Technology
Trump campaign used word ‘invasion’ in more than 2,000 Facebook ads
The shooting suspect in El Paso, Texas, warned of an “invasion” in a racist internet screed before allegedly killing 22 people.
Another person fond of the term: President Donald Trump, whose re-election campaign published more than 2,000 Facebook ads using the word “invasion” since January, according to the New York Times.
Before the , when he ranted about “caravans” of immigrants from Central America, Trump also ran racist ads. At least one of them was actually removed by Facebook because it was so awful.
Trump’s ads have come under closer scrutiny this week following Saturday’s mass shooting. The Times reports that Trump’s re-election campaign has spent close to $1.25 million on anti-immigration ads since March 2019, per a report from the Democratic communications firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.
After a lull in April and May, Bully Pulpit reports Trump’s spending on anti-immigration Facebook ads has risen again this summer, surpassing $100,000 in five of the last seven weeks.
Trump condemned racism and hate in a brief speech Monday morning. But the very long list of racist comments in his past expose some serious cognitive dissonance. Now we’ll see if a white supremacist mass murderer using the word “invasion” is enough to stop Trump from using it in his Facebook ads.
-
Business7 days ago
Google Gemini: Everything you need to know about the new generative AI platform
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Hands-on with the Claude AI app: It’s pleasant to use, but janky
-
Business5 days ago
Haun Ventures is riding the bitcoin high
-
Entertainment6 days ago
‘Bridgerton’: Everything you need to remember before Season 3
-
Entertainment3 days ago
Apple Watch Series 9 vs. SE: A smartwatch skeptic tested both for 13 days
-
Business4 days ago
Apple: pay attention to emerging markets, not falling China sales
-
Entertainment4 days ago
5 essential gadgets for turning your home into a self-care sanctuary
-
Business3 days ago
Google dubs Epic’s demands from its antitrust win ‘unnecessary’ and ‘far beyond the scope’ of the verdict