This is a shocking story about how Facebook allowed thousands of fake accounts targeting American voters in 2015 and 2016, with goal of influencing the election.
Facebook says it sold ads to Russian ‘troll farm’ during 2016 campaign
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/06/media/facebook-russia-ads-2016-election/index.html
Some 3,000 ads were placed. Facebook collected $100,000 and sold out our democracy.
Way to go, Mark Zuckerberg!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why anyone uses Fakebook is a mystery.
It’s basically a rehash of the worst aspects of high school: cliquishness.
And Zuckerberg sells everyone’s private information, which, of course, is not private at all.
LikeLike
Amen, SomeDAM poet!
LikeLike
Will this mean the end of Zuckerberg’s political career before he could even buy it?
LikeLike
Ha, don’t count on this outrage to disqualify him from a political career. We can’t get fooled into thinking that Zuckerberg cares about the country or the well being of it’s citizenry.
A close friend of mine worked in the tech industry & she said on the R & D side they talked a lot about the war between the “product” people vs the “money” people. The money people were all about short term profit & would happily ship garbage if people paid for it.
Zuck is a money guy & will rout those who aren’t money guys. Garbage in garbage out.
LikeLike
Your friend is right on.
I once worked in R&D for a high tech company and eventually left because the management and sales people were selling stuff and shipping it out the door before it was ready.
They overruled the scientists and engineers when it came to such decisions.
They were constantly lying to customers (including the government) about what the instruments could and could not do.
It could not put up with it any longer because the instruments I worked on were safety critical.
LikeLike
“Zuck is a money guy…”
Wait, you mean to say that he’s even human? I’ve always assumed that he’s a cyborg, with his “wife” brought on stage to make it appear that he has human attributes.
LikeLike
Maybe Facebook will face up to the fact that a communications monopoly should not be entirely automated. Maybe Zuckerberg will have some kind of epiphany about social responsibility and human judgment. But I doubt it.
Look at the last line of the article: “It is completely unacceptable that Facebook says it will not release the actual ads it showed to its users,” Pierre Omidyar, the entrepreneur and eBay founder, wrote on Twitter.
LikeLike
Zuckerberg is a creep!
LikeLike
If he releases the actual ads, it will damage advertiser’s confidence in Facebook’s ability to sell space, regardless of the content involved, no questions asked.
AKA: lost revenues for FB.
Can’t have that, now, can we?
Just one more chip in the wall that keeps the internet a “free” entity. Gives the regulators another toe hold.
LikeLike
Anything For A Buck Zuckerborg 🤑
LikeLike
Zuckerberg is a total creep and so is his wife.
Gentle suggestion: Close your FB account. I closed mine awhile back and glad I did.
LikeLike
Did you mean “Buck Zuckerbuck?” /s
LikeLike
Suckerberg stikes again
He has no morals.
He can’t be trusted even with toilet paper.
LikeLike
And yet he wants to control public education in America!
LikeLike
Fake opinions.
Fake votes.
Fake news.
Fake President.
Fake profundity.
Fake boobs.
Fake marriage.
Fake rhetoric.
100% genuine fakeness.
Adding the Russians to the mix of fake culture is just more of the same.
You know why we have all of this fake stuff?
Because we have fake critical thinking.
David Brooks is a prime example of fake critical thinking.
Facebook is fake social interaction in maybe not all ways, but in almost all ways.
Fake . . . .
LikeLike
The internet through Facebook and a few other sites has created fake friends.
LikeLike
It aint called Fake book for nothing.
LikeLike
It is still a way to communicate which is fine depending how it is used. So that is not the problem. Zuckerberg and the new Robber-barons are the problem . Yet for the life of me I can’t see the business model, Except selling personnel info to other advertisers .
I pay as much attention to Facebook ads as I do to ads on Diane’s site. You say there are no ads on Diane’s site . Are there ads on Facebook I haven’t noticed .
LikeLike
I haven’t noticed any ads on Diane’s site. I have a WordPress site and I know that to get rid of all ads, you have to pay WordPress a fee. I don’t pay that fee so my WordPress blogs run ads that pay WordPress but don’t pay me.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse
I was being sarcastic . The point was I am blind to ads on Facebook .
Of course this isn’t the first time I was miss understood.
I once said LBJ freed the slaves implying ! the civil rights acts and Diane came back to tell me it was Lincoln . Now I frequently put
(LOL) after a statement .
