Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Releases Searchable Archive of Social Media Posts (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: President Obama's entire social media presence as POTUS is now available in a single online archive. The administration today launched The Obama White House Social Media Archive, a searchable collection of everything the president and his administration posted on Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, Google+, and Pinterest during his two terms in office. According to ArchiveSocial, the platform on which the archive is hosted, this includes more than 100 social media profiles associated with the White House and more than 250,000 total posts. As of right now, the archive's search function isn't the smoothest. A general search like "healthcare" will yield nearly 600 tangential results, including tweets from White House staffers. The Advanced Search will allow you to narrow things down a bit, with filters for date range and social media platform.
How about a searchable archive of lobbyists who show up at the WH. Heck, let's extend it to Congress, too.
Seriously, who cares?
I am sure this was done to intentionally create an expectation for Trump to do the same.
Smart move.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Dear "My Government",
Stop it. Stop posting to trash websites. Just stop.
Anyone else need help? 5 mins for $5 and I don't make change.
See it NOW , in a month the new junta will purge it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Expecting a timely response for FOIA requests is too much but an archive Obama's social media presence is no problem? Give me a break.
How exactly do you prove you're not a Muslim?
If Trump ever releases his taxes, I wonder if the stupidest people in America will still insist that he needs to release them. Or will you all still be obsessing over the need for more Obama birth certificates?
to present a more favorable history.
Look up what an internet troll is and then maybe you won't feed them.
Can we also get a list of those released from Gitmo who returned to killing kafirs ?
Thanks for making all of the already publicly available documents public, but not quite a notch on the ol' transparent belt.
>> searchable collection of everything the president and his administration posted on Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, Google+, and Pinterest
Yeah - just want we wanted: the headlines from a hundred thousand press releases. How about some of the staff's Tinder profiles and the like instead?
Not that all the science is wrong (though of course some of it is), but your leaves me a bit puzzled why you'd even ask.
> I mean... what is the profit motive here?
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Heck even think of Gore himself. He rode AWG, mostly, into the White House. As he left the White House, he was worth $700K; over the next three years he and David Blood made $218 million profit from their carbon credit trading company. In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading. You don't see a profit motive there? Really?
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Don't misunderstand me, national defense and environmental protection are both important. They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.
Still in denial. Work on it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I wrote:
> In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading.
Of course I meant:
In three years, he personally made $172 MILLION from carbon trading.
Does that mean the whole concept of global warming is all bullshit? No. Does it mean that Gore had a huge profit motive to hype it as much as possible (and got famous doing so)? Obviously.
Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
How does any of that money benefit the climatologists that are "faking" AGW?
While Gore was handing out tax-funded grant money, and afterwards when his profit-making carbon exchange company was underwriting the work of scientists, do you think those grants went to scientists who pointed out Gore was mischaracterizing (exaggerating) the data? When a person who profits from AGW scare-mongering pays the scientist's paychecks, he's going to hire^H^H^H^H award grants to those scientists who support his viewpoint.
Again, I'm not saying they're all full of shit, any more than the generals at the Pentagon who are serious about defending their country. Both know, however, that you don't get promoted by announcing that the boss is full of shit.
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
There are a multitude of ways for politicians to shuffle money to their friends, a climate change conspiracy is hardly necessary.
And even if true it does nothing to explain why the scientists are the ones actually pushing governments to do something.
Heck even think of Gore himself. He rode AWG, mostly, into the White House. As he left the White House, he was worth $700K; over the next three years he and David Blood made $218 million profit from their carbon credit trading company. In three years, he personally made $172 from carbon trading. You don't see a profit motive there? Really?
Which three years? Because I found an article on Al Gore getting a new worth of $200 million from a variety of sources, but only part of that came from his investment firm (presumably the thing you think did carbon credit trading?).
Besides, even if Al Gore's interest in AGW was as a way to make money for him and his friends, a point I'm far from prepared to concede. It would discredit government action on AGW much more than the science itself.
I stole this Sig
I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?"
Not that I can see. The military industrial complex is of course HIGHLY motivated to sell us more weapons to the point of paying whatever it costs to install congress critters friendly to that agenda; and there really is no highly organized 'counter' complex opposed to this situation.
The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations). Do you have any idea how many billions of your money and mine Gore Inc gave to green companies who never released a product?
Itty bitty teeny tiny potatoes compared to big oil/coal/fossil, automotive, and every other industry that produces anything substantially non-green -- and they are in direct opposition to anything 'green'; and would be (and are) happy to fight tooth and nail to dismantle the EPA and every enviro-regulation or treaty on the books.
