Slashdot Mirror
Obama Warns Against Irresponsible Social Media Use (bbc.com)
In his first interview since leaving the White House in January, former President Barack Obama spoke about the dangers of irresponsible use of social media. From a report on BBC: He warned that such actions were distorting people's understanding of complex issues, and spreading misinformation. "All of us in leadership have to find ways in which we can recreate a common space on the internet," he said. The former president expressed concern about a future where facts are discarded and people only read and listen to things that reinforce their own views. "One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases. The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn't lead to a Balkanisation of society and allows ways of finding common ground," he said.
...One of the most divisive Presidents in US history famous for his identity politics and class-warfare and attacks on political/ideological opponents using agencies of the Federal government like the IRS.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So ... we need a president to tell us that social media is made for narcisissm and is basically a loudspeaker for idiots.
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
People are little more than hairless chimps: we chatter and squeal (and sometimes kill) anyone we don't recognize as part of our in-group.
We only have the intellectual capacity to identify a small number of individuals personally as part of that group; beyond that we build more ephemeral identities based on communicated reputation and shared biases to identify 'tribes' of commonality with whom we perceive a commonality of interest, at least in the categories of behavior and belief that we feel are personally important.
Outside of THAT, we simply cannot know everyone individually; we base our expectations on stereotypes. What makes those stereotypes to enduring is that they are indeed based on FACT to a greater or larger degree - there is, for example, no stereotype that Asian men have 3 heads or that Muslims breathe water: unfortunately, the building of these stereotypes is rarely today based on personal experience, but on 'shared wisdom' which is just as likely to come from CNN or Breitbart as it is from someone trustworthy.
Finally, this is coupled with a deeply-felt (but never actually proved?) faith in little-L liberal tenets of western civilization: that if we "just communicate more", if we "just understand each other better" we'll all get along better. SIMULTANEOUSLY we profess that people should be coerced as little as possible, that the ideal (in fact, the very essence of democracy) is freedom of choice for each self-aware individual.
I don't believe our ideals are reconcilable with our fundamental animal natures without large scale dictatorial reprogramming. So there's the question: do we get to be ourselves and make free choices, or shall we embark on a Great Leap Forward where a beneficent overclass tells us all how to live so we can be happy?
Frankly speaking: I think John Calhoun's experiments into mouse dystopias are far more predictive of the ultimate outcome of this experiment than some sort of idealized utopia of unicorns and rainbows where we all love each other.
-Styopa
at the Democratic party, which basically ran Romney Bot 2.0, right down the the comment attacking the electorate and having $700 million pocketed by consultants who figured they already won.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's difficult for me to admit, but this comment is lucid and downright Presidential compared to what comes out of the Oval Office currently.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
says the AC.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
It's difficult for me to admit, but this comment is lucid and downright Presidential compared to what comes out of the Oval Office currently.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
The contrast with the current administration is so depressingly stark...
-Don't use social media irresponsibly
-Don't stub your toe
-Mind the gap
-Don't eat yellow snow
-Don't proclaim trite warmings
Because the truth is that getting your news from the biased broadcasting corporation can provide you with a very dangerously skewed left leaning liberal narrative.
You're seriously calling the BBC "biased"?
Jesus H Christ...
How do we fix that? Easy, we go back to the old way, where everything is qualified by the authority of the person saying it. You know, like encyclopaedias did before Wikipedia replaced all that stuff with populism and astroturfing. It won't work every time, and sometimes change will be slow since authorities can be conservative, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now, and it also means people will be accountable. As an added bonus, it will get rid of the more wide-ranging pundits like Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, Salon, and whatever Gawker's subsidiaries are calling themselves now.
So what does this mean in practise?
It means that when random person on Twitter goes "Gender is a social construct" we all say "Your qualifications give this claim 0 credibility". When Stephen Hawking says "Black holes are weird and stuff" we say "OK, you know your shit, Stephen, now make the funny voice again". Don't listen to morons, ACs, Facebook randoms, unknown news sources and the like. Don't learn physics from creationists, don't learn game development from women's history majors, don't learn anything at all from anyone on Twitter.
Skip Facebook, reddit, wikipedia, Twitter. Is that too difficult today? It worked fine just 10 years ago. Encyclopaedias and a phone will replace all of those just fine, and your connection with your friends will only improve. You'll be happier, you'll be better informed, and you'll be a better human being for it.