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
remove the space after miss oops
LikeLike
Joel,
Please let me know if you see an ad on this blog
LikeLike
Diane I never have and never will see an ad . It was sarcasm
OK . So I wont grow up to be a Comedian
LikeLike
No problem
I worried whether WP was putting ads on without my knowledge
LikeLike
I don’t get any ads of Facebook? Maybe it’s because I don’t have any “friends”? I only use it to belong to a closed opt out page and a few closed sewing groups. Or maybe there are ads and I just don’t notice them?
LikeLike
My point exactly . I am sure they are there ,I am oblivious to them .
If that’s because of the closed groups I am in , I don’t know.
In fact I am oblivious to all unsolicited web ads . The only time I see them is when I search for an Item. I get how the search engines make money.
LikeLike
When you search for an item on the web, that item will then pursue you again and again.
LikeLike
Ads can be very insidious and affect the subconscious in ways that we don’t necessarily recognize.
Fakebook is manipulative by int’s very nature.
A while back Fakebook was using news to manipulate people’s feelings with the help of fake Cornell University “researchers” who were violating established ethical principles.
Of course, the Cornell President claimed his fake “researchers” had done nothing g wrong.
LikeLike
Sorry
The” fake Cornell President”
A legitimate College president who represents real scholarship he ain’t.
LikeLike
We should take up a collection to pay Zukerberg to never go on TV and announce his next LLC masquerading as “philanthropy.” I have heard enough from the braggadocious Silicon Valley billionaires. It is lovely to see greedy Zuckerberg with egg on his face.
LikeLike
Like Teflon it will slide off.
LikeLike
I have never used Facebook. I find nothing to admire about the Chan/Zuckerberg LLC Initiatives–fake philanthropy.
LikeLike
“techlon”?
LikeLike
Facebook exaggerates their reach to sell ads and I’m not a fan, but $100,000 and 3,000 ads run isn’t enough to influence an election. It’s almost like it was a test run, like something you would do to measure whether a larger effort was feasible or worthwhile.
Facebook ITSELF isn’t reliable:
“Facebook Inc. claims its ads have the potential to reach more people than recent U.S. census data shows exist, and that’s troublesome for one analyst, who thinks third-party measurement services stand to benefit.
Recently, Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser was intrigued by a trade publication study in Australia that said Facebook FB, +0.80% was claiming to reach 1.7 million more 16- to 39-year olds than actually existed in the country, according to Australian census data.
In reproducing the study for the U.S., Wieser said Facebook’s Ads Manager claims it can potentially reach 41 million 18- to 24-year-olds, 60 million 25- to 34-year-olds, and 61 million 35- to 49-year-olds. The problem arises when Wieser pulls up U.S. Census data from a year ago, showing 31 million 18- to 24-year-olds, 45 million 25- to 34-year-olds, and 61 million 35- to 49-year-olds.
The upshot: Where is Facebook getting the extra 25 million 18- to 34-year-olds that the U.S. census did not count?”
So, keep this in mind when they launch their “data driven” education agenda. No one is checking the numbers they themselves report and use to sell ads.
LikeLike
And, if Facebook exaggerates their ability to reach people with ads that means they’re exaggerating the value of platform, because the only value Facebook has is “number of people reached”, which is a really big problem for Facebook and Facebook’s investors.
LikeLike
The coverage of the Illinois education bill is a real triumph for the clout of ed reformers.
This is the Chicago Tribune:
“Students get a chance for a better education. Donors get a 75-cent tax credit for every dollar. And Illinois joins many other states in dramatically expanding school choice beyond charter schools. Win-win-win.
“This is the largest initial startup of any (scholarship tax credit) program in the country,” Scott Jensen of the American Federation for Children tells us. “And it’s the largest blue state to ever approve such a program. It’s going to help a lot of kids.”
Take a bow, all you Democratic and Republican lawmakers who bucked the intense teachers union lobbying against this initiative.”
THREE WORDS on public school funding.
A “historic” public school funding bill and there is NO coverage of how it impacts public schools. If you’re an Illinois public school family you have no idea what is in this bill or how it affects your child or your school, because who cares? Vouchers! They got vouchers! That’s the entire focus.
