Slashdot Mirror
Why Do So Many Liberals "Like" Mitt Romney On Facebook?
pigrabbitbear writes "Mother Jones reports that, 'In recent weeks, a host of liberal types have complained that their Facebook accounts have erroneously "liked" Romney's page, and some are floating the theory that the Romney campaign has deployed a virus or used other nefarious means to inflate the candidate's online stature. This conspiratorial notion has spawned a Facebook community forum, and its own page: "Hacked By Mitt Romney" (cute url: facebook.com/MittYouDidntBuildThat)' So what's going on? Is the Romney campaign engaging in some tech wizardry to hijack Americans' Facebook pages? Seems unlikely, but Romney did somehow manage to acquire millions of fake Twitter followers. But it looks like the Romney campaign isn't behind this one — Facebook and its mobile app is."
I'm pretty sure the folks just assumed they were liking a page about an android. Honest mistake, that's all.
This first post brought to you by Obama for President.
The opposite of progress is congress
The thing is, Romney has been on every side of every issue. So there's something to like about him for everyone!
except when he's not.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
My father's account was showing that he liked Paul Ryan this morning.. he most definitely did NOT choose that.
I try not to be overly political on my Facebook account but I do like certain things just to see what some groups I would oppose are up to. Other times I subscribe to the pages of tech companies that I don't like as much as I find it useful to be informed of due to my job. Just because you're on a like list doesn't mean someone likes you.
Some people "like" Romney only to get updates from his social media feed. Think of it as automated 'opposition research'. What Romney days one day, my neighbor repeats the next, so it gives me a leg up.
OK, so I do use Facebook. And yes, I am massively tired of the political ads. But, do I care who has "liked" either candidate? Or, more importantly, will that impact who I vote for; likely not.
Or are we now in an age where the popularity of a candidate on Facebook now is part of how we determine the candidate's potential for office?
I hope not, but am afraid it may be so.
They think a Facebook "like" means something, that it is symbolic of supporting whatever is "liked". It's a pointless mouse-click that most people don't give more than a second of thought to. The only people who actually believe (or say they believe) that "liking" something on Facebook is Facebook itself, in order to promote itself as a great source of ad-revenue or user-data.
Why would you like Barry over Mitt?
These are the stories that people post about on /.? I'll just go ahead and vote anyway if no one minds.
Both campaigns have been doing this...not sure how, but I've been seeing complaints from left-wing friends wondering how the hell they 'liked' Romney's page and a roughly-equal number of complaints from right-wing friends wondering how the hell they 'liked' Obama's page.
I've seen too many complaints about this to believe that it's just mis-clicks or accidents. Somehow or another, the campaigns have been getting into peoples' list of likes without them knowing it.
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu
I'd be willing to be the Obama campaign has an account somewhere that has liked Mitt as well.
It seems like if you can not win, then simply cheat.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Remember the Reichstag!
Nobody believes that you are anything but an Obama supporter trying to "show" everyone what Romney supporters are like.
So nobody is doing any clickjacking, there are plenty of legitimate reasons people who don't "like" Romney might capital-L "Like" Romney's feed, and Facebook's mobile interface is a little cluttered.
This is not a story, this is a series of banal statements including "clickjacking," "Romney," and "Facebook" to drive traffic (and it unfortunately worked on me).
go fuck yourself, seriously, there is no typical obama supporter you twit, just like there is no typical romney support. But your a typical douchebag, so there is that.
Perhaps they just wanted to see what his current platform was by viewing their wall.
Also, it's routine for people to "challenge" the choices of others when those choices are apparently strong and rigid. Maybe some liberals "like" conservative topics/people as a way to show their friends that they've considered those topics/people.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Bless your heart. You must be one of these.
It's done.
You have become World Net Daily.
a host of liberal types have complained that their Facebook accounts have erroneously "liked" Romney's page, and some are floating the theory that the Romney campaign has deployed a virus or used other nefarious means to inflate the candidate's online stature.
I see the ideologues are as disconnected from reality as usual. Keep clinging to your little labels like they matter, though. That;'s working REALLY WELL!
Maw: Who you gonna vote fer?
Paw: I dunno, who you gonna vote fer?
Maw: I think I'ma gonna vote fer Romney.
Paw: Why you gonna do that?
Maw: Well, people on Facebook like him.
Paw: what about all those policies that you disagree with?
Maw: Who cares about that? People on Facebook like him. That's what really matters.
My Heart Is A Flower
Ermahgerd! Teh liburals!! Theys out to getcha!
Why do I have friends on Facebook that "like" pepsi, amex, costco, walmart, etc...
