Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Political Campaigns Mining Online Data To Target Voters

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the watching-you-through-your-webcam-too dept.

Privacy 131

New submitter nicoles writes with this quote from an AP report: "The Romney and Obama campaigns are spending heavily on television ads and other traditional tools to convey their messages. But strategists say the most important breakthrough this year is the campaigns' use of online data to raise money, share information and persuade supporters to vote. The practice, known as 'microtargeting,' has been a staple of product marketing. Now it's facing the greatest test of its political impact in the race for the White House. ... The Romney team spent nearly $1 million on digital consulting in April and Obama at least $300,000. ... Campaigns use microtargeting to identify potential supporters or donors using data gleaned from a range of sources, especially their Internet browsing history. A digital profile of each person is then created, allowing the campaigns to find them online and solicit them for money and support."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about mining cmdrtaco's rectum? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150041)

You'll find a verticable ocean of cum in there

Re:What about mining cmdrtaco's rectum? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150119)

Really? I thought that Soulskill felched it out of his asshole before he left. At least he had the goddamn common courtesy to wear tampons on his way out.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Captcha: Gallons

Hah heh hee hee ho heh hooooooooo! The captcha is more intelligent than the goddamn "editors," that's for damn sure.

Re:What about mining cmdrtaco's rectum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150375)

lololOLOLOllololololOLololol

Gallons.

I 3 /.

Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150597)

I will vote for Ron Paul

So... (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150043)

With the combination of this and search engines trying to tailor results to individual users, can we expect to see even more polarization between supporters of the major parties?

Re:So... (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150771)

Do not underestimate the power of this kind of software. I've seen it in action and the data collection capabilities are astonishing. For example, say you get an email from some advertiser... and you even have your mail viewer set to not download images. If you open that email AT ALL, it's all HTML code. You just opened a page on their site custom designed for you. They know when they sent you the email, when you received it, when you opened it, what you looked at in it... if you followed any of the links in it. They likely have agreements with many of the sites you visit and based on your IP address and other unique identifiers know where you've been irrelevant of if you "logged in" or not. Even if you were in "private mode" in firefox, they can see it all. I even tested it on myself with no-script, adblock, etc... and when I checked what it logged it was amazing.

Everything you do on most websites is logged, tracked, tied to you... or at least some unique info about you. They may not know who you are, but they don't care... they just need to know what you've looked at in the past, so they can show you things that their studies have shown you're not likely to pass up. Even if you don't fall for it, that's a data point that they'll use to serve up even more stuff to you later.

Time to stop that unethical tracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151315)

So it's high time to stop this shit and use an addon called " Do not track plus"

http://abine.com/dntdetail.php [abine.com]

Re:Time to stop that unethical tracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152593)

It's actual time to have better things to worry about.

Re:So... (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151611)

If you don't load images, they have no way to tell that you viewed the email.

That's the whole point of unique tracking single-pixel images. Google Analytics works basically the same way (but they inject this pixel image via javascript).

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151743)

If you open that email AT ALL, it's all HTML code.

This is why I have my mail reader convert all of my mails to plain text. If they don't have a text-plain part, then it's not worth my time. :)

Re:So... (4, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151977)

and you even have your mail viewer set to not download images

the setting is not "do not download images".. it's "do not download external references".

In thunderbird it is "Allow remote content. "
In outlook it is "Block images and other external content in HTML e-mail. "

What programmer would be stupid enough to stop images, but not other remote content? Not only is it a privacy issue, it is also a security issue.

So I have a hard time believing you really understand how email tracking works.

Re:So... (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152135)

If you open that email AT ALL, it's all HTML code. You just opened a page on their site custom designed for you.

Not with thunderbird. By default (I think), it blocks remote content. It doesn't matter if the email is in html or not, it can't get access to the internet.

Re:So... (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152311)

Yes, thunderbird does block all remote content (not just images). It's a very standard feature. I checked outlook, outlook express, gmail, hotmail/windows live mail, and apple mail--- every single one blocks ALL remote content.

Tor / Anonymous Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152677)

So does it work when I open it in a torified or anonymous proxied GMail session?

Re:So... (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153001)

Call me naive, but if ABP is blocking the ads tailored to my profile, should I really give a damn how sophisticated their targeting approach is? If you're worried about being falsely accused of a crime based on your online usage that's one thing, but if targeted ads never even get your attention, who cares how they process whatever data to single you out. AFAIC, go ahead and spend all you want to identify me as a good prospect for your ad campaign. It's just going to hit a brick wall.

As for the idiots that let this kind of manipulation decide their vote, well the ethical problem lies in a lack of education to avoid manipulation, not in how they're manipulated. Stupid is as stupid does. If I'm being stupid by not giving a damn about this, by all means educate me. Sure as shit the government won't.

Re:So... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153887)

Any decent mail reader not only doesn't download images, it doesn't download *anything* until you okay it. That's how all of mine work.

Re:So... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151071)

Actually, it's more like "promises of unicorns and apologies for a complete lack of delivery of anything positive for society including what was in campaign promises". Replace unicorns with anything from any major political party so far, including tea party, libertarians, etc.

Or you could, you know, start doing things that society benefits from instead of lobby and major corporations, but you wouldn't need to mine data to figure that out.

Is your name Ron Paul? (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150105)

Are you anti-war, pro-bill of rights, and anti-deficit spending? If not then you're not getting any dollars from me Romney or Obama.

But I guess you already knew that from my web surf history. "Running-up 2 trillion in debt is unpatriotic!" Yeah. I agree Candidate Obama. You ran up almost 3x that amount; Romney looks set to do the same.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (3, Insightful)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150363)

Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.

Obama is pro bill-of-rights. He's signed three laws allowing for better access to firearms (not passed when the GOP was fully in charge under Bush), and unlike Ron Paul, he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.

Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.

