Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Rejects Trump Bias Claims (bbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Rejects Trump Bias Claims (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday September 28, 2017 @12:00AM from the zuck-fights-back dept.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has dismissed comments made by Donald Trump that the site has always been against him. From a report: The US president accused the social network of "collusion" on Twitter, branding it "anti-Trump". He made the same claim against the New York Times and the Washington Post. Facebook will shortly hand over 3,000 political adverts to congressional investigators probing alleged Russian meddling in the US election. The site believes the ads were probably purchased by Russian entities during and after the 2016 presidential contest. Facebook, Twitter and Google have been asked to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on 1 November about the allegations of Russian interference. Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies. "This statement shows frustration, I think. Not just with the president, but at the atmosphere swirling around Facebook at the moment -- commentary that is painting it as a burden on the electoral process, and maybe even on society as a whole. He's trying to show all the good -- as he sees it -- that Facebook has done.

428 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fuck You Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:02 · Score: -1

TRUMP powa!
1. Re:Fuck You Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently, reality has an anti-Trumps bias. Sad.
2. Re:Fuck You Zuck! by sycodon · 2017-09-28 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Has Zuck built his wall around his mansion yet?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
3. Re: Fuck You Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe. He tried to kick native Hawaiians out to create a private island though
4. Re:Fuck You Zuck! by MercTech · 2017-09-29 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Naaa, Facebook started as a trust fund baby bitch and schmooze site and it is still run the same way. Plebs can watch but get booted if they express a differing opinion.
  
  --
  NRRPT/RCT
News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:06 · Score: -1

"Mark Zuckerberg did nothing wrong!"
- Mark Zuckerberg
1. Re: News at 11 by Entrope · 2017-09-28 00:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "We have investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong." - Facebook/Police
  "Except for that politically biased 'trending news' selection that made the news during last year's election, but we stopped that, honest." - Zuckerberg
2. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  Self investigation.... You got to love that, why don't we allow all criminals to self investigate ...
3. Re: News at 11 by ABEND · 2017-09-28 01:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  Yes that Trending sticky header on the top right of Facebook pages appears to be dedicated to publicizing each and every news item that was or is expected:
  to spell the end of Trump's campaign to be the Republican nominee
  to spell the end of Trump's campaign to be U.S. president
  to spell the end of Trump's presidency.
  ???
  Anyhow, can anyone tell us exactly which fake news caused them to not vote for Hillary and instead vote for Trump? Was her private email SERVER fake news? Was her involvement in the ousting of the Egyptian and Libyan heads-of-state in 2011 fake news? Was it fake news that she read, from a prepared speech, that millions of Americans belonged in a basket of deplorables? Anyone ever wonder what a basket of deplorables (i.e., a place where you would put those persons you deem irredeemable) would look like?
  --
  In all seriousness:
4. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Not everyone who voted Trump is deplorable, but to be fair, everyone who was happy to be voting for Trump is.
5. Re: News at 11 by jellomizer · 2017-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  However Facebook was the biggest provider of Fake news. There was a lot of coverage on why people disliked Clinton and supported Trump. Many cited a Facebook story where Clinton did some untrue nasty thing. (Remember Pizza Gate, where a guy raided a Pizza Store, because he believed the fake news that it was used by Clinton for Child Trafficking)
  The thing is Facebook may not had did anything wrong, as much of this was just algorithmic. However after the investigation they found a problem with bias news.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re: News at 11 by jellomizer · 2017-09-28 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  It really more determines on what particular topic was their big hope from Trump. Personally I find him to on track track of the worst president in history. However even a broken clock is correct twice a day, There were some things during his run, I was hoping he would actually accomplish.
  1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic. Serious Water Problems, We hear about Lead, but in many solid Republican communities, the water supply has been polluted with chemicals such as PFOA. As well improvement in our communication. This is something I don't know why Trump didn't push as part of his 100 day agenda. As a guy who likes new and shiny stuff big machines, and big buildings. This would had been an easy win for him, where he can put on a hard hat, cut ribbons, and have a clear measurable thing to show for his "leadership". This is also something that he could had bipartisan support for. Starting off his campaign as being the Deal maker.
  2. American Jobs: Unfortunately he really turned this into a raciest agenda. However a lot of jobs (including tech jobs) are being outsourced. Where Americans are kept on board until they have trained their replacement. But could had pushed back against the American tech worker shortage, and showed the mass set of skills which could had been used.
  3. Got things done: The idea that he was a businessman, we would think he could get things done. He however seems to lack the willingness to worry about the details, or have a complex big vision. But the idea he would be able to push this vision, like a businessman to drive change.
  So these things may not have been deplorable wants, and Clintons deplorable comment, concerned a lot of people on the fence, who may be leading republican. I don't see Trump Winning the election, it was Clinton who had lost it.
  However now that Trump became president, he only seemed do things that the Deplorable wanted,
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
7. Re: News at 11 by dryeo · 2017-09-28 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that the fake part was the idea that she was the only one whoever did that crap when it seems to be standard procedure for most politicians.
  The email thing is pretty new, so Bush deleting mails, his secretary of state using outside email servers and overthrowing other countries leaders is an American tradition for every administration.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
8. Re: News at 11 by McFortner · 2017-09-28 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not everyone who voted Trump is deplorable, but to be fair, everyone who was happy to be voting for Trump is.
  Interesting how those who espouse to be all caring and not judgemental are the most judgemental of all.
  
  --
  Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
9. Re: News at 11 by HornWumpus · 2017-09-28 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you've been 'happy' to vote for any presidential candidate for the last 100 years, you qualify...
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
10. Re: News at 11 by hey! · 2017-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is not about getting a voter to switch from Clinton to Trump. It's about getting Clinton-leaning voters to stay home and Trump-leaning voters to show up. It's about motivation, and nothing motivates like fear.
  Remember Pizzagate? You probably don't personally, because you're not a total jackass. But this is the insidious part of social media psy-ops. By targeting and crafting a narrowcasted message, you operate below the radar; misinformation has longer to seep in and do its work before someone notices and counters it. It's a modern take on divide-an-conquer: segment and stimulate.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
11. Re: News at 11 by ABEND · 2017-09-28 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Agree but not just for the last 100 years. Rational voters vote for the least worst candidate. Kool-aid drinkers vote for their messiah.
  
  --
  In all seriousness:
12. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Your whole america is a bullshit country, elect clowns every season. Better shut up n1gger bitch.
13. Re: News at 11 by ABEND · 2017-09-28 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, I remember pizzagate. I also remember post-election riots, a recount in several states that appears to have fizzled-out, accusations of Trump colluding with Russia, Republican congresspersons being shot by an leftist inspired by anti-Trump news stories (from "legitimate" network and cable news sources), etc.
  You also seem to have forgotten the multi-sourced reports before the election that Trump, at most, had a one-in-four chance of winning. That may or may not have discouraged potential voters from voting for Trump but it certainly discouraged potential Trump campaign contributors: 2016 election/campaign finance.
  
  --
  In all seriousness:
14. Re: News at 11 by hey! · 2017-09-28 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  You also seem to have forgotten the multi-sourced reports before the election that Trump, at most, had a one-in-four chance of winning.
  Delivered to the wrong audience, largely.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
15. Re: News at 11 by sexconker · 2017-09-28 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  You are fake news. He didn't raid anything.
  Pizzagate refers to the coded, clandestine emails referencing that particular pizza parlor. Nobody outside of Clinton's den of thieves knows what the emails are actually referring to. Claiming there's nothing going on is more "fake news" than claiming it was specifically a child prostitution ring.
  You can read the emails yourself and draw up your own theories. But it's obvious the pizza parlor in question was being used either as a location or as a codeword for another location where secret shit went down that they didn't want any record of.
16. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'm the OP and I never said I wasn't judgmental. Where did you asshats get the idea that not being a xenophobic piece of shit had anything to do with being on-judgmental? I'm judging the ever-loving fuck out of you right now, all while maintaining fairly liberal opinions on immigration, foreign policy, and taxation.
17. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Oh so you have no problem with Russians buying adds just like Mexicans coming into the country illegally? After all, to have a problem with either one would make you xenophobic. I guess we all didn't get the memo that being unreasonably biased and bigoted against Russians doesn't count as xenophobia.
18. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sad to say it's only 'obvious' to nutjobs.
19. Re: News at 11 by Darinbob · 2017-09-28 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Most definitely I think at least half the people voting for Trump were holding their noses, and at least half the people voting for Clinton were holding their noses, and most of those who voted for third party candidates did so so they could stop holding their nose and take a breath instead.
20. Re: News at 11 by tbannist · 2017-09-28 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic. Serious Water Problems, We hear about Lead, but in many solid Republican communities, the water supply has been polluted with chemicals such as PFOA. As well improvement in our communication. This is something I don't know why Trump didn't push as part of his 100 day agenda. As a guy who likes new and shiny stuff big machines, and big buildings. This would had been an easy win for him, where he can put on a hard hat, cut ribbons, and have a clear measurable thing to show for his "leadership". This is also something that he could had bipartisan support for. Starting off his campaign as being the Deal maker.
  I suspect this is because Trump craves praise, especially cheering crowds of enthusiastic supporters. Trump, himself, probably isn't interested in infrastructure repairs and upgrades because it's pretty boring stuff, and thus he doesn't expect it him to get the instant cheers that, for instance, picking a fight with black NFL players would get him. Why do hard work, when it's so much easier to pick fights with people your supporters already don't like?
  
  2. American Jobs: Unfortunately he really turned this into a raciest agenda. However a lot of jobs (including tech jobs) are being outsourced. Where Americans are kept on board until they have trained their replacement. But could had pushed back against the American tech worker shortage, and showed the mass set of skills which could had been used.
  I think this is a difficult problem to solve. The problem isn't a lack of qualified people in technology, it's really a lack of knowledge and trust on the part of would be employers. Many managers seem to want to hire people who are doing the exact same work as the job they wish to fill, and they want to pay their new employees below market rates. This is because they don't understand who can be trained to fill that role, they want to do their job and keep costs low, and if they invest in training an employee, that employee might take their new valuable skills and leave for some place that will pay above market rates. (It might be important to note that for the manager, failing to fill the position is probably "not their fault" where as training a new hire only to lose them to poaching could be "their fault") However, that's a nearly impossible goal to achieve without importing workers from (or exporting jobs to) locations that currently have a much lower local market rate. So there seems to be very little that the President can do about this, other than claim that particular visas are bad without understanding what the problems are.
  
  3. Got things done: The idea that he was a businessman, we would think he could get things done. He however seems to lack the willingness to worry about the details, or have a complex big vision. But the idea he would be able to push this vision, like a businessman to drive change.
  Trump's business dealings have been to enrich himself, he has never shown any interest in doing things for other people. In fact, his history of business dealings have been mostly about getting things done at other's people expense. I've read stories about how Trump routinely rips people off in his business dealings unless they can figure out a way to make it more expensive for him to rip them off than to behave honestly. The thing is, he was motivated to work on his business to make himself richer. Now, he appears to be only motivated to do what will get him cheering crowds and currently his supporters love it when he lays blame and insults the people they don't like, so he hasn't had to do any real hard work to get them to demonstrate their love for him.
  
  However now that Trump became president, he only seemed do things that the Deplorabl
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
21. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind that Facebook and Twitter are both loud echo chambers, and only marginally representative of its flesh-and-blood users. It is the bots and misguided corporate branding attempts that tilt things in often horrible partisan politics.
  If you ask the average twitter user, they would say that their platform is fairly Liberal or Conservstive because only very few people follow those outside their political ideology. More to the point, block lists often target those who share extreme opinions.
  Facebook on the other hand is what I would refer to as âoeinner circleâ, where you friend everyone you knew in high school, college and your family, and then tailor your posts so only one or the other see them.
  So if you donâ(TM)t like talking about politics, or some you friended litters your space with political content you disagree with, you stealth mute them and all is well.
22. Re: News at 11 by yuriklastalov · 2017-09-28 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait until that robot fuck Zuckerberg runs for president in 2020.
  Blasted at the top of every Facebook page regardless of context:
  "VOTE FOR ZUCKERBERG, HE'S TOTALLY HUMAN, WE PROMISE"
23. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Who is xenophobic? The only concern is about the US sitting around licking the nuts of the nation our grandparents died fighting in the cold war. Even worse is when you find out our nation is being run by people with the same Nazi ideologies they died fighting against in WW2.
24. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off, Correct the Record. We're still waiting to find out what a pizza related map on a handkerchief is.
25. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  Well since you are asking, remember when the investigation into the email scandal was reopened just days before the election? That convinced my neighbor to distrust Hillary.
26. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have a problem with Russians buying ads, I have a problem with you fuckwits falling for them.
27. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus, dude, it's weed. Pizza is weed. Have you read the emails? They're blatantly about casual drug use. And if you're suprised that a bunch of political consultants do "pasta" you're going to shit your pants when you realize why Trump was sniffling so much during the debates.
28. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  However Facebook was the biggest provider of Fake news. There was a lot of coverage on why people disliked Clinton and supported Trump. Many cited a Facebook story where Clinton did some untrue nasty thing. (Remember Pizza Gate, where a guy raided a Pizza Store, because he believed the fake news that it was used by Clinton for Child Trafficking)
  The thing is Facebook may not had did anything wrong, as much of this was just algorithmic. However after the investigation they found a problem with bias news.
  Half the problem is that Facebook actively weakened it's algorithm (or gave new orders to human mods, if any) managing the trending box.
  
  "Except for that politically biased 'trending news' selection that made the news during last year's election, but we stopped that, honest." - Zuckerberg
  This is the grandparent's paraphrase, but remember this? The Republicans pitched a fit because the trending box wasn't promoting their FW:FW:FW Infowars and Breitbart stuff, and that meant they were biased mainstream media. They could post and share all those things all they wanted, but FB didn't participate in sharing those out to the global audience. Until they gave FB crap for it, and Zuckerberg gave in. Did Zuck know what he was getting himself into, or was he just trying to preserve his userbase? We'll probably never know. But they started letting fake news pizzagate shit through because the Republicans demanded it.
29. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 22:11 · Score: 0
  
  You are fake news. He didn't raid anything.
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-man-with-assault-rifle-dc-comet-pizza-victim-of-fake-sex-trafficking-story/
  This is not obscure. This happened because you had to spin up bullshit on Clinton. Someone could have died because you turned a well meaning nutter against an innocent pizzeria.
30. Re: News at 11 by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-09-29 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  What that trending sticky header says, changes with the number of conservative friends you have.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
31. Re: News at 11 by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-09-29 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because it just SCREAMS "inclusion" to label 25% of Americans or more as "Deplorable" people to be what, executed?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
32. Re: News at 11 by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2017-09-29 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  "which could had been used."
  One of which clearly isn't grammar.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
33. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  The pizza parlor child sex ring.
34. Re: News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Surprised it took that long.
The Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:09 · Score: -1

The only "good" suckerburg considers facebook has done is made the man child a billionaire.
All the good Facebook has done by MangoCats · 2017-09-28 00:09 · Score: 2, Funny

...crickets...
1. Re:All the good Facebook has done by lbmouse · 2017-09-28 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My email inbox is no longer clogged with pictures of cats.
2. Re:All the good Facebook has done by sinij · 2017-09-28 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  My email inbox is no longer clogged with pictures of cats.
  Don't forget racist uncle rants and chain letter forwards from twice removed cousins.
3. Re:All the good Facebook has done by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  Crickets everywhere take great offense at being associated to Facebook
4. Re:All the good Facebook has done by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Trump's friends on facebook have a bias?
5. Re:All the good Facebook has done by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  >pictures of cats
  I thought that was reddit... I suppose Facebook might shield you of pictures of cats from your friends, but you probably have to be "on" Facebook for that to happen.
6. Re:All the good Facebook has done by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have a facebook account for anybody in my family. But other people often put data about their friends in Facebook and there isn't anything I can do about it if I don't know about it.
  But, when the day comes where some gang or terrorist group decides to hunt down and hurt somebody, and that was only made possible by facebook... The executives at Facebook should expect a military response
To be fair... by burtosis · 2017-09-28 00:12 · Score: 1

Those ads will have done far more harm to trump in the long run if they really did help him get elected. So in a twisted way Trump is right on this one.
1. Re:To be fair... by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 00:21 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Those ads will have done far more harm to trump in the long run if they really did help him get elected.
  His goal was to become president. The ads helped him get elected. He wouldn't have become president without those ads. Trump has multiple bankruptcies hanging over him and if he didn't become president, he might well have ended up in real financial trouble by now. What was a loser like Trump (who has been financially outperformed by Paris Hilton) supposed to do?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics. If those messages helped get Donald Trump elected, why are all the Democrats colluding with Russia?
3. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  None of what you have written is correct, comrade.
4. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:54 · Score: -1
  
  I'm a political centrist, looking at what's generally a two-winged political spectrum.
  On the right side we have people who are clearly concerned with improving the nation's economy, avoiding new and terrible "free" trade deals, getting the nation out of existing terrible "free" trade deals, securing the border from external threats, fixing the horribly broken healthcare system, and generally trying to improve the country.
  Then on the left side we have people who it seems are doing whatever they can to harm the nation. They want open borders, allowing illegal aliens, criminals, weapons and drugs to flow in uninhibited. They want "free" trade deals that benefit foreign nations the most. They want to enter into "environmentalism" agreements that hold America to extraordinarily strict standards but do nothing about the biggest polluters of China and India. They show contempt and hatred for the nation by kneeling during the national anthem, in support of black criminals who violently attacked police officers forcing these officers to defend themselves using deadly force.
  Then there's this nonsensical "Russia" narrative. As your comment shows, to the people on the left it's not about conducting a proper investigation, or looking at the evidence, or getting to the truth. It has gone beyond the pathetic witch hunt that it started as. It has become a mania; a mental disorder. Leftists such as yourself are literally foaming at the mouth, even as it becomes apparent that there is no basis to your silly narrative.
  When I look at the political right, I see them acting maturely, honorably, and in the best interest of the nation. When I look to the political left, I see them acting like children, but children with various severe mental disorders. It's so difficult to take anything the left says seriously, as leftists have shown themselves to be pretty much psychopathic.
5. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  I don't centrist means what you think it means.
6. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  Here, he/she is using centrist as 'intro to some ridiculous strawman arguments ...'
7. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  "I'm a political centrist.."
  stfu.
8. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's incredible you label yourself a centrist when you talk about each side like you do. You are either lying or self deluded. Read your own paragraph and rethink your centrist claim.
9. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  "Centrist" doesn't mean "blind to how people are acting".
10. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a political centrist, looking at what's generally a two-winged political spectrum.
  On the right side we have people who are clearly concerned with improving the nation's economy, avoiding new and terrible "free" trade deals, getting the nation out of existing terrible "free" trade deals, securing the border from external threats, fixing the horribly broken healthcare system, and generally trying to improve the country.
  Then on the left side we have people who it seems are doing whatever they can to harm the nation. They want open borders, allowing illegal aliens, criminals, weapons and drugs to flow in uninhibited. They want "free" trade deals that benefit foreign nations the most. They want to enter into "environmentalism" agreements that hold America to extraordinarily strict standards but do nothing about the biggest polluters of China and India. They show contempt and hatred for the nation by kneeling during the national anthem, in support of black criminals who violently attacked police officers forcing these officers to defend themselves using deadly force.
  Then there's this nonsensical "Russia" narrative. As your comment shows, to the people on the left it's not about conducting a proper investigation, or looking at the evidence, or getting to the truth. It has gone beyond the pathetic witch hunt that it started as. It has become a mania; a mental disorder. Leftists such as yourself are literally foaming at the mouth, even as it becomes apparent that there is no basis to your silly narrative.
  When I look at the political right, I see them acting maturely, honorably, and in the best interest of the nation. When I look to the political left, I see them acting like children, but children with various severe mental disorders. It's so difficult to take anything the left says seriously, as leftists have shown themselves to be pretty much psychopathic.
  Fuck off Trumpie....
11. Re: To be fair... by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 01:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  except that it is.. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r...
  Even admitted to by CNN itself, which you can watch live here http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...
  but its easier to think it was all one sided and pro-trump, which goes to the heart of the claimed goal in the first place. To divide and heat up tempers.
  Why do you hide behind AC posts? That seems pretty cowardice if you ask me. Grow some balls man..
12. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's interesting to see the replies to the GGP's comment. Aside from yours, the rest of them are ad hominem attacks that prove exactly what the GGP is claiming.
13. Re:To be fair... by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well I think I'm a centrist (maybe?) ... its hard to say given the extremes both sides of the spectrum can get these days. What is 'in the middle' these days? I really don't care much for either political party and am pretty much done with both. My views are more libertarian, in that I will fight tooth and nail against any infringement of civil liberties and the constitution even if that means having to live with perceived 'injustice' if the corrective action tramples another's rights in the process. The world is no perfect place and there is no universe were differing points of view can have everything they want and experience nirvana. A happy sailor is a bitching sailor. Over-correction is as harmful as no correction.
14. Re:To be fair... by gnick · 2017-09-28 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm a political centrist... The left are psychopathic children trying to destroy America... The right are honorable people trying to do what's best for their beloved country... I see this all from my unbiased mountaintop...
  Centrist? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  
  When I look at the political right, I see them acting maturely, honorably, and in the best interest of the nation.
  Yes. With our mature, level-headed leader in the White House tackling all of the most important issues, what could possibly go wrong? Not meaning to Troll, just wondering WTF you're smoking. I want some.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
15. Re:To be fair... by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-09-28 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  The ads helped him get elected. He wouldn't have become president without those ads.
  
  See, that there is the hand waving part. Evidence needed.
16. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  I might be considered a relative centrist if you were to average all of my views on a stereotypical political grid, though the datapoints won't necessarily be too far off anyhow. I used to consider myself relatively apolitical, but that does not seem to have ever truly been the case. The labels need to die, or at least be ignored with extreme prejudice. Actions speak louder than words.
  
  People need to hold back on labeling themselves. I get the feeling that people do this in order to "belong" to something that they don't personally find abhorrent. Just speak your piece, and let the labelers (oh great, now I'm labeling people too) reveal themselves as hypocritical weenies. Time spent discussing who's right or left is even less productive than the usual thrashing about who's right or wrong.
  
