Obama Warns Against Irresponsible Social Media Use (bbc.com) 360
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.
Said... (Score:3, Insightful)
...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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In your head, maybe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I got to keep my doctor. But now instead of a $25 copay for my kid's strep throat, it's $250 out of pocket towards my $12,000 deductible.
Affordable Care, but for who I have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you did. You should thank the rest of us for paying for the rest of your medical bills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you weren't. The ACA was a mistake, "you can keep your doctor" was the like that allowed the mistake to be passed in the dead of the night. Obama knew when that turd was passed that you wouldn't be allowed to keep your doctor, unless you paid out the ass for it.
The red line was a bluff and when it got called Obama folded like a house of cards.
The ACA deboggle, his doubling the national debit, and his horrible foreign policy are just 3 of the reasons Obama will eventually be labeled as one of the
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bite. What did Obama do that was seriously illegal?
If you're talking about Trump persecuting Obama, that's an exceedingly dangerous road to go down, especially for Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Said... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Said... (Score:5, Informative)
This is entirely accurate. Obama didn't create division himself, he didn't do identity politics either. That was all other people using him to create rage.
Re:Said... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama would quickly take the side of a black person on any white vs black incident, way before any facts came out. He sure as hell created division.
[citation needed]
No, children, I am not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"The police acted stupidly." -- BHO
Followed by a "beer summit" to try to play it off.
Re:No, children, I am not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
"The police acted stupidly." -- BHO
They did act stupidly, and what's more, they acted like racist fuckbags. And we need to be calling them out on it, and they know they are in the wrong! Here, let me provide as evidence an article on the subject from Faux News [foxnews.com]. Why would I want to do such a thing? Because amongst their long list of repudiations from police (as if they were in any way relevant) there are absolutely zero counterarguments against Obama's statement which do not boil down rapidly to "we don't like to say bad things about police, and we don't like it when you say bad things about police, because we are police." Obama did make his statement with the "benefit of the facts", one of which is that black people are unfairly profiled and targeted for harassment because of the color of their skin [theroot.com].
Followed by a "beer summit" to try to play it off.
I googled beer summit and I discovered [wikipedia.org] the following:
IOW, an independent panel found that Gates acted inappropriately. "Do as you're told and you won't get shot" is a message for hostages, not citizens. Which do you consider yourself?
EDIT: s/Gates/Crowley/ ... all egg on face (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"The police acted stupidly." -- BHO
Followed by a "beer summit" to try to play it off.
Let's see, a man [wikipedia.org] in his own house, the police come out, the man in his own house provided ID as requested, then requests the police officer provide his own ID, then the police end up arresting the man, finally letting him go after four hours, then dropping the charges.
That's pretty much qualifying as acting stupidly to me. All the police officer had to do was give his own ID, then leave, and there would not have been any lingering controversy or significant upset.
Of course, Obama's actual words were:
"I don
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The ASU professor? Who cares? She was walking on a street with no traffic. Why did the cop have to make it his business, even if she "looked like a tweaker?"
Honestly, I don't subscribe to the view that law-enforcement is always right. Frankly, cops should be subject to constant oversight and censure. If it keeps them from harassing the public, and limits them to actually investigating serious crimes with victims, then GREAT!
There's no reason why someone should be fined for possibly endangering herself,
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. Those cops with the oily fake concern, then the demand for "papers please" for running on a public road.
(Sidewalks are often uneven and not ideal for jogging.)
Good on her for creating a stink -- hope those cops will be less likely to harass and gaslight people in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
She wasn't running in the middle of the road, she was running on the side, lifting her arms to exercise as a lot of joggers do. She probably glanced back, saw a cop following her, then tried to cross the street, and turned around when they got out of the car.
As far as your example, I don't think police should have any obligation to keep adults safe from themselves. Minimal interaction. At most, they should have honked a few times and said "it's safer to run on the sidewalk" through their megaphone before
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/...
Off the top of my head.