Heck even think of Gore himself.
Right. But for every gore there's 7 Rex Tillersons, 6 Exxon Mobils, FII-IIVE fracking com-pan-ies, 4 hydro dams, 3 french fried hens, 2 turtle soup makers, and a partridge in a pear tree fighting to keep it business as usual.
"Green" is the liberal slush fund just as "defense" was the conservative slush fund.
Its simply NOT comparable to the military industrial complex; because the vested opposition to the 'green' is vast, organized, and extremely well monied. The opposition to the military-industrial-complex is a few hippies... its laughable to suggest that 'green' has the same un-contested level of clout.
They also happen to be the multi-billion dollar industries that each of the parties chose to launder very large kickbacks in exchange for campaign contributions. If you haven't noticed that ... wow.
If you think the multi-billion dollar green industry is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-TRILLION dollar industry that is decidely "un-green" ... wow. I mean... so-called "liberals" can be bought just like anyone else, and there's plenty of anti-green money lying around.
It just doesn't make credible sense for the AGW crowd to be such a powerful deep rooted conspiracy with such a large and powerful opposition to what it stands for. It's ... delusional.
Surprisingly, a search on "Assange" yields a single hit!
> There are a multitude of ways for politicians to shuffle money to their friends,
There are many ways. Especially for smaller amounts of money. When presidents, vice presidents, and senior senators want to shuffle billions of dollars to their friends, they of course use a federal program that awards billions of dollars to private companies. There are a few to choose from. If you rose to power based on green rhetoric, you tend to have friends involved in such things, and that fits the need just fine. Some more or less legitimate - he supports Greenpeace, they support him. Some not so legitimate, like solar panel companies who take huge amounts of government money, and never bother to produce even one solar panel. He could have switched to advocating for huge new programs that build affordable housing and his friends could run housing developments that never got built, but why change? He was already the green guy, that's how he got press.
> which three years
2008-2011, shortly afterv testifying before Congress that cap and trade would cause investors to make a ton of money. His investment firm was heavy into carbon credits as they rose to $70/ton. After he sold out to investors, they dropped to ten cents per ton.
> It would discredit government action on AGW much more than the science itself.
After Bush Jr. used trumped-up intelligence about WMDs as his causus belli to invade Iraq, I questioned both his actions and his excuse. The yellowcake uranium did exist, as did parts and pieces for biological weapons, but the threat was greatly exaggerated by the politicians.
When Gore used trumped-up studies about global warming as his causus belli for handing billions to his buddies (and indirectly, himself), I question both his actions and his excuse. Global warming bas a concept is a real thing, but the threat was greatly exaggerated by the politicians.
Yeh, like his tax returns he promised to release and never did. Or sell off his foreign businesses and put his US ones in a blind trust... which he never did. Or the election income filing which contained ZERO information on *his* income and 100% FALSE information on his companies income?
But since these are searchable *social* media posts, someone else can index them. I'm not sure what its worth for someone who contradicts himself all the time. Sanders pulled up this Trump tweet from the campaign:
"I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me." Which he's now saying the exact opposite on.
The only thing he's consistent on is: Putin good, USA bad.
Bob: Hi Al, it's Bob. I wanted to give you a call and let you know I'm donating $80,000 to your PAC.
Al: Thanks, Bob, what are you up to lately.
Bob: I'm starting a company to research new solar-cell designs using federal grant money. It's called Solarslush. Would you like to be on the board next year when you're done with your VP gig?
Al: Sounds great, Bob.
It doesn't take a vast conspiracy. It takes a one-minute phone call.
If you think it's a coincidence that the "green" companies paid Gore HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars right after he gave them billions in tax dollars, I'm sorry that's just naive.
You demonstrate incredible ignorance.
1) Politicians are not as stupid as you think. They can find green products that actually make money. Yes some fail - so does some of any market segment. In general the green initiatives are just as profitable as any other business. If they were all scams, smart people would invade the market and out-compete the idiots,
2) While it is true that millions go to green companies, billions go to non-green companies. This is obvious to anyone that looks at the economy (Five of the ten largest companies in the world are oil companies, plus an electrical grid and 2 car companies). When you make that much money it is EASY to get government subsidies. But they call them tax breaks, rather than subsidies
3) In this case it is not a case of both sides being bad. Instead it is a clear case of an older established industry doing everything it can to stop a new technology that they are afraid is going to kill them. The new tech struggles to compete and has to beg the government that has been funneling billions to the old business to give them a few millions so they can survive.
Then the old money says "hey, no fair giving them millions", all without mentioning their own billions.