  The labels do have their place, especially in meta-discussion of these topics; however, taking the time to apply and justify a label for yourself or someone else (neither of whom you likely know all that well, if you're one of these aforementioned labelers) has just cost you precious time and energy that could have been expended on... anything else.
17. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  A couple years ago, I saw a diagram that expanded on the social left/right axis that is so polarizing today. If we add another authoritarian/libertarian axis for up/down, we can better assign people's politics. Think of it as top down gov. Vs bottom up.
  If the state has ultimate power, there is no left and right, just the collective decision. To diverge is to get the boot on the neck. Conversely, individualism is the "you can't tell me what to do" crowd that can leads to anarchy. The American Democrats have drifted from classic Liberal to Statist Left, with institutional Republicans in the Statist Right, and populist Republicans on the Liberal Right. Libertarians are now the classic Liberal Center, of individualistic freedoms.
  That's why people are so frustrated with the parties acting the same, not because of social beliefs, but because of their willingness to use the hammer of federalism to get what they want.
18. Re:To be fair... by JackieBrown · 2017-09-28 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  How so? Or do you think centrist = leftist?
19. Re: To be fair... by Kierthos · 2017-09-28 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  Let's face it, the real goal of those advertisements was to create division. Now, I'm not saying that without all those Russian advertisements, the election wouldn't still have been divisive. Both Trump and Clinton are polarizing people. But the advertisements stoked the flames, as it were.
  Because Russia wants a weak West. Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.) Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.
  The U.S. would be even further up shit creek than it is right now.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
20. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Trump's goal was to become the head of Fox News. Imagine the amount of money he would have received from Russia for ads airing on Fox News attacking Hillary.
21. Re:To be fair... by oh_my_080980980 · 2017-09-28 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  LMOL yeah $100,000 in ads purchased over 3 years, with many purchased after the election. Try again Potsy.
22. Re:To be fair... by datavirtue · 2017-09-28 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  mod up
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
23. Re:To be fair... by denzacar · 2017-09-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well I think I'm a centrist (maybe?)
  
  You do realize we can read your other posts, right?
  Like that one, minutes ago, where you quote articles claiming they show how "ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics" and "If those messages helped get Donald Trump elected, why are all the Democrats colluding with Russia?".
  When the very articles you "source" report COMPLETELY OPPOSITE.
  I.e. They were literally posting fake ads in order to defame "Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics".
  You are soooooo far away from center and into radical right-wing bias that the "right" is on the other side of "Here there be dragons", "Here there be serpents", "Copyright 1891, Confederate Press Ltd." and "FREE sandwich with every purchase" signs of your political map.
  You're not even blind. You literally hear or read one thing and understand something completely different.
  That's moving beyond delusion and all the way into hallucination territory.
  http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r...
  
  Russian internet trolls bought Facebook ads promoting the Black Lives Matter movement to stir up fear and cause political chaos in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, during the 2016 presidential election, a report says.
  Sources tell CNN that a Kremlin-backed group known as the "Internet Research Agency" used geographically targeted advertising to fuel political discord in various parts of the US as tensions rose between the black community and police last year.
  At least one of the roughly 3,000 ads that the agency bought during the election promoted Black Lives Matter specifically, the outlet reports.
  The ad, which was first posted in late 2015 or early 2016, appeared to support the social justice movement - but sources said it could also be seen as depicting it in a negative light.
  
  http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...
  
  The Black Lives Matter ad appeared on Facebook at some point in late 2015 or early 2016, the sources said.
  The sources said it appears the ad was meant to appear both as supporting Black Lives Matter but also could be seen as portraying the group as threatening to some residents of Baltimore and Ferguson.
  
  Facebook did not comment for this story but did point to a statement from Facebook's chief security officer, Alex Stamos, who said earlier this month that "the vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn't specifically reference the U.S. presidential election, voting or a particular candidate."
  "Rather," Stamos said, "the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights."
  Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this week that the aim of the ad-buyers "was to sow chaos."
  "In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout," he told reporters.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
24. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  bush did 911
25. Re:To be fair... by burtosis · 2017-09-28 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  no one was investigating Trump's bankruptcies too hard, nor scrutinizing any possible deals with money laundering through real estate either. Now he has probably 100 dedicated people working overtime with the highest levels of prosecutorial power and security clearance. While I tentatively agree his goal was to become president (I believe he never expected to become president but wanted a brand/name boost as plan A), he is now seriously more FKD for any possible wrong doings than he ever was as a no talent real estate hack.
26. Re: To be fair... by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics.
  If you put a bumper sticker on a car, everyone sees it. But if you place a targeted ad on Facebook, it's (theoretically) only shown to people with a given interest. If you put a "Trump That Bitch" bumper sticker on a car, it both emboldens Trump supporters and galvanizes resistance, however trivial. People go out and get their own bumper stickers, for example. But if you put a "Black Lives Matter" advertisement on Facebook and aim it at people who have shown interest in "Blue Lives Matter" then you're going to piss those people off and get them blogging, reacting, ranting. In other words, acting.
  There's plenty of opportunities for collusion with Russia all around, and the only entity which really profits is Russia. People who are big fans of the Republican or Democratic parties are rubes. So what? Let's try to discuss one thing at a time without having to derail the conversation with some other bullshit. Sure, those other guys are assholes. We're talking about this asshole right now.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
27. Re: To be fair... by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.)
  No. But you can pay out just enough rope to hang your ridiculous idea.
  
  Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.
  Putin doesn't want nothing to get done. He wants nothing good for America to get done. Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done — all of them bad for us, and most of them consequently good for Russia.
  Clinton was the status quo candidate, and even the status quo was better for us than this shit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
28. Re:To be fair... by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 03:45 · Score: 2
  
  What is 'in the middle' these days?
  Liberalism is the belief that personal behavior should be left up to personal preference, and that business interests should be regulated for the public good. Conservatism is the belief that personal behavior should be regulated for the public good, and that business interests should be left alone because this is the fashion in which they allegedly operate in the public good.
  Regardless of how you feel about these positions, it's possible to make relatively objective judgements about how other people feel about them. Both Democrats and Republicans are for the most part solidly in the pockets of big business, to the extent that it is not just "not uncommon" but typical for corporate lawyers to initially draft legislation which is then handed off to congresscritters to be converted into actual laws. So we know that both of them are at best soft on regulation of business. That means that at best, Democrats are centrists. They do typically seem to support personal freedom, with some notable exceptions involving censorship. Republicans are clearly far more towards the "right" (ugh) side of the spectrum, hence the name. Trump is demonstrating now what the republican fantasy looks like when it comes to controls on business. He's doing everything he can to take off the leash, most infamously in the area of environmental protection. Environmental protection laws have made massive, readily noticeable improvements in public health.
  TL;DR: "Democrats"
  (We could also talk about the anarchist/fascist axis of authoritarianism, but why not save that for another comment?)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
29. Re:To be fair... by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  How so? Or do you think centrist = leftist?
  In the USA, that's the situation that resulted from corporate influence on politics. It's madness to pretend that there is no difference between the two parties, but they are depressingly alike in some ways which are extremely relevant. Members of both parties take money from many of the same groups, for example, and for the same reasons.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
30. Re: To be fair... by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-28 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics. If those messages helped get Donald Trump elected, why are all the Democrats colluding with Russia?
  So far we have evidence that the Russians unanimously supported Trump. Putin even said American relations would be better under Trump. However, they support both sides in non presidential races to create distrust and anger and deadlock.
  I have seen a quote from a well known former Soviet espianage agent at the KGB. There plan to end America long term was to slowly erode patriotism and trust in the local government or governments in the west over several decades. When people get fud up they are more likely to vote for extremist candidates and be apatehtic to a takeover. After a series of weak governments econimic and socio political chaos ensures as the government will be too weak to lead and resolve further eroding the populations trust. What ends up is you have candidates very far left and right. Then they support the one at the far left and BAM you got communist USA.
  This happened in Wiemar Germany which gave rise to Hitler as well as pre-Soviet Russia during the last days of the Tsars with crippling infighting and reforms. Lennin then used this to start the red communist revolution.
  So Russia is trying to turn western governments and especially the USA into a Weimar Germany or Pre-Soviet Russia so it can do less damage internationally and eventually be ripe with a far left candidate who can change it to something different than it is today.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
31. Re: To be fair... by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-28 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.)
  No. But you can pay out just enough rope to hang your ridiculous idea.
  
  Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.
  Putin doesn't want nothing to get done. He wants nothing good for America to get done. Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done — all of them bad for us, and most of them consequently good for Russia.
  Clinton was the status quo candidate, and even the status quo was better for us than this shit.
  But the emails! What about the emails!
  Sigh ... yep it proves people are gullible and stupid and open to psychological manipulation and will even avoid truth!
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
32. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics. If those messages helped get Donald Trump elected, why are all the Democrats colluding with Russia?
  It is likely the same reason Thom Hartmann is on Russia Today. I like some of Thom's positions, but from Putin's point of view they likely add to the chaos.
  As far as Mark being biased, well I call bullshit on that one. I heard the wild articles and crap. They were in my mother's facebook feed. I'd bet he knew about at least some of them at the time. If he was in the tank for Clinton, he might have, well mentioned it at the time, or used Facebook to promote Clinton on his dime, etc, etc.
  For that matter, from what I can recall using Facebook in this matter was already used in other elections wasn't it? I'm too lazy to look it up. It is likely Mark knew of similar crap going on. He only acted when he was forced to act lest he be regulated.
33. Re: To be fair... by LetterRip · 2017-09-28 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  You must have missed the memo reporting that a lot of these ads were plugging Black Lives Matter, Hillary's widespread support, and similar topics.
  
  It matters who those ads were targeted at. If those ads were targeted at Republicans - it would tend to increase turnout for Republican voters who feared Clinton winning.
34. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a political centrist,
  On the right side we have people who are clearly concerned with improving the nation's economy
  Then on the left side we have people who it seems are doing whatever they can to harm the nation.
  Centrist is the wrong word. Try "idiot".
35. Re: To be fair... by tbannist · 2017-09-28 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.)
  No. But you can pay out just enough rope to hang your ridiculous idea.
  I was going to disagree with you...
  
  Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.
  Putin doesn't want nothing to get done. He wants nothing good for America to get done. Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done — all of them bad for us, and most of them consequently good for Russia.
  Clinton was the status quo candidate, and even the status quo was better for us than this shit.
  ... but I think you're absolutely right. Clinton's a pragmatist, she would have signed sane legislation passed by the Republicans, and she would likely have appointed people to positions of power who have far less contempt for Americans and the American government. If she was never able to act on her legislative agenda, it would be a far worse result for a Russian government that just wants to see the United States of America destroy itself.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
36. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  List the issues you believe Trump is not tackling responsibly, troll.
  Protip: Critical Theory trolls just criticize and offer no construction or better alternatives. They love to distill complex issues down to absurdly simple terms. They haven't looked to determine just how fake the news is, but will regurgitate its talking points.
37. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. With our mature, level-headed leader in the White House tackling all of the most important issues, what could possibly go wrong? Not meaning to Troll, just wondering WTF you're smoking. I want some.
  One person does not make up the entirety of a political leaning.
  This conversation epitomizes why the DNC lost the house, senate, and whitehouse. They claim, rightly, that groups of people should not be judged based on the actions of the few. BLM is this big movement where police, along with the rest of us, should not judge all black people by the actions of a handful of criminals. Yet they hypocritically do the same with conservatives. A few racist assholes does not mean nearly half the country is a basket of deplorables.
  People get angry when they are stereotyped by a tiny minority of terrible people. Worse, their concerns were ignored for years. So those people threw that molotov of a person that Trump is at the federal government. If we keep the hypocritical bigotry they will do it again next election and Trump will get unexpectedly elected president for a second term. Insulting them and trying to silence them just makes their resolve stronger.
38. Re:To be fair... by gnick · 2017-09-28 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  List the issues you believe Trump is not tackling responsibly, troll.
  Let's start with #NoKo and work from there. He's regularly addressing the situation, but I wouldn't call poking fun at Little Rocket Man responsible handling.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
39. Re:To be fair... by Evil+Kerek · 2017-09-28 08:04 · Score: -1
  
  Well, I'm ALSO pretty sure trying to make nice with him like Obama did was worse....
40. Re:To be fair... by gnick · 2017-09-28 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Making nice and poking fun are not the only options. There's no easy answer, but damn near everyone is in agreement that calling Kim names is fucking reckless.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
41. Re:To be fair... by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  Came in for the Trump Derangement Syndrome posts. Found it in the first dozen.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
42. Re:To be fair... by gnick · 2017-09-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  They claim, rightly, that groups of people should not be judged based on the actions of the few.
  Not even the few they elect?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
43. Re: To be fair... by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done â" all of them bad for us,
  Actually you are very much wrong on just about everything you said here. Trump hasn't really failed at anything but his timing on a lot of things. He has gotten a lot of good things done, and nothing really bad for us in any way. What I mean by US, I mean the USA. I honestly don't know where you are posting from. Might be Iran or NK for all I know. So, things Trump is doing might just be bad for you.
  Once you pull the TDS blinders off and examine what Trump is doing for the USA, you will actually see is doing a pretty good job. He got a rocky start, made a lot of amateur mistakes, but now 8 months in he seems to be getting the hang of the job. He is still make a few amateur mistakes but seems to be correcting them.
  Healthcare reform is happening, and it is happening at a pace that is should be. Illegal immigration has slowed, which is good. He handled the DACA issues perfectly by kicking it back into the hands of Congress where it belongs. He has scaled back his talk of a "big beautiful wall" since being elected. I imagine soon that will be quietly put down too. Employment numbers are going up, the economy is humming along just fine. And his handling of not 1 but 3 major natural disasters is nothing short of outstanding.
  So you see, despite the gloom and doom SJW predicted of Trump none of it has really come to pass. We are doing just fine.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
44. Re:To be fair... by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  He could be in financial and legal trouble when he steps down. I'd like to see a lawsuit clawing back money he received from US governments in defiance of the Constitution.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
45. Re: To be fair... by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  He's also in a pissing match with North Korea, which as the potential to kill a lot of innocent people.
  Health care reform is not being tried. The proposed ACA replacements have been so bad that there's a lot of pressure on Republicans not to vote for them. The last attempt to deprive tens of millions of decent health care failed, even when they bribed a Senator by proposing to leave the ACA intact in her state.
  He can't take and stick to a position that Nazis are bad. Instead, he states that there are very fine white supremacists.
  As far as handling natural disasters, he's not waiving the law that says shipping between the US mainland and Puerto Rico have to be in US-registered ships, which is slowing what aid can get there.
  Since we're still operating on the last Obama fiscal year, and Trump hasn't managed to get his own policies in effect, the economy now is basically due to Obama, not Trump.
  I haven't even gotten into Trump's record on appointments, which is dismal.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
46. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Actually you are very much wrong on just about everything you said here. Trump hasn't really failed at anything but his timing on a lot of things.
  
  Wow, your Trump Derangement Syndrom is going full bore.
  
  He has gotten a lot of good things done, and nothing really bad for us in any way.
  
  Standing around a podium and proclaiming he's done great things is not a good thing, in fact, it's a bad thing.
  
  What I mean by US, I mean the USA. I honestly don't know where you are posting from. Might be Iran or NK for all I know. So, things Trump is doing might just be bad for you.
  Pretty much any country from Albania to Zimbabwe. Oddly, he's missed Afghanistan.
  
  Once you pull the TDS blinders off and examine what Trump is doing for the USA, you will actually see is doing a pretty good job. He got a rocky start, made a lot of amateur mistakes, but now 8 months in he seems to be getting the hang of the job. He is still make a few amateur mistakes but seems to be correcting them.
  Once you pull off your Trump-tinted glasses (made in China), and examine what Trump is doing to the USA, you will see the job he is doing is not at all good, his mistakes, far from being amateur, are those of a reckless madman steering straight for the shoals, and even after 8 months, he has learned no restraint, but his hellbent on repeating his actions, no matter how disastrous the outcome.
  
  Healthcare reform is happening, and it is happening at a pace that is should be.
  
  Healthcare reform is not happening, and he's still trying for an instantaneous magic-wand solution.
  
  Illegal immigration has slowed, which is good.
  Illegal actions by ICE have increased, which is bad.
  
  He handled the DACA issues perfectly by kicking it back into the hands of Congress where it belongs.
  He's also set up the DACA system for his own personal hand grenade to go off, and Congress is less inclined to deal with any of it.
  
  He has scaled back his talk of a "big beautiful wall" since being elected. I imagine soon that will be quietly put down too.
  He's redoubled his demands for a wall, and he's putting money into it now.
  
  Employment numbers are going up, the economy is humming along just fine.
  
  Unlike his claims before the election, where the economy was ruined, and employment was plummeting. Odd. What magic did he work? Oh wait, none?
  Huh.
  
  And his handling of not 1 but 3 major natural disasters is nothing short of outstanding.
  Actually, his handling has been subpar, only buoyed by the work done by his predecessor, and failing recently when it came to Puerto Rico, despite his own blandishments otherwise.
  
  So you see, despite the gloom and doom SJW predicted of Trump none of it has really come to pass. We are doing just fine.
  So you see, despite Trump's self-proclaimed glories, nothing of what he claimed came to pass, and we're only doing fine because he's too incompetent to do anything anyway.
  Add in his esteem for Nazi's, his fake inauguration claims, his pardoning of Arpaio, his NFL tweets, and his bungling with North Korea....
  But hey, at least Tom Price will now be flying budget air.
47. Re: To be fair... by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 11:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  An you are also quite wrong on everything you said.
  The pissing match between NK and the US has been going on for 60+ years. Trump is handling it just fine. It is not Trump that is lobbing missiles over Japan and treating to set off nuclear weapons in the Pacific just because he can.
  Yes, health care reform is moving along fine. Your very own post proves my point. The ones that have been tried are pretty bad so they have not passed. Which is why they are moving along just fine. Nice and slow, just as it should be for something as important.
  Trump has condemned white supremacists and nazi's over and over. Just a few days ago he signed a bill from Congress condemning it. Turmp's position on the issue, along with the Supreme Court, Congress, and every other rational person in America is disgusting as they are, white supremacists and nazi's have just the same rights as everyone else. The right to assemble and the right to free speech.
  That silly law has been waved already, but you probably didn't know about that just like you didn't know about the above mentioned bill did you? So yes, Trump is doing just fine here, too.
  As for the economy snowflakes where panicking that the economy would tank soon after Trump took office, which it hasn't. In fact when he did take office the number went up instead of down. New jobs are being added and the economy is growing. So again even with Trump at the helm we are doing just fine.
  As for his appointments, again he is appointing but Democrats in congress are blocking. He could do better but it is what is is. Even then we are still doing just fine.
  So you see, even your doom and gloom is basically all hogwash. We are doing just fine.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
48. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  "Democrats in congress are blocking" Trump's appointments - how, exactly? They're the minority party. In the last six months, they haven't even attempted to use the filibuster.
  Democrats aren't blocking appointments. Trump's just not making them. It's part of his program to demonstrate that the state is too big - by leaving offices unfilled, he imagines the business of gov't will go on just fine without them. Well guess what, it won't. It's like running a computer system without backups or a firewall - it might work OK for a time, but at some point you'll realize why you needed all that shit, and by then all you can do is pray.
49. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  It takes more than a majority for many appointments pumpkin. Even then, not everyone votes across party lines believe it or not. Maybe when you are all grown up and you understand the world, you could run for office. For now, stay in school and don't do drugs kiddo.
50. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Spin the vision of bigotry that lost the election all you want. Bigotry is still bigotry. The loss still a loss.
  It's time to put down childish ways and live up to our own standards.
51. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  People get angry when they are stereotyped by a tiny minority of terrible people. Worse, their concerns were ignored for years. So those people threw that molotov of a person that Trump is at the federal government.
  Man, that's terrible. What would those godless commie fake Americans know about that, huh?
  Seriously, you lot have been calling us that and more for 50 goddamn years, and you have the gall to self-righteously burn down the country on purpose because Shrillary called half of you deplorable? Motherfucker, you earned the title.
52. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  An you are also quite wrong on everything you said.
  Nope!
  
  The pissing match between NK and the US has been going on for 60+ years. Trump is handling it just fine. It is not Trump that is lobbing missiles over Japan and treating to set off nuclear weapons in the Pacific just because he can.
  It is Trump, however, that is screaming about things like a madman outraged over aglets, instead of treating the North Korea that has been nothing of consequence for the last 60 years as readily shown. Not that Trump was the first, Bush the Second started it by putting them in the famed "Axis of Evil" for no good reason, but still, Trump should be treating them as the unimportant non-entity they are, not a causus bellus.
  
  Yes, health care reform is moving along fine. Your very own post proves my point. The ones that have been tried are pretty bad so they have not passed. Which is why they are moving along just fine. Nice and slow, just as it should be for something as important.
  LOL, this would be meaningful if Trump wasn't demanding instantaneous and sudden acts with predictions of doom and gloom at every turn. Yet he is. Every time.
  
  Trump has condemned white supremacists and nazi's over and over. Just a few days ago he signed a bill from Congress condemning it. Turmp's position on the issue, along with the Supreme Court, Congress, and every other rational person in America is disgusting as they are, white supremacists and nazi's have just the same rights as everyone else. The right to assemble and the right to free speech.
  Nope, Trump's position on the issue is that "White Supremacists marching with torches" is good, while "Black NFL players not standing for the national anthem" is bad. He spent the whole weekend about it.
  
  That silly law has been waved already, but you probably didn't know about that just like you didn't know about the above mentioned bill did you? So yes, Trump is doing just fine here, too.
  Two weeks later than it should have been, that's doing fine? That's like going to the doctor after your infection has given you gangrene, and suddenly you're sick in the hospital with an amputation being fine.
  
  As for the economy snowflakes where panicking that the economy would tank soon after Trump took office, which it hasn't. In fact when he did take office the number went up instead of down. New jobs are being added and the economy is growing. So again even with Trump at the helm we are doing just fine.
  Nope, it was Trump who declared the economy was in dire straits, soon to collapse, yet by doing nothing, apparently he's saved it, and we're doing fine?
  
