Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 14:50:57 GMT
Why are you now lying that I said ' politicians should not be able to place adverts for campaign funds on YouTube'? At no point did my OP say or insinuate such a thing, I'm not an authoritarian, see.
I don't at all care if no one supports my wishes on here. No one other than Amadan supports my wish for Scottish independence either, it's me vs everyone and I'm fine with that, because I don't need constant affirmation on internet fora, nor do I need to go in and try and attack other people's threads with utterly false insinuations about what they've actually said Your bizarre insinuation with "certain politicians" that I'm somehow pro-Trump (I assume that's where you're going with this) is so stupid it doesn't even deserve a response As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what you said. I fully expect you to ask me to prove it and then weedle your words to mean something different to that anyone reading them would assume. Its become your style. Nope, that's 100% untrue, read my words again Where does that say they should be banned from placing adverts for campaign funds on YouTube ?  Or this by me: All I said is it's a bad way to influence voters and is WTF territory. Where did I ever insinuate once that campaign videos on YouTube should be banned? |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 24, 2024 14:52:33 GMT
You expect not to see annoying adverts? Please let me know of this paradise you seek. It's called AdBlock  And mute I'm just pointing out facts, Zany. I actually worked at a TUC place to help Labour try and get Ken elected. Their tactics were truly appalling, no wonder they lost They wanted to recontact people they contacted 5+ times before, spamming people with ads/unsolicited texts/other comms is a sure-fire way to piss people off What part of that is wrong?? Nothing, it just has very little to do with your opening gambit, that people are questioning. A shotgun advert you happened to see on you tube is nowhere near the same as repeated unsolicited phone calls to an individual. I know a number of charities used to do this to vulnerable people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 14:55:07 GMT
And in this, once again, where did I insinuate it should be banned as a practice?
I do think unsolicited text messages should 100% be banned in all cases though, I thought it was already against the law to do so.
They shouldn't be able to use your private info for such abuses. But not once did I insinuate that YouTube should not allow campaign fund videos to be placed on their platform, I said it was a bad way to influence voters and was 'WTF' territory.
I have no idea why you must read such things into my posts, I'm generally very against authoritarian measures to control society
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 14:56:38 GMT
It's called AdBlock And mute I'm just pointing out facts, Zany. I actually worked at a TUC place to help Labour try and get Ken elected. Their tactics were truly appalling, no wonder they lost They wanted to recontact people they contacted 5+ times before, spamming people with ads/unsolicited texts/other comms is a sure-fire way to piss people off What part of that is wrong?? Nothing, it just has very little to do with your opening gambit, that people are questioning. A shotgun advert you happened to see on you tube is nowhere near the same as repeated unsolicited phone calls to an individual. I know a number of charities used to do this to vulnerable people. And that's arguably what Dems are doing on YouTube, targeting vulnerable people with "scare tactic" messaging, vote this way or you'll be doomed forever. I don't think you can ban YouTube campaign funding videos, that would be absurd, but I can criticize it and say it shows how pathetic and desperate their terrible party has become |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 24, 2024 15:02:52 GMT
And in this, once again, where did I insinuate it should be banned as a practice? I do think unsolicited text messages should 100% be banned in all cases though, I thought it was already against the law to do so. They shouldn't be able to use your private info for such abuses. But not once did I insinuate that YouTube should not allow campaign fund videos to be placed on their platform, I said it was a bad way to influence voters and was 'WTF' territory. I have no idea why you must read such things into my posts, I'm generally very against authoritarian measures to control society You started by saying it was dumb to advertise for funds to help advertising. When it was pointed out that it wasn't daft you changed your stance to. "I expect them not to send annoying adverts telling you to send them money to make more annoying adverts." Thus you expect politicians not to advertise for funds on You Tube. Unless you meant they must consult with you over which adverts would not annoy you and then use only those. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 15:07:58 GMT
Correct, I expect politicians not to advertise for funds to create more adverts (the OP criticises that specifically) on YouTube, that's not the same as wanting them banned, if I wanted them banned I would say I wanted them banned
They should consult normal people who watch these adverts on what they think, better to consult real American citizens, I am not one, consult them instead and see what they think. My opinion as an Englishman in America isn't half as relevant as people who've lived here all their lives and been bombarded with this dumb nonsense forever
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2024 15:08:24 GMT
And in this, once again, where did I insinuate it should be banned as a practice? I do think unsolicited text messages should 100% be banned in all cases though, I thought it was already against the law to do so. They shouldn't be able to use your private info for such abuses. But not once did I insinuate that YouTube should not allow campaign fund videos to be placed on their platform, I said it was a bad way to influence voters and was 'WTF' territory. I have no idea why you must read such things into my posts, I'm generally very against authoritarian measures to control society You started by saying it was dumb to advertise for funds to help advertising. When it was pointed out that it wasn't daft you changed your stance to. "I expect them not to send annoying adverts telling you to send them money to make more annoying adverts." Thus you expect politicians not to advertise for funds on You Tube. Unless you meant they must consult with you over which adverts would not annoy you and then use only those. And don't forget the OP falsely supposed the Harris campaign was the government. And now we see the goal posts shifting to unsolicited text messages which are already illegal (except that many possibly most people have inadvertently enabled them by not checking small print.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 15:13:24 GMT