LikeLike
The Illinois tax credit program is a BIG WIN for BETSY DEVOS
LikeLike
Just a warning- we’re about to be subjected to another integrated ed reform political campaign to privatize public schools:
https://www.the74million.org/
They’re ALL pushing this book- “Reinventing America’s Schools”- it’s written by the grandfather of privatization- his solution to everything is “privatize it”
We’ll be inundated with “failing public schools” and the urgent need to privatize everything that isn’t tied down.
No dissenters will be published or invited to forums. No questions will be asked or answered. There will be no real debate. The only question will be “how quickly can we privatize without the dopes in the public getting wind of it?”
LikeLike
In typical ed reform fashion, public schools and public school families are completely excluded from their discussion on how to “reinvent” public schools:
http://reinventingschools.the74million.org/
The starting assumption must be that public school families don’t care about their children or their schools so don’t have to consulted when school systems are privatized.
LikeLike
The “Reinventing Schools” guy seems to have missed Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan when touting the wonders of privatization.
That’s an interesting omission. Some inconvenient facts on ed reform in those states. Best to pretend they don’t exist. Just remove that swathe of the country.
He’s taken the 4 places ed reform considers a success and based his national theory on them, while ignoring all the places privatization has failed.
This isn’t “science”. It isn’t “rigor”. It isn’t even a “debate”. It;’s promoting an agenda.
LikeLike
The truth is bad enough without having to invent things…
YOU: “This is a shocking story about how Facebook allowed thousands of fake accounts targeting American voters in 2015 and 2016, with goal of influencing the election….”
TRUTH: “Facebook teams then discovered 470 suspicious and likely fraudulent Facebook accounts and pages that it believes operated out of Russia, had links to the company and were involved in promoting the ads.”
Do you really think that Mr. Zuckerberg is personally aware of what is being sold to whom? A man who is absolutely against Trump?
What a way to sell out truth…
LikeLike
Every single word of that sentence is accurate.
“This is a shocking story about how Facebook allowed thousands of fake accounts targeting American voters in 2015 and 2016, with goal of influencing the election….”
Why do you think Russians were buying ads on FB? Because they care about the environment?
LikeLike
Actually, it was not “thousands” of “fake” accounts but less than FIVE HUNDRED. You make it sounds like it was a) intentional and b) with knowledge of Zuckerberg.
Shame on you!
LikeLike
There were hundreds of accounts and 3,000 ads.
I assume you are satisfied with the corruption of the election by the Russians.
LikeLike
Not quite sure why you seem to be on the defensive re being correct in quoting facts. In your post you did two things:
1. Misrepresented the actual numbers
2. Misrepresented Zuckerberg by implying he did this knowingly and with approval
And you, someone who is so adamant about truth in statements, this was a big disappointment made this an even worse event.
And now you are making assumptions about how I think about this abuse of Facebook. For your information, I abhore Facebook in general. Not only for its intrusiveness, but also because it can be abused so easily by ANY group, be it Russians or Americans!
When I hear people quote Facebook as a serious source of anything, I shudder, and wonder what kind of a society we are turning in to. When I see the things people post about themselves, pictures included…
And thus I left facebook a looong time ago.
If people would spend more time on doing their own research, life would be so much better…
LikeLike
This post and the comments imply that Facebook knowingly sold these ads to a Russian troll farm. Nothing reported indicates that is the case. Facebook reported to the congressional committee that they discovered this while investigating their role in the spread of fake news during the election.
LikeLike
FB: don’t ask, don’t tell.
Would they sell space to the Mafia?
LikeLike
IF the Mafia uses that as the ID of the buyer? Or what if they use YOUR name to set up the fake account? I bet they will say no to the first, and yes to the second.
Do you really think that the <500 (NOT thousands) registered with the real name/purpose??
LikeLike
Not knowingly, I assume. But they didn’t sell to Russian bots knowingly either.
However, I agree with you that FB probably did not use due diligence in preventing such accounts and ads. Don’t ask, don’t tell indeed – until the election was over.
LikeLike
1.9 BILLION Facebook accounts in 2016
1.4 BILLION Facebook accounts in 2015
500,000 NEW accounts EACH day.
So, <500 bogus accounts – less then .01%
And you really expect Zuckerberg to have these handled manually EACH day???
What about web sites that deliver bogus news? Do you want GoDaddy, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Firefox, Safari etc. to check each and every one of those, too?
Get real, please people! You are blaming Social Media rather than the lazy people who swallow each and every “factoid” as pure truth! In case you wonder, a “factoid” is “an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.”