  As for his appointments, again he is appointing but Democrats in congress are blocking. He could do better but it is what is is. Even then we are still doing just fine.
  So you see, even your doom and gloom is basically all hogwash. We are doing just fine.
  Then why did we need Trump? He was the one predicting he was the only one to save us from the on-coming apocalypse.
  But he's done nothing of meaningful accomplishment. Not one thing.
  But go ahead, continue to show us how deranged you are about your Glorious Trump.
53. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  Well he's certainly failed to be accountable to his promises to his base. But most of the rest of you don't seem to care and have blinders of your own to defend him no matter what he does.
  But thank you for the insight into the mind of a blind follower.
54. Re:To be fair... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-09-29 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  You're right! I mean, hundreds of billions of dollars annually are spent on ads, but they totally don't change behavior. Nope, couldn't be.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
55. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying you don't have the evidence then?
56. Re:To be fair... by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-09-29 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're right! I mean, hundreds of billions of dollars annually are spent on ads, but they totally don't change behavior. Nope, couldn't be.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
57. Re: To be fair... by david_thornley · 2017-09-30 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  You don't pay much attention, do you? Past Presidents have avoided taunting North Korea in general. If a war starts, Seoul will be destroyed, and everybody else seems to realize that.
  Trump was promising quick solutions. So far, we've got the ACA and ISIS still functioning. The Republicans have been attempting to repeal the ACA, but have not come up with anything remotely acceptable, and as far as I can tell won't be. Trump's promises are mostly still vaporware.
  Trump has said there are "very fine people" among Nazis and white supremacists. As I said, he can't stick to a "Nazis are bad" message for more than a day. He can, of course, show more stamina when condemning peaceful protesters and (probably illegally) demanding they be fired, as long as they contain a lot of blacks.
  Trump did indeed suspend that stupid law, while making fun of Puerto Rico's inability to deal with devastation all by themselves, but he sure took his time over it. That wasted time will result in more people killed because Trump doesn't appear to care about Puerto Rico.
  I didn't claim that Trump was bad because he trashed the economy. You claimed that Trump was good because he didn't trash the results of the Obama years.
  Democrats are not superhuman bogeymen. They're in the minority. Look that word up sometime.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
58. Re:To be fair... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-09-30 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, fallacy fail. You may want to call it begging the question, but there's definitely a causal link between the belief that ads change behavior and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars. There's evidence that convinced people to spend all that money. If you have counter-evidence, you could become a very rich man by optimizing the ad spend of all those companies.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
59. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Came here for the Democratic Derangement Syndrome (DDS for short) posts. Found in the first dozen.
60. Re: To be fair... by jwhyche · 2017-10-02 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  Are you really that stupid that you think Seoul matters anymore? Of course you are. Your Trump Derangement Syndrome won't let you see it any other way. Let me explain this to you and I'll try not to use any big words so you will understand it.
  For the past 20 year American presidents have been playing with kid gloves with North Korea, all because of Seoul. Sanctions, treaties, and bribes to get the North Korean leadership to give up a quest to get nuclear weapons. North Korea broke every agreement made during that time.
  So now, here we are. North Korea has nuclear weapons and has developed a delivery system for them. At this current stage in the âoegameâ North Korean missiles and the weapons he has are unreliable at best. They are also limited in size and power to fission devices, those equivalent of the Fat Man that was dropped on Nagasaki, or about 21 kilo tons.
  Current estimates put North Korea's to about a dozen such weapons and a delivery system can reach all of Japan, Guam, and maybe the western seaboard of the United State. Even if he was to launch all of them now and they all work, as horrible as the results would be, they will be far worse if we don't do something now.
  While you sheep keep bleating about Seoul and pursuing a path of appeasement North Korea will continue to develop is technology. They are already testing hydrogen bombs. Instead of kilotons we are taking mega tons. They are called city killers for a reason.
  What do you do ten years down the road when he has hundreds of them and a reliable delivery system that can reach anywhere on the planet? What will you do when he sells some of them or the technology to Iran or the Islamic State? A terrorist organization that would think nothing of driving one in to any western city and setting it off.
  Take off your TDS blinder and you will see that Trump is doing exactly what needs to be done. We cannot afford to appease this North Korean nut much longer. You are worried about Seoul. Trump is worried about Seoul, Tokyo, Gaum, Los Angeles, and the rest of the world.
  But that is what you and people like with TDS can't stand. You are too much of coward to think for yourself and see things for how they really are. You are too much of a coward to admit that no matter what you say nothing will change reality. And that reality is Trump is doing just fine.
  An stop trying to attribute something funny to Sun Tzu. You clearly haven't read his book enough to understand it.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
61. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  The bullshit meter is off the chart with this one.
More Fake News. SAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:15 · Score: -1

This administration has accomplished more in nine months than any previous administration. Trump just canâ(TM)t lose! Those deplorable liberal snowflakes are melting away â" and thatâ(TM)s natural, not caused by some global warming lies.
Trump 2018!
1. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by Stephen+Battleware · 2017-09-28 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate. Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party. For that reason alone, it is a good thing Trump won, regardless of what one thinks of him, his policies or his Twittering.
2. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by peragrin · 2017-09-28 01:21 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
3. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, pondering the mainstream media's handling of the American election, I could only conclude there was an incredible bias against the Republican candidate.
  I would have said the opposite. There was a constant stream of anti-Hillary stories.
  
  Good journalism shouldn't be so. In a modern, rights protecting democracies and republics, the news media really should be as level and unbiased as can be, yet I couldn't get over the impression certain major - supposedly first class - outlets were playing the unofficial mouth organs for the Democratic Party.
  You mean, supporting the Democratic Party by accurately reporting the sleazy things that Trump did? Since Trump was an arrogant bastard with no qualification whatsoever, if the media is honest, the media ought to report that.
4. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
  That explains why they keep having to quietly publish retractions when they get caught, over and over again, straight out lying on the subject.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
5. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by rickb928 · 2017-09-28 02:57 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "What bias? Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true. Trump is a man child with no emotional control, prone to outbursts, ignorance and stupidity. He can't even get his own party under control long enough to pass laws. He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda"
  "no emotional control" - Um, facts not in evidence. Please offer your specific examples.
  "prone to outbursts" - Sounds like LBJ. Or Truman. Or Stonewall Jackson. Or Nixon.
  "ignorance and stupidity" - Which are, apparently, qualifying characteristics to be President. Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
  "get his own party under control" - This is a common misconception. Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
  "He has to go to democrats to get enough support to push his agenda" - And finally we have an astute observation. It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
  If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
6. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  you do realize the media was trying to rig the election from the beginning right? There was no objective journalism. The hacked DNC email proved they colluded with the DNC to put Hillary into the front seat. They did the same for the Republicans after their first attempt at cherry-picking Jeb Bush fell flat on its face. The RNC voters were already sick of dynasties. When Jeb fizzled out they started helping Trump. It wasnt until AFTER he got the RNC nomination that they went on the attack. It was about manipulating the election in order to give the perceived choice that of Hillary (their cherry pick for president) and some no experience guy they thought didnt stand a chance even against someone as unlikeable as Hillary. Had this entire election been free of tampering and meddling, from both Russians AND the media, you would have had a COMPLETELY different result in both RNC and DNC nominated candidates. Stop letting the MSM off the hook. Honestly what the MSM did disgusts me more than the Russian tampering. At least in the case of Russia, its not our own people trying to fuck us over.
7. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by Stephen+Battleware · 2017-09-28 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  That was the narrative - perfectly in line with the Democrat's narrative - which was pushed day and night. Heck you'd think they passed notes, which is my point.
8. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by sexconker · 2017-09-28 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  What bias?
  The bias that networks like CNN and MSNBC and papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post have openly admitted to?
  
  Everything the main stream media said about him has proven true.
  Like the fact that he had no chance? That he was a joke candidate that wouldn't make it past the primaries? That he was losing in all the polls? That Hillary had the election locked up? That he went to a hotel the Obamas stayed in (despite this being a hotel known to be surveilled and spied on) just to have hookers pee on him?
9. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Please offer your specific examples.
  I offer, Donald Trump.
  
  Or Stonewall Jackson.
  Stonewall Jackson was noted for his moderation and temperance, with a kindly soul and noble heart.
  
  Sorry, this ad hominem attack is merely that.
  Sorry, but character matters, and Trump is both ignorance and stupid, as he so roundly demonstrates.
  
  Trump is not really a Republican, and the GOPe is still (from before the election) opposed to him. The Fake News cabal will try to make him a Republican because that would indeed be a problem, but a heads up here, he isn't, he merely registered and ran as affiliated with the GOP.
  True enough, but they still manage to associate with him as their own sainted pontiff.
  
  It's been called 'compromise' in the past, and valued.
  No longer among the GOP, they find it repellent. That's why Trump uses it as a weapon.
  
  If you're mired in the illusion that the media is fair, or even objective, you're mired in an illusion. I do not expect you to be able to discern the fallacy of a functional mainstream press in America. It is no longer practicing journalism.
  If you're mired in the illusion that the media is the problem, that Trump just needs to be given a chance, then I do not expect you to be able to discern the folly of the Republican Conservative Right-wing party, that has shed any claim of morality or reason it might have had, and instead become a creature of pretense and dishonesty.
10. Re:More Fake News. SAD! by fatwilbur · 2017-09-28 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  You know, one thing this election cycle has been just amazing for is exposing which news outlets are just clickbait generators now. It was probably visible before to the keen and distrustful eye, but I think became obvious to a much larger population (and hence Trump was elected).
  
  Some very big names in media too I will admit I was guilty of thinking they were more credible than they really are. CNN, Washington Post.. never before had I seen either outright false articles reported (Russian hacking) or such one-sided, extremist, disaster porn style reporting. I guess I wasn't too emotionally involved in the outcome (don't live in US), but agree of disagree with Trumps ideas I found little to get so worked up over. Here in Canada, I stopped reading a major publication (G&M) as I found all of their stories were some form of "OMG you won't believe what Trump did now!!11". It also highlighted the smart, objective newsmedia too let's not forget, I hope you found some. And not talking Brietbart of whatever here I'm talking intelligent, objective editors.
He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Faceobook is kind of like the collective hive mind of America. And let's face it, more Americans dislike the head Cheeto than like him. So yeah, FB is probably biased against him ... as is everything else where more than four people get together at once. Because he's an asshole.
1. Re:He's right. by toonces33 · 2017-09-28 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As time goes on, I have come to despise Zuckerborg and his stupid "product" more and more.
2. Re:He's right. by bernywork · 2017-09-28 00:53 · Score: -1
  
  And me without mod points. Ultimately, if your approval rating is in the toilet as far as his is, yes, FB is probably biased against him, but so is ... everyone ... fucking... else...
  A few things that have stuck in my head:
  âoeI always felt that a president is accountable for making the best decisions, but that there are going to be a lot of unexpected twists and turns along the way. And as I said recently, this is still a human enterprise and these are big, tough, complicated problems. Somebody noted to me that by the time something reaches my desk, that means itâ(TM)s really hard. Because if it were easy, somebody else would have made the decision and somebody else would have solved it.â
  "Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions"
  "One of the struggles Iâ(TM)ve continued to experience in my life is making tough decisions. Weâ(TM)ve all had to make them. Theyâ(TM)re those decisions where no matter how much you research, talk to your trusted advisers in your life and ponder, you donâ(TM)t seem to get very close to knowing the âoeright answer.â Sure, you recognize the choices you have. You weigh the pros and the cons of each, but there doesnâ(TM)t seem to be a clear result for either choice, until the choice has been made."
  --Obama
  --George W Bush
  --Bill Clinton
  Then there's every single tweet that Trump has throwing shade on Obama and the previous administration.
  âoeThis is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.â
  
  --
  Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
3. Re:He's right. by Stephen+Battleware · 2017-09-28 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I have an account but do not post. If Facebook suited my purposes, I would make use of it. But to use it idly isn't good. Moreover, the company's behaviour is just way too nosy. Like Google, they attempt to track people all over the 'net - whether they have a FB account or no - something I do not like. On this machine here, FB, and many many of its tracking domains are dead sunk in my hosts file.
4. Re:He's right. by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 01:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hive mind.... good analogy.. and by such its reasonable to suggest that if that 'hive mind' started to 'think' a certain way, the Hive would accept this 'new way of thinking' and make it 'their' way of thinking as individuals. Maybe these 'Russian entities' are onto something in respect to 'thought control' by using Facebook ads to brew a civil war.
5. Re:He's right. by BlueStrat · 2017-09-28 01:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And let's face it, more Americans dislike the head Cheeto than like him.
  See, this is where so many in the US on the Left deny reality and cause themselves and others so much anger and frustration. Trump-haters are actually the minority in the US yet behave as if they are a "majority denied" and become all self-righteously angry believing, because of the echo-chamber within which they exist, in their own delusion that they are the majority and were somehow cheated.
  The rest of the US may not love Trump but they don't hate him, and they definitely preferred Trump to the alternatives they were presented with last election.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
6. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:41 · Score: -1
  
  Well the previous administration had no problem having the PRESIDENT campaign for hillary.
  So they deserve all the shade. and a rope.
7. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  You trying to summon APK or something?
8. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Reeeeeeeee!
  Logic & reason!!!
  Kill it with fire!!!!
9. Re:He's right. by TheRaven64 · 2017-09-28 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Faceobook is kind of like the collective hive mind of America
  Facebook is a complex tool designed for psychological manipulation. Its entire purpose is to build profiles of individuals that can identify the levers that can be used to influence their opinions and then sell access to those levers. Considering it as a passive entity is woefully naive.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
10. Re:He's right. by Kierthos · 2017-09-28 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if "hate" is the right term for how the majority of people feel about President Trump, but his job approval (RCP average from 9/11 to 9/27) has him at 40.1% approval, 54.0% disapproval.
  So, at the very least, most (polled) people don't approve of how he's doing his job. Even FOX News's most recent poll has him at 42% approval, 53% disapproval.
  
  --
  Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
11. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, a Trump supporter. A well thought out rebuttal, good work.
12. Re:He's right. by pots · 2017-09-28 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  ... In context, given the post that you're replying to, it sounds like you're saying that you hate Americans.
  
  Assuming that's not what you intended, maybe you could have picked a better place to put this comment.
13. Re:He's right. by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  When they announced they were going to invent a real-time system to catch 'fake news' and delete it I became awoken to yet another fear. What makes them the purveyors of what is 'Real' and what is 'Fake'. Suddenly they now delete anything remotely anti-facebook in agenda. If Facebook decides for themselves that they want a total ban and confiscation of guns, and they delete every pro-gun post and inflate the anti-gun posts, they will claim that 90% of america is for the removal of guns. Its worse than State Controlled Media, its Corporatocracy controlled Media.
14. Re:He's right. by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  If he stayed the hell off of Twitter his damn approval rating would not be so low. Twitter is a medium for dimwits and halfwits, those who cannot write persuasive argument papers and lack the fluency to support statements with evidence, reason, and facts. Facebook is no different. How much can you really say in 150 characters without pissing off half or more of everyone who reads it? If I were to post that I decided to have pancakes instead of waffles without any explanation as to why, via twitter, I'd have half the world convinced I was anti-waffles and promoted their extermination; simply because I said I was picking one and not the other.
15. Re:He's right. by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Even worse, it takes advantage of the 'go with the crowd' types (aka most of FB users) and then tell them the crowd thinks X. Suddenly they change their view to X, believing that everyone else does too. In reality its possible that hardly anyone thought X was right, but now that _everyone else_ supposedly does (ie nobody) it now becomes their opinion too.
16. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Insult. Ignores facts.
  Must be a democrat.
17. Re:He's right. by pecosdave · 2017-09-28 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  You know how I know more people hate the head Cheeto than like him?
  I saw it on Facebook!
  
  --
  The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
18. Re:He's right. by BlueStrat · 2017-09-28 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  If I were to post that I decided to have pancakes instead of waffles without any explanation as to why, via twitter, I'd have half the world convinced I was anti-waffles and promoted their extermination; simply because I said I was picking one and not the other.
  Well of course they'd believe it, being a self-confessed member of the Waffle-SS!
  Breakfast-Nazi!
  Strat :)
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
19. Re:He's right. by HornWumpus · 2017-09-28 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Never look in the mirror at midnight and say 'APK' three times.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
20. Re:He's right. by HornWumpus · 2017-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hillary's #s?
  You choose to ignore that the Ds nominated the worst candidate for president in recent history. Why did they do that?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
21. Re:He's right. by Dan+East · 2017-09-28 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying simple democracy should win. That is the viewpoint that should be enforced upon all. Let me give you a counterexample. In California, the most liberal and leftist state in the country, the majority voted that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry. That was the will of the majority in that state, and similar polls across the entire country showed the majority wanted laws stating marriage was between a man and woman. Many states passed laws to that affect (marriage is defined at the state level, and it is the state's right to create those laws). However, those that control what we see have promoted nothing but the opposite viewpoint, and so you would think, by what you see in the media (news, Facebook, etc) that the minority viewpoint was in fact the majority.
  So FB is not a collective hive, as the fundamental framework of that hive is not neutral.
  
  --
  Better known as 318230.
22. Re:He's right. by Cro+Magnon · 2017-09-28 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hillary's #s?
  You choose to ignore that the Ds nominated the worst candidate for president in recent history. Why did they do that?
  Because it was her turn?
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
23. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Russians. I think Trump paid Russians to buy ads that would encourage Democrats to nominate Hillary so Trump would win. They're always many steps ahead of us.
24. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  If he stayed the hell off of Twitter his damn approval rating would not be so low.
  I doubt it. According to BlueStrat/the right, the left are a minority. This implies the majority are sound minded not-leftists who don't judge their president on superficial tweets, but by his actions and policies ...and if you go by his actions and policies, Trump (and the Republican controlled Congress) isn't exactly doing a great job, especially if you measure him with the same measuring stick as he would to Democrats (e.g people didn't like Obama golfing or signing executive orders... Trump went golfing and signed more executive orders than Obama in his first 100 days)
  Now, I'm not saying he hasn't done anything, but people aren't really talking about them. You'd think if they approve of their president, and would want to defend him, they'd cite some of Trump's accomplishments, and maybe try to get people to have some "real discussions" about those "real issues", instead of just joining in on the mud slinging.
25. Re:He's right. by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-09-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's not bias that you're describing. It's an accurate reflection of popular opinion. Bias would be something introduced by Facebook apart from that popular opinion. For example, if the opinion pieces promoted were to be even-handed, that would be a bias in Trump's favor.
26. Re:He's right. by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2017-09-28 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly do Clinton's numbers have to do with anything at this point? Trump's numbers stand on their own at this point, and they're really bad. Especially for a sitting president in his first year in office.
27. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  You choose to ignore that the Ds nominated the worst candidate for president in recent history.
  Repeating this again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, again, and again doesn't make it true. She would have been a pretty damn good US president. And I'm not going to insult her by just saying she would have been better than the current Resident, that goes without saying.
28. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  When it takes you 10 months to figure out "what happened" and all you can come up with is "I would have gotten elected if it weren't' for those damn straight white males. It's everyone's fault but mine!" I think that pretty much accurately describes "worst candidate for president in recent history". TBH, I think we dodged a bullet.
  She was a terrible candidate and would have been a terrible president. Would vote for Trump again over her in a heartbeat.
29. Re:He's right. by tbannist · 2017-09-28 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  When they announced they were going to invent a real-time system to catch 'fake news' and delete it I became awoken to yet another fear. What makes them the purveyors of what is 'Real' and what is 'Fake'. Suddenly they now delete anything remotely anti-facebook in agenda. If Facebook decides for themselves that they want a total ban and confiscation of guns, and they delete every pro-gun post and inflate the anti-gun posts, they will claim that 90% of america is for the removal of guns. Its worse than State Controlled Media, its Corporatocracy controlled Media.
  I'm not sure why that actually worries you, if they wanted to do that, there are so many excuses they could use, that one more isn't much of a threat. For instance, they could say they were "stopping terrorist posts" or "fighting child pornography". They could simply make the messages disappear because "they violated the obscenity filter". What should be worrying you is that you probably have no way to know if they've already been doing that.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
30. Re: He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  So let me get this straight. Trump actively calls MSM fake news. Its reasonable to assume that at least many of his supporters share his opinions. You then take a poll from said MSM for Trump's approval rating and expect to receive accurate results? That's like going to a KKK march and asking them what they think of BLM and then saying 100% of Americans hate BLM. These polls from news networks have repeatedly been shown to have sample bias. Need we reference last election results. Some polls were showing Trump's chance at 2%. No, this wasn't a case of outliers or just Trump's luck. When personally inspecting the samplings of these polls I would notice a consistent bias towards registered Democrats. This is why I amazingly (sarcasm) was able to predict Trump's win pre primaries. Simple point I'm trying to make is that many statistical reports are generated to support preconcieved results favoring advertising/bias/opinion agendas rather than an accurate mathematical representation.
31. Re: He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Hosts file, hosts file, hosts file, I summon thee from beyond the rational world.
32. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  She was a terrible candidate and would have been a terrible president. Would vote for Trump again over her in a heartbeat.
  You kiddin' me, pal!?
  Hell, most people would have voted for fucking Putin over Hillary as being the lesser of two evils: Putin is the more trustworthy, the less militarily hawkish, plus being the more likable of the two!
33. Re:He's right. by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Trump's been setting new disapproval rating records, so Trump disapprovers, at least, are in a large majority.
  The US people definitely preferred Clinton in the election, and by a pretty large margin. We all know who won, but only Trumpistas claim it was the will of the people.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
34. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  That's because seeing the truth thrown in your face day after day causes you to realize just how vile you are. You can't handle it.
35. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  No, "fucker", the 'civil' 'war' 'will' be 'fought' over 'shitty' 'grammar'.
36. Re:He's right. by HornWumpus · 2017-09-28 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Vermin Supreme certainly had a better, more reasonable, platform.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
37. Re:He's right. by ausekilis · 2017-09-29 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  I've been calling the blind followers of political parties names like "Republemmings" for years. Either people are too busy/lazy to do some research, or otherwise can't be bothered to form their own educated opinion. So they turn to someone they've never met that is able to form some complete, persuasive sentences, and blindly follow what they say.
  I've known some PhD's that take *everything* Limbaugh says as gospel and honestly though the Earth would spin off it's axis and go straight into the sun when Obama got elected. I've also seen plenty of people bashing Bush Jr, Sr, and our Cheeto-in-chief (see?) without actually having a solid stance for their vitriol.
  We were migrating toward one of two hive minds long before Facebook, it just sped up the transition.
38. Re:He's right. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  I know you know you're wrong, as you'd have to literally be retarded to believe this statement in any sense. Most of the Trump voters I know hate him worse than anybody, because he's embarrassed the shit out of them. This is from the Bible Belt too. He still has a handful of hardcore supporters, and probably always will have an ever dwindling base of support, mostly from far right extremists (the ISIS of America, to put it accurately according even to moderate right wingers). It is not even questioned that Trump is the most hated president the US has ever seen in it's history. Less than 20% of the voting population even voted for him, and over half of them now deeply regret it. You can try and comfort yourself from reality if you want, but everyone else will call you out on being retarded every time, so you better get used to it.
Is Slashdot still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:25 · Score: 0, Informative

Why is Slashdot still down? I thought these boys were supposed to be high tech network gurus. Did their "boxen" in mom's basement suffer a power surge? Or did the washing machine overflow?
1. Re:Is Slashdot still down? by cdreimer · 2017-09-28 01:14 · Score: -1
  
  Why is Slashdot still down? I thought these boys were supposed to be high tech network gurus. Did their "boxen" in mom's basement suffer a power surge? Or did the washing machine overflow?
  My trolls are so eager to hump my leg when I post a comment after 6AM Pacific that they’ve been crashing the site for the last few days. They even tried to crash SoylentNews when I posted a comment over there.
2. Re:Is Slashdot still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  While there are definitely a group of a few people who hound you incessantly, there isn't enough interest in you for anyone to bring down entire websites. Don't give yourself too much credit.
3. Re:Is Slashdot still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Who the fuck is Chris??
4. Re:Is Slashdot still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-30 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  I really don't know.
  C.D. Reimer is renowed Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."
  But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!
  Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
  Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
  All the king's horses
  And all the king's men
  Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
  Together again.
  Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  Creimy's real pictures:
  Before the sex change:
  https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
  After the sex change:
  https://ibb.co/gVad65
  Creimy's chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:
  http://www.keynamics.com/image...
  Creimy's head, while his supervisor was talking to him, not with him, since it is impossible to do with Creimy:
  https://school.discoveryeducat...
  Creimy acting in educational resource document, he actually confirmed himself on Slashdot that he was handled by Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education! He is really a king Dumpty!:
  http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...
5. Re:Is Slashdot still down? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-03 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  You must be really desperate to try to reproduce your /. schemes on SN.
  Seriously, are you so desperate for clicks and are you such a hogging bastard, just as your former girlfriend describes here?:
  https://slashdot.org/comments....
No Bias? by Zurkeyon3733 · 2017-09-28 00:29 · Score: 2

This sentence of your story sure indicates BIAS... "Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies."
1. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  And your sentence doesn't?
  There is an increasingly "Baghdad Bob" quality to Donald Trump, his administration and his supporters.
2. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, facebook is Basis against trump, that's what happens when you have user generated content and 80+% of users dislike trump.
  This isn't a social media problem for trump, it's a popularity problem for trump, the majority doesn't like him, didn't vote for him, and would like him to go away because he is clearly ineffective at governing.
3. Re:No Bias? by Zurkeyon3733 · 2017-09-28 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is an increasing desperation in the leftist community to convey criminal activity where no evidence can be found for said activity. And my statement indicated no bias. Simply a Quote from the story trying to say he isn't bias, when its showing that Zuck IS 100% Biased. Your trolling did nothing to change that. :-P
4. Re:No Bias? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-09-28 01:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I doubt that 80% of users dislike Trump, considering 40-50% percent of users voted for him.
  