Further, as you will see from this chart [jamiekemmerer.com] , the deficit is almost entirely due to things done during Bush's term. And the chart doesn't even point out that the "Economic downturn" was caused by the GOP and conservatives deregulating banks so they could gamble with depositor's money backed by the taxpayer. (Nothing forces a brokerage to take FDIC insurance, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to gamble with other people's money.)

So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed? I doubt it. Everything I just wrote was just a google search away, but you clearly didn't bother doing that. So I conclude that your reasons are little more than excuses, because you have a dream that some day you'll actually end up wealthy enough to pay the Buffet tax.

Ain't going to happen, pal.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150611)

Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.

Ridiculous. He escalated the war in Afghanistan.

Obama is pro bill-of-rights. He's signed three laws allowing for better access to firearms (not passed when the GOP was fully in charge under Bush), and unlike Ron Paul, he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.

On the other hand, he has continued and extended infringements on your 4th Amendment rights. Not that I think Romney would do less.

Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.

That much is true, but he hasn't done squat to control spending.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150867)

Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.

That much is true, but he hasn't done squat to control spending.

Wrong. Obama has been very tight on spending. Check out the historical record [whitehouse.gov] .

Discretionary spending during Obama's first two terms (the only years with finalized data) averaged 9.1% of the GDP. Under Reagan, the average was 9.9%. The only reason Obama's spending seems high is because of the mandatory spending categories like Social Security and unemployment benefits. Those go up when we're in recession, for obvious reasons, and it would take a major act of Congress to get rid of them (not that that would even be desirable).

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151729)

and it would take a major act of Congress to get rid of them

Indeed it would, but that would require something that President Obama is sorely lacking; Leadership . If Rudy Giuliani [wikipedia.org] had been in office instead of Obama, we wouldn't be having this conversation because these things would have already been done. New Yorkers don't beat around the bush, they get shit done.

(not that that would even be desirable).

That's debatable. What's not debatable is that some changes are necessary if these programs are going to remain available in any meaningful way for millennials and those now in their prime working years (approximately ages 30-50). Just go out and ask anyone under the age of 40 whether or not they believe there will be anything left once the boomers have passed through. Most of them either believe that they will get essentially nothing OR they have rocks in their heads and shouldn't be asked about financial matters in general and certainly not about actuarial matters.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154817)

and it would take a major act of Congress to get rid of them

Indeed it would, but that would require something that President Obama is sorely lacking; Leadership . If Rudy Giuliani [wikipedia.org] had been in office instead of Obama, we wouldn't be having this conversation because these things would have already been done. New Yorkers don't beat around the bush, they get shit done.

(not that that would even be desirable).

That's debatable. What's not debatable is that some changes are necessary if these programs are going to remain available in any meaningful way for millennials and those now in their prime working years (approximately ages 30-50). Just go out and ask anyone under the age of 40 whether or not they believe there will be anything left once the boomers have passed through. Most of them either believe that they will get essentially nothing OR they have rocks in their heads and shouldn't be asked about financial matters in general and certainly not about actuarial matters.

Rudy Giuliani? Tell me another one.

Social Security is fine. A few tweaks like subjecting incomes higher than $110,000 to the FICA tax would bring collections closer to expenditures. It's really a matter of priorities. We have plenty of money, it's a matter of how we choose to spend it. I don't hear anyone wringing their hands about not being able to fund Homeland Security or the Pentagon. I'm right around 40 and I fully expect Social Security to be there. I paid into it, I want my benefit.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152603)

The only way anyone could believe Obama has been tight on spending is if they are manipulating statistics to try to make it look so. For example, when Obama counted 10 years of revenue against 5 years of spending for Obama care, and claimed it would reduce the deficit.

And Bush did the exact same thing when he tried to claim that he was fiscally conservative. Of course, in reality, as you mention, the Obama high-spending isn't entirely his fault (why are you only counting discretionary spending? 'Discretionary' doesn't mean the president gets to choose whether he spends it), but then neither was the Bush spending entirely his fault, or the Clinton surplus.

They all got lucky (or unlucky) based on the times when they were president.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153657)

Um. Right.

Have you looked at a chart of JUST the bush tax cuts? And where the country would have been without them?

The national debt would have been reduced to a point where some additional temporary tightening of belts in some areas, starting of new interstate highway build & repair projects, plus the government buying the bad mortgages would have mostly halted the recession in its tracks and gotten a lot of people out of trouble.

Did you even realize that your third biggest budget item is the interest on your fucking debt?

We have a similar problem happening with Harper in Canada right now as you had with Bush. He's currently talking about cutting the largest single employer in the countries work force by 30% to fix it(Yes, the Federal Government). Which alone will cause another recession in large portions of Canada. In particular in the already devastated Ontario province which hasn't even begun to recover from the last swath of destruction cut through its large manufacturing centers by the collapse of the U.S. economy.

This is all to maintain tax cuts that are saving his big business buddies billions while saving the average Canadian less than $200 a year.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154823)

Why do people always assume if you add a tax, you will get to tax the amount of wealth being created before the tax? The UK just proved again that when you raise a tax, people stop working as hard, hide their money, change how they are paid, or do whatever they can to avoid the tax.

If you advocate abortion, say so (0, Flamebait)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150999)

he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.

If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so.
Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know
very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.

Re:If you advocate abortion, say so (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151113)

"Unborn babies" do not have a right to life since they cannot live outside the womb. Unique DNA has nothing to do with a right to life, otherwise you'd be advocating for the right to life of my sperm, the almost extinct animals that we are helping along and the bacteria in my toejam.

Re:If you advocate abortion, say so (0)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151159)

Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.

So does a virus.

Re:If you advocate abortion, say so (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151285)

I try and usually be kind when replying to people but go fuck yourself and your self righteous ways.

