New CBS Poll: Voters think the Russia Investigation was a Hoax.

[MAGAman]

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

So a few Russian ads couldn't have possibly had an effect on the election.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

Yes and anyone influenced by those biased ads is an idiot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

Yes and anyone influenced by those biased ads is an idiot.

Clearly companies and politicians think ads are effective as billions are spent on them each year. Companies pay millions for 30 seconds during a football game.

Do you think maybe they know something you do not

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

There I agree. Stupid people can be stupid on TV or online.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

Yes and anyone influenced by those biased ads is an idiot.

Clearly companies and politicians think ads are effective as billions are spent on them each year. Companies pay millions for 30 seconds during a football game.

Do you think maybe they know something you do not

They know many people are stupid sheep.

 

[the other mike]

 

[kyzr]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

 

[The Original Tree]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

The cbs poll doesnt use the word hoax, it says right there, "politically motivated". This is the poll that found most people want the full Mueller report released.

Politically Motivated Hoax, as even The Partisan and Biased so called Mueller Report, despite their attempts to frame the man had to admit that they were unable to find Russian Collusion or even to recommend a single crime for which anyone could indict The President with.

 

[The Original Tree]

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Hillary Clinton spent $1.5 Billion dollars on Advertising and even blasted Conservative Radio Stations with her ads 24-7.
A couple of people from Russia, spent about $50k a piece on ads on both Facebook and Twitter which 95% of America did not see.
They were simple Memes, and humorous takes on the election, and they were both For Trump and Against Trump, for Hillary and Against Hillary, and they amused or infuriated some people, but they did not change a single vote.

That's the equivalent of throwing a single bucket of water in to Lake Erie and thinking you can raise the water level an imperceptible width of a hair.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

So, you are saying that ads work, just not political ones?

I think they work the same. I hate Nike shoes going all the way back to my high school days, so no Nike ad will change my mind.

But an ad for a computer game or a golf course might sway me to check them out.

Political ads are the same, if you are a partisan no ad will do a thing for you except maybe strengthen your views when your party attacks the other one.
But not everyone is as set on who they will vote for as you or I.

 

[The Original Tree]

I think we need to subpoena all White House Communications with The Clinton Campaign, and The DNC, COIE Lawfirm, and FUSION GPS, Chris Steele, and Skirpal to see exactly what they were plotting and who gave the order.

Then we need to have James Comey, and McCabe open up their books, and we need to subpoena all records and activities associated with Cross Fire Hurricane.

 

[The Original Tree]

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

So, you are saying that ads work, just not political ones?

I think they work the same. I hate Nike shoes going all the way back to my high school days, so no Nike ad will change my mind.

But an ad for a computer game or a golf course might sway me to check them out.

Political ads are the same, if you are a partisan no ad will do a thing for you except maybe strengthen your views when your party attacks the other one.
But not everyone is as set on who they will vote for as you or I.

You have to be a DOPE, to think something like this which was not seen by 95% of the Public would change a single vote.

 

[The Original Tree]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

The cbs poll doesnt use the word hoax, it says right there, "politically motivated". This is the poll that found most people want the full Mueller report released.

Your Meme counts as ELECTION INTERFERENCE!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That was not my question. Let me rephrase it...

If a TV ad or a radio ad can change a person’s mind, is it really out of the realm of possibilities that something on social media also could?

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

So, you are saying that ads work, just not political ones?

I think they work the same. I hate Nike shoes going all the way back to my high school days, so no Nike ad will change my mind.

But an ad for a computer game or a golf course might sway me to check them out.

Political ads are the same, if you are a partisan no ad will do a thing for you except maybe strengthen your views when your party attacks the other one.
But not everyone is as set on who they will vote for as you or I.

You have to be a DOPE, to think something like this which was not seen by 95% of the Public would change a single vote.

Was that one of the ads from your group?

 

[The Original Tree]

1. A TV ad or a radio ad can't change a person's mind unless they have a very low IQ. Most of us can smell an ad that's bullshit, i.e. goes against our knowledge base.
2. Same for social media ads, unless you are very low IQ and can't dispute the factual basis for the ad, you won't be influenced.
3. If you are very partisan, and the ad supports your position, true or not you'd believe it. But that's not changing someone's mind.
4. Look at Tom Steyer's ads. They are very anti-Trump and constantly call for impeachment. If you are a democrat, and think impeachment guarantees Trump's re-election, will Tom change your mind? If you are GOP or Independent, same idea, who if anyone would change their mind on impeachment due to Tom Steyer ads??

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

So, you are saying that ads work, just not political ones?

I think they work the same. I hate Nike shoes going all the way back to my high school days, so no Nike ad will change my mind.

But an ad for a computer game or a golf course might sway me to check them out.

Political ads are the same, if you are a partisan no ad will do a thing for you except maybe strengthen your views when your party attacks the other one.
But not everyone is as set on who they will vote for as you or I.

You have to be a DOPE, to think something like this which was not seen by 95% of the Public would change a single vote.

Was that one of the ads from your group?

It's one of the dumb Russian Memes that The Left said was a threat to our Democracy.

Here is another.

And another.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. It seems pretty much every company in existence disagrees with you. They spend billions of dollars a year paying for these ads for a reason. This year companies were willing to pay 5.3 million dollars for a 30 second ad in the Super Bowl.
Do you have any business experience at all?

2. See above. Similar money is spent on social media ads.

3. I agree, partisans believe what they want, we see it daily on this forum.

Apples and oranges. If Nike has a new sneaker then I may buy it. But I am not voting for a candidate because of an ad. Especially for POTUS. HRC spent way more than Trump and he still won. Advertising is far from an exact science.

So, you are saying that ads work, just not political ones?

I think they work the same. I hate Nike shoes going all the way back to my high school days, so no Nike ad will change my mind.

But an ad for a computer game or a golf course might sway me to check them out.

Political ads are the same, if you are a partisan no ad will do a thing for you except maybe strengthen your views when your party attacks the other one.
But not everyone is as set on who they will vote for as you or I.

You have to be a DOPE, to think something like this which was not seen by 95% of the Public would change a single vote.

Was that one of the ads from your group?

It's one of the dumb Russian Memes that The Left said was a threat to our Democracy.

Here is another.

And another.

I know what they are. Just wondering if the cell you are part of in Russia made these?

 

[the other mike]

This is great news for President Trump. Not so great for Democrats. Democrats would be wise to drop this and move on.

Any logical human can gauge that it was a stupid witch hunt. Even if Russia did interfere they did so via social media ads. What morons would base their vote on social media brainwashing? Maybe JoeB and Clayton Jones? Is this why they are so upset?

Russia didn’t change votes so this is a nothing burger. Just like the Kavanaugh bs. All political idiotic theater.

In 2016 more than a billion dollars was spent on advertising, to include social media ads.

Is an ad on TV or the radio any different than in social media?

TV & radio ads (IMHO) reach many more people than social media ads. I do not use Facebook. I don't think many men over 30 do. Do you think that men actually watch FB ads? I'm thinking that women watch ads more than men, being more avid shoppers.
69% of U.S. adults use at least one social media site. 88% of American 18- to 29-year-olds use social media.
Gender differences in social network service use - Wikipedia

So to answer your question, yes ads on TV or radio are different in that they cost much more, and reach many more people. They also sell products, as opposed to being political opinions/spin. Only billionaire Tom Steyer seems to be able to afford political ads on TV.

With or without social media, American men under 30 are generally clueless about politics.