Slashdot Mirror


US President Barack Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Stories (www.bgr.in)

An anonymous reader writes:Concerned over the spread of fake news on the social networking giant, US President Barack Obama has criticized Facebook, saying fake stories on social networks are spreading lies this election. Speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton at University of Michigan, Obama said: "The way campaigns have unfolded, we just start accepting crazy stuff as normal and people if they just repeat attacks enough and outright lies over and over again. As long as it's on Facebook, and people can see it, as long as it's on social media, people start believing it, and it creates this dust cloud of nonsense," he told the gathering. A recent BuzzFeed investigation found that 38 percent of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information."

436 comments

  1. BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I recent study (by me) has determined that BuzzFeed is a left-wing site.

    1. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Do you regularly make studies about things for which you are unqualified, and draw unsupported and inflammatory conclusions designed to polarize people toward idiotic misunderstandings?

    2. Re:BuzzFeed? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A better question - what is this "Facebook of Spreading Fake Stories" that BO is criticizing?

    3. Re: BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BO Plenty?

    4. Re:BuzzFeed? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A better question - what is this "Facebook of Spreading Fake Stories" that BO is criticizing?

      I dunno.

      BUT....everyone please remember, with the expected high voter turnouts this year, in order to endure everyone can cast their votes, THS year, we are having the Republicans vote today, and tomorrow is reserved for the Democrats to cast their ballots.

      This is the best way to keep things fair, and ensure everyone gets to vote and have their vote counted.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:BuzzFeed? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, you're so cute. Making jokes in front of people angry enough to kill.

    6. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, perhaps someone could Google this for me.

    7. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A better question - what is this "Facebook of Spreading Fake Stories" that BO is criticizing?

      I dunno.

      BUT....everyone please remember, with the expected high voter turnouts this year, in order to endure everyone can cast their votes, THS year, we are having the Republicans vote today, and tomorrow is reserved for the Democrats to cast their ballots.

      This is the best way to keep things fair, and ensure everyone gets to vote and have their vote counted.

      You are scum. This is not a joking matter. The election is today folks and yes Facebook has crap loads of fake stories. My mom keeps bugging me about them. Hell there was another story about how some town in some random part of the world made up a lot of them, without even getting paid. They are good click bait. Of course, no doubt some were paid.

      Facebook needs to try to purge obviously fake stories, or at least flag them with something obvious about why this is debunked and why.

    8. Re:BuzzFeed? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You're just mad because for a few minutes you believed him.

      Now go ask your mommy to bring you some snacks down in the basement.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:BuzzFeed? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      BUT....everyone please remember, with the expected high voter turnouts this year, in order to endure everyone can cast their votes, THS year, we are having the Republicans vote today, and tomorrow is reserved for the Democrats to cast their ballots.

      This is the best way to keep things fair, and ensure everyone gets to vote and have their vote counted. You are scum. This is not a joking matter.

      Lighten up Francis....

      Geez, if you're stupid enough to believe a joke like this, you kinda deserve what you get.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paranoid delusional much?

    11. Re:BuzzFeed? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Only the Republicans have guns :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure: Trump-supporter voter fraud... or didn't you read how after some hours, Facepalm moderators took down tweets that were getting wide broadcast, with a stolen ad for Hillary, and claiming you could vote by texting, and the ad ends with "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this ad".

      Just like the Trump supported in Iowa who voted twice, last week, and was busted for it.

      Where's your Indignation and yelling about REPUBLICAN voter fraud?

                  mark

    13. Re:BuzzFeed? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Well -- if Buzzfeed says it's true... then it must be. Although where's the link to the article? Or is the original Post fraudulent by falsely claiming Buzzfeed did such a story?

      I mean, really, all of the stories in my FB feed appear to be true. So I doubt their math.

    14. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would ask you to look up the governor election in Washington state where the City of Seattle "found" bags of ballots that were NOT counted on the first go around, but were counted on the recount because of the closeness of the election. The Dems won because of the "found" bags.

      ""King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips was at a Democratic Party office in Seattle on Sunday December 12, reviewing a list of voters whose absentee votes had been rejected due to signature problems, when to his surprise he found his own name listed. Phillips said he was certain he had filled out and signed his ballot correctly, and asked the county election officials to investigate the discrepancy. They discovered that Phillips' signature had somehow failed to be scanned into the election computer system after he submitted his request for an absentee ballot. Election workers claimed that they had received Phillips' absentee ballot in the mail, but they could not find his signature in the computer system to compare to the one on the ballot envelope, so they mistakenly rejected the ballot instead of following the standard procedure of checking it against the signature of Phillips' physical voter registration card that was on file. The discovery prompted King County Director of Elections Dean Logan to order his staff to search the computers to see if any other ballots had been incorrectly rejected.

      Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[13] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.

      Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C.[14] There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[14] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount."" --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004

    15. Re:BuzzFeed? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Surprised you dispute this.

      Buzzfeed is closely tied to Ben Smith who used to work at Politico.

      Although I give him credit for writing very interesting articles from all sides, the guy definitely roots for the dems.

      Plus buzzfeed is full of gossipy, celebutard stuff. The celebutards support the dems 90% of the time.

    16. Re:BuzzFeed? by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's not this "joke" then it's some other "joke", a call to say there's no need to vote or that you're guilty of a voting violation.

      It's all mean spirited, disrespectful and crooked and should be prosecuted whichever side is doing it.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    17. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question - what is this "Facebook of Spreading Fake Stories" that BO is criticizing?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Of course, since the Washington post is just a piece of liberal MSM trash, their internet story might be a fake.

    18. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well -- if Buzzfeed says it's true... then it must be. Although where's the link to the article? Or is the original Post fraudulent by falsely claiming Buzzfeed did such a story?

      I mean, really, all of the stories in my FB feed appear to be true. So I doubt their math.

      You either live in a very narrow internet world or have a severely fragmented mind.

      And that's even before we get to the political postings out there.

    19. Re:BuzzFeed? by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative
      So far in the last month of this election this is the "news" I've seen:
      • *Obama is planning to declare Sharia law.
      • *Obama is planning to declare martial law and be president for life.
      • *Obama is the Anti-Christ
      • *Hillary is planning to declare Sharia law
      • *The UN is going to invade the US and take away people's guns
      • *Obama has invited the Chinese to invade Texas in the event that Trump wins
      • *NBC already has the fake election results ready.

      And that's just the blatant stuff and excludes Breitbart.

    20. Re:BuzzFeed? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry.

      I just do not have that much sympathy for someone that is stupid enough to just believe anything they hear without looking it up or in this case, making a simple call to Secretary of the State they live in....geez.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:BuzzFeed? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      Oooohhhh boy
      So the bag was lost after sorting.
      Well THERE is proof of conspiracy
      Oh, wait....

    22. Re:BuzzFeed? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Ah, so the old people scammed by the IRS fakes DESERVE to be impoverished?
      Sick fu-k!

    23. Re:BuzzFeed? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      There's a significant difference between being scammed with an IRS scam and believing "Hillary Clinton is secretly Adolf Hitler's brain in a new body".

    24. Re:BuzzFeed? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      What do you read? I'm fairly right slanting, and the only one I've seen even nearly similar is one about Newsweek already printing the election result before the results are in.

    25. Re:BuzzFeed? by gmack · · Score: 1

      This is NOT what I read on purpose. It's crap like Patriot News etc that some of my more Republican friends post on Facebook.

    26. Re:BuzzFeed? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      When you say "bags" of ballots, are you using a euphemism like "the internet is more like a truck"?

      Anyway, it looks like out of 2,810,058 votes cast, that about 1700 were not counted the first time but were later found and counted. It wasn't just the city of Seattle either, 4 counties found more than 100 more votes. A few counties had fewer votes, and only 5 counties out of 39 had no change. Out of those 39 counties, 18 of them found more Republican votes overall, 8 found more Democratic votes overall, and 3 found more Libertarian votes overall. Even so, it sounds like you're blaming "The Dems" for that. The percent of change from the initial count to the recount was around 0.06% of the total votes cast. That seems like it's within the margin of error for any election, and is specifically why we have the recount process in place. If vote counting was always 100% accurate then we wouldn't need recounts, would we?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook needs to try to purge obviously fake stories, or at least flag them with something obvious about why this is debunked and why.

      No, stupid people need to vote tomorrow. Like Yo Momma.

    28. Re:BuzzFeed? by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      Trump did tell his voters to vote on November 28...

      http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tells-rally-crowd-to-vote-on-november-28-2016-10

    29. Re:BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the Republicans have guns :)

      No, Obama took them away. And any that he missed, Hillary's gonna get'em soon enough...

    30. Re:BuzzFeed? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I'm just making the point the lied-to are not responsible for the lies.

    31. Re:BuzzFeed? by megamind · · Score: 1

      I tried criticizing them using their report feedback feature and got no response. I doubt the president will either. DGAF

    32. Re: BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is Hillary going to get them from an FBI cell when she loses?

    33. Re:BuzzFeed? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Right - I've heard the Sharia law one (anti-muslim fodder) and the UN invade USA / Guns / 4th Ammendment.

      Thankfully though I have not encountered the others. My cousin is rather "on the right" and even she hasn't posted those others.

      Breitbart though is dangerous. Flagrant falsehoods and misleading headlines. And with the rumored tight relationship - it could be an interesting 4 years.

    34. Re: BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, lighten up! Besides the poster got it wrong. Democrats were supposed to vote on Monday, but so many of them ignored the government postings on social media sites about the voting date change for Democrats that Hillary lost.

    35. Re: BuzzFeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiwi?

    36. Re:BuzzFeed? by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      And both are correct.

  2. Going by this logic by elvesrus · · Score: 2

    So going by this logic politicians should just shut up and let their record stand for itself.

    1. Re:Going by this logic by hey! · · Score: 1

      So going by this logic politicians should just shut up and let their record stand for itself.

      Which shows the problem with news in this country: even if it were better, people are so damn lousy at thinking they'll believe any dichotomy no matter how ridiculous (e.g. either you promote false news stories or you give politicians a pass).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for you. You're very smart ; )

    3. Re:Going by this logic by unixisc · · Score: 1

      How does Facebook spread anything? The stories are done by Facebook subscribers, and are accepted by those who follow them. Same w/ Twitter. It's not like Facebook the company endorses anything - if anything, Zuckerberg is a big Lib and a Clinton supporter. But he wouldn't want to lose half his membership to another company just by treating them like crap to the extent that they go elsewhere

    4. Re:Going by this logic by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      How does Facebook spread anything? The stories are done by Facebook subscribers, and are accepted by those who follow them.

      He didn't say Facebook spread anything. He said, "Some people believe whatever they see on Facebook."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Going by this logic by tsqr · · Score: 1

      How does Facebook spread anything? The stories are done by Facebook subscribers, and are accepted by those who follow them.

      He didn't say Facebook spread anything. He said, "Some people believe whatever they see on Facebook."

      From TFA: "After fake stories made the rounds on Facebook during the US Presidential elections 2016, Barack Obama blamed the social media giant for spreading lies about the election season." So, blamed Facebook for spreading lies, but didn't say Facebook spread anything?

    6. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly smarter than elvesrus

    7. Re:Going by this logic by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering why "News" in today's culture has a meaningless definition? There was a time when lying on TV was a great way to get taken off the air; think Dan Rather.

    8. Re:Going by this logic by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Would this still happen if money was obsolete? Is the allowance of making Revenue while ignoring Fraud, and Theft now acceptable public behavior?

    9. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't lying if you don't tell the story at all. When you're in active collusion with a candidate's campaign and present yourself as "unbiased news source", be it from MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox News, you've lost whatever credibility you're trying to peddle. And if you're not credible news outlet, then what are you actually peddling?

      It is so bad, they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

      Which leads to "fake news stories" on Facebook. When the people are desperate for REAL coverage, rather than reading Talking Points / biased propaganda from the Campaigns, they will reach out to whatever actually sounds right, regardless of whether it is or not. If you want to blame someone, blame the MSM news for not covering anything even remotely close to an unbiased way.

      There is no way in hell that Hillary or Donald are nominees in any campaign except via collusion between campaigns and media. I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win. The fact that she is pretty much tied with him is proof how lousy a candidate she actually is.

      I'm just glad it is almost over, and we can watch the final episode of the USA.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      He didn't say Facebook spread anything. He said, "Some people believe whatever they see on _________"

      It isn't just Facebook, it is just about every media outlet, be it MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox .

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win.

      Those two are not necessarily connected.
      Les Moonves is literally on the record saying why CBS gave Donald Trump tons of coverage, and it was not about helping Clinton, it was about helping CBS. Trump's polarizing and hyperbolic effect on the election brought in tons of ad spend.

    12. Re:Going by this logic by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are many kinds of lying. There is lying by commission and lying by omission. If you purport to tell the truth but only tell carefully selected truths, you are lying, even if what you say is completely factually accurate.

      Now social media companies don't actually lie; what they do doesn't even rise to the standard of a lie. A liar tries to get you to believe a proposition he believes to be false. What social media companies want to do is provoke a reaction.

      In other words the nearly half of adults who get their news from social media are getting their news from trolls and bullshitters.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Going by this logic by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      I doubt there's been a primary in modern US history that hasn't had its share of backstabbing and collusion, but parties are ultimately private organizations, and if that's the way they want to conduct their affairs, that's between them and their members.

      So far as I can tell, Trump won the nomination despite every attempt to kill his bid, right down to last ditch attempts on the Convention floor, so I see little evidence of collusion, and a good deal of evidence that about a third of Republicans are living in a self-constructed la la land. That's why the GOP is in so much trouble at this point, it can either continue acting as a circle jerk for a fading and angry demographic, or shake them off and try to go after demographics that have long-term potential to deliver power.

      As to Clinton, sure she played dirty, but does anyone really believe Sanders had a shot? The Democratic Party has functioned since the McGovern catastrophe in such a way as to prevent someone like Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. It sure isn't fair, but that is the way the Dems play the game when it comes to picking the ticket.

      If Americans truly are tired of the arrangements, if they truly do feel the Dems and Republicans are no longer sufficiently representative of the public will, then they should be voting for third parties. But American voters don't, and they won't, and since they will continue to support the two major parties, and will continue to relegate third parties to little more than bit parts, this is how the game will continue to be played.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Going by this logic by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And those bullshitters have been so successful because they've managed to sell their legions on the notion that the MSM is some vast conspiracy to keep their candidate down. Both the Alt-Right and the Alt-Left in America have bought into an ever increasing series of shrill conspiracy theories, to the point where they don't even bother to question claims like "the Clintons had some people killed."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that Les Moonves would say, "Yeah, we were in collusion with the DNC to push Trump, to help Hillary win in November" if that was actually the case?

      Here's where my original point comes in, I don't believe it, even if Moonves wasn't lying. That's what happens when you're caught lying so many times in the past. The Parable about the Boy who Cried wolf comes to mind. At some point, people stop believing you, even when you're telling the truth.

      Trust is one of those things, that once lost, is hard to ever get back.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Going by this logic by harrkev · · Score: 1

      and a good deal of evidence that about a third of Republicans are living in a self-constructed la la land.

      The way I see things, the GOP can be split into the sane and the crazies. The crazies voted for Trump in the primary. The sane ones, though the majority, were split among the other candidates, so Trump got the largest single block despite not having an actual majority.

      If the GOP primary has been via approval voting then one of the more sane candidates would have won and also would have beat Hillary easily. Instead the GOP nominates the only candidate that could loose to Clinton.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    17. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "We landed under sniper fire ..."

      According to all the various collusion artists, that was simply "a mistake" or faulty recollection, and not a lie. A lie requires "intent" (you'll see that one tossed around a lot), which is very hard to "prove". "Why would she lie?" is another key deflection, one that goes to mind reading. But lets look at the facts, which she should have known since she was actually the one there. She didn't land under sniper fire, she didn't run for cover, there was a greeting ceremony ... all things she was "mistaken about" . Three bits of false information, she was there. That shows that there was either intent (falsified) or she has mental recollection issues. Either of which should be disqualifying .

      I don't care what her reason (or lack of one) is. I do care that the media didn't actually discover it like they should have, that when discovered was glossed over by the media in a parroting of talking points as some sort of "misstatement".

