Jump to content

8 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

They're desperate, ruthless, and completely unscrupulous.

Had they even one scruple, they would donate the proceeds to the Re-elect Trump campaign.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Posted

 

 

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

They're desperate, ruthless, and completely unscrupulous.

Had they even one scruple, they would donate the proceeds to the Re-elect Trump campaign.

 

   Facebook helped Trump enough last time around. I would rather they get there act together and invest in better ways of eliminating bot's and trolls accounts altogether.

 

   As an aside, I can't figure out why people are still using sites like facebook anyway. 

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Posted
24 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

 

   Facebook helped Trump enough last time around. I would rather they get there act together and invest in better ways of eliminating bot's and trolls accounts altogether.

 

   As an aside, I can't figure out why people are still using sites like facebook anyway. 

How exactly did Facebook help Trump more than they helped Hillary?

morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Posted
27 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

How exactly did Facebook help Trump more than they helped Hillary?

 

   Facebook allowed groups like Cambridge Analytica to continue their campaigns and use of the Facebook platform even after learning of their fraudulent use of data and methods used to obtain said data. They should ban these groups immediately, not after it becomes public knowledge and they are forced to respond.

 

   Clinton had the same platform available obviously. They did not use it to the same effect that the Trump campaign did. I don't claim Facebook is taking sides, just that they don't seem to be able or willing to respond when their platform is used for nefarious purposes. As you see in the article above.

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
16 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Facebook allowed groups like Cambridge Analytica to continue their campaigns and use of the Facebook platform even after learning of their fraudulent use of data and methods used to obtain said data. They should ban these groups immediately, not after it becomes public knowledge and they are forced to respond.

 

   Clinton had the same platform available obviously. They did not use it to the same effect that the Trump campaign did. I don't claim Facebook is taking sides, just that they don't seem to be able or willing to respond when their platform is used for nefarious purposes. As you see in the article above.

Nefarious purposes?  Didn't Obama essentially do the same thing back in 2012 to much praise? 

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Posted
17 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Facebook allowed groups like Cambridge Analytica to continue their campaigns and use of the Facebook platform even after learning of their fraudulent use of data and methods used to obtain said data. They should ban these groups immediately, not after it becomes public knowledge and they are forced to respond.

 

   Clinton had the same platform available obviously. They did not use it to the same effect that the Trump campaign did. I don't claim Facebook is taking sides, just that they don't seem to be able or willing to respond when their platform is used for nefarious purposes. As you see in the article above.

Facebook allowed it because they were getting PAID from CA in order to harvest that data, and the Hillary campaign was doing it as well but apparently not utilizing it to it's full potential. They(FB) didn't care how the data was being used at the time because they honestly thought that Trump was going to lose and who cares because they were getting paid for it. The public and FB only cared about how the data was being used after the election when it came to light that Trump's campaign was using that data more effectively than Hillary's.

 

That is what really struck me is odd is that this kind of data sharing between FB and Social Media as whole to political campaigns has been happening since at least 2012 when Obama's campaign OPENLY did the same that Trump's campaign did. But they got applauded for doing this "revolutionary idea" instead of being vilified like CA and Trump's campaign.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...