  --
  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: No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  In the US yes, remember Facebook is a global platform. Guess what the global opinion is...
6. Re:No Bias? by Zurkeyon3733 · 2017-09-28 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  you misspelled "Ineffective at governing EXACTLY the way the leftist horde wants him to"
7. Re:No Bias? by TheRaven64 · 2017-09-28 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Voting for Trump doesn't necessarily mean that they don't hate him, it can just mean that they hated Hilary more (or that they thought that Hilary would continue to boil the frog, whereas Trump might be so bad that there'd be a backlash in the next election).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:No Bias? by OrangeTide · 2017-09-28 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, we're not the ones who chanted "lock her up".
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
9. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  It was not the "leftists" who voted for and elected* Trump.
  * more people voted for someone other than Trump. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Trump.
10. Re:No Bias? by aicrules · 2017-09-28 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but you should have been. Instead you voted her into the race guaranteeing a win for just about anyone on the republican ticket. Way to go!
11. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah it was the leftists because they prefer their echo chamber so much more than reality that they balled themselves up geographically into an ineffective voting machine.
12. Re:No Bias? by burtosis · 2017-09-28 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually the voting public didn't pick Hillary and further Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss that the party holds the right to select its candidate any way it chooses and is not bound by pledges of fairness. Further still the super delegates voted in many states for Hillary despite 10 and 20 point leads by Sanders. If super delegates weren't part of the formula, Sanders would have won hands down. The DNC chair resigned in disgrace over this, and small donor donations to democrats have hit historic lows, but there are no rule changes in sight and the DNC will just pick who they like, fairness or public voting be damned.
13. Re: No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why would Americans give a shit about "global opinion"?
14. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that 80% of users dislike Trump, considering 40-50% percent of users voted for him.
  You need to compare the numbers for voter turnout and participation in Facebook.
15. Re:No Bias? by HornWumpus · 2017-09-28 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  If the other viable candidates hadn't stepped back because it was Hillary's turn, Bernie would have been in last place.
  The Ds have gotten the exactly wrong message from the loss, they will pivot left, giving Trump 8 years.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:No Bias? by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-28 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe just maybe he cares about his freaking country enough to put politics aside to put an end to foreign interference and espianoge by a hostile government agaisn't his own.
  Is that so damned hard today to find someone who loves his country more than his or her candidate for office?
  I have seen pro Putin posts and polls among the right which I do not know if it angers me or saddens me more? If you support candidate and bias over country you are UnAmerican and a traitor! Case closed! I am left and make this a disclaimer but if Bernie or Hillary won and Russia had a role you bet I would support Zuckerberg and the GOP led investigation (as we know it's party first in this day and age).
  If Bernie had a son who met with Russia and used his free email accounts then I want that bastard impeached! I do not care about party first if a foreign entitty got involved. Why is it so damned hard to find any Republican who doesn't think like this or anyone rationally minded.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
17. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  That is different. Trump has an R next to his name and is cool. Hillary has a D.
18. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  This sentence of your story sure indicates BIAS... "Mark Zuckerberg has made it clear in the past that he doesn't like Donald Trump -- or at least, his policies."
  I know that this is an alien concept in the circles that are in power in the US in the last one or two years, but just because you have a certain political view does not mean that you cannot give equal opportunity to all points of view.
19. Re: No Bias? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-09-28 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt if many Facebookers in China give a shit either way about Trump or Hillary.
  
  --
  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:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it up to the Special Counsel to decide if there was or was not evidence of criminal activity? Do you have investigative or subpoena powers? Are you a lawyer or jury member on one of the several grand juries? Your declaration of no criminal activity shows that YOU are biased and willing to make conclusive judgments about issues you have no evidence to back up...You have an opinion just like everyone else and that's a fact!
  So what if Zuck has a personal opinion, that doesn't mean FB does. I'm no FB or Zuck fan but Zuck and his company are 2 very different things. Facebook is a community with billions of opinions. I hate to break it to you but the majority of the USA and world loathes or fears DJT so its not surprising that any neutral community on the web or in real life would have a majority bias against DJT.
21. Re:No Bias? by markdavis · 2017-09-28 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  +1 I was going to post the same thing.
  Both candidates were poor. Many people voting for EITHER candidate were not happy with the candidate but held their nose and voted for the least worst. Some of it has nothing to do with the candidate, anyway. For example, if you value gun rights, voting for Hillary would be insane, no matter how much you hate Trump, the person.
  And thus the problem with "first to the post" voting both in the primaries and the elections themselves. This could be mostly fixed with IRV http://fairvote.org/ so you can vote for candidates you like without fear of your vote counting for nothing. Alas, this will probably never happen.
22. Re:No Bias? by markdavis · 2017-09-28 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  >"Trump, considering 40-50% percent of users voted for him."
  It wasn't a mystery and doesn't need a range. The popular vote (which doesn't really matter in presidential elections) was as follows:
  Trump 62,984,825 46.4%
  Clinton 65,853,516 48.5%
  a tiny 2.1% difference. Essentially half the country voted for each.
  The electoral vote (which does matter) was:
  Trump 306
  Clinton 232
  a huge 24.2% landslide difference
23. Re:No Bias? by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Clinton won a large majority of superdelegates, and a slight majority of regular delegates. The DNC is a private organization that tries to get the best candidate. Having no brakes on the process gets candidates like George McGovern and Donald Trump.
  The polls didn't reflect chances of winning. Clinton has been the target of a right-wing smear campaign for decades, and they left Sanders alone pretty much. In the general election, his self-description as a socialist would have been a big hindrance.
  I'm saying this as one who supported Sanders in the nominating process, by the way.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
24. Re:No Bias? by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  He's clearly ineffective at governing, no further words needed. What initiatives has he gotten through a friendly Congress?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
25. Re:No Bias? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-09-28 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I was considering that more liberals are on Facebook, compared to conservatives.
  
  --
  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.
26. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Never have I seen a more classic example of moving the goalposts.
27. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Nevermind the statistical fact that Bernie would've beaten Trump in the biggest landslide the US would have ever seen. A good chunk of Bernie supporters (who weren't left leaning) voted for Trump, a clear enough majority that would've gone directly to Bernie in that timeline.
28. Re:No Bias? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Try 20% of legal voters. The 2016 election had one of the lowest turnouts in history.
29. Re:No Bias? by OrangeTide · 2017-09-30 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's a terrible example of that.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
30. Re:No Bias? by HornWumpus · 2017-10-01 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody had even started to campaign against Bernie. Hillary didn't want to offend his red supporters.
  To say nothing of the fact that a large part of 'Bernie bros' were simply 'never Hillary'.
  Bernie took his wife to Lenin's tomb for their honeymoon. Is on record supporting Castro. Unelectable red. I hope they do nominate him next.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is not surprising by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-28 00:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Trump will shamelessly sling mud without any regard to truth at anyone or thing he sees as a threat.
Obviously, he sees the release of the information regarding a Russian campaign to influence the election as a threat. The information is being released by Facebook, therefore he slings mud at Facebook in an attempt to get people to discredit the evidence.
1. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, you have a bias.
2. Re:This is not surprising by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, or maybe there is nothing to it but it makes for a hell of a distraction. Kind of like throwing the IRS under the bus to get everyone focusing on IRS targeting conservative groups while trying sideline the investigation into Fast and Furious, and distract the public so as to ram PIPA and the NDAA through congress. There was never a real desire to reform the IRS process, and in fact the director was thrown a life raft if you recall. With all they hype over the NFL and now the facebook Ads, has anyone not noticed the new proposed tax code? What happened with DACA being a big deal? Suddenly they forgot all about that. This is classic magic tricks 101: misdirection, misdireaction, misdiraction. Whenever these headlines pop up, start looking around for the real play.
Why just the Russian ads? by Solandri · 2017-09-28 00:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?

By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen. Doesn't mean there aren't roaches in the rest of your house. And for all you know the kitchen may actually have the fewest roaches.
1. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 00:51 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen.
  
  What other nations do you suspect of attempting to bias the election via facebook ads? I'm sure if you make a credible claim, someone will be glad to look for that.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by MangoCats · 2017-09-28 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you only look for roaches, you will still find some evidence of rats, ants, and any other infestations.
  On the other hand, if you only look in the kitchen, you are unlikely to find the dragons living in the basement.
3. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  The only difference is that the "international lies" are illegal and the "domestic ones" aren't.
4. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-28 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  Trump's claim is bias against him. The Russian ads were all helping him win, because Russia thought he would be a weaker leader and more disruptive.
  
  --
  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:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
  If your concern is foreign actors other than the Russians meddling with the US election, shouldn't you be telling Congress to subpoena Facebook for all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
  
  By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen. Doesn't mean there aren't roaches in the rest of your house. And for all you know the kitchen may actually have the fewest roaches.
  Oh Solandri, your skills with metaphors are as bad as your logical abilities, let alone your tendency towards making up "facts" that are as fake as your own ideas.
  It's just like when you railed over the "3 million illegal" voters, a number made up from whole cloth, then even when you had some numbers, it was misrepresenting facts in New Hampshire, because despite your proclamations, there is no requirement that a person get a New Hampshire Driver's License or even own a car to be a New Hampshire resident for the purposes of voting. Nor any indication of any nefarious or illicit purpose. Unlike say, the woman who voted for her dead mother in North Carolina, which you refused to declare was illegal.
  But hey, now you have Judge Roy Moore for whom you will fawningly praise, because he was the chosen of Alabama, no matter how much of an effort you made to make it the far less brazenly obvious choice of Luther Strange to advance your agenda.
  Isn't it fun, being a right-wing partisan like yourself? You have such wholesome partners.
6. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by brxndxn · 2017-09-28 01:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Israel, you blind idiot.
  
  --
  --- We need more Ron Paul!
7. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  Israel has one of the largest lobbying efforts in the US. That would be the obvious choice. Hot potato, I know, but there it is.
8. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Ask people living in New Hampshire about how fake those claims are. Every election, you'll see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas. They literally bus in voters. People see it happen. We know it happens. There's a reason New Hampshire wants to strengthen the protections on voting. It's because they know that illegal voting happens all the time, they just can't prove it under the current system, because so far activist judges have forbidden them from even looking.
9. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-09-28 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  By turning over only the Russian ads, they've basically already confirmed Trump's accusation of bias. If you only look for roaches in the kitchen, you'll only find roaches in the kitchen.
  What other nations do you suspect of attempting to bias the election via facebook ads?
  Israel? Turnabout is fair play, after all.
  
  --
  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.
10. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:19 · Score: -1
  
  Well there is evidence Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC contractor, worked with Ukraine to influence the election.
  Whats that? Actual EVIDENCE of foreign interference with our election? But it was the party of bigotry, which you support, that did it so there is obviously nothing to see there. We need to keep supporting the party that kept a KKK Leader in the Senate for 6 decades, so we will have to ignore Ukrainian interference and instead keep making up stories about Russian interference without evidence, because the party that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, and got civil rights for blacks passed needs to be punished instead.
  That about sums up your comment.
11. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook banned Bosch Fawstin, winner of the Draw Mohammed contest that was attacked by terrorists
  Facebook censored war correspondant Michael Yon
  Facebook bans Arab atheist pages
  Facebook banned Anonymous Germany for posting police statistics about immigrant crime
  Facebook suspended a Dutch MP for criticizing Recep Tayyip Erdogan
  Facebook suspended Syrian blogger PartisanGirl for making fun or ISIS
  Facebook banned a guy for calling the Muslim Brotherhood liars
  Facebook banned a liberal Muslim Shireen Qudosi for insulting a member of the Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR.
  Facebook suspended Stop Islamization of America for opposing the massacre at an Orlando gay bar
  Facebook banned Gaystream for opposing the massacre at an Orlando gay bar
  Facebook banned a researcher for reporting on crime by Muslim immigrants in Sweden
  Facebook censors a news article exposing the racist words of a Muslim activist.
  Facebook finds that the page Stab Zionists meets their community standards and refuses to remove it.
  If someone wants to look for foreign interference in Facebook, they should start with the moderation staff.
12. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by will_die · 2017-09-28 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they purchased ad for more things that showing what a weak character Hillary is. On one side they were purchasing ads and supporting liberal groups pushing for the succession of California and Hawaii then on the other side they were supporting ads from conservative groups that were supportive of the Bill of Rights.
13. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Well there is evidence Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC contractor, worked with Ukraine to influence the election.
  Sounds good. Let's look for that, then.
  
  Whats that? Actual EVIDENCE of foreign interference with our election? But it was the party of bigotry, which you support
  Let me just stop you there, son. You seem to think that I like the Democrats. I only dislike them less than the Republicans. I am registered as an independent. When you get done making assumptions, you can try again. Hint: check out my posting history here on Slashdot, where I slam Clinton and the DNC again and again — though never with the notion that I would prefer Trump, or the RNC. They're all shit, and some are slightly less shit than others.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Would you move on from that "KKK leader" bs? Byrd was a low-ranking member in I think his twenties, later distancing himself from the klan and publicly renouncing it, recounting it for most of those decades as the biggest personal mistake of his life. Not only that, but he represented basically the opposite of what the KKK stood[/stands] for with his leadership and policies.
  This is like the argument that today's Democrat party killed Lincoln, somehow now a Reagan republican, because liberals believe in slavery. Except that I wouldn't even bother addressing something so out-of-touch with history.
15. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Ask people living in New Hampshire about how fake those claims are.
  I'll ask you, how REAL are those claims instead?
  
  Every election, you'll see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas. They literally bus in voters. People see it happen. We know it happens.
  Let's see, cars with MA plates. Wow, that's sure evidence of a crime. Bused in voters? Yeah, churches do that all over the place. Yet you mysteriously didn't take pictures or videos of this, you never ever do. You just expect us to believe it, and expect us to immediately declare it proof of some actual offense.
  
  There's a reason New Hampshire wants to strengthen the protections on voting.
  It doesn't, the Republicans who want to restrict voting are just using it as the standard excuse for such measures.
  
  It's because they know that illegal voting happens all the time, they just can't prove it under the current system, because so far activist judges have forbidden them from even looking.
  Sure man, those "activist judges" are keeping you from providing the evidence you should so readily have.
  The horrors! Maybe if you got to torture them, you'd get some confessions!
16. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  "They're all shit, and some are slightly less shit than others."
  Not that I disagree, but when you're recruiting for the most powerful position in the world, "shit" and "slightly less than shit" are clearly equivalents.
17. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  russia bought ads supporting hillary and this made trump win...
  So the first step is to admit that hillary is a complete shit candidate and russia told everyone?
  do you even listen to the insane crap you say?
18. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by XXongo · 2017-09-28 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
  They are turning over the ads that were requested by the congressional investigation.
19. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  How do you know what they turned over?
20. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why just foreign ads? Paying for things through an intermediary to conceal the source isn't that unheard of.
21. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  But it was the party of bigotry, which you support, that did it so there is obviously nothing to see there.
  Exactly. The GOP doesn't want you to believe it. They don't even want you to believe that they're unlawfully gerrymandering, restricting the right to vote, or supporting the undisputed believer in theocracy, Roy Moore.
  
  We need to keep supporting the party that kept a KKK Leader in the Senate for 6 decades,
  
  Strom Thurmond was only in office for 46 years, but yeah, you keep supporting him, go ahead.
  
  so we will have to ignore Ukrainian interference and instead keep making up stories about Russian interference without evidence,
  
  Is this the Ukraine which was invaded by Russia, and is being assaulted by Russian supported rebel terrorists, or some other Ukraine?
  
  because the party that ended slavery,
  Over 100 years ago. You still want credit for that? Huh? The people who did it are dead. Oddly, the Republicans of today are the ones who demand we cherish and adore the vaunted Confederate memorials of the Lost Cause apologists.
  
  gave women the right to vote,
  Almost 100 years ago. You want credit for that too? Oddly, it's the Republicans of today who don't respect women very much, based on their actual statements and attitudes.
  
  and got civil rights for blacks passed needs to be punished instead.
  No thanks to Strom Thurmond, who was claimed it was a communist plot. And civil rights are disparaged by those the Republicans support today, like Cliven Bundy and that guy from Google with his faux science.
  
  That about sums up your comment.
  Here's a summary of yours: Democrats BAD! Republicans GOOD!
22. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Ogive17 · 2017-09-28 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well normally you don't go looking for roaches unless there is evidence of a roach problem.
  
  There is evidence that Russia was involved. Is there evidence any other foreign actors were involved?
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
23. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-28 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
  Also, hopefully you did realize that those fake groups "supporting" the left like AntiFa Boston were actually trolling to whip up division and tension, which again was seen to be beneficial for Trump.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Why just the Russian ads?
  The same reason when the cops has a warrant to for X, you don't have to hand them anything beyond X.
  And you wouldn't want to do hand over more than you have to, if you're a company that respects the privacy of your users (even if they are your product... or especially because they're your product, as you want to keep the quality and integrity of your product intact)
25. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I don't think the Russians were really trying to help trump, I think it was a byproduct not the intent. I see 2 possible motives/goals. 1) brew up hate and discontent to weaken a society. 2) revenge against Hillary Clinton . I think that both were achieved. The ads, which seem to target multiple groups even those never likely to vote trump, succeeded better than one could EVER have imagined in goal #1. Even the discussion about the tampering is even dividing the country, its like a positive feedback loop. I think that when HRC was secretary of state, she did something behind the scenes to screw Putin over. I suspect, but will never know, it was tied to that Uranium sale she brokered. Remember that public mockery over the 'reset' button that was a rebranded staples easy button? That was around the time that Russia went from being a 'friend' to being 'those nasty Soveit holdouts'. I doubt you and I will ever, in our lifetime, ever know what really went on behind the scenes. I do recognized wrath when I see it, this has all the earmarks of the old expression 'hell hath no fury that of a woman scorn". It wasn't just ads that played a strong role, all her secret games she played, hidden off site on an unsecure private server came to light. The hacked, but still true, evidence where the DNC rigged their own primary election to hand Hillary a winning ticket played a huge part too. Nobody likes voter tampering, Russian interference or not, you cannot deny what the DNC did was voter tampering in its purest form.
26. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Says the anonymous coward with a sack so small he's considering gender reassignment. I bet you have to sit down to pee don't you?
27. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  The people who did it are dead.
  I hope you apply that evenly to "white guilt" or "white privilege" or when trying to justify any sort of past crimes onto people alive that had nothing to do with said past crimes.
28. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I said. They helped Trump win, because they thought he would be better for THEM, i.e. worse for the US.
  They (the Russians), just like everybody else running every other country - including this one - along with all of academia, pretty much all of the press, and certainly the lefty establishment including Clinton herself ... were convinced SHE would win. Right up through election night. The Russians were simply doing what they ALWAYS do. Everything they can to make sure that whoever gets elected or holds power in a country that is an adversary of theirs is weakened by internal strife, busy dealing with domestic noise, and otherwise too distracted to deal with Russia's own agenda. They WANTED Clinton to win, and to be weak while in office. They didn't have any more magic insight into electoral behavior than did all of the experts who were breathlessly telling us what a landslide Clinton was going to bring.
  
  fake groups "supporting" the left like AntiFa
  There's nothing fake about the left's favorite militant brown shirts. They LIKE having violent thugs to beat people into silence on college campuses. It's what the political left has always done, and they wouldn't be the left without having their pet head crackers, store-burners, and speech silencers. Hasn't changed a bit in decades. The left loves thugs in masks beating people bloody and destroying other people's stuff. It's baked into their world view.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
29. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Way to try to completely divert you being completely wrong by using the personal attack as some sort of high horse. Well done sir!
30. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Not the OP above - but if you think asking someone to identify themselves with a government ID to vote is too high a bar - you're a fucking idiot.
31. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  What other nations do you suspect of attempting to bias the election via facebook ads? I'm sure if you make a credible claim, someone will be glad to look for that.
  Not just facebook ads.. but China, Israel, the UK, North Korea, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Syria, Iran, the EU in general and probably some random other countries allies, neutral and adversaries alike clearly have "influence campaigns" in the US with their own geopolitical objectives.
  US political ads purchased by non-US citizens would be illegal and funneling money to US entities to run ads would also be illegal. And if Americans or anyone else acted as foreign agents and ran ads paid for by foreign governments that would also be illegal as unregistered foreign agents. Of course then there are likely the ads and paid for news stories where the funding was laundered a few times over so that their funding was more difficult to detect.
  It just isn't remotely credible to claim that ONLY Russia is involved in trying to influence US politics.
  Really it would be more relevant question to ask which countries aren't operating an "influence campaign" in the US.
  Trump should order a complete review of foreign influence campaigns in the US in the past ten years and not arbitrarily limit it to Russia like Obama cynically did. Obama's motivation in ordering that public report in his waning days in office was clearly to help bolster the Clinton campaign's narrative about the DNC hacks and Trump's open encouragement of those hacks.
  Trump probably won't order a complete review and won't declassify such a report because countries like Israel very likely were heavily involved in supporting Republican congressional candidates and the overall level of support for Republican candidates versus Democratic Party candidates might make it look even worse for Republicans.
  Looking at it historically the US has a history of outing the influence campaigns of countries that are deemed to be adversaries, while looking the other way at the influence campaigns of those deemed allies... which absent a declaration of war against a country is its own perversion of our foreign policy into an often racist popularity contest inside the US government about which foreign governments we are going to hold accountable for breaking US law.
32. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Chris+Mattern · 2017-09-28 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  If the concern is foreign actors meddling with the U.S. election, shouldn't Facebook be turning over to Congress all political ads purchased on Facebook by foreigners for viewing in the U.S.?
  They can't. These people aren't identifying themselves as foreign agents; they're using false fronts. Facebook has learned who the Russian false fronts were, but nobody knows who the others might be.
33. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Not the OP above - but if you think asking someone to identify themselves with a government ID to vote is too high a bar - you're a fucking idiot.
  I'm not an idiot, I know what the purpose of that restriction is, it's a bar that's deliberately set up to be discriminatory, making it an act of false morality. Why else would they shut down DMVs in certain areas? Why else would they deliberately choose IDs based on trends of possession of them? It's all about keeping certain people from voting.
  Really, the obligation should be on the state, as it is in voting.
  You agree to make it the mandate of the state to provide the ID, even if the governor has to go house to house, then perhaps I'll accept your claims.
34. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-28 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you didn't see this: https://twitter.com/my2k/statu...
  The Russian's pretending to be AntiFa Boston accidentally left location tagging on. Not long after they deleted the tweet and then the account. If you look at this history of their posts, they were mostly just trolling white guys, and even before the gaffe they were widely known to be a fake group.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by tbannist · 2017-09-28 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I disagree, but when you're recruiting for the most powerful position in the world, "shit" and "slightly less than shit" are clearly equivalents.
  Not really. When you're recruiting for the "most powerful position in the world", you should clearly be getting the "least shit" person you can get. Even if the differences are small, those differences will be amplified by the power of the position, and thus the power of the position makes it more, not less, to pick the "least shit" candidate.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
36. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it is discriminating against the apathetic, ignorant, and incompetent. I don't have a problem with that. I hope you aren't implying, as I've often seen from the left, that these traits are only found in, and inherent to, certain ethnicities.
37. Re: Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you apply that evenly to "white guilt" or "white privilege" or when trying to justify any sort of past crimes onto people alive that had nothing to do with said past crimes.
  Only when they don't want to be esteemed for their glorified ancestry.
38. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it is discriminating against the apathetic, ignorant, and incompetent. I don't have a problem with that.
  Oh? You want to pretend you're pursuing a noble course, only allowing those who you find fit and worthy to vote?
  How enlightened of you. Just like with your literacy tests.
  