      And this wasn't the first time, and wasn't the last time she has "misspoke" about things she was directly involved in. I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. I don't believe the media will ever cover her with anything less than full collusion. Why? Because that is my experience. And people have the exact same experience and still vote for her. The power of propaganda.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:Going by this logic by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      It is so bad, they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

      This is the real crazy, to me. Steve Bannon, the CEO of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, runs the Brietbart media empire (he's on a "leave of absence" at the moment, no conflict of interest at all, no siree). At least in years prior, there was some degree of separation; Murdoch and Ailes weren't explicitly on GWB's payroll, for example. It's become so blatant this time around. Even CNN's panels frequently feature Corey Lewandowski, who is still drawing a Trump paycheck. Nobody on their panels is a Clinton employee. Yet the outrage about CNN being the "Clinton News Network" continues.

      Which leads to "fake news stories" on Facebook

      I think what's led to most of those fake news stories is the fact that teenagers in Macedonia can spin up websites with advertising attached, and get millions of hits and thousands of dollars from their bogus and false "news" stories, as people who lack critical thinking skills continue to Fwd: Fwd: Fwd them in perpetuity.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    19. Re:Going by this logic by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win.

      To prove it I following evidence: it fits the narrative of my preconceived bias.

      Wait, what was this story about again?

    20. Re:Going by this logic by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "After fake stories made the rounds on Facebook during the US Presidential elections 2016, Barack Obama blamed the social media giant for spreading lies about the election season." So, blamed Facebook for spreading lies, but didn't say Facebook spread anything?

      That's what the story says. If you read the actual quote from the president, he does not blame Facebook for anything.

      I think you are making Obama's argument for him. You are more willing to believe what somebody says Obama said, more than you are willing to actually read the quote of what he said. In this case, you can even go to the video and listen directly to what he said, but you're more prepared to accept second-hand information.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Going by this logic by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      No, exactly the opposite. The last thing politicians want is for the record to stand for itself.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am not a (R) or (D), and can actually see that there is collusion between campaigns and the MSM news outlets. They aren't even trying to hide it. It isn't even in question, except by people who are deliberately ignorant or just not paying attention.

      As for the "Clinton's had someone killed" it is right up there with "Trump is a NAZI and a KKK Member" ... no actual proof is needed for a nice conspiracy.

      BTW, both are awful candidates based not on what conspiracies say, but what they have actually said and done. The only explanation for their existence is that the MSM is actively participating in this debacle.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:Going by this logic by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1
      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    24. Re: Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LINK the actual quote then.

    25. Re:Going by this logic by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The problem is a leftist asshole, Julian Assange, stuck in an Ecuadorian Embassy for the rest of his life is telling us more about a Presidential Candidate than the entity of the US Main Stream Media is, even Fox is toeing the line, just a little bit looser.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    26. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't believe it,

      So, a completely plausible explanation, even one that validates all the worst complaints about big corporations, is trumped by your 100% evidence-free feels?

      Dude, you are just as deep into conspiracy theory land as the worst trumpkins.

      > Trust is one of those things, that once lost, is hard to ever get back.

      So is perspective and critical thought.

    27. Re:Going by this logic by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that people are so hungry for "real" news, that they will take fake "real" news over real "fake" news? It reminds me of that line from The American President "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty; they drink the sand because they don't know the difference"

    28. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 insightful man

      And yet that metric ton of irony is totally lost on the moderators because they share the same preconceived bias.

    29. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GOP has spent the last 30 years promoting anger, anti-intellectualism and distrust of dissent.

      If they're shocked at what they've got, they might consider the consequences of reaping what you sow.

      Or is that too intellectual a concept for them?

    30. Re:Going by this logic by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Would this still happen if money was obsolete? Is the allowance of making Revenue while ignoring Fraud, and Theft now acceptable public behavior?

      Yes it would. The stories spread far beyond the place where they might have generated revenue, because they "prove" the "truth" of what their readers want to believe.

      There's a profit motive, but it's not primarily a monetary one.

    31. Re:Going by this logic by ewibble · · Score: 1

      That probably says more about his opinion of voters, than anything else.

      Unless that statement meaningless nonsense, by defining some as more than one. Of course you can fool some people. If some people is significant number then that becomes a problem.

      You should always take all information with some level of skepticism, whether it is from Facebook, other internet source, TV news, news paper, preacher, monarch or religious leader.

      He has no way of telling what proportion of people believe lies posted on facebook, or any other (dis)information source.

      Trust me, random guy on internet.

    32. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't just Facebook, it is just about every media outlet, be it MSNBC/CBS/ABC/CNN or Fox .

      See - you are also continuing to spread the big lie ("Their all the same bunch of liers") when if you look at *actual*
      facts then, while none of them are perfect, one of those is much, much worse and actually actively promotes ignorance
      and anti-facts

    33. Re:Going by this logic by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      The MSM has reported both candidates' foibles fairly well. What made the latest FBI email story float better than the one before it was that, for once (and way too late) Trump finally learned how not to try to dominate an entire news cycle even when his opponent was floundering.

      The whole MSM conspiracy theory line is really just nonsense, a fabrication by the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum who are unwilling to explain their general unrepresentativeness by asserting that most people are simpering morons who are lead by NBC, CNN, and even now Fox. Rather than admit that they hold unpopular or fringe views, they assert that everyone else is evil or stupid.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    34. Re:Going by this logic by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The sane ones mostly ended up supporting Trump anyway, because it's the politically reasonable thing to do: Vote for the crazy who mostly supports the positions of your party, because the alternative is a person who would actively oppose those positions. A lot of upset Bernie supporters are in much the same position.

    35. Re:Going by this logic by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Oh please, please, let this happen!

    36. Re:Going by this logic by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The media is just pandering for more eyeballs to watch and read their stuff. News is now entertainment and not intended to be informative. This is why Donald Trump got such a huge amount of free press and why he should be grateful to the media instead of cursing it. Sure many media outlets may be favoring or endorsing Clinton but at the same time they're giving far more air time to Trump. Clinton's policy views about Central America - boring! Trump's crazy off-the-cuff remark of the day - gold mine!

      Hillary's the candidate because the media just assumed she'd be the Democratic candidate (it was pre-ordained), and she appeared a bit annoyed the Bernie didn't drop out like he was instructed to. Likewise Jeb was pre-ordained and we were preparing for the a creation of the American hereditary monarchy, but then Trump turned out to be the train wreck that all the cameras focused on.

    37. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      So going by this logic politicians should just shut up

      Now there's a plan I can get behind!

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    38. Re:Going by this logic by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Dan Rather, who told the truth as far as he knew it?
      Dan Rather, who was dumped because of Right Wing screams about Bias even though the only living witness to the ACTUAL operations when Bush went AWOL testified to the correctness of that reportage?
      Dan Rather, thrown under the bus?
      No,telling the TRUTH against the right has always been punishable.

    39. Re:Going by this logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I hear someone rattle on about racism, I stop listening. It's become the new bogeyman of the 21st century.
      Now, with Clinton winning ( I'm assuming), the next one will be sexism. Everyone will be a sexist.
      PS: Have you ever sat in a lunchroom with a group of Democratic union members and been called "cracker", "whitey", and "racist" because you don't agree with them (the specific incident being that I DID NOT vote Hillary for president)? I have, which is why I don't eat lunch there anymore. I have literally been forced out of the work supplied lunch room because I don't enjoy being berated because of my race. But that can't be racist, because I'm white, correct?

    40. Re:Going by this logic by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      The MSM has reported both candidates' foibles fairly well. What made the latest FBI email story float better than the one before it was that, for once (and way too late) Trump finally learned how not to try to dominate an entire news cycle even when his opponent was floundering.

      I don't think he learned so much as his campaign finally took away his twitter account. If they had only thought to do that before the Alicia Machado rant.

    41. Re:Going by this logic by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I am 100% convinced that Hillary wanted Donald as the (R) candidate, and the media set him up to win.

      Hold on, when did "the media" push that Donald should be the candidate? From what I remember there was a lot of "is this really happening?" and not much "this should be the guy."

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    42. Re:Going by this logic by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that damn leftist asshole, releasing all of that information which is supposed to damage the leftist candidate. Damn leftists.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    43. Re:Going by this logic by budgenator · · Score: 1

      HRC is too self-centered to be anything, in that respect she reminds me of a less domesticated Nixon, with a generous dose of Bushes Big-Bank/Big-Oil cronyism mixed in.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. "US President Barack Obama" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    >> US President Barack Obama

    Er...thanks for letting us know who "Barack Obama" is, I guess.

    1. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by fche · · Score: 2

      They're just rubbing salt into the wound.

    2. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by unixisc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The story was taken from bgr.in, which explains why. On a different note, the president wants people to just swallow what the networks feed us - CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC et al so that they'll accept anything from his party

    3. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      Just another of those Internet false rumors. You gotta be born in this country to be President.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    4. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Except that he has had the powers of the president for the last 8 years and run w/ it. So now, it's rather late to pretend that his presidency is a rumor

    5. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      You bring up "his party," but I didn't read that from TFA. But you brought it up, why?

    6. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I was discussing the people that the president does want us taking news from - the networks, who are shills for his party.

    7. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      And which News programs do you think state facts of an event?

    8. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      The President is right! We should not allow misinformation to spread. FB algorithms should check each post for truthfulness and hide the unacceptable ones, and issue a warning to the poster. Three strikes and your account is blocked, or you are placed on a watchlist. Same goes for email, people spread misinformation via email, and gmail, yahoo and other providers should use similar algorithms. In fact they should all use the *same* algorithm, provided by a department in the government, let's call it Ministry of Truth, and they should be required by law to do so.

      Actually three strikes is probably too many.

    9. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reuters, where mostly everyone gets their facts before they spin them.

    10. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, after the strikes, why even put them on watchlists? Hand them over to ISIS, and let them get crucified, thereby discovering their inner Jesus

    11. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Actually three strikes is probably too many.

      In fact, we probably want to catch them before they can get a strike to minimize damage, so we should really jail them for even thinking it.

    12. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Only one news source? Why?

    13. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I've been involved in a couple events that have had TV News coverage, and I've come to the conclusion, if it's in the News, it's wrong.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No worries, once you've shared it a "People also shared" windows pops up showing you 3 sites refuting what you just posted, so you can go back and delete it from your timeline after you've made an idiot of yourself.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Human memory is notoriously unreliable, and that is without any bad faith efforts to distort. I keep expecting our fledgling total surveillance to correct this mental defect but so far no luck.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  4. You mean like the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of the outgoing POTUS endorsing the Democratic nominee stating, "She's the most qualified candidate EVER". Oh, not that one.

    1. Re:You mean like the story... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It's a factually correct statement if by qualified he means experienced.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:You mean like the story... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And she made hundreds of billions for her associates. Her legacy cannot be disputed.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't it great that sheep have such short memories. That is a little different than saying that she would say anything to be President and that she was completely unqualified. Of course, that unqualified claim was 8 years ago, look how much she accomplished in those eight years. Arming ISIS, Benghazii, the deal with the Russians that gives them Uranium, all of our other great success in the middle east, not to mention the Clinton Foundation that has raised hundreds of millions for Hatti and managed to funnel a few million to Hatti through well connected "Friends of Bill".

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    4. Re:You mean like the story... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Except Obama said "...the most qualified candidate EVER."

      Which is untrue. Bernie Sanders had more experience.

    5. Re:You mean like the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a factually correct statement if by qualified he means experienced.

      ..which happens to be basically nobody's idea of qualified, when it comes to political leaders.

      If people wanted a qualified candidate like what you mean, they would just re-elect Obama. But people are so against such "qualifications," they ratified a "oh, hell no" amendment about 70 years ago.

    6. Re:You mean like the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite to the contrary, as Secretary of State, Hilary already started a war in Libya. Show me a war Bernie started.

    7. Re:You mean like the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Do some homework there, sparky. Bill O'reilly is not a source, by the way.

    8. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember Obama saying both of these things in the 2008 campaign and you can find videos of him saying them on YouTube. Mentioning O'Rielly in your post can't change that truth.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    9. Re:You mean like the story... by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      You're a god damn liar.

    10. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      and you're an idiot. You can find the video on YouTube.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    11. Re:You mean like the story... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      You've made statements about Hillary Clinton that are lies; period.

      And your scary talent is that you think you have your finger on the pulse on what goes on in the Oval Office? Now I'm going across the street to Starbucks to get a pumpkin scone an another cup of coffee. Your words are not only lies, but pure comedy. Thanks, I needed some cheering up on this important election day.

    12. Re:You mean like the story... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Experienced at what? She's never run an organization, whether governmental or business. Secretary of State is a high level job, but it isn't the sort that has to draw up a budget, or negotiate employee contracts/pay/benefits. And she was only in that position for four years. Likewise, she was a one-term Senator before running for the nomination in 2008, not one who had decades of experience negotiating with colleagues to pass legislation. Finally, sleeping with a former president doesn't bestow experience either.

      So, no, Hillary is not the most experienced or qualified candidate running this year, let alone ever.

      And, once again I will repeat, I am not voting for Donald Trump.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:You mean like the story... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I think LifesABeach's kid is on his daddy's laptop and posting while the real LifesABeach is out voting for Trump.

      No one with that low an ID can would act like such a twat. Or that's what I read on Facebook.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    14. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      You say that what I posted is lies, period.

      Maybe you are just a liar yourself and want to convince people that what I posted isn't true. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe you are not a liar, maybe you just react to things that you don't like by calling other people liars and are too stupid to search this for yourself and see that Obama had very different things to say about Crooked Hillary 8 years ago.

      Here are a few links to get you started, but don't take my word for this, Google "youtube obama 2008 hillary clinton" yourself and see what gems you come across.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFC9r2xzYk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVS8-1KwS2c

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f4tZFZ_-g

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    15. Re:You mean like the story... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      These are just fucking clips edited together in an ominous way.

      You're not a liar, you're just a fucking idiot.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      Yea. Just a bunch of clips. If you watch the first one to the end you get a political ad that Obama ran (this particular one in S.C.) That states what Obama said repeatedly in 2008, that she would say anything to be President, with Obama's own I approve this message. If you search a little more (I didn't because some people just get angry when shown their beliefs are bullshit) you can find the Original speeches of Obama saying himself that Crooked Hillary will say anything to be President and that she isn't qualified. I've seen them on YouTube in the past few weeks and remembered them from 2008.

      Just a bunch of clips. Just a bunch of facts. Why are you so mad about something that Obama said? You must be a racist!

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    17. Re:You mean like the story... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I apply the same logic to Trump. That entitled one has never been said, "NO" to. Trumps humor is straight out of the 1950's. I know this at a personal level. Trump calls Putin, and David Duke, "Friend." His first friend wants to the play to New-Clear card. The second one thinks gassing your ass is just plain good fun. I've listened to both candidates. Trump is about Trump. Am I right? Just go ask Trump to hear your concerns; I'll watch it YouTube.

      Then go tell your concerns to Clinton. Try it, put it on YouTube. But I already get the concept, she's people oriented.

      But I've got a unanswered question, "why is the simple math of John Nash ignored by both candidates, and their respective political parties?" I just don't know how to present this narrative.

    18. Re:You mean like the story... by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the Nash Equilibrium of our two-party system is exactly what got us into this mess. Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz would not cooperate early on in the primary process, and we end up with this shit show.

    19. Re:You mean like the story... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That's not what he said when he was running against her!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:You mean like the story... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It is painfully apparent that these Republicans were self oriented. But I saw some people orientations from Kasich. I was thinking "Corporations are People too" is what got us to this place. But why don't the multi billionaires just take their gains and go away? They've made it, good job. Why do they still interrupt us?

    21. Re:You mean like the story... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So wait... You're surprised that someone running for office was immoral enough to smear their opponent one time, then later praise them when it suits their purpose? Good lord, have you NOT watched any of these people recently? They'd sell their soul for a donut.

    22. Re:You mean like the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Obama did make these kind of comments during the primary campaign I am pretty damn sure he never used the term "Crooked Hillary".

      Ever hear of hyperbole, political candidates use is a lot because voters tend not to listen to nuance.

    23. Re:You mean like the story... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      No, but Crooked Hillary is a title that she has earned and is in popular use. I chose to use it. You seem to be squirming a little too much to avoid the real topic here.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  5. Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If he wanted to say this, he should have said it during the primary when it was flooded with lies about Sanders claiming he was communist, would bankrupt the nation and give them a 90% tax rate.

