Slashdot Mirror
Cracking The Code On Trump Tweets (time.com)
jIyajbe writes: From Electoral-Vote.com: "A theory has been circulating that the Donald Trump tweets that come from an Android device are from the candidate himself, while the ones that come from an iPhone are the work of his staff. David Robinson, a data scientist who works for Stack Overflow, decided to test the theory. His conclusion: It's absolutely correct. Robinson used some very sophisticated algorithms to analyze roughly 1,400 tweets from Trump's timeline, and demonstrated conclusively that the iPhone tweets are substantively different than the Android tweets. The former tend to come later at night, and are vastly more likely to incorporate hashtags, images, and links. The latter tend to come in the morning, and are much more likely to be copied and pasted from other people's tweets. In terms of word choice, the iPhone tweets tend to be more neutral, with their three most-used phrases being 'join,' '#trump2016,' and '#makeamericagreatagain.' The Android tweets tend to be more emotionally charged, with their three most-used phrases being 'badly,' 'crazy,' and 'weak.'"
reifman adds: In an excellent forensic text analysis of Trump's tweets with the Twitter API, data geek David Robinson demonstrates Trump authors his angriest, picture-less, hashtag-less Android tweets often in the morning, while staff tweet from an iPhone with pictures, hashtags and greater joy mostly in the middle of the day. Robinson's report was inspired by a tweet by artist Todd Vaziri. As for why Robinson decided to look into Trump's tweets, he told TIME, "For me it's more about finding a really interesting story, a case where people suspect something, but don't have the data to back it up. For me it was much more about putting some quantitive details to this story that has been going around than it was about proving something about Trump's campaign."
I wish they'd find an algorithm for figuring out if the "reporters" of news stories had done any fact-checking instead. We have more news and far less fact-checkers these days. They're dying out with the newspapers given that people only want to pay for news they like.
Donald trump is just a shill for the Clintions put in place to ruin the Republican Party and get Hillary elected.
It's getting harder for me to take that as completely tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Phony news site Slashdot, that nobody reads, makes up story about phones and tweets. STUPID EDITORS! #CrookedHillary #Trump2016 #makeAmericaGreatAgain
ftfy
The fact there are only two actually viable parties and that they have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as their candidates is already proof enough that the american voting system is completely broken.
nt
Imagine if any journalist put as much effort into ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does. What's up with the thousands of work-related emails she didn't turn over? Who's gullible enough to believe she installed a private server to send pictures of her grandkids? Why do many of the most repressive dictatorships in the world keep giving so much money to the Clinton foundation?
The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson. We're just expected to take the word of a politician with countless lies already under her belt.
If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.
I stole this Sig
who suddenly feels embarrassed to be using an Android?
I stole this Sig
This isn't the Age of Obama. It's the Age of Trolls, Shills, and Kool-Aid drinkers.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The system can never be better than the voters themselves.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> The reason you never hear about this is not because it didn't happen or because nobody was looking for it.
The reason you "never hear about this" is because your interpretation of those events is nutballs.
If your "liberal media" theory were true, then there are a ton of counter examples. The whole lewinsky thing being chief among them. The obsessive media coverage of clinton "scandals" is beyond dispute. Travelgate, whitewater, vince foster, benghazi, etc. And despite tens of thousands of hours of media coverage, and tens of millions of republican directed tax dollars of investigations, it all turned out to be nothing. Cry wolf too many times and people just start tuning you out, no "liberal bias" necessary.
This makes me wonder where you've been getting your news for the last 25 years.
Of everything that you mentioned, this is the only scandal.
They do it to curry favor with the Clintons. However, I'm 100% certain that the Clintons are savvy enough that everything is totally legal, and that 95% went to the best charities. Unfortunately, we as a nation have decided that direct bribery of politicians is not only legal, but expected, as long as everyone is coy about it.
Play Command HQ online
"The only answer you ever get to any of these questions is "Shut up you can't prove anything" which is true"
I hereby accuse you to be an operative of the Secret Great Lizards Conspiracy that I know all about, because i read it on a web site that had actual ANIMATED GIFS OF LIZARDS AND CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
I may not yet be able to prove my theory conclusively, but the same can be said of Al Capone and OJ Simpson.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
I'm one of the two submitters. I submitted this story because I am intrigued by his methodology, and not because of the political angle.
In my submission, I included a reference to the fact that he coded up his analysis in R, and that his code is right there on his website for all of us to inspect. I was hoping that that was what would catch Slashdotters' eyes. The editor deleted that part, unfortunately; oh, well.
I know a little about statistical analysis, a little bit about coding, but nothing about R. Can anyone knowledgeable about R comment on his code, and/or his analysis? Thanks!
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
It's not the voters' fault. Unfortunately, we use a plurality wins single vote system. The optimal solution for winning in that system system is two parties, each of which selects a nominee who is popular with 50.000001% of that party (i.e. just 25.0000001% of the entire voting population). Usually the most extreme 25.000001% of the population.
