I do agree, but it's also annoying that people keep using this to try and downplay stories like the Russia investigation and the fact that shady practices are going on at places like Facebook and in our political campaigns.
People did vote for Trump. Without someone twisting their arm.
But there is still merit to these other stories (even if the perspective that they got Trump elected is false).
All of our arms are being twisted by that standard. And all candidates were using ads.
I'm saying that the people voted how they voted without the use of anything that seems outside of the norm.
We should investigate these data-driven ad campaigns if they do have that much influence over our democracy.
And we should investigate Russian meddling because it looks like there was a divisive propaganda campaign and a bunch of shady business deals.
And we should investigate the Trump campaign because it looks like there were a bunch of shady business deals with questionable ties.
My real point was that the fact that these things involve Trump shouldn't impact their seriousness. We know there are people trying to find dirt on Trump but that doesn't mean all of the angles they're looking at are purely about Trump.
> All of our arms are being twisted by that standard. And all candidates were using ads.
But there are rules regarding how and how much can be spent on ads.
My initial post was to establish that we agree that ads work, the next issue is to establish whether campaign finance laws were broken, and if spending (foreign or otherwise) were not disclosed.
People did vote for Trump. Without someone twisting their arm.
But there is still merit to these other stories (even if the perspective that they got Trump elected is false).