    Won't lie, I have seen more lies no days before the general, but it has been flooded for over a year.

    Keeps trying to fix a broken system after the damage has already been done. If he wanted to fix this, he would need to restart the primaries.

    1. Re:Too late.... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keeps trying to fix a broken system after the damage has already been done. If he wanted to fix this, he would need to restart the primaries.

      Obama has no interest in fixing this, or even enforcing the laws. Hell he came right out the other day telling illegals and non-citizens to vote, and there would be no prosecution on it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Too late.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sanders is on record saying he supported Castro.

      He went to the USSR for his honeymoon.

      The lie is that he isn't a red.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Too late.... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The USSR visit - the first time I heard Charles Krauthammer mention this, I thought this was in the 1970s, during the Brezhnev era. Then I read it up, and it turns out that he honeymooned there during the Gorby era - when they were trying out Glasnost and Perestroika. So it's a tad unfair to make it seem like he was someone whose honeymoon arrangements were made by Yuri Andropov, when in fact, he went there just when the Soviet Union was coming to an end.

    4. Re:Too late.... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Nice propaganda moron.

    5. Re:Too late.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He didn't/doesn't support Castro?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it's false....

    7. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not from what my anonymous self knows, but - consider this: Would you _not_ support Castro - over Batista (the dictator Cuba had before Castro)?

      Sanders also supports Clinton - over Trump.

      PS - There were other political groupings to support in Cuba, like the Anarcho-Syndicalists in the unions, but Castro's group took power and then allied with the (Stalinist) Communist Party of Cuba, which had been in coalition with Batista. So the answer is not quite clear.

    8. Re:Too late.... by sherr · · Score: 2

      This is a lie. The context is talking about voter suppression and a fear of people deporting the families of voters. "When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]." "Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote." He's talking about Citizens voting, not ever anything else. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.

    9. Re:Too late.... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      You have a problem with Americans voting? Why?

    10. Re:Too late.... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      No, the lie is, "The lie is that he isn't a red." Why are you lying?

    11. Re:Too late.... by IMightB · · Score: 5, Informative

      he specifically said "If you are a Latino Citizen with undocumented family members... you have more reason to vote" He never encouraged illegals to vote.

    12. Re:Too late.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No I wouldn't. History shows how bad an outcome it was.

      And that's on top of the fact that it was a pawn battle in the larger cold war.

      Claiming the Stalinists were with Batista is BS. Castro worked for the USSR. It's just a fact, confirmed by the KGB archives. (The Chelan red too!)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Too late.... by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      I think you need to rewatch the video you linked. No where in there does Obama say that illegals and non-citizens should go out and vote. He does say that if you are a citizen with an undocumented family member that you should go out and vote because you aren't only voting for yourself but also representing these individuals. He clearly states several times that citizens should get out and vote not that illegals should be voting.
      Now you may disagree with citizens of undocumented immigrants voting but that is on you.

    14. Re:Too late.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, here is the better question, if those people are working and contributing to society and have been doing so for a long time, why shouldn't they have a say in things?

      Simple, because there are NOT FUCKING CITIZENS!!

      Geez, how hard is that to get?

      They came here illegally....they are disqualified from voting and they have started out their journey on US soil by committing a crime. If you don't like that, change the laws, but you can't change the fact that they are here by breaking immigration laws.

      Ok..so, you say anyone here in the US during elections should be able to vote? Ok..are there other countries in the world that are so haphazard with their election laws?

      By your logic, you'd be cool with other countries sending floods of folks here to try to sway elections. How about lots of Russians flooding in close swing states...they come here, overstay their visa...and keep doing this with more and more people coming over during the 4 years between elections and then they all get to vote and sway our elections based on what their mother country wants.

      Far fetched? It could happen.

      Ok, how long do you think you should have if you are in the US illegally before you can vote. 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? If you are here illegally, how can you prove it?

      Those documents to prove how long you are here could easily be forged....

      Again..there are rules and laws on the books. If you don't like them, vote to get representative that will change them, get involved...promote your cause.

      But we can just ignore things we don't like, or it falls into anarchy.

      And other external countries to the US do NOT have our best interest in mind, they have their best interest. That's what a countries government is supposed to do.

      So, look. I don't think hardly anyone has a problem with immigrants. Legal immigrants.

      Yes, come to the US...just sign the fucking guest book on the way in....

      And one last hint..if you want to come here, be a citizen and contribute...quit waving other countries' flags when you're on TV protesting. It doesn't help your cause much.

      If you wanted things like they were in your home country..stay there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Too late.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      he specifically said "If you are a Latino Citizen with undocumented family members... you have more reason to vote" He never encouraged illegals to vote.

      Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

      As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:

      Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?

      *With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.

      You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:

      Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.

      So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    16. Re:Too late.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:

      Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?

      *With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.

      You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:

      Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.

      So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    17. Re:Too late.... by sherr · · Score: 1

      I think you're right about the host's intent, but I think it was a confused and unclear question and that Obama misunderstood it. If you listen to his response (and the rest of the interview), he very clearly is talking about Citizens voting, only. There is no reason to believe that he didn't actually mean Citizens.

      The question he was answering (which is actually the question that was asked) is "if I vote will immigration come for my family?" The answer is no, actually regardless of if the voter is a citizen or not (but non-citizens are still not able to vote). Mixed in to that answer is the complicating factors of the host's misuse of the word "citizen" and Obama's correct use of the word "citizen". So I get how you can read a transcript of those two lines and come away with a misunderstanding of what he was saying, but if you take the time to think about it and to listen to the rest of the interview I think it's completely clear. Obama was telling citizens to vote to provide a voice for their non-citizen family and friends, and not to believe the lie that immigration will track them down because of their (the citizen's) vote. That's it, nothing else.

    18. Re:Too late.... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go out and rewatch the video. I transcribed the thing lower down in the thread, he tactically approved of illegals voting and they won't prosecute them. That's word-for-word. You can try and spin this shit all you want, but couple that with the "down on high" orders from the administration and DOJ not to arrest illegals, release illegals, and not prosecute illegals, you've got a president who's a piece of shit and refuses to enforce the law for various reasons.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Too late.... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I watched the video, you misrepresent it. around 4:40 BO makes the case that for households where some people are not eligible to vote, citizens that are eligible have an obligation to vote so that the opinions of at least someone in that house will be recorded and he also says that lawful voters in that household can vote without fear that their vote will not be confidential or that the authorities will use the fact that they voted to track down their family members.

      In other words - if you are legally allowed to vote, vote

      .

      --
      Nullius in verba
    20. Re:Too late.... by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I was about to write a pithy response to you, but I did a little research first. I verified that if both of your parents are US citizens and they have lived in the US before you were born, you are automatically a citizen. But what surprised me was that if you are a citizen who was born and lived elsewhere (i.e. not in the US ever), and you marry another US citizen who was born and lived elsewhere, this automatic citizenship does not carry forward to your children. So basically all of the US citizens who were illegally deported in the 30s would have had children who were citizens, but their grandchildren were not automatically entitled to citizenship unless one parent had lived in the US.

      That being said, there are probably still hundreds of thousands of "illegal immigrants" who are probably actually citizens. Figuring it out would be nigh impossible, though.

    21. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Trump never said the Mexican race (LOL liberal think mexican is a race) are criminal. He also never wanted to deport peoples of the Muslim race (LOL they also think mulism is a race). The lugenpresse will continue to spread lies anyway.

      As for Obama, he do oppose voter id laws because it would hinder illegal's vote. Hillary also said, several time, that it was racist to to expect peoples to show an id before voting... but not to buy tobacco, alcohol, a gun, or obtain welfare check, or drive a car. I guess Blacks don't do any of these things.

    22. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because there are NOT FUCKING CITIZENS!!

      No, I think they have to actually become citizens to vote.

    23. Re:Too late.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I had not heard of that situation, deporting US citizens in the 1930s. Thank you for an informative post. Your example of illegal immigrants who could claim citizenship is a valid point, and quite interesting.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    24. Re:Too late.... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I can see your point, even if I disagree on how clear Obama's response is. I didn't "read a transcript", I watched the video itself and typed those two paragraphs out. From listening to the video, I say that if President Obama had meant to use the correct definition of "citizen", he could have easily clarified it and corrected Ms. Rodriguez. The fact that he didn't, gives weight to the interpretation that he did encourage illegal immigrants to vote.

      Specifically, I pointed out in my above post that the clause "So if I vote ..." is asked from the perspective of illegal immigrants, who are considered to be citizens by the person asking the question on their behalf. President Obama's response is then directed at that group of possible voters, not some other group who have similar circumstances.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    25. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I wouldn't. History shows how bad an outcome it was.

      History doesn't really show any such thing, Cuba is not particularly disadvantaged compared to the rest of the Caribbean.

      You can speculate, but uchronia is full of those.

      And that's on top of the fact that it was a pawn battle in the larger cold war.

      Which tells you something about the politics. The Embargo was just a gambit, as was its remaining in effect after.

      Claiming the Stalinists were with Batista is BS. Castro worked for the USSR. It's just a fact, confirmed by the KGB archives. (The Chelan red too!)

      Stalin was dead by the time Castro led his revolution, so your point is not proof.

    26. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. I'll come over to your house, mow your yard, then use your car as much as I want. After all, I DID contribute, didn't I?

    27. Re:Too late.... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      They didn't come here illegally, they came here legally and then illegally stayed.

    28. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You simply cannot be a bigger racist prick unless you are actively hanging niiggers from trees. And it's not just one line in this post either. You sprinkle that shit into damned near every one of your posts, especially here lately.

    29. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad analogy is bad. You are conflating actions regarding public property with actions affecting your personal property. Dumb troll is dumb.

    30. Re:Too late.... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      He went to the USSR for his honeymoon.

      I realize that Sanders has been in politics for a good part of his life, but calling a 12-person delegation to establish a sister city relationship a "honeymoon" is a little much even for him.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    31. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, six of Juan, half a dozen of another.

    32. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And other external countries to the US do NOT have our best interest in mind, they have their best interest. That's what a countries government is supposed to do

      I don't want to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure your government doesn't have your best interest in mind. I'm think they have only their and the other 1%'s best interests in mind.

    33. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respect the fact that you have the courage to state your opinion even though it's a really unpopular one because omg you're a racist or something.

      I do agree with you and since it's fashionable to identify with a group I'll go ahead and say I'm a legal immigrant myself. 98% of my family and friends are in Mexico, I like all of them and I love quite a few of them, and even then I don't support the idea that anyone should come to the US illegally even though that'd benefit my close ones immensely.

      Now given my background about 70% of my friends are hispanics and as an American it's sad to see how they don't give two shits about the US. They're mostly from Texas border towns and they despise America. They think this is Mexico's land, they think whitey is a stupid-version of the devil and they take every chance to state how Mexico is so much better even though most of them have never actually lived there.

      From my perspective that's a BIG issue and it's only getting worse with Obama's policies. Being from border towns, lots of my acquaintances have plenty of friends working with the Border Patrol and it's a known thing how their budget has been slashed during the last 8 years and their operation has been gutted.

      Tough times ahead, my friends.

    34. Re:Too late.... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Simple, because there are NOT FUCKING CITIZENS!! Geez, how hard is that to get?

      Oh, its not hard to get. You're pulling a classic Lee Atwater and rationalizing your racism:

      You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****, n****, n****." By 1968 you can't say "n****"-that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites..."We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****, n****."

      Only your abstraction is "illegal immigrant". Aside from the irony of the descendants of white imperialist invaders calling the descendants of native inhabitants illegitimate, is this little thing called the Monroe Doctrine.

      There isn't a single South American country that hasn't been fucked over, hard, by the United States. Over and over and over again. If the U.S. has bankrupted Jorge's family farm with NAFTA, murdered Miguel's parents with CIA-backed death squads, and kept Maya locked up in prison for dissent in a U.S.-backed dictatorship - it owes each of them a green card at the border, no questions asked, and an easy path to citizenship after that. Just for starters.

      Real justice would involve trillions in restitution, as well as deporting everyone from CIA flunkies to former Secretaries of State to face trial.

      So, cayane, you want to add a couple of zeros to your annual tax bill to make up for the coups and slaughter from Guatemala to Chile? Or do you want to let the poor bastards in to work at a car wash or lawn care business?

    35. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, here is the better question, if those people are working and contributing to society and have been doing so for a long time, why shouldn't they have a say in things?

      Simple, because there are NOT FUCKING CITIZENS!!

      Geez, how hard is that to get?

      Very, because that's a tautology, not an actual reasoning.

      They came here illegally....they are disqualified from voting and they have started out their journey on US soil by committing a crime. If you don't like that, change the laws, but you can't change the fact that they are here by breaking immigration laws.

      Um, yes, that would be the point, we don't like it, so we want to change the law, and asking you why shouldn't they.

      Your response? Again, the tautology above. See why the discussion bogs down?

      Ok..so, you say anyone here in the US during elections should be able to vote? Ok..are there other countries in the world that are so haphazard with their election laws?

      Who cares? The question is, what should we do. And do note, the premise of the inquiry above. It isn't anyone.

      By your logic, you'd be cool with other countries sending floods of folks here to try to sway elections. How about lots of Russians flooding in close swing states...they come here, overstay their visa...and keep doing this with more and more people coming over during the 4 years between elections and then they all get to vote and sway our elections based on what their mother country wants.

      They'd be better off here, than there. But again, nobody is suggesting that.

      Far fetched? It could happen.

      Not really, no, because your idea is absurd.

      Ok, how long do you think you should have if you are in the US illegally before you can vote. 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? If you are here illegally, how can you prove it?

      If you want to discuss the parameters of citizenship, we can, but I'm not sure what you want for the latter. It seems an awkward question.

      Those documents to prove how long you are here could easily be forged....

      All documents could be forged, go whine about that somewhere.

      Again..there are rules and laws on the books. If you don't like them, vote to get representative that will change them, get involved...promote your cause.

      Again, that's the basis of the question above. Which you didn't answer.

      But we can just ignore things we don't like, or it falls into anarchy.

      You meant can't. But actually, ignoring, or rejecting things is how this country was formed. Anarchy did not entail.

      And other external countries to the US do NOT have our best interest in mind, they have their best interest. That's what a countries government is supposed to do.

      Individuals in the US do not have *our* best interest in mind. That is a common feature of government. But seriously, you're worrying about the other countries influencing the US?

      Way to miss the geopolitical spectrum, eh?

      So, look. I don't think hardly anyone has a problem with immigrants. Legal immigrants.

      Oh, uninformed there. That hasn't been true since Adams (John) was in office. There has ALWAYS been anti-immigrant groups.

      Yes, come to the US...just sign the fucking guest book on the way in....

      Oh, if only it were that simple.

      And one last hint..if you want to come here, be a citizen and contribute...quit waving other countries' flags when you're on TV protesting. It doesn't help your cause much.

      Let me know when you tell people to quit waving the flag of treason and insurrection.

      If you wanted things like they were in your home country..stay there.

      That's nice, now back to the point being made?

    36. Re:Too late.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he specifically said "If you are a Latino Citizen with undocumented family members... you have more reason to vote" He never encouraged illegals to vote.

      Unfortunately, you are mistaken.

      As near as I can transcribe her exact line, with meaning and intent, Gina Rodriquez said:

      Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, uh, citizens - and I call them citizens 'cause they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting. So if I vote*, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?

      *With the "I vote", she is putting herself in the role of a young illegal immigrant who wants to vote. She calls them 'citizens', just 'cause she wants to, not because they actually are. That is the situation President Obama is replying to.

      You can make an argument on whether he refuted her application of "citizen" to illegal immigrants, and his response was only for US citizens. However, he didn't correct her definition of citizen before replying, and possibly used her definition when he answered her question. His response:

      Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote you are a citizen yourself and there's not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who, maybe, is undocumented, then you an even greater reason to vote.

      So, did President Obama accept Gina Rodriquez's redefinition of the term "citizen" to apply to illegal aliens in his response? Did he affirm it by telling the 'dreamers' that "when you vote, you are a citizen"? He certainly didn't dispute it.

      you aren't only new around here are you? you're a complete neophyte to logic. If you aren't a citizen, how the fuck did you get on the electoral roll to vote?

      no wonder you guys have Trumped us, fuck how the hell is it possible to be as stupid as that comment?