So let's cut to the point, nobody is talking about killing babies but go ahead and hide your real point by calling it "unique DNA".
Every time i jerk off i emit unique DNA or shed a piece of skin, never mind how many times someone has almost half been pregnant.

You do realize they won't even give you an abortion right away because most near conceptions do not happen and we are able to detect when this happens now so quickly and accurately it's almost a non point?

I've also had to face this question head on at an early age and at an older age and it's nobody's business what my decision was or the out come but what it was the woman's, not yours or a politicians and sometimes life just isn't as simple as it is for you sitting in your basement screaming at your mother for another grilled cheese.

Anyone ever tell you how they did it in the old days?

Please mod parent UP to offset moderation abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154759)

How can the parent post be construed as being against Slashdot's
comment rules? It was polite, reasonable, and a response to a previous
comment.

Please help fight moderator abuse.

Re:If you advocate abortion, say so (0)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154879)

he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.

If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so. Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.

I don't think the unborn babies rights trump the mother's. And since you're so concerned with these unborn babies, I assume you support providing pre-natal care for the mothers, and funding for children's health care. You know, those things the GOP always wants to de-fund because they care so much about these kids?

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150689)

>>>Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.

"If our troops are not out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the time I take office, I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it!" - Candidate Obama. So that would be the end of 2009.

Iraq actually ended two years after the promised date, and only because of a treaty that Dubya Bush had already signed. Meanwhile Obama tried to negotiate an extension to the war to keep troops over there, but the Iraq government said "get the soldiers out". So Obama had to leave against his will. (And even in the present time there are still ~100,000 armed "advisors" occupying Iraq.)

- And of course Afghanistan did not end in 2009.
PLUS the man went and involved us in NEW wars (Yemen, Libya, and drone attacks on Pakistan). I fully-expect he'll start bombing Iran after he win reelection. He is not anti-war. Watch his ACTIONS and his broken promises, not his current rhetoric.

>>>Obama is pro bill-of-rights.

Is that why he signed the NDAA after saying he would veto it? Is that why he asked Congress to add the two sentences taking-away a right to trial for suspected terrorists? Is that why he signed the pro-censorship ACTA treaty? Is that why he expanded the power of the TSA to grope our bodies (or nude bodyscan us) from airports to train terminals to bus depots to along interstate highways to post office, malls, and just this past weekend, a music festival in Detroit? Is that why he remains silent while elderly are strip-searched, urine/colostomy bags are spilled, women's breasts are groped, and other nursing mom are forced to stand in glass jails?

He does not care about our rights.

>>>Obama is anti deficit spending.

Then how come his new budget submitted to Congress increased from 1.2 trillion to 1.6 trillion? ALSO stop blaming the republicans. The Democrats had full control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. If Obama really & truly wanted to eliminate the deficit, he and his Democrat Congress would have done it in 2009 or 10.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151263)

So I search for "I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it" [google.com] . And I find one result from Google. Your post. One result from Google doesn't happen a whole lot. Congratulations on putting that unique sequence of words on the Internet for the first time. You would think for something the president says it would show up somewhere. At least a blog. Ok so without the quotes Google has more results. Yours first, then 'What should you ask in an interview', then 'paying off credit cards' and well nothing that really backs up your quote.

Now I'm not arguing that he didn't promise to end the wars. I'm just saying your quote is nowhere to be found on the Internet so I'm wondering if you have a reference for what you are paraphrasing. On a side note "stick this red hot poker up my ass" [google.com] returns 2090 results. "stick a red hot poker up your ass" [google.com] returns 1420. "stick+this+red+hot+poker+up+your+ass" [google.com] even returns 4.

Mod parent up (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151465)

I'm so sick of people inventing "quotes" for others. This sort of debunking should go straight to +5.

Re:Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151927)

This is one of the few times in twelve years that I have regretted not breaking the Slashdot Best Practice of staying anonymous online. If only there was a way someone like me could help change that +5 interesting to a -1. Something I see frequently needed but never applied to cpu6502 in recent months.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152621)

Your Google skills are lacking. Took me 60 seconds to find this [youtube.com] . He didn't say "within a year" he said, "it is the first thing I will do." I'll leave you to decide which is worse.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152729)

He was referring to the troops in Iraq during that speech. If you hadn't found a version that had been selectively edited by a YouTube user named "PresidentChimp", you might know that.

He was consistent through his campaign that he opposed the Iraq War and supported the Afghanistan War. You might disagree with that stance, but don't lie about what he said.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40154803)

No Google skills needed to search for a quote. Problem is you shouldn't put quotes around something when you're paraphrasing. I said in the post, I wasn't arguing that he didn't say something like that, I was simply saying it wasn't a proper quote.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154991)

>>>So I search for "I will bring them home my first year. You can bank on it" [

The VIDEO is on that famous video site. What's it called? Tubeyou? Youtuber? Something like that. (DUH... where else would you look for a campaign video except on youtube.) I would give you the link but being at work, I can't search youtube (it's blocked). Just search "Obama bank on it".

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152145)

In addition to the nice AC post, already showing how you're pulling "quotes" completely out of your ass, let me add a few things.

"Anti-war" means to minimize U.S. involvement in conflicts - not to prevent war around the globe, which is not only impossible, it would bankrupt us to try it. So how many ground troops did he commit to Libya? Zero. How many U.S. casualties? Zero. This was largely a revolution inside the country. And killing a handful of terrorists is what you do to avoid war. We wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 had we focused on Bin Laden like President Clinton advised Bush to do.

>>>Is that why he signed the NDAA after saying he would veto it?

He threatened a veto. Congress changed the law to make it more acceptable. He still didn't like it, but it had a veto-proof majority of both chambers of Congress by then. Here's a clue: it's the National Defense Authorization. Voters will not vote for people who are against our military. So instead, Obama signed it, added a signing statement that he believed parts of it were unconstitutional, and then a few months later, issued an Executive Order saying that none of the unconstitutional parts would be enforced. Voila! Law defanged.