Why do they post religious jesus quotes in cheesy photos of angles or little girls praying, or images with stupid insperational quotes, or stupid photos of things to "like": Like if you don't want to kill kittens, etc...
Tempted many times to simply post on my wall: "Seriously WTF is wrong with you people!"
/. hacked by political propaganda... C'mon. Real stories, please?!?!
go fuck yourself, seriously, there is no typical obama supporter you twit, just like there is no typical romney support. But your a typical douchebag, so there is that.
Well, at least he's behaving better than you (or are you the same person trying to be funny?), not that that is saying much.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I have noticed a ton of my friends that "like" things I know they know nothing about.
For example, a friend of mine that is a stay at home mom that can't use her iPhone "likes" Barracuda networks. When I asked her about this, she was clueless.
I've also seen many other friends liking things that do not fit them at all. I mean, they shouldn't be even seeing ads for these things, so I don't buy TFA's assumption that these are fat-finger issues.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Zuckerberg is always dicking around with it looking for an angle. Maybe he wanted to give Romney a boost, just to see if he can.
Well my facebook page sent status updates stating that I liked obama and it was time to go get a mail in valot and vote, that same day quite a few friends told me about this and they know how much of a Romney advocate I am. I had unliked obama months ago yet this appeared. This is called a false flag to your own people so that velify Romney. I guess if you loose on issues poison the well anyway you can.
the best you can do is chose the one who the press pays the most attention to living up to what he says he will do.
Currently that means only Republicans.
To be fair, the Republican party got a lot of media attention in part because they had, like, 6 people running for the position of a Republican candidate (I'm awful with terminology).
I believe he's taking a 'wide stance' on the abortion issue.
Governor Mitt did some "liberal" things about healthcare when he was governor of Mass. Then as Rep Pres candidate, he was against Obama Care - similar to what he did - WTF?!? Now, he's back to being in favor of it - I think - I lost track.
Paul Ryan is also a flip flopper. As a Congressman, he brought up some important issues about Medicare - like cutting $700+billion to keep it from going bust - and now as Ryan the VP candidate, he's against it.
That's why when the Presidential debates are happening, I tell folks that if I want to see that much hot air, I'll turn my furnace on. Because they are debating issues that the President has little or no control over: taxes (Congress controls that) and the economy - tell me how the President can do anything about unemployment and the economy?
And as far as the VP debates go tonight, I'm going to watch something that is more intelligent and pertinent to the economy and our country: monkeys flinging poo at one another.
If this is a Facebook issue then shouldn't it be hitting the Obama page too? And every other page that you can like?
If you use the number of "likes" (or any other information from Facebook) to make decisions of any kind...you might be a moron.
And I constantly hear about Obama because one of my friends "liked" him. Don't see much difference from the lame ads on youtube and pandora :P
To be fair, the Republican party got a lot of media attention in part because they had, like, 6 people running for the position of a Republican candidate
That's just the last two years.
The media has ignored just about any possibly negative thing to say about Obama over the course of four years; even longer if you include the campaign leading up to the last election.
There would be no such problem with Romney, even after the election is over. The press will gladly latch on to each and every mistake made. Indeed without other Republican candidates in the picture they will look at him ever more closely.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They add a Loathe button.
They don't understand it, so it must be witchcraft. Here's a solution. To get rid of the evil demons that inhabit your iPhone, simply bury it at a crossroads at midnight during a full moon. Problem solved.
Could be. But those people are probably not the same people who are complaining that their facebook account erroneously liked Mr. Romney.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Who the fuck is mitt romney and wtf is a liberal?
MOD PARENT UP
TFA: ...rejected the idea that the Romney camp was engaging in clickjacking...
So, a user clicks on an advert or a story, with no intention of "liking" Mitt, but ends up doing so anyway, without any visual ques that the "like" has occurred... and this is somehow not clickjacking? Isn't that kind of exactly how it works?
Lets see... most liberals have Iphones/Ipads ... ...
Most Apple users consider themselves "Internet experts" and are really clueless
Apple Maps
They click to like the local farmers market/Headshop/Union headquarters...
Apple maps has that listed as "Mit Romney!"
Viola... mystery solved.
Skynet decided to flip a bit to match his flipping style
Table-ized A.I.
I "Like" all my representatives regardless of party and whether or not I agree with them. In essence what I want to do is "follow" them so I can keep tabs on what my representative's PR machine is pumping out.
My work contact in the UK is still convinced Romney isn't real and is an international practical joke being pulled by the US.
Since Obama is carrying over, and mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security) yet receives none of the same negative coverage of same that Bush received - I fail to see how you can possibly make the case that Obama's negative coverage is anywhere near what a Republican would receive.