I addressed this very issue twenty-three minutes before you left your comment [slashdot.org]. Do you even Slashdot, bro?
Re:No, children, I am not trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Said... (Score:4, Informative)
he had not a single scandal
Fast and Furious. Benghazi was not because of a film. The entire Syrian conflict, fuelled by the CIA and Pentagon. Drone strikes in how many countries across Africa, north Africa, the middle east, and central Asia?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a different between Scandal and Bad Decisions.
As president you often will need to make these no win decisions. And most of these were exaggerated by the GOP just because they were grasping for straws on making him the bad guy.
Re: Said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your guy makes 'bad decisions', the other side has 'scandals'. That is the 'different'.
Re: (Score:2)
Equivalence makes it ok, all of a sudden? Because "they" did it, it's ok if "we" do it too? Is the US Department of State now being given it's guidance from a grade school playground?
Hint: invading sovereign countries because $REASON_NOT_OFFICIALLY_DECLARED_WAR isn't ok. Full stop. It doesn't matter who the fuck is President, what party he belongs to, or what gripe they have up their ass. It doesn't matter if the shitty President before did it. Doing it yourself is wrong, and makes you a shitty Presi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Race relations are at an all time low partly because of Obama's support of false narratives like "hands up" and his disregard to law enforcement by taking sides before all the facts were known. He fostered the environment where white nationalists grew because he turned every criticism against him and his agenda as racist which in turned was used elsewhere in society. Everything is racist because Obama championed that winning tactic.
His polices were controversial. Half the country didn't want Obamacare. Not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? (Score:2)
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 cri
Re: (Score:2)
(don't feed the troll)
As far as US police, the first part of the problem is their "us vs them" mentality. Anyone who uses the word "civilian", as if police were an occupying army, or similar verbiage, should be automatically fired without pension.
Any cop that protects or ignores another cop who harasses the public or commits crimes against them (brutality, etc) should also be fired, lose benefits, and see some jail time in general population.
Then we can start working on the laws. Get rid of most drug poss
Re:Said... (Score:5, Interesting)
I warned my liberal friends back in 2008: Obama isn't some kind of leftist firebrand. He's a center-left moderate who will govern somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon, because basically he's a 60s era Republican "moderate".
Liberals couldn't get over Obama's penchant for drone strikes; Obama never pursued an idealistic foreign policy which was ruled by *values*, although he talked a good game. He used military force freely to maintain the international status quo.
On the environment he was unreliable. Yes, he expanded some protected areas, but he also quietly but aggressively promoted fracking and expanded domestic oil production -- to the point where the US is expected to become a net energy exporter soon. Again foreign policy was a driver; not only did Obama take America to the brink of energy independence, he also greatly curtailed Russian military spending by strangling their energy-based economy; by becoming a gas exporter the US also limited Russia's use of natural gas supply as leverage over Europe. This is why Putin hated Obama and Clinton so much.
And his landmark health care reform? It was originally developed by Republican think tanks for Bob Dole's presidential campaign -- right down to the individual mandate. It not only maintained private health care delivery, it propped up the private insurance industry. It didn't even *have* a public option, which was the party left wing's line in the sand. He basically ignored them.
But while policy-wise Obama pursued stability and continuity, politically he represented change, because of his race. It's kind of the flip side of the "only Nixon can go to China".
Re: (Score:3)
Sloppiness in handling classified information has not, in the cases I was able to find, resulted in prison time. The legal dangers may have been exaggerated to you, because they're not in accord with what I could find.
She was investigated for the email incident. Comey came to the conclusion that, which she had broken some laws, there was nothing worth prosecuting. Comey's also the guy who timed a meaningless leak to hurt Clinton's election chances, so he wasn't being pro-Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
C'mon man. It's puff, puff, pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Pass it to the left!