You started by saying it was dumb to advertise for funds to help advertising. When it was pointed out that it wasn't daft you changed your stance to. "I expect them not to send annoying adverts telling you to send them money to make more annoying adverts." Thus you expect politicians not to advertise for funds on You Tube. Unless you meant they must consult with you over which adverts would not annoy you and then use only those. And don't forget the OP falsely supposed the Harris campaign was the government. And now we see the goal posts shifting to unsolicited text messages which are already illegal (except that many possibly most people have inadvertently enabled them by not checking small print.) Is Harris not the VP? Are the Dems not the ruling party? There's been no goal post shifting, I've addressed the point directly and pointed out they're also doing other annoying things with regards to adverts. It's not my fault if people don't like this being pointed out |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 24, 2024 15:16:26 GMT
Correct, I expect politicians not to advertise for funds to create more adverts (the OP criticises that specifically) on YouTube, that's not the same as wanting them banned, if I wanted them banned I would say I wanted them banned They should consult normal people who watch these adverts on what they think, better to consult real American citizens, I am not one, consult them instead and see what they think. My opinion as an Englishman in America isn't half as relevant as people who've lived here all their lives and been bombarded with this dumb nonsense forever As I say, your original argument was erroneous and I pointed out why. After that you stated they should not advertise for funds as it annoyed you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 15:19:31 GMT
Correct, I expect politicians not to advertise for funds to create more adverts (the OP criticises that specifically) on YouTube, that's not the same as wanting them banned, if I wanted them banned I would say I wanted them banned They should consult normal people who watch these adverts on what they think, better to consult real American citizens, I am not one, consult them instead and see what they think. My opinion as an Englishman in America isn't half as relevant as people who've lived here all their lives and been bombarded with this dumb nonsense forever As I say, your original argument was erroneous and I pointed out why. After that you stated they should not advertise for funds as it annoyed you. How did you prove it was erroneous? The fact is people don't like the way politicians advertise, I know from direct experience, people here in the USA don't like the way they advertise either - people laugh at the stupidity of many of the adverts. There's nothing erroneous about what I said, it's based on truth. If they want to advertise, talk about real policy and make real inroads - talk about what the opposition has actually done with hard facts and evidence, at least do something worthwhile or creative or funny. The idiotic scare adverts with the deep "doom" voice you get here are roundly mocked on things like SNL. The idiotic campaign fundraising videos saying buy new ads are flawed and people know it. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2024 15:32:07 GMT
And don't forget the OP falsely supposed the Harris campaign was the government. And now we see the goal posts shifting to unsolicited text messages which are already illegal (except that many possibly most people have inadvertently enabled them by not checking small print.) Is Harris not the VP? Are the Dems not the ruling party? There's been no goal post shifting, I've addressed the point directly and pointed out they're also doing other annoying things with regards to adverts. It's not my fault if people don't like this being pointed out Are you really supposing that each and every thing Harris does is as the government? Because it's not, the Harris campaign is a separate entity, Just like the Trump campaign in 2020 was etc etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 15:37:24 GMT
Is Harris not the VP? Are the Dems not the ruling party? There's been no goal post shifting, I've addressed the point directly and pointed out they're also doing other annoying things with regards to adverts. It's not my fault if people don't like this being pointed out Are you really supposing that each and every thing Harris does is as the government? Because it's not, the Harris campaign is a separate entity, Just like the Trump campaign in 2020 was etc etc. Ah, you mean the separation between government funding and not being able to use it for campaigns - vs limited campaign funding? Well that's a fair point. I'm pretty sure at one point Trump actually used govt funds for campaigning and because the FEC is a toothless wonder, they can barely even enforce a thing these days, the fines are paltry and less than a slap on the wrist. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2024 15:49:02 GMT
It's not just a separation on funding, it's separation on actions too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 16:03:35 GMT
A lot of people say Harris is basically going to be a Biden continuity candidate (except more coherent on a persona level)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 24, 2024 18:41:53 GMT
As I say, your original argument was erroneous and I pointed out why. After that you stated they should not advertise for funds as it annoyed you. How did you prove it was erroneous? The fact is people don't like the way politicians advertise, I know from direct experience, people here in the USA don't like the way they advertise either - people laugh at the stupidity of many of the adverts. There's nothing erroneous about what I said, it's based on truth. If they want to advertise, talk about real policy and make real inroads - talk about what the opposition has actually done with hard facts and evidence, at least do something worthwhile or creative or funny. The idiotic scare adverts with the deep "doom" voice you get here are roundly mocked on things like SNL. The idiotic campaign fundraising videos saying buy new ads are flawed and people know it. I proved it was erroneous by stating that its how all political campaigns work. You raise money for the campaign by asking people for money. You need lots of money to hire stadiums, pay for TV broadcasts etc. People might not like it, but its reality. How else can they raise money for multimillion dollar campaigns. And BTW they aren't that against them Kamala Harris raised $204,000,000 in a month. |
|
And mute