Try it.
Did you ever think that your right leaning views are so far right past being moderate yourself.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Because the truth is that getting your news from the biased broadcasting corporation
Warnings against the BBC are very useful. When someone makes them, we know they are a total nutter, because the BBC is one of the most competent news organizations on the planet. They have this amazing thing called fact-checking, which most American news organizations had all but abandoned before Trump became president. His hypocritical cries of "fake news" have had one positive effect; they have become even more scrupulous due to the scrutiny. He is a hypocrite, however, because of his adoration for the network with nothing but Faux News.
can provide you with a very dangerously skewed left leaning liberal narrative.
"left leaning" and "liberal..." (which means the same thing as leftist) "...narrative" in the same sentence? Guess what? Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Having met people who had worked with Hillary (on both political spectrum), I actually get a consistent different picture from what the media shows. Hillary just isn't good with her public Image.
While Trump is just about Trump, he can let the country rot just as long as we all suppose to like him.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The BBC isn't biased ? Like that time one of their reporters was trying to convince a trucker that illegal immigrants ripping up his truck and trying to stow on board to illegally cross into England was "A good thing" ? That's unbiased to you ?
The whole report reeks of apologism : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FIsmquQqA
The BBC are definately left leaning and left-biased. Open borders, Diversity before Merit, Anti-conservatism. It's the same for Canada's CBC. The bias is apparent, and if you can't see it, you need to do yourself a favor and get some deprogramming.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I really do want a citation which shows that Obama took the side of black people before facts came out. If your position cannot survive requests for clarification, then it is garbage. In this case, trolling, racist garbage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You need to get your facts straight.
Fact: The republicans funded it first, thus making it non partisan, or maybe bipartisan
The GOP, after the primaries, stopped using Fusion GPS. The Democrats took it up with hiring Steele who worked with Russians to get the dossier that seems to be used as justification for investigating Trump by the Obama admin. Let's also not forget Bruce Ohr that was in the Mueller investigation wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.
We do have evidence, through this affair, that the Democrats commissioned foreign agents to work with Russian officials with intent to influence the election.
Fact: The FBI is not tainted.
There are some problems with the FBI and the many conflicts of interests that are coming out. Mueller did the right thing by demoting them and removing them from investigations but that does taint their image and reputation and more importantly their perceived impartiality.
Fact: There is no evidence that the dossier is the only evidence going after the Trump campaign. The four indictments would say otherwise.
The problem is that many of the crimes for those indictments came years before the election or after the election during the transition. The investigation has gone beyond the original scope "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". I'll wait for the closure of the investigation but as it stands now I am not impressed with the indictments nor criminal charges Mueller has.
In short Obama warned and Trump demonstrated why the warning was necessary.
The problem is that Obama and his administration were so heavily biased that his warning would have been disregarded.
..it's the only way to be sure.
Intelligent people understand that Social Media has devolved into nothing more than a bullshit generator, and should be considered for entertainment purposes only.
Stupid people define Social Media as their only source of information, and it aligns directly with their own values due to targeted manipulation (also known as "advertising")
The real problem is Social Media has become stupidly profitable. Clicks are far more valuable than facts, which tends to validate how ignorance has taken over critical thought.
That said, I'm still laughing over the irony of a former POTUS warning about the dangers of Social Media, as if the very government he used to lead doesn't value offensive counterintelligence (also known as "fake news")...
Bruce Ohr that was in the Mueller investigation wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.
To clarify: Nellie worked for Fusion. Bruce is part of FBI formally part of the Mueller investigation.
are no different than Government ones outside of the fact that one is approved for distribution and the other is not.
Here's the thing: We've reached the point where neither source is very trustworthy for information, so Obama warning against Social Media issues is akin to a Pot vs Kettle discussion.
There is a bias form the media. However the internet social media, rewards short attention grabbing information, vs getting into the details that Newspapers, radio or some TV would cover. We are being outraged at our political enemies, without really knowing why we are outraged, because we get Social Media News like, Trump is cutting support for Children Services, or Clinton want to take all of our guns away. While the details are more complex.
For example back during GW Bush. I had a headline saying Bush is giving tax cuts to Hummer owners. That didn't seem right, so I did some digging as I had the time at the time, and I felt like I could prove the internet wrong. So I did some digging, it was tax cuts on industrial shipping trucks over a particular weight range, Hummers happen to exceed the weight limit. This wasn't to give hummers a tax break, but companies who are trying to ship goods a tax break.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obama wasn't even far left. He was way more moderate than left.
