I don’t know how much influence this has, but must surely have some. Murdoch’s sons and wives are not conservative. Something like this could be ammunition for them to exert pressure.
[quote=“jotham”]Bill Clinton is a known rapist
Are you still playing around with your time machine? As in hey it’s the 70’s and “rapist” just means a man who’s naughty around women, like a peeping tom?
Which court convicted this Bill of sexual harassment? Which court convicted the third Bill of drugging and raping women who had come to him for help with their careers?
When did the first Bill ever deny Juanita Broaddrick’s repeated public accusations that he raped her and why has no journalist ever confronted him about Broaddrick’s accusations?
By Jotham’s own logic, he must be a Democrat. Are you with him?
Forget just a moment whether Clinton is guilty, that’s just a red herring you’re using to get away from the focus.
The point is that Democrats didn’t care about it, didn’t investigate it much, thought it was just political and that’s all. And we’re supposed to believe that they have suddenly turned Victorian because of O’Reilly and not political at all?
On the other hand, if it turns out to be proven, you’ll find a lot more Republicans and conservatives concerned about that than you find on the other side for their own.
Multiple credible accusers accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and exposing himself and I believe them. Likewise multiple credible accusers accused Bill O’Reilly of crude sexual harassment and I believe them. Same goes for Bill Cosby.
Democrats apparently have an ongoing problem deciding what to believe though:
[quote]Hillary Clinton’s campaign website removed a pledge to believe all sexual assault victims earlier this year after historic rape allegations against her husband re-emerged.
On January 29, her website’s page on campus sexual assault said victims have ‘a right to be believed, and we’re with you.’ On February 4, that quote was gone.
The alteration came after the re-emergence of 73-year-old Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Bill Clinton had raped her in 1978 and Hillary had threatened her to keep quiet, [/quote]
I would say you’re wrong because the fans would say it’s a conspiracy, he was framed, the judge was biased, and so on. No matter which one of the Bills we’re talking about.
And for harassment, they would say it’s just locker room talk and so on.
But actually, you’re probably right. It would have to be the Donald, or else we’re talking about apples and something other than apples. People just don’t like Mr. Factor as much, so he wouldn’t get the royal treatment.
Uh, no. It’s generally accepted the trust fund twins had it out for him. This was their excuse.
It’s a common pattern. Spoiled brats get Oedipal/leftist and run a profitable country into the ground for the sake of their own juvenile politics. It’s why dynasties and nepotism are a bad thing.
I suppose for spoiled brats to do the same thing in a rightist manner, they need to be Electral.
Don’t mean to get off topic, but speaking of spoiled brats, dynasties, and nepotism, this humorous writer talks about Chelsea Clinton:
Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.
Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.” That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail:
“I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany, because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis. President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own small way.”
Ah, yes, that reminds me of when I was four and I wrote to Senator John Warner about grain tariffs, arguing that trade barriers unfairly decreased consumer choice.
It’s pretty good all the way through
If you want to write about Bill Clinton open your own thread about Bill bloody Clinton.
This here says Bill O ’ Reilly.
Yes, it seems like this campaign was spearheaded primarily by huge activity on Twitter. Now this article is written from a left-wing view, and he naturally assumes Democrat concerned citizens are all doing this, keeping track of advertisers in large number, which doesn’t really happen in real life. And who knows that Obama is behind this, doing his community organizing, ha ha, a community of bots – they’re so easy to control and manipulate.
But from what we know about all the fake bots on Twitter combined with dishonest Democrats creating and utilizing them for political purposes perfect for this kind of thing, I think we got the answer how they succeeded on this. Fake bots makes it seem like you have a huge army, a majority, a hundred thousand to millions, run by no more than a mere 10 dishonest Democrats, in effect upturning democracy.
Again, politicians are familiar with this nefarious activity, but advertisers less so, which explains their panicky response at being swamped with millions of complaints, which are only really 10 dishonest Democrats being amplified many, many times.
Such boycotts haven’t usually been effective at dislodging such a powerful TV personality, but the speed of the anti-O’Reilly campaign and the nature of the accusations may actually get results.