We elect Presidents in the country, not dictators, or all-seeing Gods who can immediately stop every incompetent bozo who is hired into the TSA. There really is only so much a President can do when the majority of the U.S. public strongly supports "security theater".

>>>The Democrats had full control of the White House, the House, and the Senate.

The Republicans filibuster everything in the Senate, not just tax increases, but that too obviously. And they never had a filibuster proof majority of Democrats. But instead had to deal with Lieberman of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party (who campaigned for McCain), and Ben Nelson who votes with the GOP far more than he votes with Democrats. That's not "full control".

He offered the GOP a mix of far too small tax increases and far too big spending cuts. But even giving them 90% of what they wanted, the GOP still went batshit insane.

And do you know why? Let me tell you. Because many conservatives, like yourself, don't care about facts. As with your fabricated "quote", they're not even self-aware enough to acknowledge that they're lying. They actually believe the complete bullshit they pull out of their asses, literally as they do so. U.S. politics these days is dealing with Birfers, Flat Earthers, Anti-science loons, and other nutcases, as the horde of racists who were adults in the 1950s start hitting the age of senility.

But at least they have racist upbringing as an excuse for putting their pride in front of any neutral reading of the facts. What's yours?

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152297)

Is that why he signed the NDAA after saying he would veto it?

Veto-proof majority.

The Democrats had full control of the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Negative. "Full control" is a filibuster-proof majority. Anything less appears to be completely useless today as the Republicans will (and often have) filibuster anything.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150705)

You sound liek a turrorist

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150755)

>>>So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed?

I'm not voting for either of these two banker/corporate puppets (Romney, Obama). I didn't vote for Bush or Clinton either. I would be an idiot to do so..... are you voting for Obama? Even after you've seen him in action? Wow. I hope he wins reelection, just so the next four years reveal TO YOU how bad he is. Maybe when he starts rounding-up Americans under the NDAA, or signs the CISPA, or has the TSA randomly stopping us on the street for patdowns (as they are already doing in Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, Miami, etc) you will finally WAKE up.

Then again maybe not. A lot of people still loved Corporatist Mussolini even as he killed their neighbors. (No I'm not saying Obama will start killing Americans..... though he did assassinate 3 of them in Africa.)

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150865)

the deficit is entirely due to things done during Bush's term

FYFY.

Clinton actually had the budget balanced (and then some) before he left office.. in fact, there was an annual surplus large enough to have completely covered the federal bailouts of AIG and the automakers.. (both of those fiascos, of course, started during GW's rein of terror). It took Clinton 8 years to fix the 16+ years before he took office. It'll take Obama at least that long to fix GW's fuck ups.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151249)

That is true as long as you use two sets of books, which would be illegal for you if you ran a publically traded company. In Clinton's time the "balanced budget" used excess taxes collected for Medicare and SS and put them in the general fund to spend while giving Medicare and SS an IOU. Without doing that Clinton never had a budget surplus. Medicare and SS now have nearly $100 Trillion in future payments that they don't know where the money will come from because of these actions.

I can understand your confusion with how it is reported. This kind of accounting is illegal under SOX and the newer Frank-Dodd Finance bills.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151599)

Obama promised to end Gitmo. He extended the patriot act, part of which is classified. He signed NDAA. You're full of crap if you think he supports the bill of rights at all. His anti gun agenda is well known - wait till after the election when he can be more flexible...

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151783)

None of your claims are correct:

Obama is anti-war

There are at least 4 good reasons to consider this untrue:
1. Obama didn't really stop the war in Iraq. The reason a lot of the troops left is that the US was honoring a treaty between the Maliki government and the US government under George W Bush. The Obama administration tried to convince the Maliki government to adjust things so the US could stay there longer. There are still about 25,000 US personnel in Iraq, and a US soldier was killed there in February after the supposed pullout.
2. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping.
3. There are regularly drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and several other countries. These kill many civilians.
4. Under Obama, the US military budget has increased by about $100 billion, or roughly 15% over what it was under Bush.

Obama is pro bill-of-rights.

Only if you're talking about the Second, Third, and Seventh Amendments. On every other one, his record is simply atrocious:
First Amendment: Writers who have written things critical of Obama administration national security policies have been detained by airport security and their digital storage seized (free press). He's done nothing to stop investigations of every mosque around New York City by the NYPD simply for being Muslim (free religion). His administration appears to also have been involved in organizing the violent crackdown on Occupy protests throughout the country (free assembly).
Fourth Amendment: He has, as far as citizens can tell without access to classified information, expanded warrentless Internet surveillance of US citizens dramatically. Those who provide information to citizens about these activities of government are prosecuted for espionage.
Fifth Amendment: Obama ordered the killing of an American citizen (Nouri al-Maliki) without even obtaining an indictment (due process). Items seized by the TSA, including cell phones and laptops, are not returned to the citizens they were seized from after the search is performed (seizure without compensation).
Sixth Amendment: He had an American citizen (Bradley Manning) imprisoned for the better part of 2 years without charges (speedy trial). Lawyers who represent Manning, Julian Assange, Guantanamo prisoners, and others, have been detained at border crossings and airports and their privileged communications with their clients are seized (right to representation). Arguably the Guantanamo prisoners are required to have a trial by jury for their crimes, which have not occurred (speedy and public trial).
Eighth Amendment: Bradley Manning was placed into permanent solitary confinement prior to trial, which was both highly unusual and according to UN officials torturous.

Obama is anti deficit spending

Except that he has engaged in it. I'm actually not against that part of his policies, because Keynesian stimulus would in my opinion be a good idea, but you can't give him credit for balancing the budget, because he hasn't. If he were really anti-deficit, he would have vetoed the bill that extended the Bush tax cuts.

