I had a buddy that was making pipe bombs just for kicks in 1991 when were in high school.
If you want to make one it wouldn’t be that difficult. If you had a working knowledge of electrical circuitry a trigger would be fairly simple.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I had a buddy that was making pipe bombs just for kicks in 1991 when were in high school.
If you want to make one it wouldn’t be that difficult. If you had a working knowledge of electrical circuitry a trigger would be fairly simple.
All I'm saying is you're trying to read too much into it based upon a throwaway word like sophisticated when we have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean he had created some exotic binary explosive with a mercury fulminate fuse. It was probably more sophisticated than a cigarette fuse or a strike anywhere match taped to the clapper of an old alarm clock.
Anyone with basic mechanical skills and a cursory knowledge of chemistry could duplicate his bombs, I'm sure. Especially since you can get step by step instructions on the internet.
Between that unhinged lunatic cardkilla continuously posting manifestos, and you all talking about bee oh em bees, gonna have the FBI spying on this thread in no time.
Zuckerberg will address the public in the next 24 hours, aimed at regaining trust, we’ve confirmed
^That will be can't miss TV. Always a hoot when Mark pretends to be human.
Right. Pipe bombs are apparently simple. It's been common knowledge one can learn how to do that on video.
The way law enforcement discussed these bombs made it sound as if they were far more advanced than that. I have no clue if they were. That's just what was said.
Maybe. Its possible law enforcement unintentionally overstated the complexity of the bombs. I don't know what they meant. Only what they said
I'm simply stating that it wouldn't take MI6 or special ops training to build an explosive device.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-a-liar-out-of-everyone-on-the-Trump-campaign
In addition to bragging about their ability to make people believe any lie, and their ability to spread those lies in ways that make them look like actual news, Cambridge Analytica’s leaders were also anxious to share how they violated US campaign funding laws by coordinating between the Trump campaign and supposedly independent PACs.
I know almost every campaign coordinates with PAC's because there is nobody that can stop it. But the golden rule is to never talk about it. I think if anything actually brings Trump down it will be how absolutely terrible he is at hiring people that can't keep their mouth shut.
In addition to bragging about their ability to make people believe any lie, and their ability to spread those lies in ways that make them look like actual news, Cambridge Analytica’s leaders were also anxious to share how they violated US campaign funding laws by coordinating between the Trump campaign and supposedly independent PACs.
I know almost every campaign coordinates with PAC's because there is nobody that can stop it. But the golden rule is to never talk about it. I think if anything actually brings Trump down it will be how absolutely terrible he is at hiring people that can't keep their mouth shut.
the paddock is my facebook I refuse to do facebook or twitter so I get a chuckle out of facebook being id'd as a liberal spy platform
This Facebook uproar is hilarious. All that data was readily available for years, to anyone who requested it.
Programmers routinely use it. Obama's campaign used it. Hillary's campaign even used it lol. Only NOW is there an uproar and only because Trump used it to help win.
Programmers routinely use it. Obama's campaign used it. Hillary's campaign even used it lol. Only NOW is there an uproar and only because Trump used it to help win.
Wouldn't it be sweet if our elected officials thought to themselves " man, I got to be honest to keep my job" instead of " man, I've got to be crooked to keep my job"?
Zuckerberg will address the public in the next 24 hours, aimed at regaining trust, we’ve confirmed
^That will be can't miss TV. Always a hoot when Mark pretends to be human.[/QUOTE
is rape a hate crime?
The notion of prosecuting or punishing people for hateful messages is not an awful idea, in and of itself. The execution is the problem.
Who defines a "hate message" and how is it defined? We already know. That's why the best option is to not police it at all.
Who defines a "hate message" and how is it defined? We already know. That's why the best option is to not police it at all.
Only a select few have access to Trump's briefing. My bet is McMasters leaked the "Do not congratulate" bit. His time in the White House needs to be over. He is anti Trump.
False. The Trump campaign never used the data. How's it feel going on about dumb voters and fake news while being a dumbass and spreading fake news?
False. The Trump campaign never used the data. How's it feel going on about dumb voters and fake news while being a dumbass and spreading fake news?
