GG @Vlad, you just advanced to level 35!

BIG BOY

Of course it did

You need to provide some evidence.

.3%?

You're just asserting it

Sure, I’m providing evidence

Let’s walk through this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Give me a study

Trump is currently spending millions of dollars on Facebook content

So

This isn't an argument.

It’s called deduction, try to standby

This is a premise

Bloomberg and Dems will spend millions

You have to listen to the whole thing

Is that wrong as well

No I already know your argument.

I'm looking for empirics

You're just asserting something repeatedly.

So trump is spending millions on Facebook advertising, so he believes it is effective

Actually in 2016 trump was outspent by Hillary 4/1

I doubt it's quite effective. tbh

But w/e

Russia spend millions in Facebook advertising on behalf of trump

Trump didn't solicitate it.

So Trump cannot be at fault.

That doesn’t mean in changed any votes

that\s irrelevant

wrong

lol

Therefore there is some amount of Facebook advertising that can swing an election

russia can realistically estimate

which candidate

The special council concluded so.

would suit their

goals better

And Hillary spent more than trump Russia combined

especially when they know

> Therefore there is some amount of Facebook advertising that can swing an election
This isn't proof