Romney cannot carry forward the same policies without a ton a negative press. Obama can. That has been proven to us over four years now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Cartoon
This is just a precursor to the election, when many liberals will also unknowingly vote for Romney- some of them several times.
Exactly. My girlfriend's account auto-started liking our mayor of Houston, even though she explicitly never "liked" it nor ever commented on the mayor. It's a side-effect of the mobile app.
I can't wait for an attempted lawsuit against Facebook because someone has mental anguish over their account "liking" something they vehemently dislike.
I'm sure this is futile, since you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier, but here we go:
a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks
Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.
claims to hate the oil industry while taking huge donations from BP before the oil spill.
Any politician wil take any money offered. If Koch offered Obama money he'd take it, if Michael Moore offered Romney money, he'd take it just as quickly.
On the other hand, during the Republican debates Romney said he wants Roe v Wade overturned, two nights ago said he wouldn't outlaw abortion.
I do agree with you on one thing: The press does not care at all what Democrats will do, and rationalize any action they take. However, the same goes for Republicans. The "liberal media" is a myth; ABC only looks liberal compared to Fox or Rush, who are slightly to the right of Mussolini.
At least when you vote Republican you know the press will do their damnedest to catch them out in something
That's pure laziness; the Republicans make it easy.
Free Martian Whores!
Because Fuck You. That's why.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
You don't understand. When Romney changes a position, it's called "flip flopping".
When Obama changes a position, it's called "evolving".
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Most likely they're confused about Sponsored posts appearing in their News Feed. Most of the time when I see posts from things I don't agree with they've been posts that were bought and paid for to appear in my feed. As I live in Florida and I've marked myself as an independent, I get both Romney and Obama posts in my feed even though I haven't "liked" either one. The worst are the local election ones that aren't as professional and look like some random spam bot or virus posting political crap.
Because American "liberals" are closer to the conservatives in most other countries. There is no left-wing in the US anymore, only 50 shades of right.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Congress kicked and screamed. They, at one point, threatened to withhold funding for moving the prisoners (which would have meant a group of people currently charged with no actual crimes whatsoever would have had to be released and sent back to their home countries. Oh boo-hoo.)
But Obama made the decision to keep it open, and was the only one with executive authority to do so.
Let's be straight here. The GP was right on the money. Any liberal who votes for Obama without holding their nose at this election is a fucking tool.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security)
The drone strikes was part of his original campaign. He stated that he would strike in Pakistan with them and all the other candidates said they would not. I completely support this.
Now "attacking Libya for freedom"? Can you explain what you are trying to say here? We are attacking Libya for freedom? That makes no sense. We have no troops in Libya. We are not attacking an abstract idea in Libya.
Warrantless wiretapping, yes I would like to see this stopped.
funneling government money to large corporations
You do realize that the Republicans are the greatest the supporters of corporate welfare? The amount this is happening under Obama vs Bush is laughable. It's like complaining about a couple drops of water in the desert vs being on the bottom of the ocean.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Democrats in 2012 acting like Republicans from 2004
And folks wonder why 3rd parties are gaining more traction.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
Can you give me an example of promises that Romney has made during this campaign that conflict with each other? I'm not saying that he hasn't, but I do not know of any and would like your enlightenment.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Like" in Facebook is used to indicate interest, as in "I'd like to see more stuff like this." So when someone says something like:
It's basically a misunderstanding of what Facebook means when someone says they like something. This is a problem, because it's not easily resolved. You could add a "show me more stories like this" button, but that's not an action word so it's more confusing and doesn't evoke the same emotional response. You could add a "dislike" button, but then you have the question of how you interpret the dislike. Do you show them more things like that assuming they like to dislike it, or do you show them fewer assuming that they dislike disliking it.
Does anyone else have any ideas about how you can resolve this and still retain an intuitive, uncluttered interface that people would want to use?
My wife's friends were a little shocked about a month ago when her Facebook page showed that she "Liked" Walmart. My wife loves shopping, but she wouldn't be caught dead in a Walmart. There are rumblings out there that Facebook is inserting these likes into people's pages without their consent.
Funny thing is that if Obama were getting mysterious 'likes' from conservatives, and conspiracy theories were bandied about by Republicans, your post which blames the users would have gone up in moderation instead of down. And there would have been many voices urging the use of Occam's Razor.