So, encourage people to use their critical thinking skills, and not to accept everything they read (even on reputable blogs such is this) as truth! When something published here (or in any other blog) contradicts what you read somewhere else, check it out.
LikeLike
You make very good points here, L. Kinyon.
The question, after that, is; What can we do, in the short term, that can minimize the effects of such easily obtained avenues of distributing propaganda? This was a big deal.
Fact is that there are a LOT of people who are and will continue to be easily swayed.
LikeLike
Indeed – but the responsibility lie squarely with the voter; after all, they are considered to be adult, right?
I’m dumbfounded by the fact that Facebook gets blamed for the gullibility of its members. The same people who send all their personal information to get money from the Nigerian, Congolese, Liberian government to get the MILLIONS just waiting for them to share that bank account number, pin code…are the same people who believe that Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a bar, Trump is a good guy (In spite of all the obvious statements, public acts and everything).
We get the government we deserve – not sure who came up with that phrase, but boy, does that turn out to be true!
LikeLike
I can’t agree with you that the responsibility lies squarely on the voter. That’s similar to “Buyer Beware”, which, to my view, is a copout meant to cleanse the conscience (if they have one) of those who would take advantage of others.
It would be one thing if we were talking about local or city politics. But when we start talking about a large national scale which will impact the international arena, as well, things get different. It gets harder to make informed judgements as we get further and further from the realm of personal experience.
Some people aren’t so smart. They’ll be taken advantage of. Some people are pretty smart but have trusting and loving natures. They’ll be taken advantage of. And there are a whole lot of people in between. They’ll be taken advantage of, as well.
As large as the network is, FB or any other entity can write programs that will flag suspicious activity and motives. Not foolproof, but these programmers are just as smart as the hackers who do their best to sabotage their work. FB can also publicly disclose information that directly impacted a national election, but have chosen not to. Irresponsible.
I don’t “get” this attitude of, “You were stupid enough to let this moron get elected, so deal with it”. There’s a very big problem here which needs to be confronted and dealt with. The number of ads isn’t the issue. The issue is that of the impact that they had on the election.
LikeLike
Kinyon doesn’t believe in regulation.
LikeLike
I believe in accuracy and I believe in a world where reality is understood. As you have seen, the numbers for Facebook make it impossible to vet each of the almost half a million new accounts added.
I have not seen you make the same requirement of Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, and Firefox, among others as to the websites hosted, created.
Your regulation is my being robbed of constitutional liberties.
I believe that, for example, burning the flag is not even closely related to “free speech.” On the other hand, I do believe that someone like a white supremacist has the right to express opinions, revolting as they are.
That is the price for living in this country.
LikeLike
“Some people” are the exception, not the ‘rule.’ And yes, some people will always fall victim to smooth talkers.
Maybe networks should do a better job of vetting their ads? Newspapers too? i mean, where do you stop?
Not sure if you are aware, but social media actually already does a lot of vetting of what is published but all sorts of algorithms. But that, too, creates problems.
Most people here are of the opinion that FOX NEWS is a slanted news organisation. So what do you want to do – start “vetting” their news casts (using the word “news” lightly for some people here)? What about CNN? ABC? NPR?
I have no clue what goes on at FOX NEWS. I don’t watch it, or ABC or CNN. I listen to NPR a lot.
Next, who gets to do the “vetting?”
This is beginning to sound an awful lot like Hitler Germany! Trump may hate the press – but he has not shut down ANY news agency…
LikeLike
Trump is just getting started.
Sessions is prosecuting a librarian for laughing at him.
LikeLike
Of course, HE is not the one calling for the “vetting” of Facebook pages, web sites, blogs, news outlets etc.
He does not like to meet with the press – and that is the right of ANY president
LikeLike
What a guy!
LikeLike
Okay. if you want to admire the guy.
LikeLike
I agree, Sally: there’s no due diligence and this is where an unregulated internet gets a bad name. We’re all responsible for that which we create and/or have the ability to control.
LikeLike
Actually, the only thing that is relevant is that Fakebook will sell ads to anyone willing to pay.
There is absolutely no due diligence.
In fact, a lot of their “decision-making” is automated.
LikeLike
Facebook recently hired Campbell Brown (!) to oversee its ethics, so there should be no problem in the future
LikeLike
“Facebook recently hired Campbell Brown”
omg
LikeLike
I just looked up the word “ethical” in Merriam Webster and it said “see Campbell Brown”
So I guess you are right.