The discussion is tainted by weak vocabulary though. There are 2 axes to talk about. Progressive/conservative and libertarian/authoritarian. The discussion only focuses on the progressive or conservative angle but never touches the more important libertarian/authoritarian axis.
Expect every comment in this thread to not touch it, either, because the level of discourse nationwide is 5th grade at best.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A quick look through your posting history tells us your opinion is _worthless_ in this regard.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"A good thing"? Where in that clip, exactly?!
That was a pretty damn good report, BTW, following the exact definition of "unbiased": presenting a very complex issue from both sides. I guess such a thing is not common in America these days.
Fact: Various parts of the dossier have been proven to be true.
The only thing that has been "verified" is Carter Page visiting Moscow - on a trip that was very public when it happened. Visiting Russia is not a crime - or even unusual.
That's it. After a full year the FBI can only verify that one thing that was never in dispute in the first place. If you could take your partisan blinders off for just a minute the entire thing stinks to high heaven. It was a setup job from the start. They hoped Trump would fire Mueller thus giving grounds for a spurious impeachment. He didn't and now they are stuck. Nothing there leads to Trump at all.
Trump won because internet; internet = irresponsible; half the country is in a cocoon with a different reality, but not our half of course; diversity diversity diversity
Any questions?
(1) Unclear. Property tax in states like NJ, MD, and NY can run $8 to $10 grand per year, even for a modest home. Pays for excellent schools among other things. Capping SALT may well raise taxes on middle-class people there. ... and will likely do so until the next crash.
(2) The bonuses offered are not outsized -- they're fairly normal for holiday bonuses, and were likely decided before tax cuts passed.
(3) Job market and DOW have been going up since 2010
(4) I have a $600 deductible. Why? My state didn't sabotage ACA, but actually took steps to preserve good choices of insurers on the exchanges, as well as having a public option under 2x the Medicaid limit.
(5) Travel ban? Keeps getting blocked in court
(6) Bi-partisan or not, paying money to move the embassy to Jerusalem is a mistake. It will cost us in building a new secure embassy, security, etc. Why waste money on political theater to appease or irritate religious rutters of any faith?
More than half the country (in terms of population) voted for Clinton. If it were one human, one vote, then she'd have won. Problem is that we cling to an ancient system that bases votes on population size, and that also apportions political power based on population, not number of votes. It was actually designed to allow states to disenfranchise large parts of their population (women, Blacks, etc) without losing political power.
Practice safe text!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Says the piece of shit that has weaponized the media, the IRS, and the FBI against normal American Citizens.
So he's talking about media then, not social media.
Yeah, that is bad traditional media! Bad Media! Stop it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's pretty funny when in an article which quotes Obama as stating "One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases." so many people like you are posting to demonstrate the truth of your own cocooned reality.
You only think the BBC isn't biased because their news coverage happens to have a bias similar to your own bias.
Hint: If you're of the belief that only the articles which support the "other side" are ever biased, then that's a strong indication you're unable to recognize bias which you agree with.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
You only think the BBC isn't biased
I don't think that anyone is unbiased, and I don't think anything run by humans can therefore be unbiased. Guess again, sport.
because their news coverage happens to have a bias similar to your own bias.
I think that the BBC is a quality news organization because independent review says so. That means they're less biased, and more open about their bias — in fact, they frequently go far out of their way to disclose it. It also means that they're more likely to present fact as fact, rather than displaying you some fiction. You can lie with the truth, which is one reason why you need to play opposing news organizations against one another to get an entire story, and I don't presume that anything that the BBC provides me is going to tell me anything I need to know. I do however extend them the benefit of the doubt in most situations, and assume that they are not going to outright lie to me. I don't give that to most news.
If you trust any single news outlet to give you the whole story, you're a rube.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So an actual ex-president is no longer relevant but yet somehow a presidential candidate who did not win and has gone off the radar is still relevant? Man you guys got some hard-on for hillary dont ya?