And you say, "duh, that's not right", in total ignorance of what is really going on.
As of today, 2017, solar is the single most profitable energy source in certain low cloud, high sunlight areas. Granted, most humans don't live in these super hot, dry, parts of the world. But that wasn't true 20 years ago. Come 2030, someone (China and Germany are leading the way), will almost certainly have Solar cheaper than fossil fuels in areas where you have to pipe or ship the natural gas.
But that requires an investment. China and Germany are making it, the question is:
1) Will the US do it also, or will we cede this market to foreigners?
2) If we do it, do we fund it with
A) direct grants (requiring government to make science decisions)
B) or instead via business rules that create a market based profit motive for private investors to do the funding.
I vote for (2B), because I am an American capitalist. if you are a communist, vote (2A). Or Chinese/Russian, vote (1).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Leftists, always looking to silence opposing views. That's why Trump is going to ignore the media and talk to the people directly. The media is a hostile filter and only exists to make him look bad. Just tell us directly. The media dropped their last pretense of objectivity during the election season and came full-out for Hillary. They cannot be trusted to report the truth, no matter how often they tell us otherwise. The whole world saw it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Nope. Obama will still be 44th president. I'm afraid your bias will never change history no matter how much you want.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
AS apposed to amightywind... the ultimate turd..
Nope, still don't care.
Still in denial. Work on it.
Trump is fair game for the next four years. Work on that.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Again, its about the balance.
For every time solar-Bob called greenboy-Al looking for some tit-for-tat for his solar slush fund there was old-coal-face-joe calling Senator open-for-business telling him there was 5 million dollars for his PAC if this 'green nonsense' would go away and he could get a fast track approval to grandfather running his smokestacks under 1950 standards because it would cost 20 million bucks to update them... or whatever.
The idea that the 'green lobby' could have such overwhelming influence over policy in the face of all all the opposed lobbies, to the point that they government would be running a decades long campaign to literally suppress and fake the science is simply absurd.
Especailly since old-coal-joe ALSO gets billions in taxpayer subsidies and support... so why aren't they whitewashing the science to show minimal impact? Al Gore isn't the only PAC open for business, and old-coal-joe has a LOT of money to spend...
A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
The opposite is the case. Large rant follows.
The whole pseudo-debate about the validity of climate science research is instigated, paid for, and kept alive by lobby groups of the petrochemical industry. A whole bunch of fake scientists and lobbyists have made a career in various conservative think-tanks and fake 'institutes' in the US whose sole purpose is to spread doubt about scientific results that have been established world-wide and by independent research organizations, institutions and countries. The only reason why this topic has been politicized so much in the US is that the petrochemical industry is traditionally linked and intertwined with the Republican party more than with the Democrats.
Nowhere else is the scientific consensus debated, the debate elsewhere is a fairly rational debate about the means to counter global warming and about how dangerous it may be for the respective country and its economy (how much to err on the side of caution, how much money to spend, etc.). This whole whole pseudo-debate is confined to the US only. No serious people outside the US have any reason to doubt the opinion of the vast majority of scientists world-wide, because elsewhere less lobbyist money has been spent and conservatives have no problems with accepting current scientific consensus. You have no idea how outright bizarre and batshit crazy this whole US pseudo-debate appears to the rest of the world, and if you're a conservative American, you should definitely start asking yourself whether mixing up values and facts in this anti-scientific way is really worth the damage in reputation. It is perfectly feasible to be conservative and accept the current state of the art of science (whether it later turns out to be wrong or right, that's a completely different question), in fact, I'm inclined to believe that many people with such views send mankind to the moon.
The saddest thing is that most of the people who continue to politicize this purely scientific topic and 'debate' it as if it where a matter of deciding which values to defend do not even realize that they are just tools for the US oil lobby and for some Republican politicians who ran out of topics to distinguish themselves from no less conservative Democrats. They think they are discussing in a world-wide debate, whereas in reality they are lost in a homegrown disinformation campaign.
Why don't you discuss quantum theory or relativity theory instead? Or how about particle physics? I'm sure you can cast doubt on particle physics, too, after all it's pretty clear that all of the areas of physics I've just mentioned are wrong somewhere and at some point. The standard model cannot be all there is, right. Maybe you can come up with some big conspiracy here as well, from the comfortable chair in your home and without doing some real work, and find some crackpot complaints that CERN doesn't release all their raw data on the Internet or has used some 'smoothing' to 'fake results'. I'll tell why you don't do that, though. Because there is no big industry with a huge lobby apparatus that would benefit from spreading doubts about current research in particle physics.
