I'll be honest: There's plenty of information out there that will help you make that comparison. But I don't think it's super-useful unless your goal is to participate in these pointless "but Obama/Hillary did it" debates.
It's happening now and it happened during the Trump campaign (and others -- one massive difference is that Cambridge Analytica used this data for elections around the world). And you should be questioning whether that sort of exploitation of personal data is something that's a good or bad force in the world, whether it scares you or whether you're okay with it.
It's bad, but it should be bad uniformly, not just when the president is disliked by the technocrats. Same with the Russian meddling. Both sides of the aisle are in the Russian pockets, but only Trumps' admin gets the focus. If we are going to clean house, we need to clean the whole house.
> Both sides of the aisle are in the Russian pockets, but only Trumps' admin gets the focus.
This is 100% bullshit. Trump's apparent relationship with Russia goes lightyears beyond whatever made-up conservative fever-dream about Obama or Clinton is floating around out there.
"The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal."