So if you're intellectually honest, the best you could say is that he's probably less bad than Mitt Romney.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151805)

Wow.. I think you got a couple of points right... but you've been drinking far, far too much of the coolaid. Either that, or you've simply got a mind which twists obvious facts to (not really) fit your political leanings...

If you really think like that, we're doomed.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152493)

Hahaha, that gave me a good laugh, thanks!

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153923)

Thank you, Obama campaign. It's nice to know you're monitoring Slashdot.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154649)

Obama is anti-war, he is getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as gracefully as possible.

But he has stepped up the use of special forces and drones. They are used in the types of war the Pentagon doesn't tell you about.

Obama is pro bill-of-rights. He's signed three laws allowing for better access to firearms (not passed when the GOP was fully in charge under Bush), and unlike Ron Paul, he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.

While I like his stance on abortion, saying that a man who has arrogated the right to declare you a terrorist and kill you is "pro bill-of-rights" is a stretch.

Obama is anti deficit spending. He has come out publicly in favor of making multi-millionaires and billionaires pay at least the tax rates of their secretaries and taxing corporations that outsource jobs rather than those that keep jobs in the U.S.

Presidents come out in favor of a lot of things. I like the noises he is making, but I'll be more impressed when something happens as a result.

Further, as you will see from this chart [jamiekemmerer.com] , the deficit is almost entirely due to things done during Bush's term. And the chart doesn't even point out that the "Economic downturn" was caused by the GOP and conservatives deregulating banks so they could gamble with depositor's money backed by the taxpayer. (Nothing forces a brokerage to take FDIC insurance, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to gamble with other people's money.)

I agree with your point about the downturn beginning on Bush's watch. The GOP clearly doesn't care about anyone but the very rich. But Obama's justice department hasn't gone after any of the Wall Street criminals. Besides, when a country borrows all of its money from a bank, it's always going to be in debt. There's really no way around it.

So now will you be intellectually honest enough to support Obama now that all your concerns are addressed? I doubt it. Everything I just wrote was just a google search away, but you clearly didn't bother doing that. So I conclude that your reasons are little more than excuses, because you have a dream that some day you'll actually end up wealthy enough to pay the Buffet tax.

Ain't going to happen, pal.

Personally, I will give Obama credit where I think it's due. He has advanced gay rights, and the healthcare system is marginally better than it was before (it's easier for people to get and keep health insurance). But I won't support him because he is not liberal enough. I have no illusions about ever paying a Buffet tax, and I support taxing the very rich at confiscatory levels. Obama has not gone far enough in dealing with financial criminality, has further eroded our civil rights, and has not done much to curb our militarism except to withdraw from Iraq according to a timetable set up by his predecessor. One could argue that it was politically impossible for him to do these things, but the fact is he didn't really try.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150451)

Really?

Because the actual truth is that spending under Obama is the lowest it's been in 60 years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/ [politifact.com]

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150799)

Wow you're a dumbass. Obama added almost 6 trillion to the national debt in four years. Even Jackass Bush never accomplished that (he added 2.5 trillion during his first four years, during the dot-com recession). Obama not only broke the record, but almost doubled it! Of course the REAL reason I hate Obama is pretty much identical to why I hated Fucker Bush --- Passage of anti-freedom laws and treating people like cattle as they get poked/prodded by the TSA/VIPR teams.

I have zero respect for a president that does not honor his oath to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. They should both have been impeached and I supported Democrat Dennis Kucinich (ya know... a guy from your team) when he offered-up impeachment articles to the Congress.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151815)

Wow you're a dumbass. Obama added almost 6 trillion to the national debt in four years.

You do realize that this does not contradict the OP? Obama could have done as you say and STILL have the lowest spending record of the last 60 years (I'm assuming that is adjusted for inflation otherwise I think it unlikely). All it needs to happen is a huge drop in income from taxes which, with the current economy I would guess is a definite possibility.

Disclaimer: not American, no clue what or what not Obama has done and I don't really care anyway.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

happyhamster (134378) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151835)

You are an idiot. The increase is due almost entirely to additional spending on safety net programs due to Bush recession, and to economic stimulus, which was necessary and which any president would have done: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/the-truth-about-federal-spending/ [nytimes.com] . Keep hating, though.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40154941)

>>>The increase is due almost entirely to additional spending

So then we agree. Obama's federal spending went UP. Way up. And stimulus? He didn't need to spend 800 billion on that (and then another stimulus bill for 300 billion). That was as stupid as the 700 billion Bush wasted on TARP. If you want to cut spending, then you cut spending. Clearly Obama has NO intention of cutting spending, and still doesn't, since he submitted a new budget with $1.6 trillion deficit... the largest so far.

And finally:
Blaming the housing bubble & collapse on Bush is pretty damn silly. The root cause of the bubble goes back to the announcement by the 1998 HUD secretary that nobody would be turned-down for a mortgage loan. Hence: The creation of a bubble.

Re:Is your name Ron Paul? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152589)

You know what, I realized I might actually LIKE this tracking software. It will keep them from showing ads to me.

Amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150133)

All that money being spent to test my spam filter!

Digital Consulting What? (1)

imbusy (1002705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150139)

$1million and $300k - that's a very small percentage of money out of the estimated $1billion each spend. And what is this digital consulting anyway? Is that what they are paying for facebook ads?

Re:Digital Consulting What? (1)

imbusy (1002705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150171)

Should have read the article more carefully. Yes, that seems to be the cost of their Facebook ads.

Re:Digital Consulting What? (1)

relikx (1266746) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151239)

The campaigns have communications staff to be sure but consultants here are the digital specialists from outside firms. A typical contract against the numbers cited here would have a scope of work laid out by project hours to build and implement plans. As far as paid digital media is concerned, neither of those sums of money will take you very far from what these guys plan to do.