Posting on on the social network platforms all rights are handed over to them. They cannot create copies and publish them on their own. Any normal person would be sued into oblivion. Let's see what happens in this case.
His birther and idiotic comments were not "opposing views". They were lies. During Obama's entire presidency, his spouted off lies. It's obvious, verifiable, and embarrassing to the US.
Lamenting we can't remove his crap was to actually make trump look better, not to silence an idiot.
> A liberal-green-conspiracy just lacks credibility.
Really you haven't noticed a liberal-green alliance? Think of *any* "environmental" group and look up which politicians they contributed to. Hint - it's not Donald Trump. Gore is on the board of half the major green groups.
"Old coal-faced Joe" didn't like "we're going to put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business". The politicians he supports won the 2016 election, not the 2004 election.
I'm guessing that in your country the politicians use some *other* program as their slush fund, to give taxpayer money to their friends.
> about the means to counter global warming and about how dangerous it may be for the respective country and its economy (how much to err on the side of caution, how much money to spend, etc.)
Disagreement about how much resources (money) should be spent on one thing versus another is the very basis of politics. That's not a scientific question. It should be, however, informed by science. "How dangerous it may be for a respective country" is a very important scientific question which bears directly on the policy questions of how much resources to devote to it.
Unfortunately, even the lead authors of the UN studies on the topic strongly disagree on the answer to that question. Repected scientists have come to very different conclusions. Climatologists who serve on high-profile committees have made dire predictions about what would happen by 2015, and those dire scenarios didn't happen. In fact, rather than accelerating warming as predicted, global temperatures didn't increase at all 18 years after those predictions were made. I don't know about the "experts" that are well-known in your country, but US "experts" engaged in fear-mongering to get their name in the paper and their grants approved.
Also unfortunately, in the US we happened to get a vice president who made his name and his from fear-mongering about this issue, and while he could have used any number of federal programs as his slush fund, he chose environmental programs as his slush fund. There's nothing special about environmental programs in this regard, it's just what happened to choose, like the mafia happens to use garbage disposal companies to launder money. That worked well and the party continued to use environmental programs to funnel money to their friends for the next 8 years.
If the US politicians gave 20 billion dollars to their former business partner to research quantum physics, without any quantum physics work being done, I'd certainly question that, especially if the politician left the white house and joined the board of the non-researching quantum physics research company. If a major donor received a $2 billion grant to build a particle accelerator, and never began building a particle accelerator, I'd question that. That's the problem we have in the US - our politicians paying their friends billions of dollars of taxpayer money to not build solar panels.
I'm all for protecting the environment; I was a member of Greenpeace for many years. I recycle, etc. When a Democrat politician over here says "I want to take $1 billion of your money and give it to Bob, because environment", unfortunately I have to try to figure out whether Bob is doing anything for the environment or just doing something for the politician.
>I mean, really? That's like asking ...
Believe it or not, there are some of us at different ages & social development. We will ask questions because we really don't know. Your kind illumination will be appreciated, and we can go on into the world a little wiser than before we asked. Answering a question is not the time to punish or mock, it's your time to shine.
Orig:
>I mean, really? That's like asking "where's the profit motive in the military industry?" The politicians having handed out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green" (and some hefty donations).
Reworded like a real man:
Climate research is like the military industry. The politicians hand out tens of billions of dollars to their friends based on plans to do something "green", (and some hefty donations).
_
Almost certainly eight years.
The D, being in denial, will take the wrong lesson from this election and next nominate a crazed lefty. Assuring Trump a second term.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
-- said no one, ever.
"I don't shoot my mouth off without knowing what I'm talking about" - by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Thursday December 31, 2015 @09:29AM (#51215379)
BS (I catch you shooting your mouth off fucking up constantly): 2 raymorris security fuckups https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5351503&cid=47379233/ & https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5351503&cid=47374033/ admitting you = script kiddie https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8895203&cid=51726265/
&
Tell us how ONLY 'newer script kiddie tools' have stringlength built in (when PASCAL had it for ages - my fav tool) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8472509&cid=51114383/ YOU BLUNDERING WANNABE!
APK
P.S.=> You like to talk behind others' backs like the gossiping bitch TROLL you are raymorris https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9880997&cid=53312265/ well, here I am letting YOU TALK in those links, showing your FAILS wannabe ... apk
"A general search like "healthcare" will yield nearly 600 tangential results, including tweets from White House staffers"
As it should. What if you search for "healthcare Obama" or "healthcare POTUS" or ... literally any search with the word healthcare and one additional word related to what you want to find?
Tragically stupid or troll. You be the judge.