LikeLike
Not only that, but the number is extremely exaggerated. There were 476 accounts – major difference! But “thousands” sounds so much more dramatic…
LikeLike
The post says hundreds of accounts and thousands of ads.
I assume you can read?
LikeLike
Diane is right about the numbers : 476 accounts (as you note) and over 3000 ads. She didn’t say there were thousands of accounts.
LikeLike
Direct quote from the first posting. Please note the wording.
“This is a shocking story about how Facebook allowed >>>>>thousands of fake accounts<<<<<<<<< targeting American voters in 2015 and 2016, with goal of influencing the election.”
See that? “THOUSANDS OF ACCOUNT.” capitals not because of shouting, but consider them in lower case, bolded.
Not ads, but THOUSANDS OF ACCOUNTS.
LikeLike
I corrected that error within five minutes.
Hundreds of FAKE RUSSIAN ACCOUNTS AND THOUSANDS OF FAKE ADS.
All to elect a FAKE president
LikeLike
So it would seem the only thing Trump has told the truth about is that the election was rigged – just not the way he wants us to think.
LikeLike
Wow, a whole $100K. How about we discuss the $1,000,000 or more David Brock was paid to set up a band of pro-Clinton trolls to go after Bernie Sanders and his supporters? Or maybe the fact the US has spent many more millions interfering in the legal election process of other countries more than 80 time? And then there are all those voter ID laws that somehow have gotten lost, except when some court or other says they need to be revised. Not eliminated, mind you, just revised.
We could also discuss the lists of “double-registered” minority voters the a right-wing think tank drew up and which was distributed widely by GOP politicians and their minions that prevented thousands of people from voting, too, but no, we’d rather waste time following the establishment narrative that RUSSIA!!! corrupted our election just because the Anointed One lost. The Anointed One whose own people, mind you, encouraged the corporate media to focus on Trump because he was clearly so awful nobody would ever take him seriously.
Look, if it gives y’all some comfort embracing the unproven tale that Trump is in office because Russia stole the election for him rather than the simple fact that the Democrats chose to ignore reality because they’d promised Clinton the nomination, fine. However, given those who gather here have always struck me as intelligent people, consider just for a moment getting your information from sources other than the mainstream media. Because they are lying to you.
LikeLike
So you think that Don Trump Jr’s meeting with Russians on June 16, 2016, to get dirt on Hillary never happened?
LikeLike
So what? Are you really sure that the DNC or Clinton did not sponsor “dirt digging?” It seems about the only way politics seems to run these days.
I remember the distortions in the Clinton ads – no different than in Trump ads.
We as voters seem to just accept that as the normal way of “doing politics.”
LikeLike
I don’t remember the “dirty” attack ads against Trump. I remember accurate portrayals of his racism, misogyny, xenopbia, boastfulness, egotism, and ignorance.
No, “both sides” didn’t do it. The GOP ran a narcissist and liar.
LikeLike
Would you accept research by Professors from the following schools: Wesleyan University, Washington State University and Bowdoin College?
LikeLike
Since you did not answer my question, let me share some of the research done anyway…
“Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election, pouring $258 million into airing more than 400,000 ads during the race. Trump spent just $92 million and ran 120,000 ads. He ran fewer ads than even Clinton’s Democratic primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ran 128,000. Clinton’s ads were far more negative in tone and content, according to a study conducted by professors of Wesleyan University, Washington State University and Bowdoin College for The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics and published online on Feb. 22.”
LikeLike
Trump’s secret weapons: Putin and Assange.
Quite a tag team.
LikeLike
Facebook interference is very different than regular ads. The ads are designed to look like news stories targeting you based on a profile of what you like and don’t like which reveals what kind of issues you care about. Then you get an ad that looks like a news story that is certain to outrage you about the candidate they want to defeat. Or the candidate they want to win.
When peoople here claim they have not seen ads, it is often because they don’t realize they are ads because they look like a link to a news story.
LikeLike
What website does NOT use junk like that??? Even the local newspaper sites use those “click bate” windows. That’s where their money comes from. You going to forbid those, too? Remember the ripple effect… Once the rock is tossed into the lake, the ripples cannot be stopped!
LikeLike
And the point of the meeting was obviously to coordinate the fake “ads” with Trump publicly stating the same thing so that the media picked up on the fake news stories. Trump says this and you see it on your facebook feed and the media reports that Trump said this.