"IOW, an independent panel found that Gates acted inappropriately." was supposed to read "IOW, an independent panel found that Crowley acted inappropriately." or "IOW, an independent panel found that Gates did not act inappropriately." but I didn't manage that. This is what I get for not triple-proofreading when I'm emotionally engaged.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, that's a myth. California couldn't elect Presidents by itself -- remember, in a national popular vote, it wouldn't be winner-takes all. A Californian would have exactly as much voting power as someone from Wyoming. There are 40 million people in California, 310 million in the US as a whole. Do the math.
But yes, Republicans would have to actually campaign in California rather than writing it off as a Democratic state. Having to campaign nationally vs cherry-picking swing states is a feature, not a bug.
Either party is less likely to be able to say that we'll do (something to screw over traditionally Dem or Rep states) to appease voters in (small swing states) and get away with it.
The black community does have a bitch, not getting it's fair share of police protection. That isn't fixed until at least 40% of those being shot by police are black (the % of violent crime they commit).
Are you actually arguing that MORE black people should be needlessly shot by police? Wow...
How about we fix our policing system so that FEWER people get shot by trigger happy police. It's curious that in the US we have police that shoot FAR greater numbers (both absolute and per capita) of citizens than pretty much any major industrialized country. That says our police are doing something terribly wrong in how they do their jobs. Yes I said it. Our police are collectively doing a shitty job and the crime statistics prove it.
He might have won, but he wouldn't have been able to push a platform that was deliberately dismissive of coastal states (where, ironically, he was born and raised). Ending the Electoral College would force Presidential candidates to run a unifying campaign to get voters from all over the USA (one person, one vote, no matter where they live) instead of concentrating on swing states.
The very height of irresponsible.
Corporatism != Free Market
Social conservatives? Sure.
But those who come to the US tend not to be as crazy as US evangelicals -- I don't see a large clamor from the Mexican (or greater Latin American) community to end science-based sex education or teach creationism as science in public schools.
If social conservatism has its way, at least it will likely be more pragmatic than the brand pushed by US evangelical Christians.
One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities
There's only only one truth. Obama's just not liking the idea of competing narratives.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Disagree.
There are also extremely red states in the US. But if GOP were forced to actually campaign in CA, maybe they'd moderate their views and CA would actually BECOME more purple and less blue.
Same with red states and Democrats. The electoral system encourages dismissal of either end of the spectrum and appealing to the crazier fringes in swing states.
...then you're one weird American. Nobody else does. But as long as we're standing on the sidelines, hands in pockets, could we ask politely for some particulars: concrete policy, enforcement, or regulatory examples, of how Obama was all specially kind to American black people?
The "identity politics" of *saying* something nice are typically used to avoid doing much, and are often seen as a bullshit gesture. Here in Canada we appointed an Inuk (Leona Aglukkaq) as a federal minister, but she eventually failed reelection, because the Conservative government she represented forced her to take unpopular positions in her far-north riding (Nunavut). Her government was happy to have her as a face popular with northern people, but didn't change any policies because of her presence in the cabinet.
Under Obama, I'm at a loss to think of a regulation that was changed, or enforced less or more, that advantaged black people. They didn't appear to get arrested any less, killed any less, their communities didn't seem to get any more money. He didn't hand out a disproportionate number of government jobs to blacks. They didn't receive any special treatment that got them out of more mortgage foreclosures than white people (Neil Barofsky was pretty plain that Obama's Tim Geither only cared about the banks, didn't help *any* foreclosure victims.)
Welfare and food stamp rules didn't change - more people *needed* them because of the giant bank collapse and 10 million tossed out of work, but most of those people were still white. This question cuts both ways: why would black people vote for him so monolithically? What the hell did he DO for them, except psychologically?
People appear, from afar, to act as if Obama offering a few, purely verbal, opinions, was some great act, when none of them actually *DID* anything. Saying that Trayvon Martin looked like him didn't change any policing rules or persecute any cops. The Henry Gates cop still has a job and is now friendly with Gates. More briefly, "nothing happened".
Curious just now for how to end this question, I tried just googling "obama divisive identity" and grabbed the top link, a full article on same by a guy who'd appeared on Hannity in 2012. It has a long bullet-point list of his Obama-is-divisive grievances: ...and I could see only two that were about concrete actions that changed government spending, my personal touchstone for words-vs-works. The other 20+ were all just things that Obama *said*.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/oba...
(The two were "passing ObamaCare", which he'd run upon, and something about the auto bailout, which I could have sworn was popular at the time, certainly with mostly-white auto workers.)
