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.
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
I feel embarrassed to be using Slashdot. What the fuck is going on in this thread? Either one schizophrenic psycho has dozens of IPs to burn on AC posts, or the Cheeto Squad is in here crapflooding the discussion. I don't think one person could conceivably have written and submitted all the "Slashdot is FBI" garbage in the time this post has been up, even given an unlimited number of IPs to comment from. So it seems like the Trump trolls are out in full force.
> 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.
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
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.