  I hope you aren't implying, as I've often seen from the left, that these traits are only found in, and inherent to, certain ethnicities.
  Ah, you are blaming the victims of the partisan bureaucracy for not having the tenacity to wait outside for the 2-3 days a month the DMV is open and serving customers, with all the scrupulously analyzed paperwork in hand.
  Where the Republican appointed inspector will assess the ethnicity of the applicant, and deny them their ID just because of who they might vote for, which is obviously a problem.
  Hey, where do you Right-wing Trolls get all your messaging from? You repeat it all so much.
  It's almost suspicious. If you'd used the term "plantation" I'd be absolutely certain who you were getting it from, but perhaps in another post or two you'll get there.
39. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  And for all you know the kitchen may actually have the fewest roaches.
  Personally I wouldn't have picked the room most likely to have the most roaches for my metaphor.
40. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  You sound pretty biased to me. Did a Lefty do you harm in the past?
41. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  I think the Russians were trying to help Trump. Remember it was candidate Trump who said he wanted to improve relations with Russia ( do note the Russians were not held in high regard when they were backing Assad after he gassed his own people ). Also, Trump said he wanted the sanctions removed, I would think that would be a positive for Russia. Imagine their disappointment when not only could he not do that but instead was forced to implement new ones. Actually there was no need to imagine, we heard their displeasure regarding the new sanctions. Interestingly Trump made it clear he was against the new sanctions which makes it clear to anyone paying attention that Trump is pro Russia.
42. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by jwhitener · 2017-09-28 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  The FBI, CIA, NSA, and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies must all be biased against Trump as well. None of them have singled out any other countries as having as large an influence in our politics as Russian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
43. Re:Why just the Russian ads? by Cederic · 2017-09-29 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You lack credibility when you suggest that people of a certain ethnicity either can't drive, or do so illegally.
  if they're driving legally then they have a driving licence.
So which is it? by Major+Blud · 2017-09-28 00:58 · Score: 1

Zuck also said that it was "crazy" idea that fake news on Facebook influenced the election.
(http://fortune.com/2016/11/11/facebook-election-fake-news-mark-zuckerberg)
Now he's being asked to hand over 1,000 ads that may have influenced the election.
So which is it? Were you in denial earlier, or just plain incompetent?

--
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
Facebook is a mirror by DrXym · 2017-09-28 01:01 · Score: 1

Putting aside issues of bots, Russian interference, fake news etc., if Facebook is predominantly "anti-Trump" it is because the people who use the service are anti-Trump.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find groups of Trump supporters within the service if someone were so inclined to look.
1. Re:Facebook is a mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:15 · Score: -1
  
  if Facebook is predominantly "anti-Trump" it is because the people who use the service are anti-Trump.
  Did you forget the entire 18 month pre-election process? I have (if we're being generous) 4 relatives who are mild Democrats and linked as Facebook friends. Over 2/3rds of my feed was pro-Hillary content for over a year, and not from those 4. The association process for linking a story to my feed was changed to include things commented on by a friend of a friend rather than the normal 1-step association, but only for anti-Trump and pro-Hillary comments.
  The devs at Facebook very clearly changed the rules during an election, and very clearly for one side.
2. Re:Facebook is a mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you get downboated for questioning the narrative. If anyone else is browsing at (-1), check these out:
  http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/23/technology/sheryl-sandberg-backs-hillary-clinton/index.html
  http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/24/facebook-sheryl-sandberg-hillary-clinton-win-badly/
  Sandberg is the COO of Facebook. She wants to help Hillary in "any way she can." Do you think, given the memo fallout at Google, Facebook employees would not question inducing bias if they thought they were on a mission from God?
3. Re:Facebook is a mirror by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence that FB will delete any far right nutjob in a millisecond but take weeks or months to get around to taking down Islamic State recruiting videos, or Antifa crap. If you're going to have a no-hate-speech rule, it needs to be enforced 100% the same regardless of who posts the content. Even Nancy Pelosy, someone who I don't have a lot of respect for, has admitted that Antifa is a hate group and themselves behaving in a fascist manner. Its no different than defending an abortion bomber but condemning an IRA church bomber. This whole, overlook the means as long as the end goal suits my needs, is the essence of Bias.
4. Re:Facebook is a mirror by swb · 2017-09-28 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  Do you think that, broadly speaking, "left wing" groups are quicker to complain and seek sanctions on their opponents than "right wing" groups?
  I'm kind of inclined to believe this, and it might account for some of apparent bias the "average" user not closely linked with "left wing" or "right wing" groups might see on Facebook.
5. Re:Facebook is a mirror by freeze128 · 2017-09-28 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's simpler than that. Facebook has ALL kinds of people posting ALL kinds of opinions. If you look for it, no matter what "IT" is, it will be there. Do you think that Facebook is full of racists? Look for them, and you will find them. Do you think facebook is full of Kardashian fans? Look for them, and you will find them. Do you think facebook is full of Trump haters? Look for them and you will find them.
6. Re:Facebook is a mirror by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Do you honestly think executives promising to support candidates as much as they can is new in any way? Diebold promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to bush, for example, and that's a much more dangerous position, since he was selling unauditable voting machines.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
7. Re:Facebook is a mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  I actually have been studying this for a while. I'm a member of nearly every pro-Trump group there is on FB (I join 2-3 new ones every day) and my findings mirror the scientific studies; they are about 80% bot accounts that share obviously fake news trying to entice real people into them. One of them had a purge of about 100,000 users overnight, and then the next day there were 100,000 new users with different names sharing the same articles incessantly.
probably purchased by Russians? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 01:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

what the hell does "The site believes the ads were [probably] purchased by Russian entities .." mean? Either there is clear evidence that <madeupname> Nikoli Polityetski </madeupname> purchased an add that linked back to an account with the Bank of Moscow, or there isn't. To say that any anti-clinton add _probably_ was purchased by Russian entities, and no body else, is nothing but hearsay and speculation. I hope its not a 'probably' but instead a clearer link than that. Otherwise this is nothing but Jury tampering before a trial (figurative or literal, whatever the case may be)
3000 ads doesn't really seem like a large number to me. I'm pretty sure the 3 or 4 days right before any election, I see nearly that many ads of all the local political races like judges, magistrates, city council, etc. And why is it that most of these articles make it look like all the Russian tampering was pro-trump, when just a day ago there was another article that suggested that these 'Russian entities' were buying a lot of pro Black Lives Matter, as well as anti-immigration ads, in equal amounts. That article suggested these 'Russian entities' where deliberately trying to divide the populace and create racial tensions.
Here is a link to one of the papers re-capping the information. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... Ironically the NYPost cites sources at CNN, which I went back and watched the video with Wolf Blitzer, and yet CNN keeps beating the "Russians cheated to get Trump elected" drum.
1. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-28 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  >Either there is clear evidence that Nikoli Polityetski purchased an add that linked back to an account with the Bank of Moscow, or there isn't.
  How difficult do you think it is to have a Russian purchase ads through a proxy so the cash appears to come from an American source and the customer name on the invoice is an American individual or company?
  The method for tagging the ads as 'Russian-purchased' needs to be examined. Personally, I believe it's far more likely than not. I also believe that doesn't necessarily mean Trump or his team was behind it, so that too needs to be proven.
  It's just another nail for the coffin, though. If you look at the meetings taken, the admissions and backing documentation that there was an attempt to break American election laws (with the odd defense that "It's OK, we only attempted to break the law, we didn't succeed"... as if 'attempted' isn't enough legally as many find out after an attempted murder or assault).
2. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  dont even get me started on legal loopholes. Since when is intent required for prosecution? IE the supposed intent to distribute classified information to unsecure recipients. She sent classified email in plain unencrypted text to here insecure, public, email server, then lied, lied, lied again, deleted, and lied some more that there never was classified information in the first place. After all that coverup and lying, suddenly we get the 'we wont proscute because even though she's a complete bumbling idiot, it was never her intent to hand them over to foreign actors' crap. I'm pretty sure nobody intends to run someone over when they are so drunk they cant make sane decisions like whether they are OK to drive, yet they get sentenced. Its just more proof that the people doing the most to screw up the world never have to pay for their actions. Hillary had Mens Rea. She knew since even as her days as a Senator how the classified documents laws are written. At no time are you to lose control of these documents. To tell your staff to remove the classified markings and re-mail it to her personal account is proof of Mens Rea. She knew it was wrong and was trying to hide the fact it was classified information. Had she used a tool in her mail like PGP or similar, so that as the bits and bytes floated across routers all over the internet, it couldnt be read in plain text, she might have gotten some benefit of the doubt. She was careless, wreckless, and dangerous. Honestly I really dont think we would be in any less of a mess than we are in right now. Both are driven by misplaced Narcissism which causes them to make countless mistakes. Yet these are the two people the MSM decided needed extra help to get them to the semi-finals.
3. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  > She sent classified email in plain unencrypted text
  Why the wall of text about somebody who isn't POTUS? Hillary's irrelevant to whether or not there are sufficient grounds to investigate wrongdoing by Trump.
4. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-28 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is HUGE. All it takes is one viral negative ad that sticks and is shared to get a large section of the population not to vote.
  Kerry may have been president if he never said "...I voted for this after I voted agaisn't it ..". This turned into an ad with a waffle and was repeated over and over again by Bush and Cheney and he went down 10% in the polls. Enough to seal the deal for Bush to win re-election.
  Negative ads and news really do work well.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
5. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Its called legal precedence. If we go around inventing new reasons why people aren't to be held accountable, you cant go back and say 'well this time its the POTUS so we are going to have a different rule of law'. In my example there was clear evidence of the Secretary of State conducting illegal acts, then attempting to tamper with evidence (ie deleting), and then lying as well. All 3 things were acts committed while holding a sworn office in the cabinet of the executive branch. Now we have another case of claims of coverup, and evidence tampering. However, unlike the email server case, we do not yet evidence as damning as what they found when the missing mail messages were discovered. If/When that happens then the crime will most likely be the evidence tampering. Technically even if he HAD colluded with russia to place political ads, there was no law that prevented it, much like the SCOTUS backing of Citizens United. However, to coverup evidence, well thats an obstruction of justice charge. It wasnt the breakin at Watergate that screwed Nixon, it was his attempt to bail out his campaign manager and tamper with the investigation that screwed him. However, now we have a new precedence of "I never actually intended to do X, it was an accidental bumbling on my part" defense that Hillary started. Otherwise now you have yet another divisive hot-button topic to deal with. Why do some candidates get a get-out-of-jail-free card for their illegal actions but others do not?
  You are aware that she's still not done yet right? She just said the other day that she intends to challenge the election results if it turns out Russians meddled. So why shouldn't she get prosecuted under the espionage act? Normally it would go, Impeach and remove Trump -> Mike Pence becomes the new president. She thinks she can slide right in and undo the election because the russians ran ads that caused people to cast a vote a certain way. Thats clearly not the same thing as actually altering the election tally.
6. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  It's a bigger joke than that.
  The ads that they listed were all over the place: pro-BLM and anti-BLM ads. They were sewing discontent within the United States. How that solely benefited Trump is beyond me other than to support the narrative that has been taking place since this time last year.
7. Re:probably purchased by Russians? by OutSourcingIsTreason · 2017-09-28 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  FB is a website. It's part of the World-Wide Web. Russia is part of the world. There are Russians on FB.
  
  The question is: so what?
  
  If you don't want to be influenced by foreigners, don't surf the web.
  
  --
  "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Shutting the door behind himself. by BenFenner · 2017-09-28 01:11 · Score: 0

It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads. Presumably the next opponent who can work that in a better way could win. Time to shut that door while he has the chance?
1. Re:Shutting the door behind himself. by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  It's well known that Trump won the election in no small part due to inexpensive, highly targeted Facebook ads.
  
  No, it's commonly ASSERTED by bitter lefty losers who didn't get their queen as promised. She, of course, and her supporters, spent orders of magnitude more money on Facebook ads screeching to the hilltops about the evil and incompetence of her xenophobic, racist opponent. If spending on FB ads impacted the election, all it did was make her lose by less than she otherwise would have.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
2. Re:Shutting the door behind himself. by Archangel+Michael · 2017-09-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  He is saying the CLINTON/DNC campaign spend 1.5 billion dollars, was outsmarted by someone spending $100,000 (a drop in the bucket). He is saying the were inept (again).
  The problem these people have, is that reality bites them in the ass every time they lie about something.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Trondheim · 2017-09-28 01:15 · Score: 5, Informative

I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook. The trending stories were all (and still are) overwhelmingly negative towards Trump. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything positive about Trump on Facebook. And I've not once seen a pro-Trump ad.
1. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  I spend a fair amount of time on Facebook. The trending stories were all (and still are) overwhelmingly negative towards Trump. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything positive about Trump on Facebook. And I've not once seen a pro-Trump ad.
  You do realize that Facebook is an echo chamber?
2. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Gilgaron · 2017-09-28 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  So your social circle is Anti-Trump enough that the algorithms don't even try to sway you. If you have enough racist uncles and high school classmates who never went to college you will get a fair amount of it. Read some far right stuff while logged into Facebook, wait for the sponsored ads to pop up, and click on some of them, and it'll put more in. Get tired of it and only click on pets doing silly things and it dies back down to whatever your friends are into. It only shows you stuff it thinks you'll like or someone has paid enough for to show you.
3. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Myrdos · 2017-09-28 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  And I've not once seen a pro-Trump ad.
  Honest question: What would it say?
4. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Just because an ad is "anti-Trump" doesn't necessarily mean it's not, actually, supporting Trump.
  For instance, imagine a story that says "Trump threatens to sue women accusing him of sexual misconduct" (something that actually happened in the last weeks of the campaign). Show that story to "women's rights" activists, and it's a story about an attempt to bully brave women who speak out - an anti-Trump story. But show it to vigorous anti-feminists, such as "men's rights" activists or even just a large part of working-class America, and it becomes a story about Trump fearlessly standing up to the forces of rampant political correctness.
  So if you write it from a feminist perspective, make it look as if it's aimed at the first audience, but then - by associating it with certain keywords and interests - make sure that it gets shown to the second audience instead - then something that has the appearance of being an "anti-Trump" story is actually pro-Trump. And so you maintain the illusion that the story's source is virulently and unreasonably anti-Trump, when in fact it's nothing of the sort.
5. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by jwhitener · 2017-09-28 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  I assume you know that Facebook is tailoring what you see specifically based on you, your friends, and what you like/dislike, right?
  My conservative relatives on Facebook ONLY see positive things about Trump and negative things about Hillary. It is a thought bubble. To a lesser extent, even Google searches are tailored to what they think you want to see, which can include political likes/dislikes.
6. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  I don't really consider myself a Trump supporter, but this point gives credence to his argument. How did pro-Trump ads help him win if the majority of people who came across said ads were already Trump supporters? I have a pretty mixed bag of people on my facebook and the only pro-Trump things I see are shared articles from people, not ads. I see lots of anti-Trump posts (ads, shared articles, etc).
7. Re:Yes, FB is anti-Trump by Gilgaron · 2017-09-29 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Because analytics decided you weren't interesting because you weren't in an area where it mattered if you flipped over to Trump or they didn't think it likely that you would. If you live in Alabama, no one is spending money to get you to vote Republican for president. Either you didn't matter or they knew enough about how you'd vote not to bother.
Incomplete Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:22 · Score: 0

Other's have already commented on Zuckerberg's untrustworthiness, but what got my attention was the lack of mention of the rest of his statement where he says that 100k dollars worth of political adverts on Facebook is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions spent campaigning by the candidates (around 1.8 billion dollars were raised between Trump and Hillary).
To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by XXongo · 2017-09-28 01:28 · Score: 5, Informative

except that it is.. http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/r... Even admitted to by CNN itself, which you can watch live here http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...
According to the link you posted, it said that the Russians trolls purchased ads purportedly plugging Black Lives Matter "to stir up fear and cause political chaos in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, during the 2016 presidential election." That was the very first sentence in the link you posted. These ads were not "Democrats colluding with Russia," they were Russians attempting to foment discontent and disruption.
Further down in the link you posted: "The ad, which was first posted in late 2015 or early 2016, appeared to support the social justice movement — but sources said it could also be seen as depicting it in a negative light. “This is consistent with the overall goal of creating discord inside the body politic here in the United States, and really across the West,” explained Steve Hall, former CIA officer and CNN National Security Analyst.... In addition to the BLM posts, sources told CNN that the Russians were pushing ads that promoted gun rights and the Second Amendment — as well as warnings about undocumented immigrants."
In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
1. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 02:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
  Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
2. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  isn't that exacty what I said? It wasn't about rigging an election as much as it was creating a shit storm within society.
3. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by LordWabbit2 · 2017-09-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
  This same shit happened in my country, but the real reason was to divert public attention from politicians looting the treasury. It's not always the dasterdly Russians at the door. What I love the most is that there is actually no proof.
  
  The site believes the ads were probably purchased by Russian entities
  Go into any court in the world and say "probably" and you are going to be shown the door, but in the court of public opinion it's proof enough.
  There is no proof, and there probably never will be, just a bunch of people who are unhappy with Trump as president and heaping shit on the fire.
  Considering the reaction when you say "I would have voted for Trump instead of Hillary" from people I bet a LOT of people who voted Trump are keeping it to themselves, and I am not even in the USA. But considering that he IS your president, enough people wanted change and voted for him. Whats really fucked up is that the USA is supposed to be the shining light of democracy, yet so many of your people reject your own democratically elected leader.
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
4. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 02:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump."
  
  Well, hold on now... Here's what the guy said:
  
  "In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them."
  That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written. If that's what Russia was doing, then yes, they were "supporting Trump".
  Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids. There is no other ideology, there is no other ethos.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously - put two thoughts together. The GP was asking if that's what Russia is pushing, why are the Dems / far left pushing the same message (ie. "colluding") with Russia. Stretch choice of words, obviously - but point stands.
  In fact, it's why the dems lost the election, and even with Russia pushing the same narrative, I bet they still can't see it.
6. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids.
  Right. His sort of identity politics is based on what people do and say, how they act and what they proclaim. Whereas the left's long standing embrace of identity politics is entirely about putting people in boxes based on their DNA. So you've got his identity politics, which says "If you identify as being regularly shit on by crushing regulatory burdens, irrational trade agreements, people willing to cheat and lie and sneak across the border in order to cut ahead of honest immigrants and get generous entitlements" and such, then he said that means you should vote for him. If your identity politics says, "If your skin pigment is too pale, you're inherently guilty and evil and hurting other people just by the fact of your existence, and you should vote for Hillary as a form of atonement," then you get exactly what we saw happen. People realized that sort of crap was absurd, and didn't reward her supporters for endlessly trotting it out.
  
  The Russians were sure she would win, and simply wanted everyone arguing with each other in order to weaken her administration. That doesn't support Trump, it supports THEM.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
7. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump."
  
  It's not a slashdot thread until someone says "WELL, actually..."
  
  Congrats comrade, you're technically correct, the best kind of correct!
  
  And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades
  
  Well, expect for that large gap from the late 80s to the mid-aughts, but sure!
  
  And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
  
  But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this.
  
  So you admit they do it, but this one time only it didn't have an impact? Dafuq?
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
8. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by denzacar · 2017-09-28 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump."
  