Start Scubbing (4, Informative)

spiffydudex (1458363) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150147)

For those of us who wish to use social networking and other friendly but intrusive aspects of the web...If you haven't already, you better start scrubbing your visible online information. Reduce your online presence.
A good place to start viewing your publicly available information is http://www.pipl.com/ [pipl.com]

From there you can decide whether or not it is acceptable information and take the appropriate measures.

Re:Start Scubbing (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150249)

Unfortunately a lot of the stuff about me (forum posts) is not eraseable. It's there forever. That's why I learned a decade ago to start using fake names when publicly posting..... it looks like I used the net from 1988 to 2002 and then quit. (I wish there was a way to erase all those 90s-era messages.)

Re:Start Scubbing (1)

spiffydudex (1458363) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150297)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Overall though, if you can keep most easily identifiable information out of the limelight, the better. For the most part, Names don't bother me too much, its addresses, phone numbers, etc that I try to keep scrubbed. Such is the world of the internet...

Re:Start Scubbing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151413)

looks like I used the net from 1988 to 2002 and then quit.

According to this [pipl.com] cpu6502 is a 4 year old named Stefan from Germany. So the question remains. Where were you from 2002-2008?

Re:Start Scubbing (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150579)

Yet you are here on Slashdot, making your opinion publicly known.

And with the right amount of data mining, your alias here could probably be used to pin you down in meatspace.

At least I came to terms about it sometime last century on usenet (anyone remember the bitching and moaning about Deja-News and X-no-archive=yes?) and I don't whine about it.

--
BMO

Re:Start Scubbing (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150599)

With regards to my previous post.

Disregard the tone. I totally misread what you wrote.

Need coffee.

--
BMO

Campaigns only pay if viewers see the whole ad (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150149)

"A voter who has indicated an interest in a candidate and then views a video on YouTube is likely to see a 15- or 30-second campaign ad, called a pre-roll, pop up. A box will appear after 5 seconds asking if the person wants to continue viewing the ad. Campaigns only pay for ads the viewer watches through to completion."

I think I've found a way to hurt Romney financially.
Sweet.

Re:Campaigns only pay if viewers see the whole ad (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151903)

So all the ads I see online are actually political campaigns for office? Suddenly, the world is making sense again.

Wonder how much the GOP is going to get..... (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150151)

in return from their bible thumping ozark supporters?

Not Woking (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150315)

I'm definitely not impressed by the efficiency of the Republican campaign. My father, who passed away 3 years ago gets multiple pieces of mail daily from various Republican candidates and fund raising committees.

Some of these I've responded to stating he is deceased. Doesn't do any good, the begging continues.

Just pay people to vote how you want (1)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150341)

If they want to spend money to get votes, the should just SPEND MONEY TO GET VOTES! My vote, for whatever, is available to anyone for the right price. Bidding starts at $100 - Obama or Romney, your choice - highest bidder gets the vote. Honestly - just skip the pretense and get down to the brass tacks. I got $20 for my for vote for Ted Stevens the last time Alaska voted for Senators (; Paying people to vote the way you want could to wonders to increase the rather dismal turnout rate (in the U.S.).

Re:Just pay people to vote how you want (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150853)

Isn't selling your vote illegal?

Re:Just pay people to vote how you want (2)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151187)

Isn't selling your vote illegal?

So is speeding.

So what?

I used to be all concerned with abiding by the law. Then one day I woke up and realized that the law isn't written by people like me. Nor is it written for the benefit of people like me. The law is written by and for the benefit of those who have the ability to meaningfully influence or manipulate the process.

Once I realized that, I decided "fuck the law" - I'm doing whatever I want that serves my interests and that I feel I can get away with - just like our overlords.

Re:Just pay people to vote how you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152017)

It isnt. Why should it be, you can base your decision on anything (you can even take the money and not vote the person(no one would know)). It is very common and business as usual in countries like Singapore. Just before the election, the govt will decide to reduces the taxes and give everyone a tax refund. Senior citizens will get a refund, even if they did not make money during the year, and did not have to pay taxes.

I was wondering... (2)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150417)

...why when I looked up 'Kang and Kodos' I got political advertising from both.

Popularity contest? (4, Interesting)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150425)

Unfortunately, it feels like the vast majority of voters are stuck in their childhood-naivety in believing politics is just unimportant and they should just vote for whoever they "like" the most, turning the presidency into a high-school level popularity contest. At this point, why not just give both candidates an FB page and decide who becomes the next president by whoever has the most likes? This is the type of response massive advertising will bring.

Why can't we make this type of advertising illegal for public offices. Perhaps instead, a consolidated web-based resource should be constructed where each candidate (including individuals running separately from any political party affiliation, and without bias towards those affiliations) is given the same space to identify themselves and their beliefs, and which consolidates resources on the person, their activities within government (both positive and negative), and any interviews/debate type questions they've answered. Also, perhaps some kind of Q&A type service (like a reddit AMA, except less chaotic), so that people can get more information on the stances of the candidates. I envision something sort-of like the "we the people" petition system except much more candid and less worthless, since it entails asking questions to a candidate at large and having popular questions answered sincerely (rather than deferring to media shills and mouth-taped panelists being the only ones that get to ask questions outside of showing up at a town hall and hoping you get called on to ask a question). Most importantly, these things would be immortalized, really showing which candidates hold true to their responses, giving us an ability to objectively score winning candidates on their performance going forward.

Then, armed with something like that, where we can actually read up on all the candidates and find ones we align ourselves most with (and more importantly, who appear to be most beneficial to our country), we then head to the court houses to vote. Not this ass-backwards "see a name on TV, go vote for them because he said something you agree with in the commercial" nonsense. Terrible, the current system is.

Re:Popularity contest? (1)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150745)

Democracy is a failed political model.

Voting is a waste of time, esp. given the candidates we get to vote for. One is as bad as the other, there is no "lesser evil."

A completely new system is required - details of which are too many to post here.