Honestly, if you can't find policy changes, laws, regulations that caused harm, can't you let it go about what speeches or off-the-cuff remarks he makes? They don't hurt anything.
I also raise the issue because this goes, I dunno, not just double, maybe "octuple" for Trump. He mostly *says* things that offend his opponents, but if you had two different sections of the paper, the front page for things Trump *did* and the back page for "crap the President said today", the front page would need almost no space.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... is on the part of the social media -- not the users of same.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who could have predicted that. Better watch out for flying pigs.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
BBC is the very definition of PROPAGANDA.
Jesus Christ it is defined a royal charter and the former head said "BBC is worryingly close to becoming an arm of the Government".
"BBC is worryingly close to becoming an arm of the Government" says former chair.
Slashdot is social media.
In my opinion the worst of it comes from the main stream media.
I distinctly remember Obama using the main stream media to spread misinformation about what Snowden disclosed about his mass surveillance on the American people.
I postulate that Obama is priming people for the 2018 elections in hopes of stagnating the anti-Democrat outcry that will inevitably rear its head and spread via social media.
The mainstream media is liberal and social media can be anything. It is easier to control the message given by the mainstream media. That is what he's afraid of.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"A good thing"? Where in that clip, exactly?!
3:45. "If you are fleeing war, wouldn't you do anything to protect your family". That whole line of questionning is entirely biased.
Which War in France is she talking about exactly ? It's just a poor attempt at making the illegals look like victims, when they are in fact just economic migrants, ready to do anything for "Benefit Shopping". The UK has better benefits than France, and thus they are trying to illegally get to the UK to get better benefits.
BBC reporter tries to paint it as poor victims fleeing the war torn suburbs of France or something.
That was a pretty damn good report, BTW, following the exact definition of "unbiased": presenting a very complex issue from both sides. I guess such a thing is not common in America these days.
Complex ? People trying to illegally cross borders by damaging private property is not complex. They are in France, not in some war torn country. Trying to get into the UK illegally through trespassing and vandalism of trucks is not "complex". Explain what complexity there is to the situation of people in Calais France trying to hitch illegally into the UK.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Hahahaha no.
Trump may be dividing America worse than Obama did, but that doesn't mean Obama was guiltless.
"A good thing"? Where in that clip, exactly?!
3:45. "If you are fleeing war, wouldn't you do anything to protect your family".
I recommend a reading comprehension course. Stat.
Sanders would have probably won against Trump, but your Pravda like attacks his movement aided in propping up one of the worst candidates the Democratic party has ever fielded. I can only imagine the damage you would have inflicted on Anita Hill had social media been as big a deal back then.
...or you can pay the $250 out of pocket too. Most are probably in the same boat either way for decent medical care.
One resource that we have gotten tremendous mileage out of is the higher potency forms of DIY natural medicine. An intro version is here, medical and scientific papers direct for the advanced stuff. IRL, I had lots of experimental chemistry and biology too.
I wouldn't be surprised if O finds himself in jail before too long. O really is quite reckless, legally, but has been protected by sponsors, Liberal media and his tan. So far. I hear there's a new sheriff in town that is pushing enforcement; presuming the new guy survives the coup attempts....
You've missed the point. I never said anything about being inaccurate or of making up facts.
Only amateurs show their bias via making things up (although I'll admit there does seem to be more "reporters" being exposed doing that than usual, lately). Most news organizations and reporters demonstrate their bias via what they choose to report, what they choose to include and not include and how they choose to frame the narrative they invent about the facts.
It's possible to be very competent and full of facts and also incredibly biased at the same time.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
My opinion in this article has the same worth as yours. Mr. Internet Poster.
Just like you I am just the normal static going on here.
However I don't get the purpose of the personal attack on me?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I recommend a reading comprehension course. Stat.
I will take that as an apology on your part and wish you a late Merry Christmas.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
You know these poll results are tearing the Donald up on the inside. "The election was rigged", furiously tweets #PresidentTweety. "I could have won the popular vote by campaigning differently! I didn't need no help from Vladimir... I mean Russian dictator Putin."
Actually, the real relationship of the poll results to this topic is how the activities of the paid trolls are proving how accurate REAL president Obama is. Good chance that when he says something it actually might be true.