  Sure it's not bro.
  Pushing agendas which favor one candidate, while slandering and defaming the other either directly or indirectly is a clear case of "fine people on both sides".
  Or was that "violence on both sides"?
  It's getting hard to keep up with nonsense that orange cunt spouts out of that shithole of his.
  Or the level of delusion pathetic excuses for a brain holder would sink to in order to support such a colossal racist cunt lording over them.
  What a bunch of cucks. Laughable indeed.
  Also, FBI is clearly storming bedrooms of campaign managers "on both sides".
  In the middle of the night. After picking the lock on their front door and sneaking in, Rainbow Six style.
  And then they took photos of his suits. I guess to make sure which ones he was not wearing when he shat his pants as they pounded on the door.
  On both sides. He shat his pants on both sides.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
9. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by dunkindave · 2017-09-28 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  "In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them."
  
  That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.
  That is very specious. All candidates attempt to divide the electorate with the intent that the division puts the majority on their side of the divide. That for example was a desired consequence of Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables" - to split the electorate into two sides and, as the strategy tried, to either support her, or be a member of a deplorable group. Division and politics go hand in hand.
10. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Right. His sort of identity politics is based on what people do and say, how they act and what they proclaim.
  No, Trump's identity politics is based on white skin. It's the politics of white grievance. To Trump, white supremacists are "some very fine people" and black NFL players engaged in a quiet and respectful protest are "sons of bitches". It's not a dog whistle any more, it's a klaxon horn.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
11. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  not the late 80s. I enlisted in 1989 and there still was a USSR. It wasnt until the 90s when the soviet union collapsed. I was actually surprised when it happened. After that it seemed like the new Russia was going to be our friend. We foot most of the bill for the International Space Station, because we were concerned that former Soviet scientists would, in need of work and food, help countries like Iran with missile development. So we foot the bill and had them build the ISS instead.
12. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the black folk with "white" skin that voted for him?
13. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  All candidates attempt to divide the electorate
  
  I'm not talking about candidate Trump, I'm talking about President Trump. His major innovation has been using divisiveness as a strategy for governing. And it's working out just about as well as you'd suggest.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
14. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's easy to conflate two issues that might be entangled.
  The first is Russian meddling in the election. There is plenty of evidence for this. Various states had their voter registration databases hacked. DNC hacked emails (not to be conflated with Hillary's emails) were posted at times intended to do the greatest damage. And then there's these ad buys. Plus propaganda out of RT and genuine fake news made up by foreigners and spread on social media.
  This is separate from Russia's collusion with the Trump campaign, of which there is mounting evidence of. It's pretty clear that the Kremlin preferred Trump. Then Trump Jr. failed to disclose a meeting with a Russian lawyer after being promised damaging information on Clinton. (The question becomes not was there collusion, but instead how much was there?) Plenty of open questions remain, surrounding a lot of people close to the President.
  Liberals are still shell shocked, it's true. But this is going beyond explanations. This is striking at the Achilles heel of democracy. You scoff now, next time it might be your candidate that gets fucked with. We Americans shouldn't stand for it no matter who it benefits. If we allow ourselves, as we have so far, to make this a partisan issue, then that makes Putin the puppet master and we the puppets.
  You know what worries me? That the President of the United States has been told by his intelligence services that our election was meddled in. His response has been to defend his ego and legitimacy, not to convene the best and brightest to say "How can we make sure this NEVER happens again? How do we respond to this blatant violation of our core values?" We are all but assured further meddling in 2018 and 2020. Hell, maybe China will jump on board since there's zero consequences for doing it.
15. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  To Trump, white supremacists are "some very fine people"
  You know that the in Charlottesville the protest was to keep the Robert E. Lee statue up, right? If you accept that there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue up (e.g. erasing history is bad) then it goes to say that not everyone there was a bad person, though of course unsavory people also took advantage. On the other hand, the Antifa counter protesters were reportedly throwing water balloons filled with urine and feces, and videos from the ground show that the guy that ran over the girl (an abhorrent act which I do not condone in any way) had a broken windscreen and that there was at least one person armed (a bit blurry but it looked like a pipe) hitting his car before the act, so he may have been in a panic (again, not a justification, just putting things into context). Also, Antifa has a history of hitting right-wingers (like that masked UC Berkeley professor that's on trial for hitting someone in the back of the head with a bike lock). So saying that there were good people on both sides and assholes on both sides was, in fact, an accurate statement.
  
  and black NFL players engaged in a quiet and respectful protest are "sons of bitches"
  You know that the NFL has plenty of white and latino players that kneeled as well, right? Sports viewers are tired of having politics injected into their leisure time (ratings have been dropping, ESPN is downsizing), and a Reuters poll shows that 60% of Americans want the players to stand, a third support this form of protest and the rest were undecided. People have a right to protest, but these guys are protesting racial injustice (while being millionaires... kind of hypocritical if you ask me) without giving putting in any time/effort/money to solve the problem while off camera. They're just virtue signaling, and it's BS. Besides, they're paid to do a job (play the game) and when you're on the clock it's not the place to make a political statement.
16. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by phantomfive · 2017-09-28 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  "In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them."
  That is maybe the most accurate and succinct description of the Trump agenda ever written.
  Normally you write good comments but right now you sound like a naive kitten. It's an extremely common political strategy for all kinds of politicians, because it works.
  
  Any good politician will look at an issue that can divide them from their opponent, pick a side (hopefully the side with more people on it), and hammer away. If the opponent sees (through polling or whatever) that there are more voters on the opposite side of that issue, he/she may flip-flop, or risk being voted out.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
17. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by ScentCone · 2017-09-28 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, Trump's identity politics is based on white skin.
  Yup, if you have to be sure not to confront the race-obsessed politics and practices and patronizing condescension of the left, and you don't mind being intellectually dishonest as you slurp up fake news as if you actually believe it, then perhaps it makes a childish sort of sense to go with that narrative. Not fooling anyone, of course, but sure, if that makes you feel better about preferring the party that's actually BEEN overtly racist for the last century or so and still is. Carry on!
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
18. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sexconker · 2017-09-28 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  LOL! Are you really ankle deep in your own ass?
  Ad supporting Trump = RUSSIANS SUPPORTING TRUMP!
  Ad supporting Hillary, Black Lives Matter, etc. = RUSSIANS SUPPORTING TRUMP BY SUPPORTING THE OTHER SIDE!
19. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sound+vision · 2017-09-28 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  People who weren't able to see this have really have little understanding of either history or politics. No wonder educated voters tended to vote one way and uneducated the other. But even among supposedly educated people, plenty watch the news and take every dipshit on there at face value. They think they have an understanding of the issues, but there is no thought involved, they just soak everything up as presented. The type of tactics used here were so painfully basic. Textbook. Stir up racial tensions to size power... Nobody remembers the Nazis? We now have Nazis marching through the streets with torches, committing murder - and people want to talk about Godwin's Law. Pitiful.
20. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not talking about candidate Trump, I'm talking about President Trump
  Why? This is a friendly story about whether Russia helped candidate Trump, and the thread you're in is about that too.
  
  His major innovation has been using divisiveness as a strategy for governing.
  
  Nonsense. Using divisiveness as a strategy for governing is as old as governing itself. It's good old divide and conquer.
  Governments throughout history have targeted minorities and under classes as an easy way to redirect the public's anger at various problems (problems that may very well be caused by government in the first place)
  Gypsies, hippies, drug users, commies. nazis, terrorists, dirty foreigners, [insert race/ethnicity], [insert religion] etc.
  It is in relative recent times that governments use minorities not as targets but victims requiring protection to gain power (read: the politics of the left). This too came long before Trump.
  
  And it's working out just about as well as you'd suggest.
  Did he suggest it working out quite well? Because historically this trick works quite well... perhaps too well.
  Capcha: dictator lol
21. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by leretard · 2017-09-28 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate
  It's not about explaining away their terrible choice of a losing candidate, it's about explaining away the very substance of their beings.
  Liberalism IS a terrible choice that people choose after making many terrible choices in their lives after accepting and inheriting the many terrible choices their ancestors made.
  They simply have had the instinct to turn back and try again struck from their being. They are incapable of self-correction. All they know is 'doubling down'.
  "If this is such a terrible choice then why am I still alive after 375 years? $25 trillion on black please."
  It doesn't occur to them that civilization ~7000 years old would take longer than that to die. Perhaps that's another of the instinctual deficiencies piling up in the liberal camp.
  The vast majority of the population has absolutely no soul and thus cannot really be considered to be human.
  The a mass of human essence can only be divided up so finely before it annihilates and explodes; you just can't have too many people thinking too many different things going around asserting themselves. There is just absolutely no practical application in nature for such diversity in methodology. These are evolution's miscarriages trying to gnaw a survival-niche into a void.
  Reject liberalism and embrace a future for humanity.
22. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 05:22 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  If you accept that there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue up
  There aren't.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
23. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by PopeRatzo · 2017-09-28 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Normally you write good comments
  You have me confused with someone else.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by phantomfive · 2017-09-28 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  They're very entertaining.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
25. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'm afraid that's the same demographic as a lot of white folks who voted for him: a mix of the desperate and the dumbasses.
26. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  I tried to make sense of your words but failed. Good name though.
27. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by tbannist · 2017-09-28 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
  Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along.
  Yes, but only because Trump is an issue causing division in America, and they hammered him all the way into the White House.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
28. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Rob+Y. · 2017-09-28 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's because President Trump is candidate Trump. He has no idea how to govern - except some assumption that because he won, whatever he wants to happen will happen. Of course, he doesn't know what he wants to happen specifically. He has no idea what has been in the various Obamacare replacements - he just wants to pass one to chalk up a win.
  The only aspect of the presidency that Trump enjoys is bullshitting in front of an adoring crowd.
  
  --
  Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
29. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  If you accept that there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue up
  There aren't.
  And now it's clear how much of an extremist you are. People wanting to remember their history is not racist. People wanting to have a public debate about the topic before taking action is not racist, and anyone who frames a group of people that they disagree with as a bunch of racists is either an imbecile or is intentionally derailing the conversation.
  As for the civil war, it was less about slavery and more about economic freedom (for example, the south wanted to export cotton to Europe but was blocked by regulations and forced to sell domestically where the price was much lower), and the failure to recognize that is a failure of modern schooling, but then again, the winners wrote most of the history books, so I can't blame you. I'll give you a little hint, no one fights a war to help the downtrodden, that's just how one convinces Joe Sixpack to go out and fight.
30. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by pastafazou · 2017-09-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Trumpism is purely about identity politics on steroids
  Not only did you completely miss the mark, you're firing in the complete opposite direction.
31. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  As for the civil war, it was less about slavery and more about economic freedom
  
  Yeah, the economic freedom to own slaves. Nice dodge, asshole.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
32. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-28 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Missouri Compromise f'rinstance had nothing to do with Europe. It had all to do with extending slavery. The actions of the slave-holdering states a decade or two before the CW is proof to me what the primary reason for the war was. Of course they'll support states rights, 'cause it'll let them keep their slaves. Of course they'll trot out economic reasons, 'cause it'll let them keep their slaves. As an aside, slave-holding is one of the main reasons that the Roman Republic fell after civil war.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
33. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-28 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  "We are all but assured further meddling in 2018 and 2020."
  Ouch. And it's hard for us to respond in kind, as few of us know Russian. It's one disadvantage of English being a lingua franca.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
34. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-28 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Good one! Forgot the sarcasm tag, though.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
35. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  While I agree there are reasons that are not racist, how many statues of the King of England did we put up after winning the revolutionary war, or the war of 1812?
  How many statues of Osama Bin Laden did we put up?
  Now both examples are definitely a bit hyperbolic as Robert E Lee had a lot of impact on the people around him. That said he was a rebel and an enemy of the United States of America. It is strange to except the battle-flag of the rebels as well as statues of people that actively fought against the nation we have today.
  The civil war absolutely had a lot to do with slavery, you're being disingenuous trying to paint it as more about economic freedom. There are far too many writings available from the time that counter your statement. I have no doubt some people were in it for exercising states rights over the federal government but it is akin to complaining that states can't control immigration. There are some rights clearly spelled out by the constitution and your example is definitely one of them. The states agreed to it when they joined the union which they weren't forced to do.
36. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  That's some good crack you're smoking. You do understand that it is conservatives that are trying to set the clock back right? To a time with fewer regulations causing burning lakes and rivers, to a time of boom and bust economies.
  The whole concept of trickle-down economics certainly didn't come from liberals, it started with an absurd premise that rich people hire more people just because they have more money to spend. Rich people only hire when it makes sense and results in them making more money, that's just good business.
  "Liberalism" lead to the formation of the middle class. Things like a minimum wage, social security, medicare, they all served to bolster the middle class. Your premise is also flawed in that no one is all liberal or all conservative. Everyone has things they think are going well thus no need to change (Conservative view) and things that are bad and should by modified (Liberal view)
37. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  As for the civil war, it was less about slavery and more about economic freedom
  Yeah, the economic freedom to own slaves. Nice dodge, asshole.
  It was certainly a part of their economy, but the 39% and later 47% import tariffs which basically only applied to the southern states (little industry) without a single southern vote in congress (the north had a larger population), to collect money that was later used for northern development projects, such as a railway (whose hub was based on land Lincoln owned, thus increasing its value), was far more important than slavery, particularly when compared to the minuscule tax increase on tea which was a spark for the American Revolution.
38. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  was far more important than slavery
  
  Assuming any of that bullshit is true, then further shame to the Confederacy for drafting what they knew was a historical document and doing such a shit job of making their case beyond "no one should be able to tell us we can't own slaves."
  
  Meanwhile, the rest of us will apply Occam's razor and not trouble our minds with such crap.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
39. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Also, slavery was left on the table as a bargaining chip to keep the south in the union, so obviously it wasn't such a moral imperative to abolish it.
40. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Assuming any of that bullshit is true, then further shame to the Confederacy for drafting what they knew was a historical document and doing such a shit job of making their case beyond "no one should be able to tell us we can't own slaves."
  Meanwhile, the rest of us will apply Occam's razor and not trouble our minds with such crap.
  Or, you know, you could realize that history is always written by the winners and they'll always find ways to twist things to make it so that the winner was 100% right and the loser 100% wrong.
  Besides, whether true or false, it's tangential to my original point that there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue.
41. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  People wanting to remember their history is not racist.
  People wanting to idolize their sainted secessionists, deny the role of slavery in the American Civil War, and ignore the racist bigotry behind those statues, is actually racist.
42. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  I think you need the doctor's prescription.
43. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you know, you could realize that history is always written by the winners and they'll always find ways to twist things to make it so that the winner was 100% right and the loser 100% wrong.
  
  Wait, so those devilish northerners went and rewrote the South's declarations after the war? LOL! The way you revisionists twist yourselves up to minimize half a country throwing a hissy fit because they can't own black people never fails to disgust me.
  
  there are non-racist reasons to keep the statue.
  
  Keep them? Sure. On public property? Not so much.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
44. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  so obviously it wasn't such a moral imperative to abolish it.
  
  Even if assuming your little unsourced nugget there is true, it's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about what reason the south had to secede in the first place. Keep dodging, asshole.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
45. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  People wanting to idolize their sainted secessionists, deny the role of slavery in the American Civil War, and ignore the racist bigotry behind those statues, is actually racist.
  The Declaration of Independence allowed for secession, so I find that the act of seceding in order to achieve self-determination to be admirable. I agree that some of the reasons for said secession were not reasons I agree with, but there are several others which I do agree with, but we have to take the good with the bad. Was Lincoln racist for wanting Lee to lead the Union army? Was he racist for passing laws that would give a man 10 dollars for returning a runaway slave back to his owner? Everyone in history has skeletons but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't honor them for the good that they did, assuming that the good outweighed the bad. Is it your position that we should just tear down every statue of Lincoln (he was obviously racist), Jefferson (he owned slaves) and everyone else in history? Some extremist are now saying that Martin Luther King Jr. doesn't deserve to be honored or respected because he was against gay marriage.
  How far do you want to take this erasure of history? It's like the Chinese Cultural Revolution that brainwashed their youth and demolished their religious iconography so that the (modern) state would be the new religion, and it's happening here, we're erasing our past and it seems like everyone on the left is in favor of increasing their dependence on the government (housing projects, universal basic income, the ACA which is creating a monopoly for healthcare, etc). Our historical figures might not be pointing north, but history does give one a compass with which to navigate the present.
46. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by leretard · 2017-09-28 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  I thank you for your submission to your pavlovian training and I admire the excellence of your selection from the short list of defensive non-argumentative quips
47. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  How far do you want to take this erasure of history?
  
  Statues removed from public property is not, and never will be, erasure of history.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
48. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  How far do you want to take this erasure of history?
  Statues removed from public property is not, and never will be, erasure of history.
  It's a slippery slope and when it's done by mob, people tend to slide right down.
49. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's a slippery slope
  
  Only when you frame it in the broadest possible way, as you do. The rest of us just want statues of traitors and racists on private property or museums, where they belong.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
50. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you know, you could realize that history is always written by the winners and they'll always find ways to twist things to make it so that the winner was 100% right and the loser 100% wrong.
  Wait, so those devilish northerners went and rewrote the South's declarations after the war?
  Straw man (or you misunderstood). My point was that it was just one example that can easily be taken out of context (at the time very few people cared about the ethics of slavery) and used to say "it was slavery and only slavery so we have the moral high ground!". Some claim that all the taxes and laws (which disproportionately affected the south) may have been passed to bankrupt the rich there so that the northern industrialists could buy everything up. Anyway, the north was willing to continue allowing slavery as a bargaining chip to keep the country together and they still seceded, so obviously that wasn't "the reason" but "a reason", which may have been a simple, easily-explainable example of "northern oppression" without having to talk about overtaxing and not seeing any of those taxes back, etc.
  
  The way you revisionists twist yourselves up to minimize half a country throwing a hissy fit because they can't own black people never fails to disgust me.
  Minimizing? You mean the thing you're doing by reducing the cause of the single greatest loss of American lives to a single sentence while simultaneously painting everyone that supported the secession as evil and pathetic?
  
  Keep them? Sure. On public property? Not so much.
  I say let each town have a public debate and decide on their own, just don't destroy them in a mob or quietly take them down in the middle of the night without discussion.
  
  The rest of us just want statues of traitors and racists on private property or museums
  Who's the traitor to the country when our Declaration of Independence specifically allows for secession?
51. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Straw man (or you misunderstood). My point was that it was just one example that can easily be taken out of context (at the time very few people cared about the ethics of slavery) and used to say "it was slavery and only slavery so we have the moral high ground!". Some claim that all the taxes and laws (which disproportionately affected the south) may have been passed to bankrupt the rich there so that the northern industrialists could buy everything up. Anyway, the north was willing to continue allowing slavery as a bargaining chip to keep the country together and they still seceded, so obviously that wasn't "the reason" but "a reason", which may have been a simple, easily-explainable example of "northern oppression" without having to talk about overtaxing and not seeing any of those taxes back, etc.
  
  An entire paragraph of stuff we're not arguing about. Thanks for boring me.
  
  You mean the thing you're doing by reducing the cause of the single greatest loss of American lives to a single sentence while simultaneously painting everyone that supported the secession as evil and pathetic?
  
  Another strawman. All I'm doing is refuting all your pathetic notions that the cause of the civil war was anything but the desire to continue slavery. Your varied hedges have no basis in history. Also, painting people who wanted to be able to legally own and exploit slaves 'evil and pathetic' is the correct thing to do. Vile motherfuckers get called vile names. Why you're fighting this concept I have no idea.
  
  I say let each town have a public debate and decide on their own, just don't destroy them in a mob or quietly take them down in the middle of the night without discussion.
  
  Literally no one's actually arguing for the former, and as for the latter, that's between you and your lcoal government. Don't look at me.
  
  Who's the traitor to the country when our Declaration of Independence specifically allows for secession?
  
  Not a legal historian, so I can't answer that. Although I doubt the qualifications for secession are that broad.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
52. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To Trump, white supremacists are "some very fine people"
  This crap is getting old too. Do you even know what a white supremacists is? Do you even have a clue what their agenda is, other than what huffypost has told you? I bet you really don't.
  Why don't you educate yourself a little. White supremacists don't just hate people of color, they hate Jewish people more than they hate people of color. To their narrow minded view all evil springs from Jewish origins. Even black people.
  Trump has a number of Jewish people in his family. His grandson is Jewish. He universally supports Israel. To a white supremacists that is worse than being black.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
53. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  An entire paragraph of stuff we're not arguing about. Thanks for boring me.
  My pleasure.
  
  You mean the thing you're doing by reducing the cause of the single greatest loss of American lives to a single sentence while simultaneously painting everyone that supported the secession as evil and pathetic?
  Another strawman. All I'm doing is refuting all your pathetic notions that the cause of the civil war was anything but the desire to continue slavery. Your varied hedges have no basis in history. Also, painting people who wanted to be able to legally own and exploit slaves 'evil and pathetic' is the correct thing to do. Vile motherfuckers get called vile names. Why you're fighting this concept I have no idea.
  I mentioned a few things in the comments above but apparently you missed them in between yawns. Import taxes were increased to 39% and a year later 47%, which were disproportionately affecting the south that lacked industry. The legislation was all passed without a single southern vote because the north had a larger population. The south also wanted to export cotton (which, yes, used slaves to grow) to Europe because they'd pay higher prices but was barred from doing so and forced to sell locally for lower prices. Add to that the abolition of slavery and we get a series of laws that all financially hurt the southern states disproportionately more than the northern. It was a hostile takeover.
  No one goes to war to "free those poor people because it's the right thing to do", that BS gets tacked on for justification.
  Calling people vile when that was the norm of the time is looking at the past through the lens of modern ethics. If it were happening today I'd agree with you, but in the context of the time what was considered vile was different, and at the time it was more considered an economic issue at the time, and less moral. The reasons for its abolishing slavery in the US were economic, the reason the south wasn't allowed to leave peacefully was also economic, and just as many people in a position of power in the north viewed slavery the same as the people seceding, so the northerners must have been equally vile according to you. If you're the one suffering in the conditions I mentioned you'd try to secede as well, so I guess you're equally pathetic as the people you're insulting.
  
  I say let each town have a public debate and decide on their own, just don't destroy them in a mob or quietly take them down in the middle of the night without discussion.
  Literally no one's actually arguing for the former, and as for the latter, that's between you and your lcoal government. Don't look at me.
  You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.
  
  Who's the traitor to the country when our Declaration of Independence specifically allows for secession?
  Not a legal historian, so I can't answer that. Although I doubt the qualifications for secession are that broad.
  One would think that passing legislature to bankrupt an entire region qualifies.
54. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  You could read the declarations of secession and CSA constitution to get a sounder basis for knowing that the CSA was founded on slavery, and secession was about slavery. The Civil War wasn't actually fought about slavery directly, but it was a big factor behind the scenes. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to make it about slavery, at least for PR, and made it politically impossible for European governments to intervene on the side of the CSA.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
55. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  And everything you said is completely irrelevant, because Trump couldn't stick to a statement about Nazis being bad, which you'd think any politician would be happy to make.. He said there were very fine people on both sides.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
56. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well to be fair Hillary said half of Trump supporters were "deplorables" so I guess it is up to them to decide which half they are.
57. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  No one goes to war to "free those poor people because it's the right thing to do", that BS gets tacked on for justification.
  
