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?"
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
"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?
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'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://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