Churchill (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151863)

Democracy is a failed political model.

I think Churchill said it better: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried.". I agree that democracy - at least in the form we have it in the west - is seriously broken. However I have not seen a better model than democracy - every other form of government gives worse results on average. So we are stuck with democracy until someone has a better idea.

Re:Churchill (1)

registrations_suck (1075251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152179)

..."that has been tried...."

Like I said time for something new - not been tried. The details of which are too much to go into here.

Re:Churchill (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153909)

The details of which are too much to go into here.

Fermat's last political system?

Re:Popularity contest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151991)

Personally, I currently research candidates (especially for minor offices when they haven't been in the news much) by looking them up on Wikipedia which does a moderately good job of covering the information you list. A website with the clout to ask debate questions and get somewhat straight answers would be even better.

Unfortunately, most people won't read the website. Furthermore, you are suggesting that most people are not voting for the person they truly believe is best for the country. The choices are bad. Then again, a cheaper, just-the-facts campaign would allow for more people to run for office.

Re:Popularity contest? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152561)

Which is why we need a new option: a confidence vote on the government itself.

You've seen the supreme problem: what if there are dozens of candidates (for any office), but they all suck donkey dick? What if the populace is laughing so hard at the current slate of politicians, and their wanna-be replacements, that they simply don't have the breathe to tell their parties that they want a 'do over' on their offerings? That they are comically that bad? That comedians have used up all of their material for the next 4-years (assuming presidential) before the elections are even held?

Re:Popularity contest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40153671)

With an attitude like that, it's not very hard to guess who you're voting for.

How should that be split? (1)

mjensen (118105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153773)

How do we all balance out saying that its important to vote at the same time as saying that both candidates are the same?
Should more time be spent on deciding president, or senator, or governor or mayor?

Re:Popularity contest? (1)

dabadab (126782) | more than 2 years ago | (#40153833)

Why can't we make this type of advertising illegal for public offices.

Because you can't outlaw stupidness, that's why.

They need to do better (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150691)

First, background: After being a Republican for many years, I switched over to vote for Obama in '08.

If the Republicans had any real data mining going on, they'd have no problem finding my reasons for doing so. And yet all the spam I get from them is of the crazy religious fascist variety, and outright lying about easily checked facts. The exact sort of crap that drove me away. "How dare Obama require church-owned organizations to allow their employees to buy abortion-covering healthcare from a third party! We need to run him out of office before he takes away our guns!" Fuck off.

Meanwhile, I've found myself donating substantially less money to the Democrats this election cycle, precisely because I'm annoyed at the HUGE amount of spam they send me. Not a day goes by that I don't get at least one letter and five emails. Most days, I also get one or two phone calls. And the phone calls are always at terrible times. Like 6 AM (I've moved to the west coast dammit, how many times do I need to tell you!) or 3 PM on a weekday (some of us have real jobs, FYI).

Both sides have absolutely no idea how to appeal to the average voter. Republicans are offensive, and Democrats are obnoxious and incompetent. Quite a reflection of the parties' actions in office, come to think of it.

Re:They need to do better (3, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40152651)

"Both sides have absolutely no idea how to appeal to the average voter." -> Well, duh! It's hard to talk with a silver spoon in your mouth. Plus the only time they speak with the average voter is while they are running an election campaign; and even then, they ask questions like "You are voting for me, right?" and "What do I have to do to get you to contribute to my fund?"

On a side note, I love how they attempt to fix the difficulties with the Financials industry. Aside from saddling the taxpayer with the bailouts (dumbest move, politically, anywhere, ever), I get to enjoy listening to the cacophony of attempts to regulate or deregulate said industry. We have one party, who wants to blindly remove laws -> "Yes, let us remove the laws which introduced a trade barrier into this market, while we remove the laws which stipulate that selling fraudulent securities to buyers would be punished harshly"; the other party, on the other hand, wants to blindly add laws -> "Yes, let add the law that forbids trading outfits from driving up the price of a stock moments before they put through a client's purchase order, while we add a law that puts the taxpayer on the hook for millions of extremely-risky mortgages." I swear to God, it's like that (spam) scene in Monty Python where no matter what pick off the menu, it has to come with a side order of corruption.

Me: "So, what I'd like is for you to drop the protectionist policies that have unduly enriched the few while thieving the rest of us; I'd also like to have this thieving / fraud nonsense go away."
Party of Purple: "Sure. Sure. We'll do all of that, and we'll also include this law which charges people excessive amounts to buy or sell various positions."
Me: "Umm, no. I want what I asked for, not that extra bit."
Party of Purple: "Yes, we're giving you what you asked for."
Me: "But not that 'charging people excessive amounts' bit, right?"
Party of Purple: "*"
Me: "Hello? I don't want that positions thing to be a part of this legislation."
Party of Purple: "But it has to be. That's the only way it will pass!"
Me: "That's right. I don't want that part to pass into law."
Party of Purple: "But we already wrote it up with that in there."
Me: "Then write a new one."
Party of Purple: "Too late, it already passed into law; we had to make some concessions though, so only the part about taxing people excessively was saved."
Me: "OMFG!"

And that is how our Congress works.

Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150747)

Slashdot is getting worse and worse. Every time there is an article that is remotely related to politic, the Ron Paul fans spam the posts, mod each other up, and the comment section ends up looking like a Ron Paul propaganda machine.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150953)

Where's the Digg-ing of RP? A couple posts with his name in the title that quickly went off-topic? Go back to sleep.

2004 Called And They Said That Ain't The 1/2 Of It (3, Interesting)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150883)

Frontline's eight year old documentary called The Persuaders [pbs.org] (specifically chapter 5, though it's all quite interesting) showed the pollsters going door to door, but before knocking they got all your data from Axciom or Lexis so they could tell you EXACTLY what you want to hear. Disingenuous? Nahh, it's just politics.