  6. 1984 by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "To combat the lies being spread about me; I'd like you to rev up the censorship"

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try to make sense.

    2. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliantly put. Reigning in fake, misleading news that even the writers admit is fake = censorship, for sure.

    3. Re:1984 by DogDude · · Score: 1

      You don't really know what censorship is, do you?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you for agreeing.

      If Obama wanted a non-censorship approach, he'd not ask for it to be removed. He'd ask for Facebook to stamp it with "This is not the opinion of Facebook. The content being presented has, however, been fact checked and is not truthful."

      But keep spinning your narrative and trying to change what censorship means.

    5. Re:1984 by Pentomino · · Score: 0

      Your criticism might sound more sincere if there were any chance at all that Trump would tolerate this kind of criticism at President. He would not hesitate to crush any media outlet that so much as commented on the size of his hands.

    6. Re:1984 by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Propaganda only works when real world information is suppressed. GP may know better than you what censorship is.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Telling people to fact check before parrroting lies is now censorship?

    8. Re:1984 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Note that Melania Trump has stated that her mission as First Lady will be to make the internet a "safe space" for children.

      Anyway, Obama is right. This election went post-factual months ago, and as more and more people turn to social media for their "news" rumours and deliberate lies have become the new "facts" in their minds. That doesn't imply he wants censorship any more than I do when I point out how stupid this whole thing has become.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:1984 by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Like Hillary does. Look up set the record straight.

    10. Re:1984 by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Did he advocate government censorship of Facebook? Or did he just comment that people post a lot of nonsense on Facebook?

      People are always confusing "freedom of speech" with "the right to say any stupid thing I want without anyone pointing out that I'm wrong."

    11. Re:1984 by Kohath · · Score: 1

      This exactly. It's the "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" of online mass censorship by corporate cronies -- with the goal of further preserving and consolidating power in the hands of a very few, fabulously wealthy, unaccountable elites in Washington and the bay area.

    12. Re:1984 by gtall · · Score: 2

      In addition, propaganda also works when people choose to believe it over real world information.

      Now I must go off to think about what real world information is. Maybe I'll know it when I see it. In any case, the internet allows people to believe their preconceived notions are true. I guess real world information, to count as information and not disinformation, must entail a web of consistent, interlocking facts. Hmmm...seems indiscernible from conspiracy "theories". Maybe real world information is a bit like a scientific theory. It must be open to testing. Conspiracy theories typically are not.

    13. Re:1984 by Kohath · · Score: 2

      No. He's outsourcing the censoring to the government-aligned partisans that manage Facebook. His inner circle still gets to control what you see and what you don't, but he gets to pretend to have clean hands.

    14. Re: 1984 by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The organization you're referring to is called "Correct The Record."

    15. Re:1984 by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I reread his quotes. I still can't find anywhere that Obama has even asked Facebook to filter misleading stories. He just comments that there's misleading/false stories being posted on Facebook.

      But incidentally, Facebook does have the right to censor/filter content on their site. That still doesn't qualify as a violation of your freedom of speech. If you don't like Facebook's policies, you have the right and the ability to not-use Facebook, to use another service, or to create another service with different rules. Nobody is oppressing you just because Obama has made a true statement that there's some nonsense on Facebook.

      I mean, really, are you kidding me?

    16. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for correcting the record you Hillary shill. Hillary is going to make you get GAY MARRIED!

    17. Re:1984 by Kohath · · Score: 1

      So you'll be on Facebook's side when they start censoring people in voluntary cooperation with government propagandists. Thanks for telling us in advance.

    18. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the argument is to make Facebook, and other outlets, push fewer false stories, NOT tell everyone to smarten up and question everything.

      This isn't new, either. Modern democracy is controlled by the best and the brightest of the dimmest and the dullest. This is why someone like Trump will easily secure 40% of the popular vote. Anyone that's actually critically analyzed his policies knows they don't add up, but the average person wouldn't know where to even start the process of picking a platform plank apart. Obama's not calling for people to better themselves and shrug off that ignorance; the powers that be want an intellectually pliant electorate, and they get it.

    19. Re:1984 by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I already hate Facebook, and would not recommend using it. I'm just confused as to what you think is going on, or how you think it all works. Who are these propagandists, and what's their connection to Facebook? Why would Facebook do what they want, when their whole business model relies on the good faith of their users? What stories do you think they're going to start censoring? And if they do start censoring, what do you think is being violated? Do you think you have a right to tell Facebook what their policies are? Or do you think the government should be regulating Facebook to keep it politically neutral? If you think Facebook is so terrible, why wouldn't you just stop using Facebook?

      I really don't know the answers to all these questions, but I suspect you're either a troll or a whackadoo, and I'm not sure how you have any karma.

    20. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political purging will start at noon, 9 Nov 2016

  7. Fake Stories...about me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When they were spreading stuff against my political foes, it was cool. But now that my party is getting some bad press, it ain't cool no more. Need to stop this! Think of the children!!

    1. Re:Fake Stories...about me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've confused Obama with Shillary.

    2. Re:Fake Stories...about me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been plenty of lies about both candidates and only a full-fledged idiot would believe otherwise. Unfortunately that seems to be most of the world. What's really interesting is that it's both positive and negative lies. Practically everything said in this election, good and bad, has been complete bullshit. I honestly didn't think my opinion of humanity could sink lower but I truly don't think we're worth saving anymore.

  8. Lies being spread...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look no further than most words coming out of Hillary's mouth.

  9. People are not logical by backslashdot · · Score: 0

    I mean, the number of violent crimes per year has been declining a lot. Yet the Trump narrative is that "crime rates are soaring because of illegals".

    How will Trump manage to win with that lie? It's easy when he cherry pick crimes to highlight. I mean, he gives multiple specific examples of crimes committed by illegals .. making it look like the crime contribution is much higher than it is.

    When the fact is pointed out that the criminal rate among illegals is less than the general population they pivot to saying "these are extra crimes that wouldn't have happened". Which is a false statement because illegals are also the victims of violent crime by legal citizens who may have carried out the same crime on someone else. Meaning statistically, due to the fact that illegals also absorb crime the overall effect on crime may actually be positive.

    That's right, illegal immigration may actually be reducing crimes against citizens.

    And then there is the humanitarian argument that from God's perspective a violent criminal in the US is more likely to be caught. So the overall net effect is that less humans are victims of crime .. which from the perspective of being human is a plus.

    I am not arguing in favor of open borders, just illustrating that narratives can go both ways depending on which facts you want to place emphasis on.

    1. Re:People are not logical by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      When the fact is pointed out that the criminal rate among illegals is less than the general population

      If Trump is wrong then you are just as wrong. There is zero evidence that illegal aliens commit crime at a lower rate than regular citizens. Zero.

      There's some evidence that because illegal aliens are much harder to track that the crimes they commit are underreported and they are not properly prosecuted for their crimes. That's undeniable.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:People are not logical by DogDude · · Score: 1

      There is zero evidence that illegal aliens commit crime at a lower rate than regular citizens. Zero.

      Facts seem to disagree with your uninformed opinion.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:People are not logical by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There's some evidence that because illegal aliens are much harder to track that the crimes they commit are underreported and they are not properly prosecuted for their crimes. That's undeniable.

      Could you explain how the immigration status of a perpetrator could figure in to the crime statistics reported by police? Crime stats are not based on prosecutions, they are based on crimes reported to police. If a crime is committed and the perpetrator is not caught, it still figures in the statistics.

      The only possible way it could happen is if crimes where illegals immigrants are the victim are not reported because they are afraid of talking to authorities, but I don't think that's what you mean.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:People are not logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you, paywall.

      Still - putting people that have broken the law of your country to the front of the line for visa / citizenship is an INSANE immigration policy. Note - basically none other countries do this.

      Are they all racist ? No, they don't have a bunch of screaming morons. They just realize they have a country to run / manage, they should institute a process for controlling immigration (so they can raise / lower various immigration limits), and then they should enforce that process so that it is all manageable.

      This is a strawman, unfortunately parroted by Trump / party - that is not the real immigration issue.

    5. Re:People are not logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh its an informed opinion.
      Incompetently informed, but informed nonetheless.
      Which is exactly the problem Obama's complaining about.

    6. Re:People are not logical by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't generally know the immigration status of the perp when you report a crime. Even if you think you know (racist), they won't count it.

      Based on standard lying with statistics methods. The % of crime the is attributed to illegal aliens is that for which they are convicted. All other crimes are not proven to be committed by illegals and are the denominator.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:People are not logical by phlinn · · Score: 2

      Illegal immigrants != immigrants. Although not a subscriber so I can't see all of it, that article starts off referring just to immigrants. Opponents of border control consistently combine legal and illegal immigrants into one group when spouting statistics, which means they are ignoring the actual point. People who choose to violate the law in order to immigrate are not particularly prone to respect other laws, while jumping through the convoluted mess of our immigration laws suggests someone who is more law abiding than most. Collecting any statistics on illegal immigrants is going to be difficult because they are actively trying to hide, meaning that the combined group is going to be dominated by legal immigrants.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    8. Re:People are not logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic we should import all the criminals from other countries and let them prey on our population so they can be caught. You know, for humanitarian reasons.

    9. Re:People are not logical by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Regardless, it's illegal for anybody but citizens to vote. Green Card holders/Permanent Residents can't vote, let alone F1 or H1B holders. They may be 'citizens' (sic) in terms of paying taxes, sending kids to local schools and so on, but they are still not allowed to vote, nor participate in jury duties

    10. Re: People are not logical by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      What the hell Joker you don't have access to Google at Arkhan Asylum?

      OK I do not expect you to be as smart and informed as me to just know these things, but honestly you should at least be able to Google it.

      A LOT, possibly even most countries have granted citizenship to illegal immigrants to their countries on some scale.

      For example most recently Turkey and India have done so. Many European countries have done it in the past and recently.

    11. Re:People are not logical by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      If Trump is wrong then you are just as wrong.

      Isn't that his point? He (and I won't even tell you if I'm talking about GP or Trump) has tied two totally-unrelated things together, in a reasonable and plausible-sounding way. If anyone is listening to one of these arguments, the other argument is just as good. OTOH if you're smart enough to call bullshit on one of them, the other one's bullshit leaps out at you, too.

      There's some evidence that because illegal aliens are much harder to track that the crimes they commit are underreported and they are not properly prosecuted for their crimes. That's undeniable.

      Great example! You have just stated a very plausible-sounding idea. A non-critical reader wouldn't bother to check, and wouldn't be likely to notice that the "there is evidence" part of your example statement is just as bogus as the rest. Once someone starts pulling things out of their ass, they can pull support out of their ass too. Why merely lie when you can elaborately lie? Have your bogus PGP key be signed by lots of other bogus keys. It looks more "genuine" that way.

      At this level of discussion, we've moved beyond how we normally solve real-world problems, and into faith-based discussions, countering religious preaching with religious preaching, contests in who best presses the emotional buttons of their audience, or .. to boil it down to a single word: art! Who doesn't seriously ENJOY that? I know I do.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    12. Re:People are not logical by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I would question the evidence due to the under-reporting issue you point out, although I'd imagine it's out there and has reasonably-identifiable error bars.

      Interestingly, there are statistics for number of murders committed per 100,000 persons, and specific statistics for number of murders committed by both Muslim immigrants (including refugees) and their children (from immigrant families across the last 20-30 years). Last time I dug through the numbers, the Americans committed 20 times as many murders per capita as the Muslims. If we assume Muslim terrorists are generally murderers (a weak-ish assumption, although it's more-likely that most murderers aren't terrorist and most terrorist are murderers than the opposite), that means Trump's insinuation that Muslim refugees and immigrants over the past decades are a flood of mostly-terrorists is actually not backed by facts--and also that red-blooded Americans are 20 times worse than Muslim refugees, on average (most likely concentrated in poverty-stricken, gang-riddled cities).

      I haven't identified any information that makes me leery of Muslim refugees; and I'm pretty confident the information on that is pretty solid, especially compared to information about undocumented immigrants.

      I'm usually more interested in his faulty economics arguments.

    13. Re:People are not logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% of illegal aliens are criminals.

  10. Headline by rossdee · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Obama criticizes Facebook of...

    Perhaps you mean criticizes FB for spreading fake stories

    1. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, leave my engrish alone!

    2. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get with the program. The new fad is to invent your own version of English so that people see you as unique. You have a number of choices: confusing verb tenses (-ing vs. -ed), randomly omitting the verb "to be", placing adverbs directly after the verb ("drive slowly the car") as if your first language is really Spanish, confusing adjectives and adverbs, and many more. Good luck!

    3. Re:Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, leave my engrish alone!

      Hey, leave my angrish alone!

      FTFY

      --another angry guy

  11. Fact checking is bad by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Facts can be used to lie. You can state things that are true and still make someone arrive at an incorrect conclusion or solution.

    1. Re:Fact checking is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts can be used to lie. You can state things that are true and still make someone arrive at an incorrect conclusion or solution.

      No, facts are facts. Your confusing them with innuendo and such. Facts are provable. For instance Donald Trump lies like 10 times more than than Hillary is provable. You can count each one and provide proof why each one is a lie.

      On the other hand someone saying Hillary is a liar. In fact she is the worst liar ever, is errant nonsense. Trump does a lot of that BS. In this case you have a truth, followed by a lie, and well commentary, and yes hyperbole is still a lie.

  12. So 62 % of the posts are not false or misleading? by Diss+Champ · · Score: 3, Funny

    That implies two things:
    1. The quality of Facebook has increased substantially.
    2. We're screwed.

  13. Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the same guy who was downing Trump for his attach on Saturday Night Live? Funny how these things work.

    1. Re: Double Standard by Entrope · · Score: 1

      He is Mr. "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan" and President "The first I found out about Hillary's email server was on the nightly news, like everybody else". Of course he complains that FB is lying to the American public?

  14. Liar-In-Chief by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does Facebook get to criticize Obama for telling illegal aliens that they can become citizens by going out and voting illegally?

    1. Re:Liar-In-Chief by DogDude · · Score: 1, Troll

      Obama never said that. You're lying.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Watch the video for yourself. He also promises not to investigate illegal immigrants for illegally voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re: Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lie!

    5. Re:Liar-In-Chief by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are you that dumb? If you are undocumented, you cannot register to vote or vote. He is talking about LEGAL citizens who may have undocumented friends going to vote.

      Of course, you would have all the -others- tossed out even if they are citizens. Xenophobes like you have no place in modern society. Either we learn to get along with each other (and we have been doing better lately even though the news makes you think otherwize), or we will wind up destroying ourselves, or that which makes us human.

      Quit using your fear as a driver for your beliefs.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Female host:

      "Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country. Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"

      Obama:

      Not true. And the reason is, first of all ... when you vote, you are a citizen yourself and there is not a situation where the voting rules are somehow transferred over and people start investigating, and etc. The sanctity of the vote, is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who is undocumented, you have an even greater reason to vote."

      Seriously, fuck you. You can try and cut that anyway you want, but it doesn't get much clearer than that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Kohath · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you are undocumented, you cannot legally register to vote or vote. (FTFY) But go ahead. He says no one is checking or investigating. And he's got your back if anyone finds out.

    8. Re: Liar-In-Chief by JoeyRox · · Score: 0

      Do you mean the interview in which Obama was asked whether a US citizen who lives in a household that has illegal aliens should worry about whether casting their vote might trigger an INS action on the illegals? The same interview that was then contorted by Drudge Report and another mouth breathers who have no listening comprehension?

    9. Re:Liar-In-Chief by sherr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.

      "When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]."
      He's answering the question (which is not quite what she asked) "If I vote will immigration come for my undocumented family members", and the answer is no.

      "Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote."
      He's very clearly saying that Citizens can and should vote in a way that supports their families and friends. He never says that Illegals can or should vote.

      And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.

    10. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, Obama's pledge to "get your back" runs out in mid-January. If Trump wins, me might have an interest in cleaning up the voter rolls and might discover hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who have committed the FEDERAL FELONY of electoral fraud and might just do something about these repeat criminals as part of his effort to "drain the swamp". He might do something about the tens of thousands of Deceased-American active voters, too.

