• 1 Post
  • 160 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • Not at all. It just depends on who you’re trying to reach. If your target demo isn’t very specific, you could get many more views at a lower cost.

    If your product is only relevant to 18-35 year olds then that’s probably not a good idea. But if your target demo is basically anyone, then general marketing works well. A Nissan Leaf has a much larger potential market than an Audi E-Tron for instance.

    You can also have separate targeted marketing to ensure specific demos get more focus or have specific targeted variations of the ad campaign.


  • You seem to forget that not all advertising is targeted. Some is just general market advertising and will play everywhere.

    It’s cheaper because it’s not targeted, but also can be a better option depending on what you’re trying to market and who you’re trying to reach. It also means the ads will play to people who don’t care as a side effect.







  • Because that’s the simplest explanation

    No, it’s even simpler than that. The majority don’t pay attention to anything past headlines. There are numerous reasons for this, time, effort, working 3 jobs to make ends meet, etc. And that’s something the Republicans excel at, they have spent the past 60 years developing an entire network of media to spread their propaganda masking it as factual “news”.

    Because people aren’t looking past the headlines… if you break that down and simplify why that is , you get to the base of the average person having a hard time in the current economy. One party telling them that it is hard and they’ll change things, and the other party telling them it’s not actually that bad. If you’re having a hard time and one group keeps insisting that you’re really not, you’re probably going to pick the other side if those are the only options. It’s not rocket science, fuck, it’s not even political science, it’s just ignoring the issue and trying to convince someone being beaten to death by the system that they’re not actually getting beaten.





  • He doesn’t need to pardon himself.

    But he will. No reason to leave that to chance in the future. He already didn’t do that once, requiring him to get back into office. A pardon doesn’t need to be explicit about the crimes it’s pardoning. Just look at Nixon’s pardon as a template:

    Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

    Just change it to Trump’s name and the period to “prior to January 20th, 2025”, and you’ve got a complete federal pardon for anything Trump has *ever *done in his life.



  • Let’s do that instead of trying to ratify citizen petitions, getting collective action, and actually building a unified ideal over time.

    Those work on a local level, not federal. Citizens have no control of anything Federal. The Federal government doesn’t have to listen to the citizens at all. The only consequence for them is during re-election. There they’ll just gerrymander the districts to force a win either way overall.

    The federal government relies on each branch overseeing each other. And the Republicans have a stacked blatantly partisan Supreme Court that gave the office of the President total immunity. And a Republican majority in both sides of Congress completely willing to let Trump do what he wants as far of the plan.

    Fixing this at a federal level will require getting to the exact opposite point we’re at now since we’ve allowed it to get to this point.


  • I have no idea how the Democrats do this shit every fucking time.

    Oh it’s simple. They’re paid by billionaires not to.

    The Democratic party hasn’t been like that for 30+ years, at least the 90s. They’re a fiscally conservative party, and socially liberal. The only “liberal” part of the party is on issues that affect people like LGBTQ support or abortion, not anything dealing with the country or economy. The US hasn’t had an actual liberal party for decades, as soon as they started accepting billions in donor funds.


  • Ah yes, the same rhetoric that got us into this mess. Do nothing that actually makes a difference, but try to “fix” it from within. Meanwhile everything is being stolen with intentional legal loopholes.

    How do you propose removing the two party system, which the two parties comprising the entirety of the government have every incentive to keep because it’s the only reason they have the power they do? The only way, as designed an within the existing system is to get enough representation in to force that change, which means replacing 2/3 of Congress essentially at the same time to force super majorities on both sides.


  • On the bright side… the rest of the world is realizing that being reliant on one country for military power and maintaining stability was a terrible idea. The UN and NATO only have power if the countries are willing to enforce those decisions, and if the US doesn’t, there isn’t really a comparable backup option. The US military was always the elephant in the room keeping things generally less extreme just by its existence and not reacting impulsively.



  • Not only that, it was clear Trump was gaining voters because he said, “yeah, shit’s fucked, I’ll change it” and the Dems kept insisting “it’s really not that bad”. To people who have it hard, one party telling you that you’re just wrong and nothing will change, and the other saying they’ll change things for the better is a pretty obvious choice. Even if they’re lying about making it better, it’s already bad, and your other option is the same bad, why not give it a try?