  One last time: Not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about the South's motivation for secession.
  
  Calling people vile when that was the norm of the time is looking at the past through the lens of modern ethics.
  
  This would be a much more useful argument if a) A good portion of these monuments weren't raised in "modern" times, and b) It weren't 2017.
  
  You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.
  
  Which you're now equating to destruction by a mob? The fuck is wrong with you?
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
58. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by jwhitener · 2017-09-28 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  They intentionally supported him to promote instability, because they knew he would be divisive. As long as the US is in turmoil, we are far less effective in world politics.
  "In the United States:
  Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[2]"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
59. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by jwhyche · 2017-09-28 11:42 · Score: 3
  
  And again you are wrong. Everything I said is perfectly relevant. You really should to keep things in context. I am well aware of what Trump said, just as I'm aware of what he meant when he said it. The "fine people on both sides" comment had nothing to do with nazi's or white supremacists. What it had to do with was the arguments about civil war monuments and the riots that happened at the time in Charleottesville. He was stating there are fine people on both sides of that argument. It had nothing to do with nazi's.
  As for his views on white supremacy Trump just signed a resolution condemning it. Pretty much should be enough even for you.
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
60. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  No one goes to war to "free those poor people because it's the right thing to do", that BS gets tacked on for justification.
  One last time: Not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about the South's motivation for secession.
  And I've listed a few, but you strategically ignored them in your reply.
  
  Calling people vile when that was the norm of the time is looking at the past through the lens of modern ethics.
  This would be a much more useful argument if a) A good portion of these monuments weren't raised in "modern" times, and b) It weren't 2017.
  And your argument would make more sense if you had said "we shouldn't build statues of these people because they believed in things that we now consider to be vile" and not "these people in history were vile." Besides, by your that rationale then we shouldn't honor MLK because he was against gay marriage, or pretty much anyone else in this planet's history... and that's without taking into account that there were numerous, non-slavery (i.e. non-vile) related reasons for the secession, so you're wrong about that as well.
  
  You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.
  Which you're now equating to destruction by a mob? The fuck is wrong with you?
  The fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? You said that they shouldn't be kept on public property and later said that you weren't arguing against people discussing it. I just pointed out that you said to take them down (method: unknown) and that a mob pulling them down was bad.
61. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Captain+Splendid · 2017-09-28 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  And I've listed a few, but you strategically ignored them in your reply.
  
  Nope. I mentioned earlier how dumb the south was not to include all the reasons you listed in their little breakup letter. If their concerns truly were as varied as you claim they were, they'd have put more effort into mentioning them instead of just sticking to the slavery issue. Troll harder next time.
  
  And your argument would make more sense if you had said "we shouldn't build statues of these people because they believed in things that we now consider to be vile"
  
  I did :) Quite a few of your precious momuments were built within the last 100 years, many decades after the civil war.
  
  Besides, by your that rationale then we shouldn't honor MLK because he was against gay marriage
  
  That's certainly a conversation you and I can have, but it's a wee bit off the beaten path of our current topic, which I'll remind you again is about our disagreement about the south's motivation for secession. Moreover, you've sustained none of your fantastic claims with evidence, so maybe tangents are a little out of your reach right now, hmmm?
  
  your reading comprehension?
  
  Pay attention here: Your specific reply to my sentence 'Literally no one's actually arguing for [the statues to be torn down by a mob]' was: 'You're the one clamoring to take all these statues down from public places.' I'll give you a pass if english isn't your first language. Otherwise, pay attention fuckwit.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
62. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't you educate yourself a little
  FYI: There are two white supremacist types in the US: Aryan and KKK. You've shown that Trump isn't pro-Aryan, but nobody ever thought he was. He's accused of being pro-KKK.
63. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  OK, so being racist against most of the races instead of all the races under the umbrella of white supremacists makes it ok in your book.
64. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-28 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Good one. Forgot the sarcasm tag, though.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
65. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  and black NFL players engaged in a quiet and respectful protest are "sons of bitches"
  [...] People have a right to protest, but these guys are protesting racial injustice (while being millionaires... kind of hypocritical if you ask me) without giving putting in any time/effort/money to solve the problem while off camera. They're just virtue signaling, and it's BS. Besides, they're paid to do a job (play the game) and when you're on the clock it's not the place to make a political statement.
  A: On camera, being seen by literally millions of people, is the best time and best leverage they could possibly have for making a statement.
  B: Cops get killed for excessive melanin from time to time. Being a millionaire isn't a guarantee against having a Philando Castile event, and they probably have to show papers to prove that they didn't steal their own car on a weekly basis. Besides, when poor people protest, they get gassed. The millionaires have to be the ones to do it because they can sometimes get away with it.
  C: Where do you get off crying about "virtue signalling" when your entire point is being outraged that they aren't obeying your glorious flag ritual to your exact specifications? That IS virtue signaling! It's just the good patriotic Heil Amerika virtue signaling, not the godless commie "I don't have a problem with gay people" virtue signalling that's ruining civilization.
66. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  This is so laughably wrong it's almost scary. Are you really counting on nobody fact checking you? Don't you realize that's always a losing proposition? Regardless, you are completely wrong.
67. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up!
  History has proven without a shadow of a doubt that everything the right does is a bastardized, shitty version of what the left used to do. Fascism is a right wing bastardization of syndicalism, Nazism is a right wing bastardization of socialism, Trumpism is a right wing bastardization of identity politics, or in much simpler terms, white supremacy. White supremacy was actually the ORIGINAL identity politics though; what you see from the left is a reaction to being murdered for centuries, both literally and figuratively.
68. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Most Trump voters I know now loudly and emphatically regret it. He still has his tiny base of retarded fanatics, but they dwindle as the reality of what they have done sets in. Also, why does not having the most votes allow someone to win an election?
69. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by Dread_ed · 2017-09-29 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Soooooo, you read a news article and it told you why "The Russians" did something, eh? And you believed them, hook line and sinker...
  So, who are you believing in this, the newspaper author, or "The Russians?" I am sure the author of the paper has a recording of the leader of "The Russians" that took out these ads stating this, right? Or, he has a signed affidavit to that effect from "The Russians" press secretary? Some notes of a phone conversation with some underling who participated with "The Russians?" Even a "unnamed source" within the inner circle of "The Russians" would be nice.
  My apologies, but I don't know how to confront the level of gullibility you have demonstrated with anything less than derision and sarcasm. What you wrote literally blew my mind. Here is what you stated, at a meta-level:
  "A news article told me the exact motivations of an unidentified group of people on another continent, of which we know almost nothing. I believed it completely."
  If this is indicative of the level of scrutiny that people use when reading news reports these days I fear deeply for the fate of our nation. You're not a sheep, you're an attack sheep on a long leash, trained to savage other sheep without question. You obey your masters (who appear to be any news article you run across that fits your worldview) unquestioningly and without shame for the ease with which you are manipulated. You see no deeper than the words on a page, unless they conflict with what you already believe.
  More than Trump, or Hillary, the NSA, or the Russians, it is my own American brothers and sisters who possess a mind compromised by partisan thought that I fear. I predict it will be the end of our great experiment.
  
  --
  When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
70. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by NeoTubNinja · 2017-09-29 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  What you're asserting is that all liberals wanted Hillary as our candidate. Never mind that there was another candidate a lot of us preferred. On top of that, not all liberals want to believe he is in bed with Russia, but when people act the way he has been acting and "forget" about all of their connections to Russia when questioned in an investigation, you have to at least wonder what's got them all out-of-whack. If there is nothing to hide, why worry?
  
  And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
  And yet, Trump can't even denounce Russia (but at least he is great at tweeting about Kaepernick). Instead of agreeing to the possibility Russia might have meddled in US affairs, Trump is more eager to hand out printouts of the election results and call liberals sore losers. Those aren't the actions of somebody who wants to prove they have no ties to Russia. Hillary was a trash candidate, but don't let that fact blind you to the fact that Trump is not only trashy, but trashier.
  
  But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
  Maybe, but not as laughable as every Trump supporter ready to take it in the ass to defend Trump for EVERYTHING he does. At least a good portion of liberals have the balls to call out Hillary for her bullshit. If only conservatives could act the same way with Trump ... Let's not forget about the political witch-hunt known as Benghazi. I may not like her, but at least some of us can see it was a ploy by Republicans to harm a specific individual. Or how about when they spent 8 years accusing Obama of not being a US citizen? Both of them got through it. Trump will too if he has nothing to hide.
71. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-30 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I saw those items later, as well as speeches and writings by popular confederates. Slavery was the key issue, and arguments for states rights supported that doctrine. An early example of a "pivot".
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
72. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-30 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  The newspeak word for dodge is now "pivot".
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
73. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-30 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nicely put.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
74. Re: To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-30 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  false
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
75. Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] by sysrammer · 2017-09-30 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  And the winner is: Capt Splendid. With a special mention to Anonymous Coward for presenting a lot of words.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Caught Facebook Trending Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:28 · Score: 0

Facebook was trending Fake News from a couple of clickbait farms that were being populated via RSS feed, hadn't existed longer than 6 months prior to the election and had almost zero readership according to Alexa stats.
The Domain transfer history showed they were old defunct sites picked up by a PR company in Washington who then tried to later switch the registration to private.
Somehow, these sites with no history, and no readership, became the top trending links in Facebook.
And Facebook says they have no Bias? That's ridiculous.
Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:38 · Score: 1

I'm a political centrist, looking at what's generally a two-winged political spectrum.
No, you're an anonymous coward.

On the right side we have people who are clearly concerned with improving the nation's economy,

What, the right side???? The Republicans are the "spend spend spend" party-- have been for decades. Don't you remember Cheney saying "deficits don't matter"??

avoiding new and terrible "free" trade deals, getting the nation out of existing terrible "free" trade deals,

You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?

securing the border from external threats,
Which threats? Like, say, the 911 attacks, during the presidency of George W. Bush, that occurred because he ignored the repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous?

fixing the horribly broken healthcare system,
That would be nice. Except I see no evidence that anybody on the right has the slightest notion of how to fix it. All the plans proposed so far make it worse-- a lot worse. The best proposal seems to be the libertarian one: Take away all health care, let health care providers charge sick people as much as the market will bear, and when people can't afford it, they can just die.

and generally trying to improve the country.
In what way? I haven't seen any evidence of people on the right trying to improve the country.
When you say "I'm a centrist," and then follow it up with "the right is good, good, nothing but good, and the left is bad, bad, nothing but bad", the second part pretty much shows the first part is a lie.
1. Re:Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by rickb928 · 2017-09-28 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  "No, you're an anonymous coward."
  - No, the name is 'Anonymous Coward'. The political affiliation is theirs to choose and define.
  "What, the right side????"
  - Unexpectedly insightful from you, until you define the 'right side' as Republicans. It should be obvious by now that the Republican leadership (I call them the GOPe) no longer acts as a right-wing movement.
  "You mean like NAFTA, the agreement negotiated by President George H. W. Bush?"
  Even GH made mistakes. Though I believe NAFTA hasn't been so bad, since it was negated by the rise of Chinese trade. Woops, that didn't work out at all like it was expected to.
  "Which threats? Like, say, the 911 attacks, during the presidency of George W. Bush, that occurred because he ignored the repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was dangerous?"
  Well, yes. Given that the border security is obviously (by their own words and actions) proven to be anathema to the Left, and the obvious effects, our current President, being a non-Leftist, is acting consistently with a non-Leftist philosophy and pursuing improved border security.
  "That would be nice. Except I see no evidence that anybody on the right has the slightest notion of how to fix it"
  - Neither political party has any real interest in 'fixing healthcare'. The Leftist leadership intended for the system to fail, justifying nationalizing healthcare - read those old reports from those who drafted the legislation - it was intentionally designed to fail. The GOPe won't do anything, they are acting solely in self-interest, desperate to cling to their jobs and power.
  "In what way? I haven't seen any evidence of people on the right trying to improve the country."
  - Care to offer your definition of 'improve the country'?
  "When you say "I'm a centrist," and then follow it up with "the right is good, good, nothing but good, and the left is bad, bad, nothing but bad", the second part pretty much shows the first part is a lie."
  - I agree with your observation that the poster has a 'the right is good...' and 'the left is bad...' view. Remarkably, though I consider myself a Conservative, and therefore without a political party to represent me or to present candidates to vote for. This does NOT define me as a centrist, but rather a right-winger, no longer represented by represented by the traditional right-wing political party leadership. It is difficult to define a centrist today because I believe most are in the position of rejecting the Left, but feeling betrayed by the GOPe. Many are on the different axis, Libertarian or Anarchist, the most intellectual taking a 'Voluntaryist' stand. as a self-professed Conservative, I see the Left as a genuine threat to this nation's existence as intended by its founders and the first 200 or so years of its existence. Such changes they intend to make by fiat, usurping power in all branches of government and 'legislating' away the protections and freedoms intended by our founders. This should be obvious to an observer.
  But to challenge a self-professed centrist and claim they are unwittingly right-wing devolves the argument into an us v them battle, and sadly one of those, you choose which represents 'us' and which 'them', no longer opposes the 'other' in our federal government. This leaves many voters without a representative political party. And so Trump is elected as a Republican, though he is clearly not, and need not be. He usurped the GOPe (an insult they will never, ever forgive) and win the election as the genuine 'Opposition' candidate, first to the GOP Establishment (the GOPe I keep denigrating), and then in opposition to the Leftist candidate. He won based on his third alternative - neither Left nor artificial Right. Cruz was the only republican alternative to a GOPe-approve candidate, and Cruz was destroyed by his own party. Sanders' campaign suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.
  As a Conservative, I am in league with Centrists. Libertarians, Anarchists, and most who reject the major political parties
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
2. Re:Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  as a self-professed Conservative, I see the Left as a genuine threat to this nation's existence as intended by its founders and the first 200 or so years of its existence. Such changes they intend to make by fiat, usurping power in all branches of government and 'legislating' away the protections and freedoms intended by our founders. This should be obvious to an observer.
  Well, you're wrong, and making up a lot of nonsense, but at least you aren't starting off with a lie where you feign some neutrality for purposes that actually would discredit you further.
  
  But to challenge a self-professed centrist and claim they are unwittingly right-wing
  They aren't unwittingly, they are witless. That's different. As in, they are so witless, they think their buillshit doesn't stink even more by taking that route.
  
  Trying to define political views on the traditional axis of left-right is failed. Give it up.
  
  Tell that to all of the hard-core right-wing supporters, like the AC above, or like s.petry, DNS-and-Bind, Archangel Michael, ScentCone and more on this site.
  Then maybe I'll believe in your integrity. Face it, you have to heal thyself.
3. Re:Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by drinkypoo · 2017-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the border security is obviously (by their own words and actions) proven to be anathema to the Left, and the obvious effects, our current President, being a non-Leftist, is acting consistently with a non-Leftist philosophy and pursuing improved border security.
  If your long-term national security plan is border security then you have already failed, especially along our southern border — as Mexicans (&c;) have already demonstrated the ability to go over, under, through and around a broad assortment of barricades. And as long as we keep bombing other countries, whether literally or just figuratively with hostile policy, we're going to keep seeing people trying to come here for a variety of inconvenient reasons. And now that the western lifestyle has led to possibly irreversible and certainly inconvenient climate change, the best you can hope to accomplish is to reduce the rate and gentle the nature of the people who will come here, whether you plan for it or not.
  I know, what if we build a better world, and it's all for nothing? But actually, the best catchy saying to mangle here is Share your wealth, or they will share their poverty. People aren't just going to lay down and die because you find them annoying.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re: Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Those you named are all Russian trolls.
5. Re:Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by david_thornley · 2017-09-28 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  To pick on only one point, border security is anathema to both sides. Leftists like people coming to share in the country, and Rightists like sources of cheap easy-to-abuse labor.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
6. Re:Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  No intellectual has ever considered themselves a "Voluntaryist". That is a marketing term to sell a political ideology that is inherently opposed to voluntaryism; free market capitalism. The same capitalism that unleashed the most atrocious battles against workers in history, with corporations forcing people to work at gunpoint. Then again you don't know that the American Overton Window is pushed so far to the right that almost every other country in the world is preparing to invade the US to prevent another Nazi Germany from happening. I would expect that from your fact-free description of political ideology though :) You should probably be old enough to vote before you embarrass yourself online with your ignorance.
7. Re: Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by rickb928 · 2017-09-30 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  "If your long-term national security plan is border security then you have already failed"
  If you think I, as an observer, consider our 'long-term national security plan' to be merely border security focused on illegal entry, you are either naive or trying to define my comments as childish.
  I vote for the latter. A useful tactic to convince others to dismiss views you disagree with, rather than offer a convincing rebuttal.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
8. Re: Center does not mean right [Re:To be fair...] by rickb928 · 2017-10-01 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  1. Equating naziism with right-wing philosophy is an intentional misstating of truth. You're not that uninformed, I hope.
  2. Clever Ad Hominem attack you made there.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
not exactly bias by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:38 · Score: 0

No, Facebook has no bias against Trump. Doesn't mean they haven't done yet another social experiment where they see the effects of negative adds/news has on a presidential candidate.
Fuckoff zuck. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 01:39 · Score: 0

We know facebook is anti-trump. Has been from the start. OFFICIALLY too.
You piece of shit.
Russia doesn't care who wins as long as we lose. by Comboman · 2017-09-28 01:40 · Score: 0

The 2016 election was between a highly polarizing crook with no political experience and a highly polarizing crook with lots of political experience. The Russians don't care who won as long as we tear ourselves apart in the process. They were (and still are) actively supporting both white nationalists and Black Lives Matter. Their goal is to weaken America from the inside out, diminish America's standing in the world, and step into the power vacuum. They've managed to accomplish in a couple years of "social engineering" what they couldn't do in 50 years of cold war.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
That's how politics works now by XXongo · 2017-09-28 01:44 · Score: 1

Trump will shamelessly sling mud without any regard to truth at anyone or thing he sees as a threat.
Actually, I have to say that this is true of almost every politician.
There may have once been a time when politics may have not meant flinging mud without regard to truth, but it was a long time ago.
1. Re:That's how politics works now by Baron_Yam · 2017-09-28 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Back in the day it was a free-for-all of lying, but in more recent history in democratic nations it's been the culture to avoid getting caught in a lie - so you get politicians who very carefully phrase what they say so they always have plausible deniability - they can say, "No, I didn't say that". And it's been newsworthy when they're presented with proof they did, and sometimes serious affected their careers.
  Trump - starting with the inauguration crowd size (though you could also argue back to the birther stuff, I suppose) and not stopping since - doesn't seem to care at all, and will tell a lie with the proof it's a lie being held up in front of him, and then slander the person presenting the proof. It's a different order magnitude of political sleaze.
2. Re:That's how politics works now by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  I dont know, i mean lying about crowd size is clearly still a lie, but its a lie fed by an Ego. Lying about whether or not American troops are in Cambodia and Laos is a completely different magnitude of wrong. If the only lying being done is related to his Ego, then things are not as bad off as I feared.
3. Re: That's how politics works now by bestweasel · 2017-09-28 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  How about if his ego won't let him admit that the Russians helped him win?
4. Re: That's how politics works now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Thats not illegal. The clintons take money from the saudis all the time. Its no different than any superPAC. Its the ego thats causing him to lie about it. Had he said "i got help, so what?" There wouldnt be a damn thing anybody could do about it.
5. Re: That's how politics works now by bestweasel · 2017-09-28 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well I hope one or two American patriots would speak up but he more than likely didn't know he was being helped by the Russian government and now he can't admit it because that would diminish his huge victory.
  Secretly colluding with a foreign power must be a crime worse than wilful ignorance.
Not buying it by onyxruby · 2017-09-28 01:53 · Score: 1, Troll

Facebook's discrimination against anyone that isn't progressive or liberal is very well documented. Unfortunately this is an issue as they have a monopoly on social media the likes of which the world has never seen. This gives them the ability to manipulate public discussion and discord that is the envy of many nation states. An example of Facebook abusing their monopoly is their attempts to redefine the truth using progressive political activists as fact checkers.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12...
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
http://www.breitbart.com/radio...
People are waking up and realizing that the facebook ministry of truth is more focused on propaganda than facts. It hasn't even been a year and their fact checking efforts are having only a very slight difference or even backfiring.
https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
However, Facebook will unquestionably learn to be more subtle in their political manipulations in the future. When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights. Should facebook be broken up or regulated? Their position, power and propensity to abuse their power has created a threat to our democracy.
1. Re:Not buying it by sinij · 2017-09-28 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights.
  It doesn't matter where you are on political spectrum, freedom or expression and exchange of ideas moving to a private digital space should be concerning to you. Not that they would, but Facebook could lawfully require everyone to swear allegiance to the Third Reich and ban everyone refusing, and there is nothing you could do in existing legal environment to stop them. It is way past due to codify digital public spaces in law and extend protections for free speech to cover these.
2. Re:Not buying it by Billly+Gates · 2017-09-28 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  They were fake news stories posing as true ones which I bet were paid by Russia
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
3. Re:Not buying it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  An example of Facebook abusing their monopoly is their attempts to redefine the truth using progressive political activists as fact checkers.
  So, it's okay if Trump or Fox News calls something "fake news" but Facebook can't? Because they try to sound more legitimate even if they're no better than the rest? Uh huh...
  
  People are waking up and realizing that the facebook ministry of truth is more focused on propaganda than facts. It hasn't even been a year and their fact checking efforts are having only a very slight difference or even backfiring.
  Which is an article about research that people with conspiracy theories, when presented with contrary facts, become more firmly attached to their conspiracy theories. It's almost as if people have a self-selection bias and aren't really willing to listen to diametrically opposing views. Which, of course, has nothing to do with Facebook per se. Look at Fox News vs MSNBC.
  
