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."

276 of 436 comments (clear)

  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 tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. 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.........
    3. Re:BuzzFeed? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    4. 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.
    5. 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.........
    6. Re:BuzzFeed? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Only the Republicans have guns :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. 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.

    8. 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

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.........
    13. Re:BuzzFeed? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

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

    14. 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".

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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
    18. 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

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

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

    20. 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

    21. 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.

    22. 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 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

    3. 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.
    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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?

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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."
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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?

    17. 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.
    18. 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
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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
    22. 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"

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

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

      Oh please, please, let this happen!

    27. 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.

    28. 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.
    29. 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.

    30. 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.

    31. 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
    32. 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
    33. 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. 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 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.

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

      You have a problem with Americans voting? Why?

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

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

    9. 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.

    10. 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'
    11. 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.

    12. 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.........
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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...
    17. 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
    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Re:Too late.... by JThundley · · Score: 1

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

    22. 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
    23. 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?

  4. 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 DogDude · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. Re:1984 by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Like Hillary does. Look up set the record straight.

    6. 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."

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

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

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

    11. 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?

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

  5. 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!!

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

    "Obama criticizes Facebook of...

    Perhaps you mean criticizes FB for spreading fake stories

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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 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.

    11. 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...

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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)

    15. 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

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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?
    22. 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?
    23. 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

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

    They're just rubbing salt into the wound.

  12. 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...

  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. Re:Liar-In-Chief by DogDude · · Score: 1, Troll

    Obama never said that. You're lying.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  16. 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

  17. 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.
  18. 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!”
  19. 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 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.
  20. 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!”
  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. OBAMA is mad about false and misleading... by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

    That's rich.

  25. 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.
  26. 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

  27. 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?...

  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.
  33. 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.

  34. Obama's Final Executive Order... by pipingguy · · Score: 2

    Department of Truth

    1. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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'
  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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
  42. 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...
  43. 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.

  44. "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 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
  45. 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 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
  46. 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?

  47. 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.

  48. 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.
  49. 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.

  50. Apparently lunacy is the new normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Crazy? Nonsense?
    Have you seen who the candidates are?

  51. 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

  52. 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.
  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. He did the same thing in '12 by Alypius · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone remember ATTACK WAAAATCH!"

  56. 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.
  57. 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.

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

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

  59. 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.

  60. Fact check: True. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fact check: True. Buzzfeed is a left-wing site, almost as left-wing as CNN.

  61. 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.

  62. 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
  63. 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.

  64. 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'...

  65. 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.

  66. 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.
  67. 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.

  68. 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.
  69. 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?

  70. 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.
  71. 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.

  72. 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.
  73. 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.

  74. 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.
  75. 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.

  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. 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.
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. 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?

  84. 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.
  85. 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.

  86. 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

  87. 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 ?
  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. Re:The government is concerned about spreading lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We need a Ministry of Truth

  91. 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.
  92. 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."

  93. 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.

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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...
  97. 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
  98. Re:"US President Barack Obama" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Only one news source? Why?

  99. 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.

  100. 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...
  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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
  104. 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.
  105. 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
  106. 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
  107. 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
  108. 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."
  109. 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...
  110. 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.

  111. 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.
  112. 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)

  113. 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?

  114. 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!
  115. 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.

  116. 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".

  117. 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.

  118. 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.

  119. Re: Hillary is a queen by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

    All sex outside of marriage is 'immoral' according to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

  120. 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
  121. 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.

  122. 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
  123. That's where I keep all my data by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    in the "cloud of nonsense"! How dare Obama disparage my network suite!

  124. 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.

  125. 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.

  126. 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!

  127. 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.

  128. 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.
  129. 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.
  130. 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.

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. 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.

  134. 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?

  135. 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!!!!".

  136. 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.

  137. 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
  138. curso NR 10 by Instituto+Santa+Cata · · Score: 1

    Curso NR 10 online curso NR 10 curso NR 10 online

  139. 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

  140. 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.