LikeLike
“I remember the distortions in the Clinton ads – no different than in Trump ads.”
Right. Trump is just as honest as any politician. He’s no different at all. We should all accept that having a blatant liar as President is what we are supposed to be embracing. After all, that is what America has had always.
What a cynic you are. You sound more like a Russian troll because that IS what it is like in Russia. I realize there are haters of America who wish us to be more like Putin’s Russia and accept that Trump’s lies are “normal” but I refuse. If you have to work this hard to convince us that everything Trump does is just normal behavior, L,Kinyon, you reveal something very corrupt about your own morals.
LikeLike
So the FACT that independent research establishes negative content from BOTH sides means that there is something wrong with MY point of view?
I did not say Trump was honest – but neither was Clinton! I did not say that Trump is the best, nicest person around. But neither was Clinton.
But then, who is the last honest politician YOU know?
When an election comes down to “the least of two evils…” Sad…
“If you have to work this hard to convince us that everything Trump does is just normal behavior, L,Kinyon, you reveal something very corrupt about your own morals.”
Really? I did not call Trump’s behavior normal, did I? What I said was that there is little difference in the way POLITICIANS act, be they Democrat or Republican. INDEPENDENT research shows that – easily – by comparing the content of ads from both sides.
The same took place when Obama and Clinton were running against each other. Two Democrats (Or 17 Republicans, for that matter) spent more time and money making the others look bad rather than discuss policy, discuss what is right for the country as a whole.
Pull up some of the ads, and see for yourself.
LikeLike
Kinyon,
The difference is this:
Trump is objectively evil. What else do you say about a man who says there were some “very fine people” marching with KKK and Nazis. What else do you say about a man whose ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance? What else do you say about a man who refuses to release his tax returns no violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution? What else do you say about a man who wants to cut the budget of science, disaster relief, the EPA, and education? What do you say about a man determined to roll back civil rights protections? Just this week the Justice Department not only argued to kick out 800,000 DACA youth, but argued in federal court that federal civil rights laws permit discrimination against gays.
In contrast, there is a difference of opinion about Hillary. I think she would have been a great president. You don’t. She is not evil.
LikeLike
What do you say about someone who runs a foundation based on gifts from foreign governments? Gifts, by the way, that have dried up rapidly when there was no presidency?
The appearance of impropriety is just as present with the Clinton foundation.
Again, I don’t like Trump. Did not vote for him. Will never vote for him.
But you need to stay with FACTS rather than fiction. And that’s where this started.
Apart from that, you have to use the same measuring stick for anyone who runs for the greatest office in the nation. It should not come down to the “lesser of two evils.”
LikeLike
I repeat: Hillary would have been a great president. Trump is a national and international laughing stock.
LikeLike
I disagree re Hilary. I agree r Trump
LikeLike
LKinyon,
Are you saying that because both Hillary Clinton and Trump have been both caught lying or getting their facts wrong, that they are equally guilty?
Are you saying that because most or all politicians allegedly lie, that makes all politicians equal?
Do you think that because Bill Clinton had affairs with other women while he was married, that makes him the same as Trump – that there is no difference between a man cheating on his wife with another woman who consents to have sex with him versus Trump who groped women without their permission as he ran his hand up a bare leg, under their dress, and then inside their panties? Trump has been caught cheating on all three of his wives. In fact, he was cheating on wife #2 with the current wife #3 and when she was his mistress, he cheated on her with another woman. Trump not only cheated on wife #2 with more than one woman, but he cheated on his mistress that eventually became #3.
It has been documented that during the 2016 presidential debates that for every lie Clinton said, Trump said 9.
If we used your logic to judge criminals, then a thief that steals a purse from a store is just as guilty as a serial killer that murdered a dozen people and they should get the same punishment.
Trump’s long history is so horrid that he makes the Clintons look like saints.
I wonder if the Clintons ever refused to pay someone they hired to build something for them.
I wonder how many times the Clintons have gone bankrupt causing banks to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
LikeLike
I assign no “level” of guilt to either. What I am saying is that politics seems to be a dirty business, getting dirtier by the election.
BTW, ‘making’ someone looking like a saint does not make them a ‘saint.’ It just gives them the appearance.
I seem to remember, vaguely, something about Whitewater and bankruptcies??