  However, Facebook will unquestionably learn to be more subtle in their political manipulations in the future. When you privatize the public square you also effectively privatize constitutional rights. Should facebook be broken up or regulated? Their position, power and propensity to abuse their power has created a threat to our democracy.
  Like how we should break up public malls. Or MS, GE, Google, etc because they inherently have massive amounts of power and threaten our democracy. No, we already have a whole slew of laws that cover things like public spaces on private property that do little to protect constitutional rights. Meanwhile monopolies of all sorts aren't punished until they become abusive and generally they get a slap on the wrist. I'd say the much greater threat is how government has and is subpoenaing or outright buying information from the likes of MS, Google, Facebook, etc in a clear subversion of constitutional rights.
  I worry much less about companies trying to subvert me politically--except to the extent that they all seem to support less worker rights and more acceptance of a "business friendly" environment--any more than they've already done by lobbying and enshrining a political class that speaks of "small business is the backbone of the economy" but is much more interested in fellating big business. It's why the Trump vs Hillary debate is a sideshow to the main attraction and really irrelevant to the discussion. It's why worrying I might be "tricked" to vote Republican or Democrat is incredibly stupid. We're too far down the rabbit hole where we think we really can only vote on one of two candidates when both are solidly in the hands of the likes of Facebook, no matter what they do so long as they spending that sweet, sweet campaign money.
New Hampshire [Re:Why just the Russian ads?] by XXongo · 2017-09-28 01:54 · Score: 1

Ask people living in New Hampshire about how fake those claims are. Every election, you'll see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas.

I take it you've never been to New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, when it's not an election you'll also see hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around. And hundreds of New Hampshirites incessantly complaining about them.

They literally bus in voters.
If they bus in voters they wouldn't need cars with MA plates, would they.
1. Re:New Hampshire [Re:Why just the Russian ads?] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Right, people with MA plates do tend to hang around polling places, just normally, don't they.
  And, yes, they absolutely do bus in out of state "voters" in actual physical buses, but they also use cars and any other transportation available. Face it, the 2016 election had a LOT of suspicious votes cast in New Hampshire and it's impossible Trump would have lost the state if only valid votes were cast.
  But since states are blocked from checking to make sure voters are who they claim to be, and due to the secret ballot, there's no way to prove that every vote cast was cast by a legal, registered voter. And that's the problem. We need to be able to filter out these illegal out-of-state voters BEFORE their illegal votes influence elections.
2. Re:New Hampshire [Re:Why just the Russian ads?] by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Right, people with MA plates do tend to hang around polling places, just normally, don't they.
  Your assertion was "hundreds of cars with MA plates driving around polling areas" which you haven't proved.
  
  And, yes, they absolutely do bus in out of state "voters" in actual physical buses, but they also use cars and any other transportation available.
  Like Zeppelins? Did they use Zeppelins?
  
  Face it, the 2016 election had a LOT of suspicious votes cast in New Hampshire and it's impossible Trump would have lost the state if only valid votes were cast.
  Face it, Trump's claims about votes in the 2016 election are specious, and it's impossible to believe them, or Kris Kobach's spurious pronouncements.
  
  But since states are blocked from checking to make sure voters are who they claim to be, and due to the secret ballot, there's no way to prove that every vote cast was cast by a legal, registered voter. And that's the problem. We need to be able to filter out these illegal out-of-state voters BEFORE their illegal votes influence elections.
  Sure man, yet by your contention, your elected officials are ILLEGAL, thus making them unable to pass laws.
  But nope, states are not blocked from checking voters, they've only been blocked from doing so in ways that they admitted were racist, discriminatory, and otherwise prejudiced.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-09-28 02:08 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
DNC supports bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:24 · Score: 1

I love when you bring up Strom Thurmond, a Dixicrat, which you are claiming are evil.
Of the 53 Dixicrats 51 went back to the DNC... FOR LIFE. So we assume Dixicrat = evil. That makes GOP 2% evil, and DNC 98% evil. Using your logic.
Now lets see how Dixicrats were treated in each party...
GOP
Trent Lott wished Thurmond a happy birthday, was removed from leadership because of it. Not much love for him there.
DNC
Byrd, KKK Leader, filibustered Civil Rights Act personally. Was "mentor" to last DNC presidential candidate. When he died they lined up to talk about how great he had always been. Still cheered about by the DNC.
Al Gore Sr. never was punished for his evils. His son was put up for DNC presidential candidate.
Summary...
In GOP if you were a racist, no one better say anything good about you or they lose their position.
In DNC if you were a racist, you get to mentor presidential candidates, your children are fast tracked to presidential candidacy, you get leadership positions for life, people praise you throughout your life.
Notice a difference? I do. DNC CELEBRATES racists/bigots. GOP destroys you if say happy birthday to them.
So I'm going to guess you are a bigot as well, since you obviously support the DNC and the DNC is obviously the party of bigotry.
1. Re: DNC supports bigots by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I love when you bring up Strom Thurmond, a Dixicrat, which you are claiming are evil.
  You're the one that forgot about him. As you mysteriously do.
  Quote>Of the 53 Dixicrats 51 went back to the DNC... FOR LIFE. So we assume Dixicrat = evil. That makes GOP 2% evil, and DNC 98% evil. Using your logic.
  What logic is this? I'm pointing out your flawed one-drop argument based on ignoring the truth about your own present.
  
  Now lets see how Dixicrats were treated in each party...
  The GOP embraced the Southern Strategy, with Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, and ultimately culminating in Trump.
  
  GOP
  Trent Lott wished Thurmond a happy birthday, was removed from leadership because of it. Not much love for him there.
  You mean the Trent Lott who effusively praised Thurmond's segregationist campaign and only got dinged after bloggers kept exposing it, forcing even the GOP to casdt him out.
  And boy did they praise him at his funeral. Thurmond, not Lott. Even as his half-black daughter was revealed. By a maid.
  
  DNC
  Byrd, KKK Leader, filibustered Civil Rights Act personally. Was "mentor" to last DNC presidential candidate. When he died they lined up to talk about how great he had always been. Still cheered about by the DNC.
  
  Funny how you never mention him repudiating the KKK though.
  
  Al Gore Sr. never was punished for his evils. His son was put up for DNC presidential candidate.
  Oh gosh, now we are punishing people for the sins of their parents?
  
  Summary...
  As usual, you lie and deceive?
  
  In GOP if you were a racist, no one better say anything good about you or they lose their position.
  Oh? Is that why they have statues to Lee, Forrest, Stevens, Thurmond and Goldwater?
  
  In DNC if you were a racist, you get to mentor presidential candidates, your children are fast tracked to presidential candidacy, you get leadership positions for life, people praise you throughout your life.
  That explains David Duke being a Republican.
  
  Notice a difference? I do. DNC CELEBRATES racists/bigots. GOP destroys you if say happy birthday to them.
  Man, you going to be disappointed when Lott's lobbying is revealed?
  
  So I'm going to guess you are a bigot as well, since you obviously support the DNC and the DNC is obviously the party of bigotry.
  Then Trump is a bigot, since he supported Andrew Jackson.
  But man, crazy Neo-Con accusations like yours are still crazy.
  Go back to marching with Clive Bundy, Richard Spencer and that Duck guy,
No true Scotsman by Ensign_Expendable · 2017-09-28 02:24 · Score: 1

No true Scotsman has a FaceBook account.
1. Re:No true Scotsman by dreamchaser · 2017-09-28 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  No person without a mental illness doesn't have one either.
2. Re:No true Scotsman by adhdengineer · 2017-09-28 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  that's because you can't batter it and deep fry it.
Nice revisionism there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:26 · Score: 0

I seem to recall that media coverage, good or bad, was focused around Trump and not around the other candidates of either side. Journalists covered what they thought was newsworthy. And voters went for the most familiar sounding candidate that had the most air time on TV.
Re:Russia doesn't care who wins as long as we lose by oh_my_080980980 · 2017-09-28 02:30 · Score: 1

The Russian government didn't care other how Russian US relations would be. There was no meddling in are elections. At least no more then what the United States has done to other countries. Stop being a pussy.
jerk off by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:30 · Score: 1

Well that's a circle jerk of links which is typical of one handed right wing trolling. Look there's a blog that says libs are mean to real Americans. It must be true.
Never trust Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:36 · Score: 0

Facebook was always a dodgy company since it was founded at Harvard. Just watch "The Social Network" or read "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal" that the movie is based on.
I've heard! by williamreview1 · 2017-09-28 02:50 · Score: -1

I've read a post of Mark on Facebook responding to Trump's tweet. I believe him https://williamreview.com/chin...

--
http://williamreview.com/
Zuck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:51 · Score: 0

The Zucks of the world hate Trump, but Zuck's users are another matter entirely.
Poor little Zuck got all mad at an anonymous employee for writing on a board "all lives matter". His friend Soros pays "protestors" and buses them in from surrounding cities to stir the pot. So between people like that, the oligarchy media (6 corporate boards who are all connected who decide on the "mainstream" content), and corrupt judges who let their police commit murder, plant weapons, lie about it, and then let them go, we have a non-functioning civil system. It's us against them now.
Confirmation Bias there Mark? by bobbied · 2017-09-28 02:55 · Score: 1

One problem with "self analysis" is that you are prone to the logical problem of "confirmation bias". You are going to see what you want to see.
If you start out biased, then try to investigate if you are biased or not, chances are you will discover that you are NOT biased. The only way Facebook would find themselves biased is if they had set out to be biased up front and agreed to admit to it.
I don't think they set out to be biased and didn't intend to favor one side over the other, but I do believe that they ended up biased towards Mark's social and political views. They simply couldn't help it. So, I don't expect them to find any bias because who wants to admit to this?
Every man is right in his own eyes...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Re:Confirmation Bias there Mark? by kaatochacha · 2017-09-28 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well put. People ( myself included) are often oblivious to their own skew. When you have staff trying to gain favor or their boss, they're more likely to move in that direction.
He IS right, and it was admited in 2016 by Noishkel · 2017-09-28 02:57 · Score: 1

Although for the same of full disclosure we don't have a meme or anything like that directly spells this out in plan terms that this was happening. But what we do have is dozens of news stories from about May last year there it was discovered that unnamed Facebook employers were artificially manipulating the 'Trending' feed for their own political bias. While Facebook did try to denying this happened they still completely and publicly announced that they would change the way trending is down to get tide of that bias.
For reference see:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/24/facebook-changes-trending-topics-anti-conservative-bias
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37205029
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-trending-section-accusations-political-bias/story?id=41717303
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
1. Re:He IS right, and it was admited in 2016 by sexconker · 2017-09-28 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  The best part is that rather than remove humans from the equation (after indirectly admitting humans were in the equation), their solution was to add MORE humans!
if zuckerberg and facebook itself were biased.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:21 · Score: 0

we wouldn't have our current orange toddler-in-chief.
Who bought it? by XXongo · 2017-09-28 03:23 · Score: 1

In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
This same shit happened in my country, but the real reason was to divert public attention from politicians looting the treasury.
What country is that?

It's not always the dasterdly Russians at the door. What I love the most is that there is actually no proof.

The site believes the ads were probably purchased by Russian entities
Go into any court in the world and say "probably" and you are going to be shown the door, but in the court of public opinion it's proof enough.
Since we haven't seen the ads nor the evidence that they were Russian in origin, I can't offer a definitive opinion, and neither can you-- but it would be my expectation that yes, Facebook is able to track down the origin country of people purchasing ads.
1. Re:Who bought it? by LordWabbit2 · 2017-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  What country is that?
  South Africa - here is an article about it, but to summarize, politicians and a politically well connected family were facing increasing media attention about controversial contracts and hired a British PR firm to attempt to distract everyone from it. They were fueling the already high tensions regarding race and wealth distribution.
  
  Since we haven't seen the ads nor the evidence that they were Russian in origin, I can't offer a definitive opinion, and neither can you
  I wasn't, because they can't prove it and never will be able to, either for or against. But the allegations and rumours will persist for years, same as the shit that Bell Pottinger got up to. The problem is the racial tensions in my country end up killing people. The Russian rumour mongering will only lead to World War 3, which is not that bad :-)
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
2. Re:Who bought it? by e3m4n · 2017-09-28 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  an article I read, speaking only of the ad promoting Black Lives Matter, and specifically targeting people that live Ferguson, said it was bought by a company called Internet Research Agency. Then they, in same sentence, describe it as a company with links to the Kremlin.
  Here is what I know about these so-called links. I have seen claims of affiliation, ties, links, etc based on some of the thinnest of evidence. Let me give you an example of how you can have ties to Russian spies.
  Lets pretend I am a Russian agent. I do covert things in countries playing these political games that nations do. This year I live in San Francisco. Aside from doing devious KGB stuff, I like to surf, fish, and have grown fond of some of the Microbrews here in the USA. I decide I'm going to take the day and visit Pier 39, check out the food, and have some Anchor Steam beer. While riding the trolly, I notice someone reading a paper, you, and ask about the final results of last nights baseball game. We then chat a bit about you being on vacation and not actually from California. I get off at Pier 39 and go about my day. You however, if ever investigated for _any_ reason, will now be labled as having Ties to the Kremlin.
  Im not saying that there are not clear ties here, since I have not seen the evidence, but the general population of society seems to think when someone says it has ties, that some document was found that says 'here are our members, keep this with you in case you need assistance' and this persons name is on it.
Facebook is biased against Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:23 · Score: 0

The people of Facebook are. Trump is an ass, what's not to be biased about?
We're all Scotsman by OrangeTide · 2017-09-28 03:25 · Score: 1

Good luck finding people who don't have a mental illness.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-09-28 03:28 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right. by PontifexMaximus · 2017-09-28 03:54 · Score: -1

Okay, so Facebook and Twitter is not anti-Conservative. Sure. Listen to Jack and Zuck speak to groups and tell me they are hardcore, retarded liberals who think free speech only works when it's what they believe. Tell that to Milo when Twitter banned him.
Please, keep fucking talking, cretins. Liberal plebs like you always get what's coming to you.

--
Pax Vobiscum
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-09-28 03:55 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mark Dice made a great video about this by walterbyrd · 2017-09-28 03:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

Mark Dice gives several specific examples of how Facebook rigs their service to push a liberal agenda.
Five minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IMip89jp_E&t=0s
1. Re:Mark Dice made a great video about this by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-09-28 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hee hee.
  Watched that. Now You Tube is suggesting all sorts of anti-liberal videos that its algorithms think might be of interest to me. B-)
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Gizmodo on rigged Facebook news & discussion by walterbyrd · 2017-09-28 04:03 · Score: 1, Troll

Gizmodo has a few articles about how Facebook rigs their service in order to push an agenda. Here are a few Gizmodo articles:
Facebook Could Rig The General Election... And We Wouldn't Even Notice
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/06/facebook-could-rig-the-general-election-and-we-wouldnt-even-notice/
Facebook Shruggingly Admits It's a Tool for Propagandists
https://gizmodo.com/facebook-shruggingly-admits-its-a-tool-for-propagandist-1794722491
When in doubt... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:05 · Score: 0

...blame russia.
God this sh!t is so tired.
Facebook workers admit to surpressing conservites by walterbyrd · 2017-09-28 04:10 · Score: 0, Troll

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006
Different tools, same bag by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:21 · Score: 0

Seriously, fuck both these jokers.
Fighting propaganda with propaganda? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:26 · Score: 0

Faux-News? Breitbart?!? Are you fucking serious?
Got any reputable sources, or are you intentionally trying to be ironic??
Lock Zuckerbug Up by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:30 · Score: 0

Down with globalist cucks!
Re:Russia doesn't care who wins as long as we lose by eaglesrule · 2017-09-28 05:05 · Score: 1

They've managed to accomplish in a couple years of "social engineering" what they couldn't do in 50 years of cold war.
And we're supposed to believe that they managed this amazing feat on a budget of 100k spent over the course of three years.
Yet another mole-hill-made-mountain brought to us thanks to those who desperately want the actual malfeasance exposed by the DNC emails to be forgotten. We're supposed to blame Russia for heightening racial tensions when our own media capitalizes on it and encourages it with terms like 'white hispanic', and we have an entire class of professional protesters.
This is the Russians pissing into the ocean, and then blaming them for the water tasting salty.
Let's Suppose You Are Correct by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, for the sake of argument, Facebook is left-leaning. Probably wrong but we are going to humour you for argument's sake.
This is entirely negated by Trump's behavior. Seriously, Trump thinks that anyone who does not provide absolute, slavish fealty to the Big Giant Orange Head, is "biased and so unfair."
Anyone reporting the facts on the Trump Presidency is therefore "colluding and anti-Trump."
You know who Trump thinks is "fair" to Trump? Fox & Friends. Sean Hannity. Kelly Ann Conway. Sean Spicer. Anyone willing to baldly lie and state that Up is Down to protect the ego of the Big Giant Orange Head! Anyone desperate to climb the social/political/organizational ladders and lacking in personal integrity. Anyone else? Cricket noises...
I agree 100% with you... by gosand · 2017-09-28 05:13 · Score: 1

In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.
Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world. But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
I agree with you. It is not the same as "supporting Trump". Just ignore the people who are saying Trump colluded with the Russians on the election. There are no facts to back that up.... BUT...
I haven't seen any facts that Trump (or his people) colluded with Russia - so let the investigation play out. Here are some other facts I know... Trump said during the election that it was rigged. He rode that message pretty hard. The DNC did it. Then he wins, and the message suddenly changes. He won fair and square. The Russians had nothing to do with it. If the Russians did do it, why wasn't it brought up until now? OK, Russia or someone else may have tried to hack the election, but it had no effect. I think it was Russia. It could have been China. There was no collusion with Russia, this is a witch hunt.
It's the words and actions of Trump and his administration that cast doubts on everything. Because he contradicts himself. Let the investigation happen, and whatever comes out of it comes out of it. By opposing (and impeding) the investigation, it only feeds those who believe he was involved.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Friendly Reminder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:40 · Score: 0

Really, because every time crap like this comes up, some one needs to say it....
'Told you so'
https://xkcd.com/743/
Now, that we have established that you should not be surprised by any of this, what are you going to do about it.
(I know.. nothing, because change is hard).
The bias is what you make it by smprather · 2017-09-28 06:08 · Score: 1

Facebook's "bias" can bend in any direction. It all depends on what you Like, Follow, etc. Trust me, my MotherInLaw's FB feed is *not* biased against Trump. I've seen it, horrifying as it is.
1. Re:The bias is what you make it by kaatochacha · 2017-09-28 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think they're talking about the opinions of the Facebook administration.
2. Re:The bias is what you make it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think anyone cares about the political bias of the administration unless it winds up in their product somehow.
Poor snowflake by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:21 · Score: 0

Careful, your sense of self entitlement is peeking out
Targetted ads is the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:24 · Score: 0

The trending stories that I saw were all (and still are) overwhelmingly negative towards Trump.
FTFY.
You are a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 06:47 · Score: 0

First... Russians hacked the election giving it to Trump (no evidence)
Then... Russians hacked the DNC emails to help Trump (no evidence, evidence shows inside job)
Then... Russians bought Facebook ads in record amounts to promote Trump (no evidence)
Then... Russians bought $100k in Facebook ads to help Trump
Now... Russians bought $100k in Facebook ads that may or may not have been pro-Trump
You liberals have gotten so completely stupid, you are now arguing over an amount of money less than most people posting here make, over ads that may or may not have been targeting the election.
MEANWHILE... The DNC rigged their primary to pick a winner despite what the people were voting, and you IGNORE IT. Hillary Clinton got over $100 MILLION in bribes from Russia while Secretary of State, which you ignore. But $100k on Facebook and suddenly everything needs to be thrown out.
You are a total and complete imbicle. I am actually shocked at how completely stupid liberals have become, its a joke that has gone too far at this point.
Ugh... by XSportSeeker · 2017-09-28 06:58 · Score: 1

Sociopaths fighting each other. All we needed.
Re: Russia doesn't care who wins as long as we los by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:33 · Score: 0

You are very naive if you think that "a budget of 100k spent over the course of three years" is the extent of Russian involvement in the election. That's just one amount identified by Facebook and doesn't mean that was all Russia spent on Facebook and doesn't include the money and effort expended elsewhere on Twitter or on emails or on thousands of fake 'news' stories. As it happens, i don't think you're naive: you're just another Putinbot.
All the good facebook has done by kaatochacha · 2017-09-28 11:37 · Score: 1

It's sorta like saying " All the good M&Ms have done". While it's technically true, it's good on a base entertainment level.
In the Trending Section by Jarwulf · 2017-09-28 12:33 · Score: 1

In the Trending section, which you can't turn off afaik, the headlines at least to me seem very skewed. Very rarely will a story other than one with a leftwing spin appear and often the headlines themselves are ridiculous. I have several different accounts with different habits and this appears to hold true in all of them. Now Facebook has an audience of around 1 billion. Imagine the cumulative effect of all those people even just passing their eyes unconsciously over the biased Trending section or picking up on any one of several other subliminal cues in their day to day life. This could possibly be one of the greatest propaganda vehicles invented.
You're paid to push a narrative. Good post. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 17:16 · Score: 0

You're paid to push a narrative. Good post. Earned your loyalty points.
purple purple purple purple purple by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 05:32 · Score: 0

From a purely rhetorical point of view, I sort of admire the blatant use of the "repeat until it's meaningless" technique. You see this here with the word "collusion." It sounds bad, right? And it is being used in a way that accuses Trump & Co. Solution? Use it over and over again to describe what the accusers do.
Same goes for the prefix "alt-". Yes, Bannon coined alt-right, but it has become (because of who they are) pejorative. Solution? Call everything alt! Alt-left now... what about alt-center, alt-moderate, alt-meatloaf...
Facebook is like a Banana Cream Pie by Gregarious1 · 2017-09-29 06:07 · Score: 1

Like any tool created by man, it can be used for good or ill. As an example, let's consider a nice, sweet, banana cream pie. Who ever invented the banana cream pie, created it to be eaten and enjoyed. It was meant to bring joy to those who like bananas and pie. But you can take that cream pie and leave it at the top of some stairs in a high rise office building, then pull the fire alarm. As people rush to exit the building - someone - and maybe many somones- will slip and fall on that pie - turning it into a lethal weapon. Blaming Mark, and the tool he created (Facebook), as a bringer of evil - is like blaming the inventor of the banana cream pie for killing people in that fire alarm hoax. It's ridiculous. People do bad things. Blame and punish those people that do bad things. Not the person who invents something to make the world a better place.
Really? by Wayspooled · 2017-09-29 06:27 · Score: 1

This is a headline? One useless face says "You stoopid!" and the other one answers "Nyah nyah!" Really...
Buster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 09:47 · Score: 0

Letâ(TM)s be honest here, Trump is the leader of a crime family. All of you backwards Trump supporters aka fascists are just happy to have a white guy as your leader. The other aspect of Trump which few will admit publicly is tvat Trump wants to kill muslims in retaliation for 9/11 and simple minded racist people who cannot handle complex social issues are okay with it.
Re: Snowflake? How Original!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 10:18 · Score: 0

How original! How unique to call someone a âoeSnowflakeâ and did you think that catchy little insult up all by yourself? Iâ(TM)m sure youâ(TM)re not someone who follows others like a fascist would and you always think for yourself! Typical Trump follower!