    11. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Don't fool yourself. Judges won't care. Government investigators won't care. They know how to play the game. They want that 6-figure pension. Nothing will change until they run out of other people's money.

    12. Re:Liar-In-Chief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Call me a skeptic, but I have rarely seen unscripted questions and answers in these sessions. If you believe President Obama is simply a moron who can't understand English okay. I happen to think he does understand English and gave the scripted answer to a scripted question. Perhaps I am too skeptical and cynical at this point, but recent events have cemented my position.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:Liar-In-Chief by sherr · · Score: 1
      Let's analyse the question, shall we?

      "Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country. Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"

      There are three categories of people mentioned:
      • millennials - refers to an age group, generally assumed to be citizens
      • dreamers - non-citizens who were brought here at a young age and want to be citizens
      • "undocumented -- undocumented citizens, I call them citizens because they contribute to this country" - obviously explicitly not citizens, but the host kept repeating and emphasizing "citizen" so the mistake is understandable.

      So we're mixing completely different categories of people, including citizens and non-citizens, in a confusing way.

      The actual question is "Are fearful of voting, so if I vote will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?". The answer to that question is "no", actually regardless of it the voter is a citizen or not. Immigration will not know where you live because of your voter registration. That is what he explicitly says. He also tries to clarify that only citizens can vote in the same sentence, which in was a mistake.

      Do you have any evidence that it's scripted, or that the host asked exactly the question that was in the script? Or is that just an assumption on your part so you can continue believing the narrative.

      You haven't even bothered to try to explain the second quote or the rest of the speech. If you listen to what he says as a whole, he is very, very clearly talking about Citizens (only) voting. Yes I agree that if you take that one sentence out of context then it can be misconstrued to mean something else, but I think you are the one that does not understand English (or the voter registration process), not Obama.

    14. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...promises not to investigate illegal immigrants ...

      He didn't say that he promises to not investigate illegal immigrants for illegally voting: what he said was that there is no process for tracking voters, and that it is a private vote. He said that in response to HER anxiety about Latinos voting and being tracked back to their address & taken away. Which is a silly question by itself.

      Let's rephrase the same theme but with words you mare more easily understand:
          Her "If I go do something naughty like take a drink out of someone else's glass when they're not looking, can the FBI track me down by my lip-prints?"
          Him: "No, there is no way or system to possibly track such nonsense".

      Where people are getting hung up is that he should have called her on the question to begin with. Such as "We cannot track voters individually, but why are you asking? If you are you so nervous to come to a public forum, that you're worried about being seen or followed- you should not be in that voting booth to begin with."

    15. Re:Liar-In-Chief by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      If people are illegally registering to vote, the issue is with the local registrars and polling places. He is not saying he has your back, he is saying if you are legally allowed to vote, you should vote and exercise your civic duty, and we will not use those records to harass your family (who may not be legal).

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    16. Re:Liar-In-Chief by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Does Facebook get to criticize Obama for telling illegal aliens that they can become citizens by going out and voting illegally?

      Fitting that you respond to an article about fake news stories with a post about a fake news story.

      (and if you're referring to that FOX News clip of an interview Obama did then have a second look, the interview clip is obviously edited)

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Liar-In-Chief by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you have a family member who is undocumented, you have an even greater reason to vote

      It's exactly as the GP said. He was clearly talking about people who themselves are citizens with the right to vote. You even quoted the relevant bit yourself.

      If this one comment which can be twisted to mean something it clearly doesn't is your only evidence that Obama wants undocumented immigrants to go and vote, you need to fuck off Mashiki.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Liar-In-Chief by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      More likely he and the GOP will use it as an excuse, just like they have already been doing for years, to purge Democrat voters.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Liar-In-Chief by DogDude · · Score: 0

      If Trump is elected, the next election will be the least of the world's problem.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    20. Re:Liar-In-Chief by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's because people basically base their view of reality on their preconceived notions. Most people, even those here who seem to regard themselves as highly intelligent, really are dominated by their emotions and are slaves to their prejudices.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Liar-In-Chief by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't even understand how "Citizen of Earth" understands that video to be a promise not to investigate illegal voting. It's pretty damned clear that he's not encouraging illegal immigrants from voting. He's talking about attempted voter suppression and intimidate, and trying to reassure new citizens (who might have friends/family here illegal, and may not feel completely confident yet about their own place in our society) that they won't face retaliation for voting.

      He prefaces the whole thing by pointing out that you can't vote unless you're a citizen, and then his entire explanation is basically, "Voting is confidential, so nobody is going to come after you or your family based on who you voted for."

    22. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.

      Oh piss off. Questions like this aren't even unscripted, that was as scripted of an interview as you can get. Not only did Obama know the questions beforehand, the people surrounding him did as well.

      And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.

      Sure explains those cases of illegals voting multiple times doesn't it? Sure explains all those times the democrats are against voter ID laws doesn't it. "Only citizens can vote" and the only way you can tell who's a citizen is with voter ID laws, and ensuring that those voter rolls are accurate. Keep in mind that multiple elections have been lost with a hundred votes or less.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whites are dying out in the US and worldwide generally. If you're even slightly wrong, then it's a VERY big mistake.

    24. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      If this one comment which can be twisted to mean something it clearly doesn't is your only evidence that Obama wants undocumented immigrants to go and vote, you need to fuck off Mashiki.

      If you think that was unscripted or "twisted to mean something" and no one knew the question you're more naive then I already think you are. Couple this with 8 years of Obama and the DOJ refusing to prosecute illegals, release illegals, and telling ICE agents to let them through? Grow the fuck up. A tell-tale Obama unscripted event is multiple "uh, uh, uh, uh's." He knew exactly what he was saying.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Liar-In-Chief by sherr · · Score: 1
      Wrong and wrong.

      Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear.

      Oh piss off. Questions like this aren't even unscripted, that was as scripted of an interview as you can get. Not only did Obama know the questions beforehand, the people surrounding him did as well.

      Even if it was scripted, the host clearly fumbled the question. Like, I don't see how there could possibly be any dispute about that. So if it was scripted then that explains it even better, as Obama was answering the slightly different (scripted) version of the question instead of what was actually asked.

      And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.

      Sure explains those cases of illegals voting multiple times doesn't it? Sure explains all those times the democrats are against voter ID laws doesn't it. "Only citizens can vote" and the only way you can tell who's a citizen is with voter ID laws, and ensuring that those voter rolls are accurate. Keep in mind that multiple elections have been lost with a hundred votes or less.

      Evidence please? All the actual evidence shows that in-person voter fraud does not really happen.
      https://www.brennancenter.org/...

      The only form of voter fraud that voter ID laws could possibly prevent, is to prevent someone from showing up and giving a false name and address. That's the whole idea, because your picture and name and address would be on the ID. The ID does not tell you who is a citizen and who is not any more than the voter role does, it merely confirms that you are who you say you are. So to commit that fraud right now a non-citizen would have to walk up and give the name and address of a citizen, and vote under that name. Not only would that already be doubly-illegal, but it's also easily detectable, as when the actual real citizen goes to vote they'll be flagged for voting twice and an investigation will ensue.

      Democrats tend to oppose Voter ID first of all because if you're charging for the IDs then that is essentially a poll tax, which is blatantly unconstitutional (24th Amendment). No one should have to pay to vote; the right extends to all citizens, regardless of how poor. They also tend to oppose Voter ID because it's typically a blatant attempt by Republicans to suppress the vote of people who don't already have Driver's Licences (usually poor and Democratic, typically also a minority), not to solve any actual real fraud problems.

    26. Re:Liar-In-Chief by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      This is because "Citizen of Earth" is not a citizen of earth. He/she is locked in his fearful xenophobic shell. He is a citizen of fear.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    27. Re:Liar-In-Chief by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      This transcript really is pretty clear. The concern Obama addressed was legal citizens who count illegal immigrants among their friends and/or family being afraid that someone might look into who they voted for (presumably the candidate less hostile to illegal immigrants) and start investigating their friends and family based on that information, possibly leading to their deportation.

      As for the original question, I think the host was referring to illegal immigrants attempting to vote, but that isn't the question the president answered.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    28. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Even if it was scripted, the host clearly fumbled the question. Like, I don't see how there could possibly be any dispute about that. So if it was scripted then that explains it even better, as Obama was answering the slightly different (scripted) version of the question instead of what was actually asked.

      That doesn't even make any sense. She was reading off a sheet of paper and reading off a teleprompter. If it was scripted it simply means that the exact phrasing of the answer was deliberate calculated.

      Evidence please? All the actual evidence shows that in-person voter fraud does not really happen. ... Democrats tend to oppose Voter ID first of all because if you're charging for the IDs then that is essentially a poll tax

      Since we're talking about voter fraud in general? It sure does happen. Hell there was an investigation into fraudulent registrations in every county in Indiana and it's still on-going. We see in-person voter fraud even here in Canada, including fraudulent affirmations under oath. Feel free to hit your favorite search engine, you can find them in both the US and Canada. The real problem is actually prosecuting the people *after* they've already voted.

      You mean like those voter ID laws we have in Canada, that are more stringent in the US but require things like "a copy of a bill where you live, drivers license, a bill, a friend who will affirm under oath " that the democrats are against? Or in one case, where 53 different forms of identification were accepted. This is the same country where you can't even get welfare without ID, and require ID to buy controlled substances? Give your head a shake.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    29. Re:Liar-In-Chief by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Very clear indeed. He said "when you vote, you are a citizen," trying to clear up the confusing question. The implication is that if you are not a citizen you do not vote. Contrapositive statements have the same truth value as the original. He then elaborated that the votes of citizens with undocumented family members will not result in ICE knocking on your door. The question is poorly asked, but the answer cannot be parsed in the manner you seem determined to parse it.

    30. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any citations or links to historical evidence? There's only been about 50 case of voter fraud in the last 20 years and none of them involved undocumented anyone. They mostly involved party workers from both parties, but you wouldn't want to know about those. They are documented citizens.

    31. Re:Liar-In-Chief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The second part of the question is simply a statement affirming the full context of the question, which as you point out very clearly defined non-citizens in the voting pool. As to whether these things are scripted, almost every single show is scripted even when it's not the POTUS. Believing he would get treated worse than Hillary is pretty damn foolish.

      Your extrapolation of the question is wrong, especially considering the actress^W"reporter" emphasized illegal immigrants in her question. Nobody in their right mind would believe that any other entry in the list would question voting rights.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    32. Re:Liar-In-Chief by sherr · · Score: 1
      Okay, so:
      1. You have an entire website of people telling you that you and Mashiki understood the video wrong.
      2. You have a perfectly plausible explanation of why the question / answer are confusing and / or being taken out of context.
      3. If you choose to interpret Obama's statement slightly differently (in what I argue is the intended way) then what he says is perfectly reasonable, Legal, and repeated later in the interview.

      And instead you choose to believe that the only possible explanation for this fragment of a sentence is that Obama is instructing Illegals to vote. Okay dude, believe what you want. Even if he was doing that they are still unable to vote because they can't get on the voter roles.

    33. Re:Liar-In-Chief by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Obama misunderstood the question because of the host's incorrect use of the word "citizen". If you listen to what he says it's clear. "When you vote - you are a citizen yourself - and there is not a situation where the voting roles are transferred over [to immigration or anyone else]." He's answering the question (which is not quite what she asked) "If I vote will immigration come for my undocumented family members", and the answer is no. "Part of what is important for Latino Citizens, is to make your voice heard because you are voting for yourself, you are voting friends, family, etc, who may not have a voice, who can't legally vote." He's very clearly saying that Citizens can and should vote in a way that supports their families and friends. He never says that Illegals can or should vote. And they can't. Only Citizens can vote, you have to be a Citizen to get on the voter roles in the first place and they always check the voter roles.

      You are quite the psychic in claiming that Obama misunderstood the question. The reporter asked him whether a hypothetical illegal (not she herself, unless she really happens to have illegal immigrants as relatives) would provoke an ICE raid if she voted.

      She clearly said 'I call them citizens because they contribute to this country'. You claim that Obama overlooked that definition of 'citizen' on her part. That's pure speculation on your part, and would require psychic capabilities to confirm. Also, the family/friends that are referred to here are 'undocumented', which is a euphemism for 'illegal'. Legal immigrants are not supposed to vote. Illegal immigrants are not even supposed to be here.

      But what's that to the president, who for the last 8 years, consciously chose not to enforce immigration laws!

    34. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did not promise anything. He said the voter roles are not a part of any investigations and that the sanctity of the vote is sacred. Nowhere does he promise anything, tells anyone it's ok to do illegal activities, or any other suck bull. You are misrepresenting the interview to make it look as bad as possible. I'm going to enjoy your tears when Hilldawg wins tonight, ya racist prick.

    35. Re:Liar-In-Chief by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Lots of politicians "misunderstand", then they turn around and ask you to believe they're razor sharp intellects.
      They don't misunderstand, they're intentionally obscure so they can deny saying what they said. Or they're morons. I tend to believe the former.

    36. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct. The fragile American system of government will immediately explode and cave in. Supreme court justices and senators will call on him to request favors, while kneedling. Separation of powers will go away overnight. His wishes will become law. That magical "Nuclear Button" ( wish looks like a gigantic Staples button, but says "nukular" instead of "easy") will be slammed by him repeatedly.
      Have you ever taken fourth grade American Government classes? He is precisely what checks and balances are supposed to try to guard against.

    37. Re:Liar-In-Chief by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You have evidence that only President Obama gets unscripted questions? Nope, you don't. You believe that voter roles are clean and that you need more than just a name and address to vote? That is untrue too. In States that refuse to adopt or enforce ID for voters, it's actually as easy to cheat as it is to remember a name, street number, and address. Hard for an illegal that just got here and does not speak English? Not really. There is a small percentage of States that enforce ID to vote, but the overwhelming majority do not.

      "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
      Franklin D. Roosevelt

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    38. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Not true. And the reason is, first of all ... when you vote, you are a citizen yourself and there is not a situation where the voting rules are somehow transferred over and people start investigating, and etc. The sanctity of the vote, is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who is undocumented, you have an even greater reason to vote."

      Yes, crystal clear - Obama said you must be a citizen to vote, and in no way no how said undocumented immigrants could vote. That was your point, right? Right?

    39. Re:Liar-In-Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I call them citizens because they contribute to this country"

      That's clearly saying "yeah I'm calling these guys citizens even though they're not lol j/k :DD"

    40. Re:Liar-In-Chief by sherr · · Score: 1

      The situation he is describing, which he states explicitly more than once, is a Citizen voting with non-citizen / illegal immigrant family / friends. That is the inescapable conclusion if you are honestly trying to listen to what he says as a whole instead of latching on to part of a sentence fragment in an answer to a confused question.

      Also Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in history. If you have to cherry-pick facts to support your narrative, you're probably wrong. Immigration is a complex issue and Obama's response to it is not a simple "sure come in and vote!!!!".

  15. Go MSM! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Go MSM! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Oh please stop! The democrats have no exclusivity in the deception department.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Go MSM! by DogDude · · Score: 2

      "FNC" is a wing of the Democratic party? What in the fuck are you talking about?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Go MSM! by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever watched Bill O'Reilly or Megan Kelly? They repeat the same talking points as the other MSM and for the most part allow narratives to run unchecked. The only people on that network who are pro-Trump is Hannity and part timer Jeanine Pirro.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Go MSM! by pastafazou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not yet, but they're very close to having a monopoly now that Ailes is out at Fox. If you've been following the Wikileaks releases, you would have seen that all of the mainstream media were colluding and working with the Clinton team. All of Hollywood and all of the big networks working overtime for Clinton, controlling the news you hear, massaging, filtering, and shaping the message being delivered to the populace. If not for the internet, Reddit, Wikileaks, and a few others, Clinton would be winning all 50 states and nobody would have a clue.

    5. Re:Go MSM! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The Democrats can count on the mainstream media to have their backs and cover it up when they are lying or committing fraud. The Republicans can count of the mainstream media to screech from the hilltops if the Republicans give even the faintest appearance of attempting the same thing. The government bureaucracies are also staffed mostly by leftists -- the kind of mentality that comes from being professional wards of the state. Government workers won't tolerate any Republican shenanigans either, but are willing accomplices to Democrats.

    6. Re:Go MSM! by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Wait, Rush isn't attached to Trump's crotch?

    7. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget Buzzfeed. I love how they are now suddenly a "legitimate news source" just because they've been pro-Hillary and anti-Trump.

