it would be majority black (to maintain majority white areas elsewhere). So I am in a district that is composed of 3 heavily black urban areas, but to make it a single district long thin areas run across more than 120 miles stretched more than halfway across the state I live in. Where I live I am in that district, but it is only 1.5 miles wide. My representative is going to be a black female Democrat who best represents the desires of black women on welfare. The other party sometimes run a candidate though usually not. They get about 25% of the vote.

So where exactly is my real choice.

And it is of course no surprise that politicians say one thing and do another. Most have some hot button issues like the 2nd amendment or abortion or welfare they'll abide by pretty well. Otherwise what they say and what they do about issues have no connection. Now give me a list of top donations and I can tell you how they vote. About that they are more faithful than wives are to husbands. Someone introduces a proposal to legalize marijuana or even decriminalize it? Those guys whose top contributors are what appear to be doctors groups (but are actually funded by pharma) and actual pharma associations. He's going to vote no. A party that champions worker's rights vote on a proposal to give more protection to workers, if the top donations come from large companies wanting low wages she's going to vote no. All the big corps give money to both party candidates to have access. Having only two or locally one is economical for them.

Now I think it got this way because donations from corps has been ok'd by Citizens v United. Was happening before that. That is how it ties in with the Cambridge Analytica thing. Having such info keeps current parties in a position to have the best data to manipulate things to their liking. To know how to keep people's eyes on stupid hot button issues and ignore what is really going on. I don't think CA did anything different in kind that what was done for Obama though it was more intensive. Both were wrong.

So polarizing politics with only two parties shouldn't be too surprising. The media has become polarized itself (though here by US standards the majority of the media are far more left than the general population). Look at a site like: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

You can just go down the articles on the home page and go: this one is leftist, this one is rightest so on and so forth just from the titles. You'll have to look hard to find centrist positions.

Black women of welfare... This is just some of the sad clueless that abounds in this country... And is being reinforced by the liar in chief.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...erceptions-survey_us_5a7880cde4b0d3df1d13f60b

 

[Thomas savage]

Ok that’s enough .