The only thing I find distasteful is your last sentence. However, for those who would rationalize this Anon's down-voting because of his abrasive final sentence, consider this post from above which hasn't been modded down
you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
If you like Obama, "like" Romney. Romney's campaign runners will look at the numbers and think they're doing great and not work as hard as they could, Obama's will work harder, then BLAMMO! Come election day, four more years!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/209720568/scat/b8de8e630faf3631/ht/NYT-Militants-targeted-for-US-reprisal
If we're targeting militants for reprisal attacks, we have boots on the ground carrying out recon for target painting, if not direct commando assaults. And yes, it was in theory about "freedom of the Libyan people", because the impitus in attacking Libya was that Ghaddafi planned on leveling Benghazi, the stronghold of those opposing his regime who had risen up during the Arab Spring. As the Arab Spring was (in theory, not in practice) about a popular democratic uprising (and it was in the Europeans backyard), the Europeans, mainly the French, wanted to go in there and save those people, and Obama felt obligated to honor our ALliance with France (NATO) and support them.
Drone strikes were a part of his original campaign. Obama said in his campaign that he would order attacks on terrorists in Pakistan. In other words, he clearly stated that he would send armed drones into the sovereign air space of another country who is ostensibly our ally, without their permission, and bomb their citizens (because they're terrorists). He has carried through on this campaign promise with gusto, and our relationship with Pakistan has dramatically suffered for it. Yes, Bush started it, but the number of attacks has increased 5 fold under Obama.
Stupid people who don't understand the sponsored pages? I keep seeing this romney page, but I never liked it...
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
You speak as though changing your opinion is something that happens in isolation. A politician changing his opinions because he becomes better informed about an issue, or because the realities of the situation change, is laudable. A politician changing opinions because he thinks the new stand will make him more popular this week is not. The media (on both sides) tries hard to portray them as equivalent, but they are not. In a representative democracy, you elect someone to make the decisions that you would make if you were to spend the time studying the issues. Someone who changes their mind when they become better informed will continue making the same decisions that you'd want made. Someone who panders to the electorate may decide after the election that a different subset is easier to sway than you and stop representing you.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
On the other hand, during the Republican debates Romney said he wants Roe v Wade overturned, two nights ago said he wouldn't outlaw abortion.
There is a difference there, you realize. Overturning RvW would not make abortion illegal. It would open the door for more restrictions. Romney himself would not be outlawing abortion, simply making it possible for states to do so. That really is not inconsistent.
You have an article with no author from a news organization operating out of the UAE talking about what the CIA is planning to do in Libya.
I would suggest taking that with a grain of salt, but also remember we have no troops on the ground in Yemen or Pakistan, but we still go after targets there.
I just have no clue what he meant by "attacking Libya for freedom", I can't make those words make sense.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
OK in order:
The President tried to close Gitmo and was shut down by the Republicans on the theory that somehow the people there were so dangerous even a maximum security prison in the U.S. wasn't safe enough.
Obama said strait up in the campaign he was going to focus more on winning in Afghanistan, you seem to be confusing the president with someone else, are you Clint Eastwood by chance?
Obama and liberals only hate the lack of regulation on Wall Street, and they hate it because every time they make a mess we (D and R alike) always are forced to rush in and clean it up with public funds.
What bad pro oil legislation did Obama try to pass for this money?
Sorry, Obama is MUCH more consistent than Romney. Lean the facts next time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You've been intentionally avoiding them. Tax plans, abortion, health care, opinions on the "47%," it takes a thick layer of willful ignorance or perhaps a carefully filtered media intake to not notice what he's doing.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20
Yes, I've seen this happen as well, only with Amazon. WTF is going on Facebook?
He campaigned on getting out of Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan and that is exactly what he did. Did he ever say he wouldn't conduct drone strikes? No.
He has never claimed to hate Wall Street, he believes they should be better regulated. He has never claimed to hate the oil industry either, just that it should be regulated as well.
Other people addressed your other comments. You are the typical sheep type who believes in an Obama that doesn't exist. You are uninformed because you get your news from rubbish sites...probably fox news or drudge or that type. Mitt has flipped on things within months and even days. There is no way to know what the guy will do in office because he has taken every position. Obama has been consistent, if not perfect. So grow the heck up, because you are clueless.
Both of the major parties have done ill to the everyday citizen, for about as long as any one of us have been alive. I hope that I will live long enough to see my country actually be lead by someone not in the Republocratic or Demican parties such to start dismantling this machine of corruption, deception, and death.
Short of that, the best solution is a majority (but barely, no veto overrides) of one party, and an executive of another party, and that they each said nasty things about each others' mothers. Because when it's time to get unified on shit, it always seems to pour down to the peons (PATRIOT Act, Copyright Extension++, DMCA, wiretaps, war on drugs, etc etc etc)
So you want to have Bush/Obama lock people away for no 'reason', torture them, then release them onto the street. Imagine that had been you. Then what? The legal liability would be enormous, assuming the Taliban sympathizers didn't escalate to terrorism. The alternative would be to take them all to trial and suffer the 'not guilty' verdicts. Obama simply wanted to stop feeding the legal quagmire called Git-mo. He didn't want to close it down because that was a worse problem.