      People only want to hear the lies that suit their worldview. All that pretentious nonsense about morals, truth and objectivity is nothing but bullshit.

    8. Re:Go MSM! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well whaddya expect? She's a moneymaker... You don't have to take her to court to get paid. It's strictly business and machine politics. The democrats and republicans are a tag team with the same goal.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Go MSM! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more like, Clinton has been doing politics for decades, so has her husband, both have held high office and over that time have developed connections and contacts in the media, as every other politician does. Trump doesn't have that and some of the people in his own party who would normally be helping him are kinda reluctant to.

      This reminds me a lot of the stupid outrage over journalists being friends with various game developers that came out of GamerGate's "ethics" cover story. That's how journalism works, people don't tell journalists stuff if they don't know them or like them. The professional part is being able to be friends or at least friendly while still being objective.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).

      Please don't let people forget or not realize this fact: With the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. government has re-legalized domestic propaganda after it being illegal for over 65 years.

    11. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like, Clinton has been doing politics for decades, so has her husband, both have held high office and over that time have developed connections and contacts in the media, as every other politician does. Trump doesn't have that and some of the people in his own party who would normally be helping him are kinda reluctant to.

      This reminds me a lot of the stupid outrage over journalists being friends with various game developers that came out of GamerGate's "ethics" cover story. That's how journalism works, people don't tell journalists stuff if they don't know them or like them. The professional part is being able to be friends or at least friendly while still being objective.

      It is not just that. With Hillary you have _everything_ that could possibly be released by any legal or illegal means available to well the united states or russia, versus a much smaller footprint, including no tax returns from Donald.

      So if you find the stack of questionable things is higher with Hillary than you'd like, you need to also consider the stack of good things, or simply normalize the results into ratios of good or bad to total information. That is not entirely fair either, but you can't ignore all that Donald has hidden, particularly when you see all of his lies.

    12. Re:Go MSM! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      O'Reilley is pretty much neutral or fair. Brit Hume, who is outgoing, was anti-Trump during the primaries, but neutral in the general election - neutral b/w Never Trumpers and pro Trumpers. Tucker Carlson, who takes over from Brit next week, is pro Trump, and to an extent, so was Greta. Megyn Kelly is anti Trump - given her patching up w/ him interview, it's a tad inexplicable, but I wish she is gone from there. Hannity is pro Trump again. Most people in Bret Baer's panel are anti-Trump, w/ the exceptions of Charles Hurt, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crawley and the Schlapps.

    13. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, in a story about spreading lies, someone decides to spread the Democratic party's biggest lie about anyone who supports Trump has to be a racist, sexist, xenophobic, mentally challenged deplorable. We can't possibly support him because we believe he's the better of the two choices...

    14. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rush isn't associated with FNC

    15. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One reason we have freedom of speech and that journalists were given so much leeway is that the founding fathers did not want the press to be a political arm. What we have is the main stream press outright colluding with Clinton. They were having the Clinton campaign vet stories and provide editing. They were running stories directly from the Clinton campaign. These are the types of things that happen in 3rd world dictatorships. One of the big talking points was to spread the word that Trump was a fascist. Well, in fascist countries, the press is controlled by the dictator. Which candidate has had the press in her pocket?

      Lots of people in this country have been bamboozled by the Clinton machine. She decided she was going to be President and everything got set in motion. No actual challengers from the Democratic party (Bernie is an Independent), the press parroting her agenda, no tough questions that were not originally submitted to here and answered with a well scripted answer, no real investigation of her actual record, etc.

      This country deserved better than the candidates we got. But because some egomaniac thought she had some divine destiny to be the first female president, we got stuck with Hillary. Beyond the history book, I honestly have no idea why she wants to be President. She has not laid out a case. We're electing a power hungry, stop at nothing, fake, insincere crook. In four years when she vacates the whitehouse for the nursing home, she'll take the rest of the furniture that didn't fit in the truck the first time out the door.

    16. Re:Go MSM! by quantaman · · Score: 1

      We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).

      Do sources on the left, even including the media, sometimes spread misleading information? Of course.

      But when it comes to absolute BS, flat out unambiguous lies, the right is far worse, both in traditional and social media.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >O'Reilley is pretty much neutral or fair.
      are you f'ing kidding me ? just watch a bunch of jon stewart - daily shows where he gets taken apart - with video evidence.

    18. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you prefer the lies spread by the left. They do it for "a good cause" so a few half-truths and misrepresentations aren't that bad, right?

      That is until you look a bit closer and realize the left is so full of shit it's revolting. They do all the stuff they accuse the right of. Their media dehumanizes people who disagree with them and they justify lies, vandalism and violence because "they're on the right side and have to fight the other guys".

      The left are masters of "the ends justify the means", except the ends got twisted so much along the lines they don't even resemble the "good cause" anymore.

    19. Re:Go MSM! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Jon Stewart is a Leftwing hack - of the calibre of Jeff Cohen or Neal Gabler (both ex FNC media analysts)

    20. Re:Go MSM! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      FNC has 50% who like Trump, and another 50% who can't stand him. Given that this election is a personality contest, the pile-on on Trump happens not just from the Jake Tappers or the Martha Radditzs, but also from the Megyn Kellys and the Jonah Goldbergs

    21. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Correct the Record, which has their "nerd virgins" (their leader's own words for them!) paid to "correct" things on social media.

      But yes, the media has been out in force. Anyone who read the Podesta dump knows that the Democrats had all the debate questions in advance, unfairly. They know all the people in the media who went to the DNC to ask what they should and should not publish and how to tell their stories, they know about that illegal fundraiser the DNC held with the Washington Post, etc., etc., etc.

      And they know that it was all validated by DKIM signatures. Truly, this election, telling the truth has been a 'subversive act'.

    22. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look up who actually owns the networks and cable channels.

      Hint - they're not progressives.

      And on any given day you can tune into Fox News and listen as the host repeats the GOP talking points of the day word for word.

      And you may be interested to know that Fox, Limbagh, Beck, and the rest, are the highest rated programs. No one is keeping right wing hate speech off the air.

      There is media collusion, no doubt, but saying it's all on the left is ignorant.

    23. Re:Go MSM! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake. The MSM had absolutely no problem covering the damp squib which was the latest FBI email announcements, to the point where it probably did cost Hillary some votes.

      You're just upset because your candidate isn't going to make it, and rather than be an adult and admit said candidate never had a chance, you behave like a delicate snowflake and declare someone must have cheated said candidate.

      Sanders never had a chance, and Trump is possibly the worst candidate in modern US history, probably even eclipsing Goldwater and McGovern.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Go MSM! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Being against Trump is not the same as being the propaganda wing of the Democratic party! Trump is only Republican because that's the party who nominated him, he is not a long term believer in the Republican party platform, he is on record openly favoring stances in direct opposition to the standard Republican line although he claims "I never said that". If anyone other than Hillary were running then the Republicans as a whole would be abandoning Trump. The few major Republicans who support Trump do so while wringing their hands.

      So sorry, but Bill O'Reilly and Megan Kelly are not part of the Democratic party propaganda machine in any way. They just don't happen to like that blowhard moron that managed to win at the primaries. (never mind that Trump whined and threw a fit with Kelly's softball questions to him that any halfway decent Republican candidate could have deflected)

      So I don't like Trump. Does not mean I like Clinton. Stop thinking of everything as having only two sides, that's simplistic thinking reserved for sporting events. Politics should be more complex then a moronic us-versus-them mentality.

    25. Re:Go MSM! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Rush is a big-time Republican supporter, even the liberal Republicans like both Bush's; He's not associated with Fox. Once you factor out a couple people Fox reports the same as everyone else, they just don't spin it as hard in commentary.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    26. Re:Go MSM! by russgoings · · Score: 1

      One reason we have freedom of speech and that journalists were given so much leeway is that the founding fathers did not want the press to be a political arm. What we have is the main stream press outright colluding with Clinton. They were having the Clinton campaign vet stories and provide editing. They were running stories directly from the Clinton campaign. These are the types of things that happen in 3rd world dictatorships.

      If I remember correctly during the Adams/Jefferson campaign in 1796 there were attacks on both by newspapers connected to other. This is not a new "thing" in American politics just the "same old same old". The press has always picked sides for reasons that seems best to them. As the old teacher said there is nothing new under the sun. Deal with it and move on.

    27. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, propanganda is A-OK when YOUR party does it.

      Right.

      History will judge you a traitor to freedom and honesty, but long before then, your cats will judge your corpse as delicious when you die alone, because you're a piece of shit that could only parrot your party's lies and talking points and people don't like to spend time with those.

    28. Re:Go MSM! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      GP stated that Fox was pro-Trump, and my argument was that they are not pro-Trump. WOW! Pure intellectual genius! YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    29. Re:Go MSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is almost as if recognizing their own deep and irrepressible partisanship these people assume that everyone else, no matter how professional or accomplished, must be no better than themselves.

    30. Re:Go MSM! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I think we've found an even worse candidate than Trump. Or do you think he cheated?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    31. Re:Go MSM! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I hate to quibble, but I think you have cause and effect reversed. The left accuses the right of doing all the shit they do. This is a classic tactic of Marxism, dating back to Lenin, at least.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    32. Re:Go MSM! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, O'Reilly seems to very much like Trump, and is at least fair to him. He's not a groupie of his like Hannity, nor is he a hater like Megyncologist. Trump has been on his show every other week, which he would not have been had he not thought O'Reilly was at least fair to him

  16. Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's almost out and the US'oA didn't exactly get the change they wanted, but probably they change they deserved.

  17. Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if we accuse him and Clinton of using the mainstream media in that way he says we are conspiracy theorist, but when he says we use social media that, it's something bad?

  18. The government is concerned about spreading lies.. by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government is concerned about spreading lies and that it may dupe people into making choices that they wouldn't make if they knew the real facts? Talk about blistering irony...

  19. Facebook?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, it's a good thing this fool hasn't turned on his TV and seen the bullshit 95% of the "news" has been spewing about Trump this cycle. I'm sure his head would explode.

  20. Cleanse it all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, If there's anything said that is counter to anything Hillary or Obama have said, it should be removed right?

  21. Ha! No shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that facebook! I am tired of how facebook media essentially conspires to keep the important news about war and fraud by the rich and powerful away from airtime! Do one about the absolutely dishonest way the media has made a huge deal over some sexual impropriety and hawkish claims of one candidate while the other has been a rape enabler and victim silencer for half her life and has actually participated in war crimes! Oh, wait that's the mainstream media

    The average American hasn't been exposed to a trustworthy press, practically their whole lives. Now the establishment is surprised they'll believe anything. The CFR-controlled media and government have colluded for decades to shovel horseshit rather than truth. Americans have been weaned on horseshit. When are we going to have an open talk about that?

  22. He can criticize all he wants by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Just don't attempt censorship. That is not allowed. Evidently the government wants a monopoly on deception.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:He can criticize all he wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't attempt censorship. That is not allowed. Evidently the government wants a monopoly on deception.

      Facebook can censor anything they want anytime they want. They are a private company. I'd have no problem if they purged the obvious fake stories, though I think a better route is to also include links debunking them, though with this election I don't know if they could keep up...

      The president is certainly allowed to call out the BS. He can't force Facebook to censor anything, but he can call it out.

  23. Frame of reference by axlash · · Score: 2

    It's getting to the point where in the future, nobody will be able to tell what's true and what's false.

    That's really problematic, because if two people who need to dialogue with each other don't have a 'frame of reference', how *can* they discuss anything?

    --
    Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
    1. Re:Frame of reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's getting to the point where in the future, nobody will be able to tell what's true and what's false.

      Look at the evidence and patterns of behaviour and make an informed judgement call.

      That's really problematic, because if two people who need to dialogue with each other don't have a 'frame of reference', how *can* they discuss anything?

      How was this different when we had traditional print media? If you were informed and attempted to have a serious discussion with someone who was not, they would begin attacking you simply to disguise their ignorance.

      Social media is one part fake-liberal sociopaths trying to bully and shame anybody speaking the truth. The other part consists of sociopaths deliberately baiting the former. Popcorn anyone?

    2. Re:Frame of reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's getting to the point where in the future, nobody will be able to tell what's true and what's false.

      As a proud attack helicopter, I share your concern regarding the blurring line between reality and fantasy.

    3. Re:Frame of reference by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In general journalists over the last couple of hundred years of held to at least a modicum of ethics. Yes, there have been exceptions, and in some cases some rather enormous breaches of that faith, but for the most part journalists are not wanton liars. The idea that there is this vast cabal of journalists and news organizations out to delude the people really is a conspiracy theory built by people whose own interest is to devalue journalism in favor of their own content. This "alt-media" (left or right) is the journalistic equivalent of anti-vaxxers.

      That's not to say that one shouldn't turn a critical eye to any piece of news, regardless of source, and that one shouldn't be concerned where media concentration and overlap with other commercial interests could lead to intentional or unintentional warping of news. It is one thing to be critical, it's another thing to turn into a complete paranoid, and it's even worse to find even less reliable sources of information and trumpet them as superior.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  24. not if.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bet he doesn't care if it is a fake story that has nothing to do with his party.

  25. Re:Hillary is a queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont undersand the whole religious people disliking gay marriage, if you want to reduce the amount of gay sex, you would support it.
    Best sex killer ever. :)

  26. facebook misleading? by whoozwah · · Score: 1

    everything everywhere is misinformation and lies. All of it. Period. Not a single iota of data released for mass consumption is intended to inform. It is intended to confuse and weaken.

  27. Normal one-sided BS by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

    A recent BuzzFeed investigation found that 38 percent of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information."

    Yeah, but, let me guess, Media Matters, TPM, etc. were found to be bastions of honesty, right?

    I had to hide all posts from about half my facebook "friends" on both sides of the political aisle because so much of it was just outright falsehoods. It was different kinds of falsehoods, but still lies.

    1. Re:Normal one-sided BS by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Upworthy and NBC News investigated Media Matters and concluded they're totally non-partisan and unbiased. Stop being paranoid.

    2. Re:Normal one-sided BS by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Media Matters, yes, tends to be very honest. I haven't seen any examples otherwise, so I trust them.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Normal one-sided BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's law for sure. Good effort.

  28. OBAMA is mad about false and misleading... by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    That's rich.

  29. Had Sanders been the nominee... by unixisc · · Score: 2

    ...this would not be such a tight race. And I say this as a Trump supporter

    1. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      One thing is for certain, referring to yourself as an article of clothing that Mr. Trump has no use for; makes no sense.

    2. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What sort of clothing is a 'supporter'?

    3. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Does Trump need one?

    4. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      An "athletic support" is commonly called a "jock strap".

      And "LifesABeach" is commonly called a "twat".

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      And I say this as a Trump supporter

      Great! Now that we know your opinion is coming from an honest source, lets just move your online musings over to the facts column! Thanks for your small part in clarifying everybody's world view.

    6. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's no world view, it's an observable fact. Throughout this election, people have noted how both Trump and Clinton have high negatives. Had Sanders been the candidate, the high negatives would only have pulled down Trump, and we'd be looking at a Democrat landslide. Trump himself has admitted as much

    7. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      It's no world view, it's an observable fact.

      How can something be observed that never happened in this universe?! Had Sanders been the candidate all the negative attacks would have been directed at him. He uses the word socialist describing himself for fucks sake! Surely the (R) party would have felt right at home voting for him over a billionaire. Might people feel better about Sanders than Clinton? Maybe, possibly even drastically so. But all we have is a probability, not an "observable fact". All I ask is that even though you have a single data point that can be explained in a tweet as "evidence" you consider the possibility that your brilliant insights into what might have been are not fucking facts!

      Or maybe I'm the one out of line posting on a site that used to be "news for nerds" (that text isn't even on here anymore). "amateur pundit land" is a better description of where we're at.

    8. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Except that 'Socialism' does not have the negative, pejorative feel to it that it did 30 years ago, or else, Sanders would have been way behind not just O'Malley, but also Chafee and Webb. There was nothing attractive about this 74 year old ex mayor of Burlington, but the way he went around calling for a revolution, and the crowds he gathered at college campii far exceeded Hilary. If she didn't have those super delegates lined up behind her, and the party machinery dedicated to her win, she'd have lost to him the same way she lost to Obama 8 years ago. There are no attacks that Trump could have used against him that would have worked - be it the fact that he was a panhandler before he became mayor, or that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, or any of that. Most people - certainly Millenials - were born way after the end of the Soviet Union, and have no idea of how things were in the US during the Cold War.