The boycott exploded within days. A cadre of Twitter activists, battle-hardened from ongoing campaigns against the Trumps and Breitbart News, swarmed the initial New York Times story about the sexual harassment allegations and put pressure on advertisers to take a stand. They did—quickly and vocally. Within about 24 hours, over 20 companies— including major players like Allstate, BMW, and T. Rowe Price—pulled their advertising from the O’Reilly Factor and denounced his alleged behavior. Within a week, up to 80 advertisers had ditched the show
You got nothing except wild speculation. The only thing advertisers care about in the end is money. You think they’re unaware of how twitter works and are going to toss money down the drain because they’re nervous about some “fake bots”? That they don’t have an absolute handle on one of the most important channels for modern marketing? That is not rational. O’Reilly made himself unpalatable through his actions, what a surprise, end of story.
You’ve already revealed Obama is the mastermind. Who are the other nine of these terrifyingly powerful people?
Yes, they worry about money, and controversy is something that makes them nervous, and the bigger the perception of the controversy, the more willing they are to stay out of the fray. I don’t know how aware they are of fake bots swamping them, many ordinary unthinking people and voters seem to be prone to their influence.
But no, I don’t think a spontaneous protest huge enough within 24 hours to sufficiently scare advertisers into pulling out is reality. That is really the most ridiculous thing to believe, which you do. I mean, come on, people may care, but geesh, not that much, not so dramatically and speedily. Besides, Democrats don’t have that kind of political power, or they could have easily exerted that momentum to win the election. Unfortunately (for them), they haven’t found a way to make these fake bots vote yet.
But as I said, we’re learning about them and hopefully getting rid of them. The Federal government, FBI, is said to be investigating fake bots used by Russians to influence the election, which is part and parcel of this investigation in Russian complicity you’re hearing about.
Here’s the Atlantic, testing fake bots for Hillary, Trump, and Sanders during the campaign, and found about 20% for each on Twitter spreading vocal support or links to news, etc.
Americans are now so familiar with the common set pieces—the crowded rally, the carefully timed roadside stop—that they’re largely taken for granted as part of the political process. But social media fakery is arguably a whole new sphere of American campaigns—one with its own dynamics that will only get more interesting in future cycles.
Faux followers can come with risks, as demonstrated by Andrés Sepúlveda, the convicted Latin American political consultant who reportedly wielded an army of 30,000 fake Twitter accounts to sway public opinion. And it would certainly deflate Trump’s persona if a substantial portion of his Twitter community turned out not to be real, especially considering how often he boasts about the size of his following and cites it among his qualifications.
“We like to say they act as a megaphone on social media,” said Clayton A. Davis, a Ph.D. student at Indiana University who studies Twitter bots. “We as humans tend to say, the more people talking about something, the more likely it is to be true. We know that that’s false, but that’s just how we work. You not only add volume, but you lend credibility to the message, when in reality, it’s really only one person.”
The key words there are “I don’t know”. In that case, I’d assume the advertisers do know. It’s their business.
Ummm you believe a phantom protest was enough to make them do so, so who’s being ridiculous? You’ve created a false dichotomy here. There could well have been an organized protest that was neither spontaneous or fake.
Advertisers make decisions based on their bottom line. This O’Reilly situation has been ongoing for some time and they have undoubtedly been following it closely.
Well, it’s a confluence of things. Some people at Fox really wanted him to go, and the “protest” allowed some of those opinions to be vented out effectively.
But fake bots certainly isn’t unreasonable, being that huge Twitter activity is responsible for most of advertisers decision to leave within a 24-hour period. You think advertisers have bot-detecting technology onhand for these special occasions? They’ve probably have had little business contact, probably none at all, with a bot army in the past.
For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he’d read it in the candidate’s own internal staff memos.
So this is a new thing then? A bot army which was specially created and sprung into action to knock out Bill O’Reilly off his last shaky leg?
Obviously demand for bots vastly exceeds supply, and more bots are desperately needed for economic growth. Therefore banning bots would be suicidal and Communist, so they should just raise interest rates, and then the fake bots will naturally yield to the real bots.
No, this isn’t a new thing, like I said, it was first used during the Obama years, for Obama. And a bot army could lie dormant and be immoblized for whatever purpose the leader determines at whatever time. Some people are said to pay for bots to follow someone’s twitters and like them, or spread messages to influence public opinion.
An operation like this would be very easy for professional Democrats to set up, and keep maintenance of them to prevent detection.