As the GP post reveals, Obama has escalated a number of the Bush/Cheney mis-deeds. This is not one of them.
http://mittromneysflipflops.com/
I took a quick perusal and there was a pretty good list. Anybody who doesn't think Romney is a serial flip-flopper has their head in the sand.
Sure, Obama and every politician does to some extent, but Mitt takes the cake.
Correction: He didn't want to free the prisoners because that was a worse problem.
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
I think the negative lashing out was more about the press being convinced he stole the election, because we didn't spend the next year and a half auditing every hanging chad in the country.
Of course, with tools like these the framework is being put in place call any election for "the other guy" rigged.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Funneling money to business and funneling money to SPECIFIC businesses is completely different. In the words of Mittens: "You don't just pick the winners and losers, you just pick the losers".
I'm going to say this as slowly and concisely as possibly. Washington Mutual was solvent when the FTB and OTS sold them to Chase. Rinse, Lather , Repeat for almost every bank taken over.
Ummmmm. Bush bailed out the banks. Obama bailed out the auto industry. Let's not change history just yet.
Funneling money to business and funneling money to SPECIFIC businesses is completely different
Halliburton
At least Obama doesn't own stock in the firms he has been trying to help, and he has been trying to help them, not doing it for personal profit.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
Obama pushed to close it, Congress balked.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
Ended the Iraq war. Supported the idea that we either commit to completing the effort in Afghanistan or get the hell out. And what is your point about drone strikes? You don't agree with them morally? Because without them we would be using far more destructive missile strikes.
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks and companies run by democratic campaign donors
You realize that TARP was entirely paid back plus interest don't you? Also, guess who Wall Street has donated the most too this election cycle--Mitt Romney. They must have really hated Obama's policies to be bailing on him now.
claims to hate the oil industry while taking huge donations from BP before the oil spill.
Does hate the oil industry--he has denied several attempts by the oil industry to push through back room deals. The Keystone pipeline, attempts to empty the oil reserves, and he attempted to remove Oil Industry subsidies (Congress voted to keep them) He supported alternative energy which backfired on him when China intentionally undercut the solar market.
Currently that means only Republicans
You are living in Denial buddy. How do you justify warping reality to meet your views? It's all a conspiracy against you and conservatives, eh?
Not everybody at Gitmo is innocent, some were caught red handed trying to blow up Americans. The idea of sending them back to try again seems kind of crazy.
I read the internet for the articles.
Oh, that reminds me...
http://impliedinference.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/asio9stcaaamjla.jpg
Obama Plasmids
So... they're both fish out of water, and they both react according to their beliefs.
*G - capitalize the first letter of a sentence.
*O - capitalize proper nouns.
*comma between "supporter" and "twit" - Lrn2clauses.
*R - capitalize proper nouns.
*You're - THIS was written specifically for YOU. Yes, you personally.
~~~~ Your Friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi.
No, that's not what he's saying. Pay attention. They're not "out to get" anyone, they're just retarded and like to blamestorm once their failures come to light. See "precious snowflake syndrome".
This is why Values of a Statesman, even one you disagree with much of the time, is more valuable to me than flipflopping (evolving) politician. Politicians say things to get elected, statesmen state their values, and why it matters and vote accordingly. Given the choice, I'd vote for Principled Socialist than a wish washy Psuedo Libertarian. At least I know what I'm getting.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You realize that overturning Roe is not the same as outlawing abortion?
Barracuda Networks has a paid ad on facebook now. So does Mitt Romney. Dumb people just click "like" on the "sponsored pages" that show up on their screen.
Half of the inmates have left guantanamo to be tried in their respective countries. You can't just instantly close a facility like that, it takes time to figure out what to do with each person. A lot of progress has been made in closing it. Sure he promised to close it, he promised a lot of things. I'll take 50% closed over 0%.
All incoming presidents fail to live up to their promises, Obama has surely over-promised and under-delivered. But he is still pointed in a direction I can agree with, while Romney, well, I don't know what direction he's pointed in. His compass is broken.
How is this tech news?
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks
Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.
Don't forget the bailout happened under Bush. Obama bailed out the auto companies, but that's a different thing entirely that's consistent (for better or worse) with the Democratic party's stand on unions and worker's rights.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
It seems that even some liberals got tired of complete zero.
JAM
The truth hurts, eh?