The poll itself is rubbish. More like a name-recognition context than anything else. One fix would be to pair it with a poll for least admired people and report the net scores. An even better fix would require more work: (1) Stage one poll to get the top candidates, followed by (2) A runoff poll to pick a real winner from a reasonably small slate of candidates.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are wrong that their image is "tainted". That is propaganda, pure and simple. The FBI has 35,000 employees. Your not tainting 35,000 people because a couple of them sent some text messages before an election of how bad Trump was.
I disagree because it was a special investigation with huge ramifications and something like that kind of conflict of interest went on for too long. How many other investigations can be compromised by similar mistakes? That is not the standard for which the FBI should be known for and high profile cases, like this, has lasting effects on their perceived impartiality for political investigations. There is certainly damage to their reputation.
. Obama tried to correctly warn the Americans about the Russian meddling
Again, because of things like the tarmac meeting, the IRS scandal, and campaigning for Trumps opponent it is very hard to take his warning seriously when it looks like pure politics. We had no evidence to base any of the accusations except for innuendo and trust. I am sorry, but nothing Obama did in the end of his presidency lends credence to his warning not being overt political bias. He sure does have a good smile if he was so concerned. I will wait for the investigation to be over but I have no reason to trust Obama at the end of his term nor do I have any reason to trust the innuendo of anonymous sources.
In short a great many republicans were fine with the interference as long as it benefited them.
Both sides are like that.
Ah, you know everything Mueller's found? Who hacked into his systems and told you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Do you realize what the NDAA is? It's the National Defense Authorization Act. It's something that has to be signed every year. The problem here is that Congress can put all sort of crap into a must-pass bill.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm a leftist, and I don't see that dangerously left-leaning media you do. It tends to be well to the right of me.
And where the hell do you get your facts? The current mass media makes an attempt to stay reliable. It isn't great, and it never has been, but it's usually pretty good on getting facts straight. (I can't say the same for interpretations and selection of facts, having been on the other side of mainstream journalism on a few occasions.) It beats the hell out of finding a site that is comfortable for your political views and relying on that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You mean like Newsweek, which recently said Melinda Trump had ordered the destruction of a 200 year old tree, when in the very article of that headline it turned out she was agreeing to do what the horticultural organization taking care of the White House said needed to be done with the tree. She was just agreeing with what they were asking to do...
You mean THAT real media?
Ok then *rolling eyes*.
You get to raise the media about the basement dwellers like Facebook and Twitter when they are actually above, not below them.
Though you are right in one way, that many Trump haters love to spread false stories originating with the "real media" via Facebook/Twitter - so they are complicit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And you're Slashdot's token racist village idiot.
Not distorting "people's understanding of complex issues," but distorting "establishment spin of complex issues."
At any rate, the headline quote is true.
Just as Luke would say, everything you just said is wrong.
She didn't ORDER anything. She just agreed they could cut it down; she didn't tell them to do so.
I'm pretty sure so is every Facebook and Twitter story
And apparently Newsweek and the New York Times...
To place traditional media above even Twitter is at this point ludicrous.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As I recall, he came close to it with Treyvon Martin, by commenting that "he could have been his son", which is a pretty dang sympathetic thing to being saying, as well one with overtly racial overtones. Of course, it later came out that the picture the media was like 5 years out of date, and instead of a small smiling 12 year old, the Treyvon who got shot was a huge nearly-18 year old who--like George Zimmerman--had some known macho tendencies. And it also came out that multiple witnesses saw Treyvon in a dominant position on top of Martin throwing "MMA-style" punches at him and bashing his head into the concrete. It also came out that the 911 call had been edited by journalists to make it seem more like Zimmerman was being racist. Annnnnnd... it came out that Treyvon didn't have a single scratch on him while Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head.
So yeah, I think Obama definitely jumped the gun there, was quick to jump on the "fucking racists shooting black kids" bandwagon. I've a lot more sympathy for the situation with the black professor who was arrested in his own house. I personally think Obama initially made the right call there, coming down initially on the side of the black guy, but he later walked back and invited both the black guy and the cop to the white house for beer and Kumbaya. So, basically by his own admission, Obama acknowledged he jumped the gun in that case as well by preemptively supporting only the black guy (though I happen to disagree with his later walking-back.)
These incidents and more like them were, of course, massively blown out of proportion by the racebaiting right, but in this they were greatly assisted by the racebaiting left who refused to behave sensibly, like abandon the narrative of Treyvon as innocent victim even after the mountains of evidence had come out.
Comment removed based on user account deletion