    9. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      We're already 3 replies deep and we know you see it one way and I see it another which is fine. My only real issue with your analysis is your use of the word fact to describe what could have been. Whatever comes of today can we at least agree that analysis of the past projected onto a hypothetical reality however likely it may seem is just that and not a "fact"?

    10. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Welp I take what I said back. I'm probably going to continue to live in the US indefinitely and collectively we have decided that facts are whatever we want them to be. To live here is to accept that so, yeah those are some powerful facts you laid out. But I have new facts to present. If the FBI hadn't sent a nebulous letter and russia hadn't meddled in our politics, we wouldn't be talking about what a fact means. We would just go by the dictionary definition. But data? Pisshh. IRRELEVANT! And after tonight those are all 100% observable FACTS!

      Now offtopic, since you're a trump supporter I have 2 questions for you: What are his policies* and how will he enact them?

      *I'll give you a freebie and assume Mexico will pay for a wall.

    11. Re:Had Sanders been the nominee... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue. His policies are whatever he concludes after listening to the various stakeholders - be it Congress, the generals (for military and foreign policy issues), the markets, the companies, the unions and everyone else. He has laid out the big ticket items - be it the wall, extreme vetting, bombing the shit out of ISIS, getting along w/ Russia, cutting taxes and regulations, pulling out of TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, voiding every one of Obama's executive orders, renegotiating/abrogating the Iran deal, and so on. None of his proposals are going to end up the way he proposed them, since it's well known that he's a transactional leader - it's a bunch of give-and-take until he gets the deal he wants. So nobody will get 100%, but nobody will get 0 either. Pooh baahs and doubting thomases will lament the fact that he didn't get 100%, but people will have different opinions about his performance

  30. BuzzFeed investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave Kettle alone!

  31. Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by acoustix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "My position hasn’t changed" on using executive authority to address immigration issues.
    Says his comment about extremists being a JV team "wasn’t specifically referring to" Islamic State.
    "Most young Americans right now, they’re not covered" by health insurance.
    "We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion."
    The "most realistic estimates" for jobs created by Keystone XL are "maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline."
    "We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."
    "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."
    Because of Obamacare, "over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up -- it's true -- but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years." Obamacare hadn't been implemented yet.
    "Fast and Furious" began under the Bush administration.
    Says Mitt Romney would deny gay people the right to adopt children.
    If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
    "Thirty million Americans, including a lot of people in Florida, are going to be able to get healthcare next year because of that law."
    Under President Barack Obama, the United States has "doubled our exports."
    "I didn't raise taxes once."
    "The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.''
    "We've excluded lobbyists from policy making jobs."
    Insurers delayed an Illinois man's treatment, "and he died because of it."
    Health reform will "give every American the same opportunity" to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.
    Preventive care "saves money."
    "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter."
    Shovel-ready jobs
    Keep your doctor
    Foreign money in campaigns

    The list goes on and on...

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  32. Re: Hillary is a queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary made me get gay married. Then she killed my lover, to show she has the power.

  33. dead on by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    He's absolutely right. There was even one crooked politician who was spreading lies about Russia trying to help her opponent and even hacking her email (even though she also claimed that her insecure email server was never hacked) when she was actually the one making deals with Russia that were bad for this country. Also "swift-boating" her opponent with a barrage of false last minute sexual claims (gee, they are all so obviously false but there are so many of them ....). Lets blame Facebook rather than the candidates.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  34. Spreading Stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook created an easy way to share stories. It has no control of the content and has stated so in it's terms of use https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms So they created a way to spread stories, the fake part it has no control over and takes no responsibility for. So Obama is bashing the basic function of Facebook(sharing info - stories), and trying to hold it accountable for something it says it doesn't want to control(censorship).

  35. Vote Mitt Romney! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeh, you stick it to the man, Vote Mitt Romney this election!
    Obama isn't even American! That TV talent show, novelty act Trump said he had proof!

    Can't wait for the new iPhone 4s, so I can tell my Fox News buddy Roger Ailes about what I just did!

  36. Dear Obama, Clinton, and Trump.... by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    Facebook is a SOCIAL NETWORK, NOT a news source.

    Facebook is all about opinion and whatever people post. If you treat it a an actual source with journalistic integrity, you are a dumbass.

    1. Re:Dear Obama, Clinton, and Trump.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Facebook needs to borrow the line that /b/ uses:

      The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
      Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Dear Obama, Clinton, and Trump.... by Kohath · · Score: 2

      No. Facebook is an advertising platform. And a playground for silicon valley douchebags to run social experiments on people.

    3. Re:Dear Obama, Clinton, and Trump.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      look at all the tabloid trash and gossip column crap posing as "news" on the major U.S. News sites. I'm having a hard time telling them from the social network sites.

  37. Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Storie by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Is slashdot farming its editing out to China? Either that, or you misspelled "for". Bad grammar is fine in a comment, NOT in a story or headline.

  38. Re:Hillary is a queen by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

    From the religious perspective...God doesn't just judge people, but nations as well. The belief is that if our nation turns to this lifestyle, the country will fall.

  39. Obama's Final Executive Order... by pipingguy · · Score: 2

    Department of Truth

    1. Re:Obama's Final Executive Order... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ministry of Truth
      FTFY

    2. Re:Obama's Final Executive Order... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, but this is America though. No ministries (government departments) except for religious ones.

  40. First and foremost... by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

    ...Facebook isn't doing anything, but allowing users that are abiding by its terms of service to post whatever they want. There is no law against this because this is a free country, and there is this thing called freedom of speech! Second: Facebook isn't a news site, and it doesn't produce most of the content contained on Facebook. Facebook is a user driven site, and users are free to post pretty much anything they want as long as it doesn't violate Facebook's terms of service. If other people are dumb enough to believe false news stories without doing research on the topic then that is their priority, and the government has no business telling these idiots what to believe or not believe. Also the government has no right to try and persuade Facebook to protect these idiots. In fact please don't! Let natural selection take its course. As I have seen plenty of hazardous memes on Facebook that should cause idiots like this to do something stupid resulting in certain fatal injury.

  41. Skip TFA, read the BuzzFeed article by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    38 percent of posts shared from three large right-wing politics pages on Facebook included "false or misleading information."

    Of course, the posts shared from left-wing pages were completely accurate. /sarc TFA is crap. It implies that the right-wing sites are unreliable, but ignores the negative information about the left-wing sites.

    The BuzzFeed article is long, and gives lots of interesting detail. It even appears to be pretty balanced, not pushing any particular political agenda. No surprise, extremist sites on both sides make shit up to support their views. The site with the highest proportion of false content was right-wing, but it was also the site with the least content. The site with the most false content (in absolute numbers, more than all other sites combined) was a leftist site.

    With that background,

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Skip TFA, read the BuzzFeed article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. I used to be leftist but nowadays all I see is the same biased unchecked propoganda from the left side that they were complaining about the right side using last election

  42. Criticises Facebook FOR spreading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bad grammar? American grammar? Prepositions too difficult for you? Just insert a random preposition!

  43. I think the writer is naive by sribe · · Score: 1

    It's not the fault of FaceBook. It's the fault of people who WANT and NEED to believe the bullshit in order to prop up their otherwise unsustainable sense of white victimization. If FB did not exist, they'd still believe all of Trump's lies.

  44. If the MSM would cover stories then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we wouldn't have to go elsewhere for our news.

    For example: Ask yourself why we so many instances of black on white crime never make the national news and why the names and photos of those arrested under Operation Cross Country are not published.

  45. Pricipal . by Bohnanza · · Score: 0

    Caught sayof school that has stoped Handstandsing " See, told ya so" Is He dead or not. CNN Says yes. St. Pete Times Looking for chads -OR- "hello, I am write single to salute and wait for answer again"

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  46. Re:Hillary is a queen by gtall · · Score: 1

    Yep, this G-d fellow's a bit weird. A country has some people who don't follow whatever holy book, so then S/He gets to whack the innocents that had nothing to do with the transgression. If it were a human doing the whacking, we'd call them a psycho-killer, but if it is a Deity, well, then any amount of violence is deemed acceptable.

  47. "Fake Stories" by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    WTF is a "fake story?" Is The Lord of the Rings one of the fake ones or one of the real ones?

    People believe stupid shit, and they also believe plausible-but-incorrect shit. Just say that.

    Implying that stories come in two categories sounds like something a media company would say, to make you think they are somehow better than everyone else. Oh wait .. turns out the bullshit words are from this "bgr.in" rather than Obama himself. Well, isn't that an amazing coincidence?

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:"Fake Stories" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a "fake story?" Is The Lord of the Rings one of the fake ones or one of the real ones?

      People believe stupid shit, and they also believe plausible-but-incorrect shit. Just say that.

      Implying that stories come in two categories sounds like something a media company would say, to make you think they are somehow better than everyone else. Oh wait .. turns out the bullshit words are from this "bgr.in" rather than Obama himself. Well, isn't that an amazing coincidence?

      A "fake story" is something that is portrayed as factual but is actually made up. Fiction. Lies. Untrue. Fake. It's really not that hard. Try to set aside your hatred for just a second to use the logical part of you brain. Jesus christ people are fucking stupid.

    2. Re:"Fake Stories" by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Try to set aside your hatred for just a second

      No fuckin' way. That's not going to happen.

      to use the logical part of you brain.

      That's exactly what I did! Why do you think I hate? They took a very simple idea and added distracting noise.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  48. pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people are saying that Hillary is a shapeshifting reptoid.
    Myself, I wouldn't know.
    But that's what they're saying on the Facebooks.
    We just provide the lies, you pick which one fits your preconceived bias.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by budgenator · · Score: 2

      I've been seriously entertaining the notion that Both Democratic and Republican minions have been planting false stories. It seems that if one party can bait the other parties followers into buying a false story, then they easily disprove the false story it hurts the opponents credibility. The hard part is to figure out if it's just a bunch of independent agents who happen to find a false story that fits their preconceived notion of the Evil(tm) other guys and throw out the bait or if there is some kind of hive-mind in the background.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      that, Sir, is an insult to reptoids. They are not that cold blooded and heartless and they often consider what is good for the species before indulging in self gain.

    3. Re:pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      Pity that the insane conspiracy stories always have a right-wing slant
      G.W. lied about WMD? Fact
      Hillary lied about Foundation donations leading to contracts to buy medicine for ISIS? Total complete lie
      And the latest Alt-Right lie? False equivalency

    4. Re:pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your fact is wrong. FACT! See, I can do it too!

    5. Re: pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has been beyond the boundaries of this universe ... who knows where she's been-- and what she has brought back with her.

    6. Re:pissing off the mob == pageviews++ by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Pity that the insane conspiracy stories always have a right-wing slant
      G.W. lied about WMD? Fact

      Yes he did, They lied about not finding them, Golf War syndrome was really sub-acute nerve agent damage.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  49. Some media igmored factual stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the biased media has done a disservice to the American people. Providing more tailored stories than reporting the news from a more unbiased platform. News should be just that, and not pick and choose what your report. Facebook to me is not really news, do you really have journalists deciding news or deciding content that is relevant to a political or certain viewpoint? From both sides of politics I see people voting for candidates who don't even know what they stand for.

  50. Tone at the top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it is the tone at the top.

    Remember some old fart who was saying:

    - red line not to be crossed
    - insurance will be cheaper than the cable bill
    - if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor
    - there will be no penalties for not having health insurance

    These were fake stories never retracted by their "spreader"

    As long as the air is not cleared at the top, nobody can accuse Zukerberg.

  51. Other things Obama hates by operagost · · Score: 0

    In related news, US President Barack Obama also criticized the telephone, SMS, email, the USPS, cubicle walls, break rooms, dinner parties, and little folded pieces of paper passed in Math class* for repeating "attacks" and "outright lies".

    * yes, kids probably don't do this anymore and it really dates me to say so. Suck it.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  52. Don't Trust a Word From His Mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHO in their right mind listens to this guy (O'Bummer), he's a liar, one of the most deceitful presidents of all times. His failed policies have put this country in the swamp and made us a laughing matter throughout the world.

    1. Re:Don't Trust a Word From His Mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone is laughing outside the US. Look at what happened in Libya. Now one of the orchestrators is most likely going to be the new president -- instead of being in jail for war crimes. Imagine what message that sends out to the rest of the world.

  53. "if they just repeat attacks enough and outright" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? It works for CNN!

  54. Maybe if all of them would stop lying... by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

    > "we just start accepting crazy stuff as normal"

    Maybe if all of them would stop lying and quit acting like the country is their personal playground/piggybank/etc, we wouldn't be "accepting crazy stuff as normal," and *some* sense of sanity could start coming back.

    Maybe.

  55. Apparently lunacy is the new normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Crazy? Nonsense?
    Have you seen who the candidates are?

  56. False or Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False = Factually incorrect
    Misleading = doesn't imply what I want to imply.
    False or Misleading = stuff I don't agree with.
    Now, there's a shocker: BuzzFeed says 3 Republican sites have stuff they don't agree with. The real surprise is they were able to toss only 38% of posts into that bucket.

  57. Diversity + Proximity = War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All over the world, that formula has held. Lee Kwan Yew, the founder of Singapore, noted that in a multicultural democracy, people vote their racial and ethnic identity not ideology. In Rwanda, Hutus personally hacked apart with machetes, or beat to death with stones, somewhere between 800K and 1.1 million Tutsis and "moderate" Hutus. This matched the three year total of Auschwitz. Similar but lower genocide coefficient stories can be found throughout Africa, including the Biafran Civil War, Somalia and South Sudan, and Mali. In Europe, the streets and busways and railways of Germany are a war zone, with swaggering, military age youth Muslims beating and raping people including children with impunity. In Austria a Muslim refugee who claimed "an emergency rape" of a ten year old boy in a public swimming pool (victim was White) was let go by a judge because "the refugee did not know what he was doing was wrong." Meanwhile Paris is an urban war zone of Calais "jungle" refugees fleeing back there after the jungle was dismantled and fighting (they are mostly Africans) with the French and Muslims.

    The entire premise of Zionism is a Jewish ethno state that Jews can flee to for protection; and many are doing just that from Europe with the influx of Muslims. When Muslims feel confident enough to behead a Catholic Priest (the late, martyred Fr. Hamel) in Normandy DURING MASS, Jews have a point.

    Nowhere in the entire history of Mankind has a multi cultural, multi-racial society held other than utter, total brutal dicatorship with most being slaves. See Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the USSR under Stalin, Adolf Hitler's multicultural empire, Rome, Ancient Persia, and the rest. The "best" one can hope for is a "Good Emperor" like Tito who merely imprisons half the loser ethnicity men not kills them.

    Separation and Self-Determination are fundamental rights to all people. Obama's Mau Mau grandpa approved of the Mau Mau beating death of a 4 year old White boy in Kenya, to drive out Whites. It was a famous photo in its time, with the dead little boy lying about his toy train he crawled to for protection in vain. "The African cannot make his own bicycle" the elder Obama wrote, but noted that they had the right to kill any and all Whites and Indians to "cleanse" their nation from foreigners. Barack Obama noted wistfully in Dreams from My Father: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE that it would have been better if is politician father had succeeded in ethnically cleansing all Indians besides Whites from Kenya. [The part where he dines with his sister in a Nairobi restuarant and gets poor service compared to White tourists from the Indian family that owned the place.]

    Africans and Muslims no more belong in Europe in significant numbers than Whites do running Africa or the ME. Good Fences make good neighbors.

    And only a fool plays with fire.

  58. He did the same thing in '12 by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone remember ATTACK WAAAATCH!"

  59. Re:Hillary is a queen by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    According to that book ...

    1) There are no innocents
    2) Bad things happen to good people
    3) Good things happen to bad people
    4) It all works out in the end.

    And a couple more bits say
    A) Man thinks he is smarter than God
    B) God's stupidity is smarter than Mans awesome intelligence.
    C) God actually striking down someone is fairly rare, and usually has a point (i.e. not random)
    D) Man has killed from the beginning.