Geeks should vote out Obama because he's the No.1 stooge of Big Media. Obama owes his election to Big Media. Even that supposed bastion of rightwing misinformation, Fox News, has been relatively nice to Obama. Why? Because Murdoch knows Obama and the Democrats have been pushing the Big Media agenda in terms of favorable regulation and persecution. Republicans are less inclined to support Big Media because its conservative wing frowns on the sex, violence, profanities, etc, of pop music and the movies.
accidentally clicking on a Romney ad or a “sponsored story” from the Romney campaign in their news feed.
Why is it that clicking on ANYTHING but a like button generates a like? Perhaps people say the "sponsored story" and wanted to read it, now all of a sudden they "like" the person? Clicking on an ad "likes" the ad?
The issue isn't fat fingering. The issue is Facebook liking things for you, even when you didn't ask it to.
In this case, of course, choosing Republican means Mitt.
Except when he says he's pro-choice, then against it, then says another weasel thing this week that makes it sound like he doesn't want to repeal Roe vs. Wade, then has to correct himself soon afterwards.
Except when he says he's against government mandated health care, but he strongly fought for and signed a bill doing basically exactly the same thing that "Obamacare" does. If he honestly changed his mind, that would be fine, but I've never heard him say one word against his state's health care law. That makes him a hypocrite.
BTW, I'm a Republican, I switched to vote for Ron Paul in 2008 (in the primary of course). But in this case, I'd rather vote for someone who is at least _more_ consistent, even if it's consistent in things I largely don't agree with. (I DO agree with some of the previous examples given.. I'd much rather have them use drone strikes than have our soldiers get killed.) Plus, I semi-seriously think he deserves a vote JUST for getting rid of Bin Laden. Romney said we shouldn't even keep going after him.
So some of those liberals that "like" him may have "liked" him for the purposes of trolling the page.
Or maybe it's because he's the most liberal Republican presidential candidate since ... well since ... come to think of it I can't remember a Republican candidate as liberal as Mitt. It sure pulled the rug out from under Obama's feet in the debate.
It is a very basic and simple to understand phenomenon: When a candidate promises "Change" to a population of voters, who elect himj enthusiastically on that promise, and then turns his back on those voters when elected, turning to advisors who advised the toady to the military-industrial and financial corporation oligarchy that he replaced, asking them to direct him, and doing as they direct, the candidate betrays the voters who elected him and betrays the trust and faith they placed in him.
When the candidate then runs for re-election he presents those who voted for him before with a choice: Vote for Anyone Else, or condone being lied to, which also puts a seal-of-approval on the screw-the-people-and-the-constitution and engage in aggressive foreign wars policies, the imprisonment-without-trial and assassination programs, the welfare-give-aways to military-industrial and financial corporation "super-people", etc. etc. that the candidate has adopted that you voted for him to vote against last time, when you voted for the "Change" he promsed he would bring.
You repeat this pattern, voting the liar out, every four years, doing it again and again until the system explodes or a candidate runs who does push for real change.
Being Liberal does not mean being a brain-damaged sheep, even if Obama and his sponsors would like it to, and a Republican who respects the constitution is a respectable choice aganst a Democrat who does not, whether the corporate-owned media wants us to think so or not.
It was the Silence. Enough said.
Unfortunately, I know the author of FB site mentioned from a job quite some time ago... We live in the same town, but couldn't be called close.
Mark is not particularly left wing, or alarmist...
But, If you look at the start of the timeline, you will see his COMPETENT research into how, when and why something was clicked that made him "like" Rmoney's page... I'm sure he would have let it go, if there was a FB mobile app goof... but he could find nothing conclusive... That is kinda strange in and of itself.
I am liberal and I wish I could make you shut up. You sound like a fat hog-fuck.
"Facebook confirms it is scanning your private messages for links to increase Like counters"
http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2012/10/04/facebook-confirms-it-is-scanning-your-private-messages-for-links-so-it-can-increase-like-counters/
So basically if you message someone "Hey, check out this pages that shows how stupid Romney is http://...." facebook considers that as a "like" for Romney
a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.
How does "moving Gitmo to US territory" count as "trying to close it"? Congress wouldn't let him relocate Gitmo to a different place. He never tried to close it.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.
I notice that you ignored the "double down on drone strikes" part. How someone who has wildly (and single-handedly) expanded an unmanned drone strike program has not been stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize, I will never know.
You have a point in your other responses.
Well, launching cruise missiles at targets does count as an attack. Admittedly, not one where you get American troops killed, but we most assuredly attacked Libya for the purpose of "freeing their people". He might have worded it awkwardly, but I'd say that we all know what he meant.