Yeah, programmers use data from people who use their apps. Same as what the Obama campaign did. The data used by CA and Trump campaign was not from their apps but some other person who did not have permission to give that data to someone else. That's the BIG difference. It's one of those subtleties in fact that conservatives love to ignore when trying to make their points. They do this on the regular. It's a hallmark of Fox News as well.
If I give Words with Friends permission to use some of my FB data it is assumed that they can't then give my data to the Queer Republicans for Trump group.
Obama did not get illegally obtained data. CA and thus the Trump campaign did. That's the difference in a nutshell.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/
Cambridge Analytica, a data vendor for the Trump campaign, was phased out during the general election, CBS News reports.
The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data's reporting -- principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value.
In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data.
The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor.
The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.
Steve Bannon was VP of Cambridge Analytica so I find it hard to believe that they didn't use any of their data. And the article states that "Cambridge Analytica data was used for some targeted digital advertising and a large TV buy" so yes, they did use some of their data.
The difference is that you actually believe what you posted here. Proving once again why you guys lost. Your ignorance to the truth and adherence to the lefts fake news is a godsend because you will continue to be duped and lose again. Thank you, sincerely, thank you. Dumb asses like you will continue to give false hope to those who think they are getting to the masses.
You're right. CBS is reporting fake news that helps Trump.
And it follows it up with this "but the main source of "get out the vote" and matching digital outreach data came from the RNC."
Plus, that was only during the primaries and not the general. Cambridge was phased out by the general. The data had no bearing on Trump beating Hillary's ass so one less excuse for her and you.
Exactly. Do you guys remember the An*rchist Co*kbook? Sorry if that's already been mentioned. Build homemade explosives! Crack a pay phone! Oh and you'll get high if you smoke enough banana peels!
Even the sections on growing weed are horribly inaccurate. Horribly.
Is Trump afraid of Putin?
In other news
This is what Trump congratulated Putin on yesterday. Reuters was able to capture several people voting multiple times at different precincts. What I find most ironic is that these guys are easily able to find people who voted more than once yet Republicans never seem to have such proof when accusing Dems of doing this. I guess Republicans just don't own cameras.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/voting-twice-russia-slideshow-wp-201703053.html
So is Trump afraid of Putin? That p$$y Obama can confront Putin but big strongman Trump goes fanboy whenever they talk. Maybe he should let Melania handle the calls with Putin from now on.
I forgot the old conservative/Trump goto: since it wouldn't have helped Hillary win anyway, it's not illegal or wrong. Seems to be a whole laundry list of things that didn't 'help' Trump win.
In other news
This is what Trump congratulated Putin on yesterday. Reuters was able to capture several people voting multiple times at different precincts. What I find most ironic is that these guys are easily able to find people who voted more than once yet Republicans never seem to have such proof when accusing Dems of doing this. I guess Republicans just don't own cameras.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/voting-twice-russia-slideshow-wp-201703053.html
So is Trump afraid of Putin? That p$$y Obama can confront Putin but big strongman Trump goes fanboy whenever they talk. Maybe he should let Melania handle the calls with Putin from now on.
A lot of dumbasses have been hurt over the years using that book.
Do you mean like when O'bama told Putin that he would have more latitude after the election? Or maybe when O'bama took the hard hitting position of using a Staples reset button on him?Is Trump afraid of Putin?
I forgot the old conservative/Trump goto: since it wouldn't have helped Hillary win anyway, it's not illegal or wrong. Seems to be a whole laundry list of things that didn't 'help' Trump win.
In other news
This is what Trump congratulated Putin on yesterday. Reuters was able to capture several people voting multiple times at different precincts. What I find most ironic is that these guys are easily able to find people who voted more than once yet Republicans never seem to have such proof when accusing Dems of doing this. I guess Republicans just don't own cameras.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/voting-twice-russia-slideshow-wp-201703053.html
So is Trump afraid of Putin? That p$$y Obama can confront Putin but big strongman Trump goes fanboy whenever they talk. Maybe he should let Melania handle the calls with Putin from now on.
Just as another poster noted, they DID use the same data. There was no psychographic information or strategy.
So it was the exact same as they provided to numerous other parties, almost surely including Hillary.
The only reason anyone is mad is because Trump used it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
*** Official CatsIllustrated Stupid Underdog Pick Contest - Week 6 ***
- Latest: kywildcatsfannumber1