    I'll bet dollars to donuts you haven't read the whole thing. Which is kinda like "fake stories on Facebook"

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  60. Re:Go MSM citations please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).

    Truth/fact is a rare quality these days, having been replaced by unsupported allegations/innuendo. Could you please cite "fake stories" by CNN, MSN, CBS, ... Please provide some data to get us out of our all-sides propaganda quagmire.

  61. Only if they're FAKE in his eyes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a colossal Jacka$$...

  62. Fact check: True. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fact check: True. Buzzfeed is a left-wing site, almost as left-wing as CNN.

  63. That's their job! by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    Concerned over the spread of fake news on the social networking giant, US President Barack Obama has criticized Facebook, saying fake stories on social networks are spreading lies this election.

    He's upset because in previous election our political leaders were the ones spreading lies (for example Harry Reid and his claim about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years), but now the voters are doing it themselves, and it's less 'manageable'...

  64. GFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go fuck yourself Obama! What a douchetool...

  65. Re: Hillary is a queen by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry for the loss of your husband Vince Foster. Has time started to heal the wounds?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  66. False and misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is truly all Republicans got.

  67. Re:Hillary is a queen by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Because, in the vastness of the Universe, with the probably tens of millions of intelligent species, the one thing an omnipotent infinite being cares about is whether Stan and Gary get hitched.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  68. Keep my Plan? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    This problem with Facebook spreading false information has been going on for a long time. I remember a few years back, my acquaintances kept sharing news articles about some guy saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan," which turned out not to be true.

  69. But we are all still waiting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For US President Barack Obama to Criticize the DNC and the Media for spreading fake stories.

    When is that going to happen?

    Duplicitous!

  70. Not sure about a vast right wing conspiracy... by moronikos · · Score: 1

    But Facebook has convinced that there is definitely a vast right wing idiocracy.

  71. This is nothing new... by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

    Could say the same thing about radio, TV, and print... People used to send chain letters before there was the internet. God forbid rumors get spread! Just who exactly is he saying the onus is on to stop these 'false' stories anyway? Facebook? Next thing you know he'll be blaming microphone manufacturers for allowing people to give 'hateful' speeches.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  72. Big Media does this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is this any different than what the main stream media has been doing for decades?

  73. Re: Hillary is a queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like saying if you want to reduce child molestation crimes you should lower the age of consent to 5 years old.

  74. Only 38% by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Only 38%, IMHO that is far below the level of false and misleading information that comes from large commercial news media, so I'd have to say Facebook and Twitter are doing a better job at providing unbiased news than cable or broadcast news organizations, such as FOX and CNN.
    Why should the average person be held to a higher standard than an professional organization ?

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  75. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it lonely there, on the wrong side of history?

  76. Re: Hillary is a queen by RandomAvatar · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't. Gay sex isn't immoral, unethical, or anything like that, unlike child molestation. One is a type of "ignore the bully" approach with the other, you are giving child molesters an out.

  77. Echo chamber + Speakers' Corner by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    Think about the concept of a Speakers' Corner. Someone can come up, gather a crowd and spread whatever message they want...to the people listening. Facebook is the ultimate extension of that...now anyone's opinion or rant, no matter how false, instantly arrives on the phones of millions of users. Because it comes from an "authoritative source" like Facebook, people will accept it as the truth. The speech itself isn't the dangerous part; it's the fact that people will blindly believe it's true.

    People will say that people couldn't possibly be that stupid...but this election season I've heard some very interesting "facts" being shared by the more conservative people I work with. Older people especially grew up in the age of 3 network newscasts and a handful of newspapers of record providing the sole source of authoritative information. Average people absolutely don't get how computers, phones or Facebook work...they just know they work and accept the information coming in as facts.

    The other problem is the echo chamber effect Facebook gives. If you're left wing or right wing, you're not going to have very many friends on the opposite side. So, you and your like-minded friends will share opinions that only appeal to your crowd. In that way, it acts like the comments section of a news website or talk radio. There is a narrow band of hardcore people who will spend hours and hours a day listening to conservative talk radio, and there is also a small group of people with the time and inclination to post rants on comment sections.

    I'm of the opinion that our system works because we do have (or had) something of a filter on public rants and the spreading of misinformation. No one says we shouldn't criticize things, but having instant access to Facebook makes people shout louder because they can and it makes them feel better.

  78. Re:The government is concerned about spreading lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We need a Ministry of Truth

  79. Re:Hillary is a queen by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

    Because, in the vastness of the Universe, with the probably tens of millions of intelligent species, the one thing an omnipotent infinite being cares about is whether Stan and Gary get hitched.

    Well of course God cares......Gary doesn't love Stan, he's just getting married for the money and the stability.

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  80. 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facepalm already censors people in voluntary co-operation with government propaganda.

    Go read their terms of service.

    When you to the parts that explain how people the government puts on lists are unauthorized / not allowed to use the service, you are there.

  81. Of course posts on Facebook are fake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why I get my news from Slashdot! ....

  82. extreme by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    BHO is going waay extreme here.

    Facebook was just exposed for censoring conservative news ... so now he's saying what exactly?

    Facebook isn't biased in favor of liberals ENOUGH ??

    Oh, boo.

  83. Re:Hillary is a queen by bugs2squash · · Score: 0

    That's just another manufactured "justification" that the religious fuckwads give for why they feel they have the right to dictate everyone's lives.

    File it with the rest of the Manifest Destiny BS

    --
    Nullius in verba
  84. Re:Hillary is a queen by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    God can only judge things down to the weight of a mustard seed. Anything smaller, like say atoms, are too small. Presumably that extends to the affairs of atoms or however they may choose to arrange into collections.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  85. Re:Hillary is a queen by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    probably because of that whole story about Lot, his wife, and the city of Sodom. Controlling the masses is easier when you build a belief system that subscribes to indiscriminate smiting.

  86. Don't want a Facebook-approved feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't want Facebook deciding which stories are false and misleading and hiding them from me. I'm perfectly capable of making my own judgments and would prefer to see what the people I choose to interact with have to say.

    Please, Facebook, just neutrally report the facts. If one of my friends shares a false or misleading story, that's a fact. I want to know that. It's not less important to me because it's false or misleading. It's as important to me because one of my friends chose to share it.

    People use Facebook to talk to each other. If we want an environment with fact checkers, enforced political correctness, and truth police, we have Twitter.

  87. eTabloid by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Most social media is basically an eTabloid. People should trust it about as much as they would a paper one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  88. Here's the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igER94QFe4I

    Here's a copy of Obama's 2008 ad. Feel free to retract your false statement.

  89. manishs by edittard · · Score: 1

    Accuses of. Criticizes for.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  90. It's the humans not the platform by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    Facebook isn't spreading information any more than the blankets gave smallpox to the Indians. The people using the platform are the ones responsible for its spreading of misinformation. As long as idiots can't learn to think for themselves and do an occasional reality check, lies will win out every time. Facebook just allows it to happen more frequently, with a broader appeal, and a sheen of believability (is that a word?), since it comes "from" people you know. (even though in reality it comes from Palmer Lucky, who coincidentally was made a near billionaire with Facebook's money)

  91. Compared to 1% Run Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....the social media contains less dangerous bullshit. That is an empirically proven fact.

    How did they bring civil war to Iraq ? By means of GLEICHSCHALTUNG of the "free press". "WMD" and so on.

  92. He Already Does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FB acts like the prototypical German Police officer: "ID card please". So that your political opinions can be nicely put in a large database.

    And of course they already perform a shitload of censorship, with or without political pressure.

    FB is the tool of NY finance. Made by them for them.

    Want something free ? Try USENET.

  93. Et tu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What he fails to mention is that most of the lies perpetuated on Facebook originate from the DNC.

  94. Perfect example of what Obama is saying by golodh · · Score: 1
    @Mashiki

    I viewed the video clip and Barak Obama never said and never even suggested that illegals should vote.

    Besides which, the whole idea is ridiculous. If you're not a citizen, you're not eligible to vote in federal elections. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). You won't even appear on the voting roll unless somebody makes an administrative mistake. And that's quite uncommon, despite conspiracy theorist ramblings.

    I might understand that you could have honestly missed that if you're not used to listening closely (unlike your average media person) and/or paying close attention to what is being said (unlike your average media person) or simply don't care much about getting your facts right (unlike your average media person). Or if you're too busy feeling indignant to pay attention but focus instead on getting a post out. But you're still wrong.

    Your first amendment rights guarantee your right to spout nonsense (in good faith). Practicality virtually guarantees you won't be be prosecuted for slander. There are simply far too many people saying dumb things in good faith to be able to spot something who maliciously spreads disinformation.

    However, this is the perfect illustration of what Obama means by Facebook posters muddying the waters. Except you're doing it on Slashdot instead of Facebook.

  95. Facebook for news? Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone is using Facebook as their primary news sources....they are an idiot and reading news on a different aggregate site isn't going to change that. Mainstream news sources may not be perfect, but the main difference is that they are actually held liable if they public bullshit. Some random idiot giving you advice and opinion online (like this anonymous coward) is not.

  96. Croco Tears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mainstream media is fully whoring themselves to whoever pays top dollar.

    Here in Germany the crypto Marxists in the media have decided to badmouth Trump on almost every day. Clinton's deeds are meanwhile ignored and she is being glorified. NY Times and The Economist seem to be almost the same.

    In the ongoing wars they lie to the public almost in the same degree as they lied when Iraq was destroyed.

    Of course we have stupid stuff in the internet such as chemtrails, "aliens" and so on. But the internet has not made these outrageous wars happen.

    Obama is just one of these agents of the rich, unpunishable criminals who run the Anglosaxon world. He sheds tears that he (or his friend Hillary) and his fellow bastards cannot plunge one more nation into deadly chaos.

    The internet hates lies and works against them.

  97. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I challenge you to give the name of one prominent politician who's been in the public eye or news for at least 8 years with a shorter "lie list".

  98. YAWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Professional lying is the key competence of Marxists, Maoists and related folks. Obama and Clinton are collectivists and they believe that a good amount of lying will bring "progress" to humanity and ultimately some sort of paradise. They learned this from the banksters, but what they did not learn is that lying only helps as long as you have a victim of the lies who will work for you. In the soviet union everbody lied and no work was done. So all were poor. THAT is what the Marxists and Mohammedists have in stock for us. Lies, misery and more misery.

  99. Re:Hillary is a queen by gmack · · Score: 1

    Although it's rarely about that when the Bible says God judged a nation. I've come to the conclusion that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most misunderstood scripture references. People get caught up in the fact that it was men the town wanted to have sex with, and somehow overlook the fact that they weren't willing to take no for an answer. It was less about them all being gay rather than the entire town wanting to gang rape a couple of strangers.

    And then we have verses like this that suggest that the tea partying Christian Right would be more at fault than the entire gay community if God himself were to come down today and start smiting:

    Ezekiel 16:49 English Standard Version (ESV)

    49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

  100. Here in Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The seeds of Maoism and KGB work are now in full bloom: Trump is being Godwinned almost every day, while Hillary is being heroized. In all mainstream media.

    Same media corporations worked quite nicely with Adolf the Austrian. At least I am now enlightened how the past really worked.

  101. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those only count if he posted them on Facebook, didn't you read the summary.

  102. Re:Hillary is a queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is kinda like "fake stories on Facebook"

    Yep, I completely agree that the all the holy books from every religion are a lot like the fake stories on facebook. They can be entertaining, they may be educational, but if you base your entire life around them you are probably nuts.

  103. Re: Hillary is a queen by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

    All sex outside of marriage is 'immoral' according to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

  104. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Speaking of history...

    “I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go.”
    “My father served in World War II, and when he came home, he got the services that he needed.” (At the end of WWII, Obama’s father was 10 years old.)
    "If I talked to Iran, I'm going to tell them, 'You should develop a nuclear weapon...'"
    "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian..." (There is no Austrian language).
    "The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him."

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  105. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it lonely there, on the wrong side of history?

    Well, we're not all thrilled about the coming of a totalitarian society. Those who opposed Hitler were on the wrong side of history too... for a while. Purporting to know who is and isn't on the wrong side of history is so incredibly smug and arrogant. That attitude has changed me from a left-leaner to a right-leaner. If your political views have merit, put them out in the marketplace of ideas. Purporting that you already know who is right and who is wrong means you views probably don't have enough merit to stand up to scrutiny.

  106. Re:Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Sto by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Slashdot doesn't edit posts, or at least very rarely edits posts, that's why it's not for the faint of heart, if some butt-wipe butchers the spelling, grammar and context of a post, that's what you get. Not everybody here is native English speakers either, but when you come across one, you can usually tell by the lack of spelling, grammar and logic mistakes.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  107. professional liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LMAO This professional liar tells fecesbook that they;re spreading lies? yet through wikileaks it is known that fecesbook is in full cahoots with the dnc

  108. That's where I keep all my data by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    in the "cloud of nonsense"! How dare Obama disparage my network suite!

  109. Re:Hillary is a queen by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    I'm absolutely positive this was a normal, everyday earthquake at Somom; add in the massive oil deposits everywhere and the reasonable explanation is earthquake + natural asphalt deposit = hellish explosion and destruction. No need for any angry supernatural entity.

  110. Oh, you mean fake stories like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"?

  111. Re:Hillary is a queen by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    "the whole thing" Which version? The original Hebrew? Latin? Aramaic? Greek? Which books? Is the Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc included? Don't forget the original cantillation verse set too.

  112. What he's saying by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    "All the bad stuff about Hillary is a lie, but Trump: no arguments here."

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  113. Kohath lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't say he got your back. You're intentionally misrepresenting the statement to show it in the worst possible light. +5 bullshit!

  114. Re:Lies? You mean like Obama's lies? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Oh my god this.
    I've got friends on the left, and friends on the right. I personally lean right.
    I like the exchange of ideas. Sometimes I learn something new. occasionally, I'll change my opinion.
    When I mention this to my leftist friends, invariably the response is "Great! We've got a lot you can learn." The assumption being they're the bastions of true knowledge.

  115. Mostly RW molehills. Look at the mountains. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The biggest lie of all was Obama's 2008 campaign. He ran as the most liberal candidate since Johnson, all the while planning on having the 8th and 9th terms of the Reagan Administration. So bringing this out:

    "The vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.''

    Is kind of weak sauce next to promising to renegotiate NAFTA in public, while promising in private that it was mere campaign posturing. Or insisting that "any bill I sign must contain a public option" - months after he had already killed it for the hospital lobby. Molehill, meet mountain.

    And those are the actual lies - some of things you rattled off happen to be 100% true.

    "Under Gov. Romney's definition ... Donald Trump is a small business."

    Yes, when Republicans say "small business", what they really mean is a business with a small number of owners. Making even Koch Industries a "small business", despite being one of the worlds wealthiest private corporations.

  116. Re: Hillary is a queen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caity Mahoney?

  117. Pot, meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coming from a regime that frequently spreads propaganda, this is quite laughable.

  118. It's not too late! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Obama, sir, on behalf of all intelligent Americans I beg you: declare martial law, arrest and execute Trump and all of his staff, proceed to door-to-door confiscation of all firearms NOW!!!

  119. Re:Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Sto by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    If they don't edit, they shouldn't be called editors. To not edit a front page story is about as far from professional as you can get.

  120. Re:Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Sto by budgenator · · Score: 1

    That's not an unfair assessment, predominately they elevate stories to the front page, but a lot of that is assisted or done automatically by the Firehose now and deal with the more obnoxious trolls.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  121. curso NR 10 by Instituto+Santa+Cata · · Score: 1

    Curso NR 10 online curso NR 10 curso NR 10 online

  122. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that FB has posted a bunch of lies against Trump.
    This should stop!

  123. Or, people can grow up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and reject gossip and innuendo -- which, let's face it, is all Twitter and Facebook are.

    Just like that nasty neighbor who likes to talk trash about people behind their backs, as adults we should be able to see it for what it is and ignore it.

  124. It's otherway by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Social media spreads free opinion;
    Traditional media generates opinion;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West

  125. Re:Obama Criticizes Facebook of Spreading Fake Sto by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Then they're moderators, not editors. Mistakes like that smack of rank amateurism. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing such a terrible job.

    And when will we be able to paste a paragraph from a newspaper without the text being mangled? This isn't the slashdot I used to know.