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.
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?"
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.
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.
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
You can buy Facebook likes, Google +1s or Twitter followers by the thousands, and this is probably what the campaign teams have been doing. I don't know how the sellers get their likes though. It could be a lot of fake accounts, it could be worms hidden in games or maybe Facebook itself selling likes.
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!"
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.
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.
Because I think social conservatives are busybody prudes, and I don't believe in supply side economics.
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!
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.
Because I think social conservatives are busybody prudes, and I believe in trickle-down government.
FTFY
sudo make me a sandwich
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.
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.
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.
It's fake accounts.
He was liberal enough for the people of Massachusetts, which is saying a lot. Not many States are bluer than that one.
This is why I don't support him. Romney is a liberal. Meanwhile, idiots like you are calling him a conservative. Its laughable how you just say the stuff Democrats have been programmed to say for so many years, even when they clearly and obviously do not apply. The guy implemented Obamacare before it was known as Obamacare, even before Pelosi adopted it. He is fill-blown liberal, an opinion I base on his track record.. his actions, not on his words.
Please don't vote. People that get even the obvious stuff wrong shouldn't be allowed to.
"His name was James Damore."
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
Believing that either candidate is outright dumb really just shows how effective attack ads and slanted news reporting are. If you believe the news, then fumbling your words in a high-pressure speech or situation where anyone would be nervous makes you stupid...unless you're Obama.
"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?
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.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because I think social conservatives are busybody prudes, and I don't believe in supply side economics, so I'd never vote for any republican, because I want to make sure the republican nutcases in the senate and the serious republican nutcases in the house never get close enough to the levers of power to truly fuck anything up.
There, is that enough clarification for you?
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
Ooh, someone got their updated buzzword list. What is that, is that even a thing? Do you mean we are going to give government to the rich, and they will then spend it causing benefits to flow down to the less fortunate? I don't get it, can you explain it to me like I'm a tea partier?
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)
Actually I can explain it to you:
A Tea Partier doesn't require explanation, because they are smart enough to realize that Food Stamps, SSDI, Welfare, and Union payoffs do not stimulate the economy. They are programs designed to buy the votes of the ignorant masses.
sudo make me a sandwich
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.
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.
Because I think social conservatives are busybody prudes
You are proving the point. You ignore the fact that Romney is liberal, a fact supported by both the voters of Massachusetts as well as the policies he implemented once in office in that State. Romney is a liberal based on his actions, not a conservative based on your assurances that he is. You are just repeating the standard Democrat mud-slinging used against actual conservatives, and it clearly proves that you dont ever bother to think for yourself.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
It's all choreography, a dance and sing performance no different than "pro" wrestling. My tribe versus your tribe, grr grr, the other guy sucks cocks or whatever. Gotta have your guy and your villain to make it dramatic and keep you in suspense so you'll have some kind of satisfaction when the prescribed outcome is revealed.
In the end, they're in the same show. When the lights go out and the curtain drops, the ruling class goes home to their gilded towers and the general public hasn't a clue that real change, real solutions, and real honor was also on the ballot. But who pays attention to them when the two fighters are punching it out so well with smiles on their faces.
More Twoson than Cupertino
*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.
You don't have to believe in something in order for it to work.
And in other news from the Institute For The Painfully Obvious...
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".
Maybe to you and me, but to MisterMidi it seemed painfully un-obvious.
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.
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."
The truth hurts, eh?
It makes several baseless assertions questioning the integrity of the Romney campaign. It may not be tech news, but that puts it right up Slashdot's alley.
Also notice how only at the end of the article, in the last sentence, does it say "oh and by the way it wasn't Romney's fault."
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.
It was the Silence. Enough said.
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
"you can't get pregnant from a legitimate rape"
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,”
"She told me that her little daughter took that (hpv virus) vaccine, that injection. And she suffered from mental retardation thereafter"
''You know what, evolution is a myth. Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?''
"President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob"
Do you get that? Never. I don't give a flying fig how liberal Romney is or isn't. These people aren't smart enough to be caretakers of the country.
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
Sure, let's instead give it to the party of people who think Guam will tip over if we load it up with too many people: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp
Wait a minute, you're telling me it's not fair to demonize your entire platform by the ridiculous comments of your most retarded? The hell you say.
And we didn't put him on the science and technology committee or the intelligence committee, did we? Dems at least try to keep their crazies locked in the attic.
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.
For one simple purpose: Trolling.