Basically, both parties are controlled by extremists, who do their best to steer the nomination process hard right or hard left. The further right one party goes, the further left the other party can go while still being virtually guaranteed that one of their nominees will be elected. And vice versa. The entire process effectively disenfranchises the middle 49.99999% of the voting population, leaving government in control of the fringe 25% whose nominee happened to win.
An instant-runoff voting system would put a stop to this, by making the nominee who best reflects the entire voting population (i.e. a centrist) most likely to win. But that's precisely why the two parties (or rather, the extremists who control the parties) will never allow it to happen while they control the legislatures.
It's more likely a case of you not bothering to seek out investigative journalism (of which there has been an ever-increasing amount), and when some accidentally crosses your path you assume it must be a change in the amount of journalism, and nothing else. Not, possibly, that because you don't care about journalism when you see an article "attacking" someone you like you have to find a reason for the article's existence beyond the person you like fucking up.... naaah. Couldn't be that. It must be some massive conspiracy amongst journalists of all flavours to deceive you. Your arrogance is disgusting. No wonder you are so confused by the world around you.
Can we now get an analysis of all the bat-shit crazy posts on this article. A number of things that could be investigated.
- Is this one crazy person, or has an entire neighborhood of crazy town come visiting?
- Do these crazy people think that crazy shit like this helps persuade voters to vote Trump?
- Or is it a false flag effort designed to show Trump supporters as bat-shit crazy people?
- Does anyone care?
OK, here we go...
0. The FBI doesn't charge, prosecute, convict, or imprison (for very long, anyways, mostly) anyone.
1. The Justice Department would be the most common agency to charge and prosecute Hillary.
2. By delaying interviews, and the FBI's accommodation of her, Hillary successfully delayed the FBI's completion of its investigation until the campaign reached a point where legal action would raise significant questions of tampering or interference on the part of the FBI, whether these would be warranted or not.
3. Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch, while presented as 'secret', was intentional, and intentionally leaked. This meeting;
- was plainly improper, actually unethical, and should be grounds for removal of Lynch as AG on any of several legal grounds - witness tampering, ex parte communication, obstruction of justice (see next point) among others.
- was calculated to cause an obvious conflict of interest on all parties' part, save the FBI, which was impacted by it.
- was therefore crucial in forcing the FBI to reconsider how it would proceed with the disposition of its investigation.
4. With this meeting exposed, FBI Director James Comey was left with;
- Referring the case to Justice, where he knew Lynch would recuse herself, force the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, and delay prosecution until after the election, prompting widespread claims of tampering and a potential Constitutional crisis.
- Refusing to disclose details, which no matter how he proceeded from there would result in denunciations and outrage from all quarters.
- Or, as he did, disclose sufficient details to expose Hillary's apparent guilt, but then claim that the case was not sufficiently obvious for a 'reasonable prosecutor' to pursue. This is the way he chose to avoid referral and the problems that would cause.
- And bottom line, Comey may well have wanted to avoid the FBI being accused of any of several impacts on the election, for he would not get support from the Administration if he did refer the case to Justice.
5. Congress could refer an investigation to Justice, demand they charge Hillary, and then impeach Lynch and/or Obama, but at this stage that would be seen as petty, too late for meaningful results, overreaching their authority, manipulative of the election, and would likely fail. Not that any of these accusations are
accurate or not, that doesn't matter, for this would be a political act also. All of this would be correct, legal, and devastating to the Republican Congress, as we are in an era where truth is unimportant.
Director Comey was in an untenable situation, not of his own making except for the delay in completing the investigation. And he was on an island with no support from his boss or his bosses boss.
Democrats have infected every branch and level of government, even co-opting the Republican congressional leadership. The fix is most likely to vote them all out, every single one. This will take more than one election cycle, as around 43% of the electorate is entirely satisfied with Democratic rule, and around 30% of the electorate is at war with itself. True undecideds and independents have little hope they can change things, and are not unified in any case, so sadly we either face the truth of our nation's condition or continue devolving into something other than what is constitutionally permitted.
I believe we are witnessing the birth of new political movements in America, and possibly a new era of coalition politics, which will either permit the Right to coalesce and challenge the Left, or deliver insurmountable control to the Left, which will result in further unconstitutional rule and eventual collapse of what constitutional foundation for our government is left.
We will regre
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, that's partially right. Another part is that there's been a tremendous consolidation among the "traditional media" such that their voices are controlled by a small number of very wealthy people whose primary interest is not news.
This is not to claim that the news in general was ever trustworthy, but it is to claim that news organizations used to be mainly interested in news, and only secondarily politics or public relations. That this was never reliably true is witnessed by the Hearst Press, which earned the name "yellow journalism". But there were alternatives. E.g., in San Francisco a paper called "The Dramatic Chronicle" started off covering theatric presentations, and expanded into sports and local news. It was originally quite reliable. It's wider news, however, was no more reliable than the wire services. Then there was the New York Times, which used to be reliable, and perhaps still is if you learn how to read it...but which was delayed a week in getting to the west coast. Etc. Each news source was biased, but many had areas where they were accurate, and they weren't the same, because the controlling interests had differing goals.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.