Yeah, not sure why you think it would be not a big deal to let people at Gitmo go. Sure, it's a shady setup, but there is zero doubt that most of those people are there because they did exactly what they were accused of. Hell, one former Gitmo inmate that got released is actually speculated to be one responsible for assassinating Yemen's security chief just recently. These people need to go somewhere, maybe not Gitmo, but definitely not back on the street under any circumstances.
Well it's consistent with their stand on unions anyway.
And Obama got elected handily on the strength of those concrete promises. Is it better to make concrete promises to get elected and then break them once in office, or to be wishy-washy and evasive during the campaign, where you can be called out on it? Am I supposed to admire Obama for having a strong position that he entirely failed to live up to, or Romney for not having a program with hard goals that he won't live up to either?
Vote for what you don't want, and you'll be sure to get it.
I don't care if Abe Lincoln was running as a socialist, I'm not voting for socialists. You can be a wise, well meaning person who still supports policies that will ruin your country. The fact that you were well meaning and the ruin was despite your best efforts comes as cold comfort when things go to hell because you back a poor policy.
I agree that all things being equal, I want someone with principles in office, but sometimes principles can make you do really dumb things too. There has been more than one statesman who has backed the wrong side of an argument with tact, grace, and eloquence.
I have a friend who views the Like button like a Subscribe button.
I can't say that he's totally wrong.
Obama had positions in the last campaign that he has "evolved" from since then. To be truly fail and open minded, if you don't consider those, and evidently you don't, then you can't consider Romney's. So, I ask again for an example of promises that Romney has made in this campaign that conflict with each other. All you've listed is categories. Saying "Tax Plans" does not qualify as an example. I'm looking for something like, "I will not raise taxes on the middle class" and "We must all pay the burden of the debt".
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I do consider those (although the only one I can think of that he's admitted to is gay rights). There are many areas where he hasn't practiced what he's preached but hasn't come out and said that his opinion or position has changed (transparency, war in Afghanistan, IP issues) - and I consider failure to meet a goal or hypocrisy to be worse than a (slowly or consistently) changing position.
Since you're being lazy or obtuse or looking through glasses that are rose-tinted to the point of opacity, here, have a spoon-feeding:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romneys-top-contradicting-comments/story?id=14805513
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82058.html
These are the most blatant, undeniable, concrete examples, but there are plenty more where he bends sweet lady truth into a pretzel that could be considered flip-flopping, such as:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-lies-newt-gingrich-super-pac-ads_n_1195119.html
I think we need some of that new quantum state measurement tech to figure out his position on abortion:
http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html
DON'T LOOK:
https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+flip-flop
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ah, the Helpless Bystander Fable, the liberal equivalent of the GOP's "no one could have predicted" excuse for Katrina. As if a new Democratic Congress really would have overridden a veto from a popular president fresh off a landslide election. Furthermore, even if Congress actually counted the votes and told Obama they would override his veto, he would still have had 10 days to veto the first bill - more than enough time to transfer all the prisoners to facilities on the mainland.
Please.
And even then, even if Congress had overridden Obama's veto, there's nothing stopping him from sending an Article III judge to the island to conduct civilian trials. So, at the end of the day, the Helpless Bystander Fable dies by a thousand cuts....he's sort of like Kenny that way.
As has been throughally documented by now, Obama never intended to end what makes Gitmo the FUBAR that is is: indefinite detention without trial. He just wanted to move it to Illinois. The only way Congress could have prevented Obama from closing Gitmo was by quickly impeaching him. How many Democratic votes do you think there would have been for that?
That he opposed at the time as a state legislator. Since Obama has launched drone wars as president in a half dozen more countries that haven't attacked us, there's little doubt that today's Obama would have supported the invasion and occpuation of Iraq. Which was ended on the timeline set up by Bush, not Obama....who wanted to extend it but the Iraqi's said "hell no" to legal immunity for American forces.
Because "the insurgency is in it's last throws", echoing Dick Cheney circa 2004. The surge did not work - it supported Karzai right after he stole the election - and we will be there far, far longer than two years.
Nonsense. The bailout saved the bankers, not the economy. It re-inflated their worthless credit swap assets, let them go on paying out hundreds of billions in bonuses, and not a single banker has gone to jail for the largest fraud in history. The S&L crisis, which saw around a thousand prosecutions, was 1/70th of the size of the one from 2008. And if that wasn't bad enough, Obama's bailouts made for the largest transfer of wealth in history, as banks were bailed out by taxpayer dollars, but were not forced to write down mortgages for the benefit of the taxpayer - a concession that the Bush Administration was willing to make but left the decision for the next president. If McCain had won the election, there's a real chance that a few million people might not have lost their homes.
