New reaction on FB

[marshallnoise]

...i was actually just asking if you meant what i thought, or something else. it was a pretty straightforward question.

i mean, credit where it's due, obama got elected because he successfully leveraged social media. so did drumpf. that's how shit works now.

but a social media campaign is not tampering, it's marketing.

The article posted simply states that money used to fund 2008 Obama campaign was also used to oust Bibi in Israel.

[decay]

you're not using the word "oust" correctly.

it was used to run a campaign against netanyahu, and he lost. it wasn't a coup.

[marshallnoise]

you're not using the word "oust" correctly.

it was used to run a campaign against netanyahu, and he lost. it wasn't a coup.

oust
oust/
verb
verb: oust; 3rd person present: ousts; past tense: ousted; past participle: ousted; gerund or present participle: ousting

1. drive out or expel (someone) from a position or place.
   "he ousted a long-term incumbent by only 500 votes"
   synonyms:drive out, expel, force out, throw out, remove (from office/power), eject, get rid of, depose, dethrone, topple, unseat, overthrow, bring down, overturn, dismiss, dislodge, displace; Moreinformalboot out, kick out
   "armed forces ousted the new coalition government"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   • Law
     deprive (someone) of or exclude (someone) from possession of something.
     
     
   
   
   
   
   

[decay]

"armed forces ousted the new coalition government"

deprive (someone) of or exclude (someone) from possession of something.

i reiterate: that's not what happened.

[marshallnoise]

The sky is blue bro. Just deal with it.

[decay]

#alternativefacts in play

[marshallnoise]

#alternativefacts in play

At least you are owning up to it. :devil:

[z31maniac]

you're not using the word "oust" correctly.

it was used to run a campaign against netanyahu, and he lost. it wasn't a coup.

i reiterate: that's not what happened.

#alternativefacts in play

You're trying to imply "oust" means a military overthrow. It does not.

We can play semantics all day if you wish, but ultimately it goes nowhere.

[BraveUlysses]

I am referencing OneVoice/V15 using US taxpayer funds to attempt to influence the election of the Party/Prime Minister of Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/?utm_term=.c5bd86de954e

But, your words sound like quite a wonderful way to spin the situation almost a decade later.

Well it appears they complied with the grant they were given but no foresight was applied to prevent their use (after the grant ended) of the resources/infrastructure that were paid for with taxpayer money.

Someone should have made sure they weren't allowed to do that after the grant was completed, could have been accidental but probably not.

The Subcommittee found no evidence that OneVoice spent grant funds to influence the 2015 Israeli elections. Soon after the grant period ended, however, OneVoice used the campaign infrastructure and resources built, in part, with State Department grants funds to support V15. In service of V15, OneVoice deployed its social media platform, which more than doubled during the State Department grant period; used its database of voter contact information, including email addresses, which OVI expanded during the grant period; and enlisted its network of trained activists, many of whom were recruited or trained under the grant, to support and recruit for V15. This pivot to electoral politics was consistent with a strategic plan developed by OneVoice leadership and emailed to State Department officials during the grant period. The State Department diplomat who received the plan told the Subcommittee that he never reviewed it.

OneVoice’s use of government-funded resources for political purposes was not prohibited by the grant agreement because the State Department placed no limitations on the post-grant use of those resources. Despite OneVoice’s previous political activism in the 2013 Israeli election, the Department failed to take any steps to guard against the risk that OneVoice could engage in political activities using State-funded grassroots campaign infrastructure after the grant period.

[decay]

You're trying to imply "oust" means a military overthrow. It does not.

We can play semantics all day if you wish, but ultimately it goes nowhere.

the definition that marshall provided pretty clearly involves force.

to return to a point i've already made- social media campaigns are marketing, not tampering- and they've been successfully used on both sides of the aisle.

also, let's not delude ourselves by thinking that any discussion in r3v.com/P&R is going anywhere...

[marshallnoise]

decay, no. I used the word in the context that the dictionary clearly, very, very clearly points out. The first example was virtually the same context as I used it in.

[Schnitzer318is]

to return to a point i've already made- social media campaigns are marketing, not tampering- and they've been successfully used on both sides of the aisle.

Unfortunately they have been used to great success on both sides of the aisle. Also unfortunately the use of social media makes it far to easy to tamper with the opinions/votes of your average Facebook, Instagram, etc user. The world would be a better place without any of those services.

I wouldn't believe any piece of political information/disinformation coming from those sites. I am in the extreme minority on that though. Social media can be a great way to get news out fast, and to a huge amount of people. But that also means it is easy to disinform, manipulate, or otherwise influence vast amounts of people too lazy (or dumb) to do any kind of research about what just crossed their feeds.

[parkerbink]

Sure, it's marketing and it worked. Trump got 'Murica to buy the rat poision while telling them it was detrimental to them.

He loves to say all the things he is the greatest at, the one that fits is greatest con man in the history of the world.

[z31maniac]

the definition that marshall provided pretty clearly involves force.

to return to a point i've already made- social media campaigns are marketing, not tampering- and they've been successfully used on both sides of the aisle.

also, let's not delude ourselves by thinking that any discussion in r3v.com/P&R is going anywhere...

I'm not deluding myself about anything in here changing anything.

But you constantly move the goalposts once you're shown to be wrong.


*insert you're not a beta, you're playing a character, you don't need anyone's validation, no one understands TRUE anarchy, ad nauseum*


You are a prototypical, bullying SJW who can't see the forest for the trees. I'm honestly not sure whether I should laugh, or feel bad for you.

But tell us more about your BDSM clubs and how it's so enjoyable for you, that you take a break from it to tell us "inferiors" about it on the internet.

[marshallnoise]

He isn't even looking for the forest.