@hightor,
I'll play your game.
My
posts are red, and
yours are mauve. Answers in black.
And clever marketing is now a crime?
Who said it was?
By implication, twitter, facebook and co are "on trial" for selling advertising space, are they not?
What this does tell me, is that the presidency doesn't have to be going to he/she who raises the most money (as if that was ever a democratic decision).
The amount of money legally raised in a political campaign is only a portion of the sums raised and spent on achieving political influence and maintaining political power.
Interesting how you don't understand even the simple things about US political processes.
Repeating yourself for the peanut gallery?
No, just emphasizing that no one has made either claim — not greater than, nor even comparable to the amounts spent by the politicians and their backers.
You posted the same sentence, rejigged, twice in a row.
Why did the US election campaigners fail, with their massive spend, where the insurgents succeeded, with so little monetary input, is the question.
For one thing, as I already pointed out, campaign spending doesn't represent the total amount of money raised and used for political purposes.
You avoided the question completely. How did the minuscule amount (in comparison) spent by the Russians (allededly) provide them with so much political clout in the election process, compared with the massive amounts spent by the GOP and DNC?
In addition, the Russian-backed ads didn't need to be accurate or honest. They only had to attract the attention of the ignorant and incurious and most of these potential voters, as consumers of Murdoch media, were already susceptible to divisive rhetoric and fake news.
Political advertising is only very occasionally "accurate or honest". It always attracts the attention of the ignorant and the incurious.
You're aware that more than half of the population is totally disconnected from the political process already, because they know it's bullshit?