From my perspective, giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars is monetizing the presidency. Clintons went from “poverty” to 1%er in an extremely short time.
And yes, I think abusing the office of Governor and/or President to have sex with an intern is the same as groping women.
LikeLike
“I think abusing the office of Governor and/or President to have sex with an intern is the same as groping women.”
I disagree. It isn’t the same. One is with the consent and one is without consent and is no different than rape.
No wonder the Trump administration appears to be working hard to decriminalize rape.
And here’s a list of Alpha Males that were president that had affairs.
Thomas Jefferson
Warren Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Bill Clinton
According to the NY Times, there’s more than 7
THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE HISTORY; 14 Presidents Have Been The Talk of the Pillow
And I don’t don’t care as long as the affair was between two consenting adults and the president still did his job.
LikeLike
Thomas Jefferson
Warren Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Bill Clinton
You forgot Garfield
You forgot Cleveland
You forgot Wilson
You forgot Bush I
You forgot Washington
You forgot Buchanan
You forgot Eleanor Rosevelt
So you argument is: Others did it, so why worry about it?? Really?
If you look at the “relationships,” some were started before there was a presidency involved.
Some of the relationships were “while in office.” Jefferson’s was with a slave he owned. Do you really think that it is okay for someone in power to have a sexual relationship with someone lower in the hierarchy?? In today’s point of view, that would be abuse of power.
However: Is the argument, “Well, others did it, so it’s okay for… to do it, too?” Are you really prepared to make THAT argument?
LikeLike
My reasoning isn’t that because someone else did it, it’s okay. My reasoning is the consenting sex lives of adults is none of our business as long as they do it out of sight of the public.
My goal was to make a point that humans are not designed to be monogamous.
“News of politicians’ and celebrities’ extramarital affairs never seem to be in short supply. But if humans were cut from exactly the same cloth as other mammals, a faithful spouse would be an unusual phenomenon. …
“Social monogamy is a term referring to creatures that pair up to mate and raise offspring but still have flings. Sexually monogamous pairs mate with only with one partner. So a cheating husband who detours for a romantic romp yet returns home in time to tuck in the kids at night would be considered socially monogamous. …
“The human species has evolved to make commitments between males and females in regards to raising their offspring, so this is a bond,” said Jane Lancaster, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. “However that bond can fit into all kinds of marriage patterns – polygyny, single parenthood, monogamy.” …
“There is plenty of evidence that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex,” Lancaster said. “Having less to lose, it’s easier for them to do it.” …
“Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it’s ‘natural.'”
https://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html
The only reason Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky went public is that Monica confided in a friend of hers who hated Bill Clinton and that liberal hating friend who probably gets her fake news from the Alt Right Conspiracy Theory Machine went public with someone else’s sex life.
I DO NOT care how many married men or women have consenting affairs with other adults. I DO NOT care if a president or leader of any country has consenting affairs with other adults.
If my wife had an affair, if I was married right now, I’d have a choice. Stay or leave. But I wouldn’t run to the newspapers and make it public.
But I do care if someone molests another adult or child who did not consent to be groped or raped.
Humans are sexual creatures. I DO NOT judge Bill Clinton for having consensual affairs with other adult women other than his wife. It is not my business. Hillary Clinton and maybe his daughter are the only two who should have anything to say about this. I do not think for them.
The only thing I’m concerned about is that the President of the United States and other world leaders do the best job possible for the most people. I don’t care about their sex lives.
LikeLike
You are very cynical. If you are looking for perfection, you will never be satisfied.
Like Lloyd Lofthouse, I look unfavorably on a man who boasts of sexual assault without consent, a man who admires racists, a man whose actions are xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, and hateful. I look askance at a man who refuses to release his tax tpretirns and who refuses to divest his financial conflicts of interest. The only interesting question about this stolen presidency is whether he will assert the right to pardon himself.
LikeLike
“And yes, I think abusing the office of Governor and/or President to have sex with an intern is the same as groping women.”
I’d call this the “stalemate moment”. I know people who have very strong religious convictions. Chastity followed by fidelity in marriage is almost as important to them as is pro-life. I respect that.
Just going to disagree with you and leave it at that, I guess. I’ve never liked being cheated on and have always done what I can to avoid being the one who strays. But I don’t view those who differ as “bad”. And in this particular case, one of the sexual encounters was consensual while the other(s) were so not. That’s a big one in my world.
LikeLike