Oh, and we have slid into a depression. The only reason it's not as bad as the one from the 30's is public spending and the safety net of food stamps and unemployment benefits. Obama doesn't want to cut those, but he does want to cut Medicare, SS, and already has cut home heating assistance.
Troll? The "overrated" was legit but troll? I guess "troll" is the moderation for "it's true but makes me uncomfortable." Some people should never get mod points!
Free Martian Whores!
Deflection. Everybody knows that Obama has broken his promises. The question remains, why are you suddenly clueless of Romney's status as a flip-flopper extraordinaire.
Because facebook 'likes' any page you visit, automatically:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19832043
Fuck facebook.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
What planet are you from, where Bush received negative press? You forgetting how the media marched in lockstep support of the Iraq invasion or how minor details like massively illegal surveillance of non-suspects were suppressed for the 2004 election?
American establishment media is uniformly authoritarian, pro-establishment and pro-military-industrial complex. That was true under Bush, it's true under Obama, and it would be true if Romney wins the election.
Hello fellow Slashdotters. Glad to see this topic is getting attention here. I'm the guy who started the Hacked by Mitt Romney Facebook group.
I was unknowingly signed up for Mitt Romney's page back on August 23rd. It was news to me that I was a Romney fan, but there I was, listed as a fan on his page. As an old-school geek who's been on the Internet for 20 years and works as a sysadmin (you know, they guy who tells others in the office not to click on things), I am certain that I did not click on anything by mistake.
Curiously, Facebook's Activity Log shows every like I've registered on the service since my account was created, yet it DOESN'T show me ever liking Mitt Romney's page. That's the biggest clue that this is some sort of hack. If I screwed up and clicked on something by mistake, this should be reflected in the Activity Log, right? But it's not. Then again, maybe I'm a super-hacker, able to scrub entries from Facebook records. But probably not!
I emailed Bill Pennington, the expert that the Mother Jones reporter contacted, asking him for his thoughts. He replied:
"Sadly the people that hold all the cards are FB and I don’t really buy their story of accidental clicks on the mobile site, maybe some but not all."
My own research shows that there's virtually no way what happened to me (at least) is due to Facebook mobile. All of that is on my blog, www.markturner.net.
I am very, very angry that someone (perhaps Romney's campaign, perhaps someone working on his behalf) would put words into my mouth and hijack my online reputation for a cause in which I do not believe. I have little faith that Facebook will be forthcoming on how this is happening.
What I DO hope is that other Slashdot users can help uncover more of what's going on. Am I completely wrong? Overlooking something basic? Why do so many Facebook users report the same thing, even those without smartphones?
Mark Turner
Hacked by Mitt Romney Facebook group
Let's be straight here. The GP was right on the money. Any liberal who votes for Obama without holding their nose at this election is a fucking tool.
Agreed, mostly, though I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'll be "holding my nose."
Problem is there's no viable candidate to replace him. Romney has made it very clear that he's got every intention of bringing back the massive tax cuts for the wealthy and debt spending of the '80s and the W years. I'd need someone to hold a gun to my head before I'd consider voting for that.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
several of my quite conservative friends have found pro-obama crap in their timelines; which came from nowhere
I seriously did not know what he meant, I didn't know if he thought we were attacking Libya trying to prevent their freedom, or if he meant that we were attacking the freedom of the Libyan people in some other way, or if we were attacking Libya so that we could gain more freedom.
Considering the stupid shit I have heard come out of peoples mouths I was not taking anything for granted.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
But Obama made the decision to keep it open, and was the only one with executive authority to do so.
This is back when he was still trying to compromise and appease the GOP. Why else do you think he took a GOP healthcare idea and ran with it first?
(The universal mandate goes back to the HEART Act in 1993, co-sponsored by no less than 20 Republicans. Many of those now repudiate the Affordable Care Act even though they were pushing basically the same thing two decades ago.)
The biggest problem this President has is that he made the mistake of trying to work from consensus when a little less than half the country hates him for completely irrational reasons and will denounce anything he tries, even if it was their idea in the first place.
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them
Fact-check time.
Over half of the campaign promises tracked on PolitiFact have been kept or resulted in a compromise. Only 17% have actually been "broken".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
here's an idea. FUCK FACEBOOK! try to borrow money from any of your "friends" on facebook and see what happens. facebook is not real. we are a nation of morons. that's real. this illusion of "social" networking is truly the saddest part of our mindset. it is childish and needs to be put in the same category as belief in the tooth fairy. step back and look at yourself as you "like" someone or something you care absolutely nothing about. what is wrong with us?
For one simple purpose: Trolling.