It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillarys "Official" Facebook and Twitter account is surprisingly inactive

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Gee I wonder if Russia hacked that to and changed her password? But then I doubt she ever used it in the 1st place. Probably thought she was to good to use Social Media as a effective tool to reach millions of people and one of the main factors as to why Obama. I remember the 2008 election and he won because he used Facebook masterfully as a marketing tool.

This is also more of a Observation post thead comment on what you think of my observation because I remember watching the debates Hillarys Twitter and Facebook were posting live tweets/posts as she said them meanwhile Trumps tweets/posts were after the debates.

mobile.twitter.com...

Last post November 26th

Facebook
m.facebook.com...

Last post November 9th




posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

So are her lack of donations into the Clinton Foundation!!! odd, right?



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
Gee I wonder if Russia hacked that to and changed her password? But then I doubt she ever used it in the 1st place. Probably thought she was to good to use Social Media as a effective tool to reach millions of people and one of the main factors as to why Obama. I remember the 2008 election and he won because he used Facebook masterfully as a marketing tool.

This is also more of a Observation post thead comment on what you think of my observation because I remember watching the debates Hillarys Twitter and Facebook were posting live tweets/posts as she said them meanwhile Trumps tweets/posts were after the debates.

mobile.twitter.com...

Last post November 26th

Facebook
m.facebook.com...

Last post November 9th


They likely fired whomever or whatever company was doing their social media as they seem to believe that is what caused their loss. I highly doubt HRC has ever tweeted or posted to FB personally in her life.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
its like as if she is fake



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Yeah, we all know Donalds Facebook is real because he left the "About" page blank. Anyone that uses Facebook to share hit news pieces doesn't care about stupid biography crap.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream


If you tell enough people she's dead, she will be.

That's how the rest of your platform works.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Just checked Hillary's Website www.hillaryclinton.com

On the frontpage: "Chip in today 5$, 15$, 25$, 100$"

Classic Hillary: I just wasted 1.2 bn $ and lost the election, but gimme more money!



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream


If you tell enough people she's dead, she will be.

That's how the rest of your platform works.


You mean "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it?
Kind of like the Russians hacking the election

P.s I have a FB page and I dont fill in any of that about stuff yet Im pretty sure Im not fake, at least I hope Im not

edit on 17/12/2016 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
She is probably too busy standing around stomping her feet and crying because she lost the election. 'It's not fair I should of been president waaaah waaah waaaah!' And now all this Russia BS ... does not this show how childish these politicians are? Don't get there way so let's blame someone for it instead of sucking it up and just getting on with it



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream


If you tell enough people she's dead, she will be.

That's how the rest of your platform works.


You mean "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it?
Kind of like the Russians hacking the election


So you have proof the election wasn't hacked? Must be real sophisticated proof proving something DIDN'T happen.


Most of the Right can't even keep the same narrative on the topic. I'll lump you in with the 'We weren't even hacked' group, because there are many that acknowledged we were hacked and have moved on to less obvious strawman arguments.

Personally I like the argument that a couple individuals, or even organizations, do not represent Russia as a whole. It doesn't fit in well with your endless denial stance though.
edit on 17-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

It works the other way around: if someone claims something, then the burden of proof is on them.

If you are interested in Election Hacks, check out this Thread:
Election Hacks pointing to DHS?



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Hillary spent $9.6 million on CTR.

Trump spent $19.3 million with Cambridge Analytica



SCL Group calls itself a "global election management agency" known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". SLC’s involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. SCL claims to have been successful to help foment coups.


Yeah, that doesn't sound shady at all.



CA collects data on voters using sources such as demographics, consumer behavior, internet activity, and other public and private sources. According to The Guardian, CA is using psychological data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without users' permission or knowledge.


Not at all, considering the CEO has this to say:



"Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual. ... So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people." — Alexander Nix (Chief Executive, Cambridge Analytica), October 2016


Then of course there was Trump's "Project Alamo":



Brad Parscale, a San Antonio marketing strategist who sports Trump ties and Zegna suits, to run the campaign’s digital task force, dubbed “Project Alamo.” Parscale’s 100-person crack team reportedly spends $70 million a month to take people who are leaning toward Trump and turn them into the candidate’s most ardent fans.


And what's even more creepy/weird is now Trump personally owns private data on US citizens:



It’s easy to see how Trump could leverage this potent combination of Facebook fans and voter data. For one, all those e-mails alone are worth anywhere from $36 million to $112 million, according to Businessweek. And since Trump paid to build that list, he alone owns them after the election.

Link

But yeah, it's a lot more fun to rag on Clinton since she's been public enemy #1 for over 30 years. Let's just ignore the giant orange elephant in the room (that's slowly turning red) and keep up equine flagellation.
edit on 17-12-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream


If you tell enough people she's dead, she will be.

