Article Trump kicks Labour Party: 'blatant foreign interference' in US election? (UK style)

[Syne]

There's a significant difference between euphemisms and the actual meaning of words.
Too bad some here can't seem to make that simple distinction.

TDS can do that to people.

[confused2]

In fairness to those with OCD .. although eliminating opposition candidates clearly influences (interferes with) the outcome of an election this isn't included in any definition of 'election interference' (that I've seen).

Trunp's us of Cambridge Analytica suggests a dive into using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to gain political advantage. While we don't know how extensive the operation was it might help to explain why so many people have been keen to prosecute him for apparently trivial offences.

Of harvesting facebook records ..

Obama did the same thing? I could be wrong but I'm guessing Obama's team would be quite fluffy.
Cambridge Analytica team .. you have a drink and when you wake up you're in bed with a sheep .. surrounded by cameras. Same thing or not the same thing .. ?

[Secular Sanity]

In fairness to those with OCD .. although eliminating opposition candidates clearly influences (interferes with) the outcome of an election this isn't included in any definition of 'election interference' (that I've seen).

Trunp's us of Cambridge Analytica suggests a dive into using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to gain political advantage. While we don't know how extensive the operation was it might help to explain why so many people have been keen to prosecute him for apparently trivial offences.

Of harvesting facebook records ..

Obama did the same thing? I could be wrong but I'm guessing Obama's team would be quite fluffy.
Cambridge Analytica team .. you have a drink and when you wake up you're in bed with a sheep .. surrounded by cameras. Same thing or not the same thing .. ?

From Syne’s article…I’d say you’d wake up in bed with wolves in sheep's clothing. Friends of a friend with a friend that's a sheep herder. 

"The only difference, as far as we can discern, between the two campaigns' use of Facebook, is that in the case of Obama the users themselves agreed to share their data with the Obama campaign, as well as that of their friends.

The users that downloaded the Cambridge app, meanwhile, were only told that the information would be used for academic purposes. Nor was the data to be used for anything other than academic purposes.

It's an important distinction, to be sure, and Facebook is right to be attacked for its inability to control how its user data were being gathered and shopped around. (Facebook tightened its privacy rules on data sharing apps in 2015.)

But keep in mind that it wasn't the Trump campaign that solicited the collection of the data. And, as we said, it didn't use the data in the general election campaign.

Obama, in contrast, was collecting live data on active users right up until Election Day, and at a scale that dwarfed anything the Trump campaign could access."

[Syne]

In fairness to those with OCD .. although eliminating opposition candidates clearly influences (interferes with) the outcome of an election this isn't included in any definition of 'election interference' (that I've seen).

So you can comprehend the difference after all.
All political campaigns are directly and overtly seeking to "influence the outcome of an election." Whining about that is whining about political campaigning in general.

Trunp's us of Cambridge Analytica suggests a dive into using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to gain political advantage. While we don't know how extensive the operation was it might help to explain why so many people have been keen to prosecute him for apparently trivial offences.

And if those candidates did avail themselves of prostitutes, bribery, etc., they would only have themselves to blame. They obviously couldn't resist the temptations.
Or do you assume otherwise good and upstanding people hire prostitutes and take bribes?

If so, no wonder you support leftists.

[confused2]

I think it's rather sweet that you still think the folks involved in things like setting up honey traps are the sort of folks that will take 'no' for an answer. Just the right drug, either injected or swallowed, is all it takes.

[Syne]

I think it's rather sweet that you still think the folks involved in things like setting up honey traps are the sort of folks that will take 'no' for an answer. Just the right drug, either injected or swallowed, is all it takes.

Do you have evidence of that? No, just wild conspiracy theory, eh?

If you had actually read what CA was accused of, you'd know better.

[confused2]

A few folks I respect have indicated they're going to vote for Trump .. so I predict he's going to win.
My inner conspiracy theorist leads me to believe Cambridge Analytica is what I think it is .. the original academic gathering data .. CA. Data not used .. CA.. Fade out .. CA. Why is it only a UK TV channel looking at CA? .. CA again.

[C C]

A few folks I respect have indicated they're going to vote for Trump .. so I predict he's going to win. [...]

It's irrelevant if those folks live in solid Blue States that will be handing their electoral votes to Kamala. Just as Trump getting a few unexpected votes in robust Red or MAGA states would be trifling. If they're Purple People Eaters, though... Might be a wee bit of a measuring stick.