Time to make money (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150919)

Please. Your political preferences are boring. Let's talk about something of interest to /. readers.

If you manage a small site or blog that accepts advertising, this is the time to make some cash. For years, small media outlets such as newspapers and TV stations have used the political buying season to get well. Now it's your turn.

If you design web sites, here's a chance to understand how web advertising really works.

And if you have privacy concerns, put them aside for a few months to observe just how bad it can get.

Voters are lab rats. Learn.

Next year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151139)

Next year they'll use that data to send weiner photos via their smartphones to targeted campaign donors.

Are They Using Dowsing Rods? (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151275)

So they're "mining" social data to target their message, huh?

What are they using to figure out where to dig for this data? Dowsing rods? Pendulums? Ouija boards? Because every time I go onto YouTube these days, I get these ridiculous anti-Obama adverts that look like they crawled out of Rupert Murdoch's colostomy bag.

Easy way to stop this tracking bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151339)

It's a plugin/addon for all the major browsers

http://abine.com/dntdetail.php [abine.com]

Do not track plus

Re:Easy way to stop this tracking bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40151849)

This one seems a bit fishy. How does it differ from some of the popular plugins Ghostery, RequestPolicy etc?

Actual spam received from Obama 2012 campaign (2)

wattersa (629338) | more than 2 years ago | (#40151685)

Well, I'm not a huge fan of either party, but after carefully considering who I would prefer in the Oval Office, I've decided to vote for our current President. So, I raised $600 for the campaign through a "grassroots" fundraising page. Guess what? Now I get a spam email almost every single day with a 1-click instant donation link. I've already told them I'm tapped out and I won't be raising any further funds for them, but I offered to make calls or pay visits to people if they would simply give me a list of people to contact. They can't be bothered to even respond. I took the further step of opting out of all but the most "important" messages, but that hasn't stopped the flood of spam that I get.

The following email exchange is reflective of the Democrats' spam:

--
From: Bill Clinton
Subject: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 8:49:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Watters
Reply-To: Rufus Gifford

Andrew --

I've been in President Obama's shoes before -- less than six months to go before an election to let you finish what you started. It was tough enough back then, but this election is going to be tougher.

We're facing a tidal wave of anonymous, unlimited spending. The other side has pledged to throw more than 1 billion dollars into tearing down our president.

It's unprecedented.

Fortunately, so is the grassroots organization you're building.

Pitch in what you can today to strengthen the campaign -- and you'll be automatically entered to join me and President Obama in New York City, with the campaign covering airfare and accommodations.

By clicking here, your saved credit card will be charged immediately:

QUICK DONATE: $56

            QUICK DONATE: $35

            QUICK DONATE: $50

            QUICK DONATE: $100

            QUICK DONATE: $250

Or donate another amount.

If our opponent succeeds, so much of what we've fought so hard for will be rolled back. Health care reform -- which many presidents, including me, tried to pass and couldn't -- will be gone. Same goes for the opportunity for millions more Americans to afford to go to college, and a growing economy that works for middle-class families.

Our opponent is actually advertising a more extreme version of the policies that got us in trouble in the first place: policies that will leave us with more debt, weaker regulations on risky investments, and fewer jobs.

All of that's at stake between now and November, but here's why I'm feeling good about our chances: I know people like you have the President's back.

And I can't wait to meet you. I hope you'll give it a shot:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Presidents [barackobama.com]

Thanks, and good luck,

Bill Clinton

--
From: Andrew Watters
Subject: Re: Meeting you
Date: May 24, 2012 12:44:19 PM PDT
To: Rufus Gifford

Thanks Mr. President, I actually met you once in Hawaii, and several years back I worked for one of your big time fundraisers, ___________,
of _________, CA.

I'm sorry to say that I can't afford to contribute any more money to President Obama's campaign. However, I remain available to assist in the
President's fundraising efforts in some capacity, as indicated in my prior emails including the one attaching my resume. What would be great is
simply a list of people in my area whom I could call or drop in on.

Thank you for your consideration sir.

Andrew Watters
-

No response, despite name-dropping a well-known powerhouse fundraiser who has many pictures of himself with President Clinton from the 1992 campaign, held a fundraiser with candidate Edwards in 2004 at his home, was on the boat with candidate Kerry in the 2004 campaign, etc. In addition to noting that yes, I have actually met Bill Clinton. Despite this, I got another spam email a few days later, also from "Bill Clinton."

If they cared about anything beyond triggering my impulse to donate money, they would have one of their many, many staffers simply say "thank you for raising the amount you could, and we'll consider how you might be able to contribute in other ways, especially given your prior work with _______ who is a major fundraiser for us." Literally 10 seconds of typing. That might even encourage me to actually donate more money while they are "considering" what I might be able to do for them, lol.

I guess they really don't care, which seems at odds with how close this election is going to be.

Re:Actual spam received from Obama 2012 campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152625)

That's a bit similar to my experience, too. I donated money to Obama in 2008. Every day now I get email after email inviting me to dinner with Obama. It's not even clear that I'm eligible for the dinner since I'm now living overseas.

The real issue for me, though, is that a last year a friend was treated very badly (i.e. third world levels of dishonesty, bigotry, corruption and incompetence) at a US consulate run by someone appointed by Obama. I was furious. I phoned up the Whitehouse and the person I talked to, who didn't seem to know what a consulate is, told me to write an email. I went ahead and sent off an email. Of course, I never even got a reply other than the initial auto-respond.

Then when the fundraising emails started picking up I wrote back with my reasons for not donating. Sometime later they even had me participate in a generic survey on why I wasn't donating. As long as I'm a statistic or, better yet, random credit card account they seem to like me just fine. But they sure made it clear that they don't care about me as an individual.

ron paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40152707)

They can spend all they want. their records ensure i would never vote for either! Ron Paul!!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?