That's how the rest of your platform works.


You mean "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it?
Kind of like the Russians hacking the election


So you have proof the election wasn't hacked? Must be real sophisticated proof proving something DIDN'T happen.


Most of the Right can't even keep the same narrative on the topic. I'll lump you in with the 'We weren't even hacked' group, because there are many that acknowledged we were hacked and have moved on to less obvious strawman arguments.

Personally I like the argument that a couple individuals, or even organizations, do not represent Russia as a whole. It doesn't fit in well with your endless denial stance though.


Sorry mate but the burden of proof is on you guys. Show the proof it was hacked or STFU
The claims of Russian hacking and interference have yet to be substantiated and until they are Ill consider them BS.

Even if it was the Russians I still think a thank you is in order, if all that was done was exposing Hillarys lies and hypocrisy and no tampering then fine.

The American people voted on the basis of available evidence and the evidence said Trump was the better option.
Again I dont think Russia had anything to do with it but wouldnt care if they did.

Does it bother you that the American MSM was acting as a propaganda distributor for Hillary or does it only bother you when your being manipulated by non Americans?



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: imjack

It works the other way around: if someone claims something, then the burden of proof is on them.

If you are interested in Election Hacks, check out this Thread:
Election Hacks pointing to DHS?


You tell me the burden of proof is on me, like I said it first.

I didn't make the initial claim, intelligence agencies and the Government did. Does your logic only apply to forum conversations or something? Am I now the representative for the United States?

That's the main reason I asked for your source. Everyone knows where mine is from.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Lol. Me? Manipulated?

I sold campaign commercials to both sides. What I do makes MSM look like angels.

I also didn't vote.

It's pretty rare for people to benefit from this bogus more than me.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
Gee I wonder if Russia hacked that to and changed her password? But then I doubt she ever used it in the 1st place. Probably thought she was to good to use Social Media as a effective tool to reach millions of people and one of the main factors as to why Obama. I remember the 2008 election and he won because he used Facebook masterfully as a marketing tool.


A couple of points:
* she was never that active on Facebook or Twitter (I follow her, unlike you.) As with Trump, sometimes the staff would post on her behalf.
* Obama's mastery of social media increased within the past 5 years. He's very deft at it.


This is also more of a Observation post thead comment on what you think of my observation because I remember watching the debates Hillarys Twitter and Facebook were posting live tweets/posts as she said them meanwhile Trumps tweets/posts were after the debates.

mobile.twitter.com...

Last post November 26th

Facebook
m.facebook.com...

Last post November 9th

Okay.... let me point out the obvious.

Every post she makes, every tweet she puts out gathers an army of people to post ugly messages about her and to her and often starting wars of words with her supporters. Most of them sneer at her. Did you notice all the nasty messages that were attached to her "thank you for the support and Happy Thanksgiving" post on Facebook? You should read the ugly responses to her tweet of sympathy for the Pulse attacks (gay nightclub in Orlando where the mass shooting occurred.)

If you are not aware of these responses to her messages, go back and look.

So... serious question: why do you think she should use social media now? What's the advantage to her in having an active Twitter/Facebook account? If you were a social media consultant to her, give me the points that you would make to her about why she needs to spend time and energy to keep up these accounts.

I see no advantage in it for her, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

You ever work with the propaganda peeps over at Cambridge Analaytics?

That's some pretty impressive predictive behavioral modeling they have...

Makes me wonder what L3 and the NSA have and cold do with all the data that scrape up and intercept.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Lol. Me? Manipulated?

I sold campaign commercials to both sides. What I do makes MSM look like angels.

I also didn't vote.

It's pretty rare for people to benefit from this bogus more than me.


OK so not only are you part of the problem youre profiting from it and proud of it.
Good for you


You havent been manipulated you just enable them to manipulate others and sold out your country.
Even before you mentioned that you came across as slimy but that just reinforces it



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Maybe shes dead?

We can dream


If you tell enough people she's dead, she will be.

That's how the rest of your platform works.


You mean "repeat a lie enough and people will believe it?
Kind of like the Russians hacking the election


So you have proof the election wasn't hacked? Must be real sophisticated proof proving something DIDN'T happen.


Most of the Right can't even keep the same narrative on the topic. I'll lump you in with the 'We weren't even hacked' group, because there are many that acknowledged we were hacked and have moved on to less obvious strawman arguments.

Personally I like the argument that a couple individuals, or even organizations, do not represent Russia as a whole. It doesn't fit in well with your endless denial stance though.


Obama said it himself there is no way to hack elections and Mr. Trump should stop whining about it being rigged




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join