Re: (Score:2)
Trump comes off sounding and acting like a stupid spoiled child.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Thanks for self identifying as a far right republican. The only people who actually believe this are conspiracy minded loons who get all their news from Fox News or similar. I'm sure you genuinely wish all that were true but fortunately the facts do not actually support you. Obama was politically a moderate and your ideas about "identity politics" say far more about you and your beliefs than about his.
People don't know this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:People don't know this? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we do. We live in an age where the POTUS lashes out via Twitter on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, this isn't even a "social media" or "Internet" problem. Are we doing to somehow enforce diversity and equal time for counter arguments at union halls? Fraternal organizations? Bars?
People tend to congregate with the like-minded; unless one makes an effort to seek both sides of an issue then they will only get the one. Information bubbles and confirmation bias existed before the Internet and will exist after.
Sorry, that's freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...than some sort of idealized utopia of unicorns and rainbows where we all love each other
It's not necessary or even preferable to for us to "all love each other" in order to progress and be civilised. Painting whatever the current system is as imperfect because it's not reaching something both undesirable and unattainable is the best example of a straw man i've ever seen (what a boring world it would be if we all got along perfectly).
Re: (Score:3)
Then by your reasoning (which I generally agree with, btw) Mr Obama should shut the fuck up?
I mean, the internet is the PERFECT example of optimalized strife: anonymity and the lack of geographic proximity means we can be snarky bitches to each other as much as we want, WITHOUT the immediate and likely propensity for actual violence.
It's not a bug, it's a feature. For all those people vaguely uncomfortable with people saying things they don't like on the interwebs, would they really prefer they be said in
That sounds like a shot across the bow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
cat tongues are like sandpaper (Score:4, Insightful)
Low bar to clear (Score:2)
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.
Man, he used "Balkanisation" properly (Score:5, Insightful)
The contrast with the current administration is so depressingly stark...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he used "Balkanisation" properly. However, he would never ever stereotype African Americans or Hispanics the same way...but stereotyping people from the Balkans is OK. Based on one decade of history (the 1990s). Of course people of Balkan origin in the USA are not a recognized identity politics group with activists to scream "discrimination!", so it's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Obama who degraded the dignity and respect of America's foreign services when he declared that Raymond Davis, CIA, Blackwater contractor James Bond wannabe, a diplomat entitled to the highest level of diplomatic immunity after he killed two Pakistani citizens with an illegal gun, thus severely damaging diplomatic relations with that country
I'm no fan of Obama but that was the right thing to do. You can't hand US citizens over to the ISI for acting in US interests. It sends the wrong message. The ISI need to know that the US is the dominant partner in the dysfunctional US Pakistan relationship.
The Syrian stuff was a fiasco though - the US should never have been backing a bunch of Islamist so called moderates against Assad when it was clear if he fell most of the country would end up being run be ISIS/Al Qaeda types. And regardless of what poli
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. If theconservativetreehouse.com says it, it's case closed!
PS: You really should read into how FISA courts work.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they turned down a _single_ warrant application yet?
You should read how FISA actually works.
You will, no doubt, be concerned when Trump has them tap his next opponents staff. But then it will be too late.
Re: (Score:3)
For fucks sake, you do realize you provided a link to the WSJ to prove mainstream media doesn't report shit?
Re: (Score:2)
First, there were the claims which were substantiated by a link to the 'theconservativetreehouse' and it is disregarded. Then it is substantiated with other outlets (blogspot, washingtonpost, etc) verifying the message is true even if you don't like the messenger and your response is: "your using MSM to prove MSM reporting sucks". Okay... Are the claims false?
Your original post about the FBI "daring" to investigate Trump is rather absurd when you consider the facts relevant to why the FBI has damaged their
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... Are the claims false?
Yes, they demonstrably are, and trying to validate them by using fringe hard-right blogs as a source is, to say the least, irresponsible.
This behavior of trying to justify positions by throwing a blanket of ridiculous counterclaims backed with no credible evidence is, sadly, really common nowadays. So yeah, i disregard bullshit that adds zero value to the conversation. That's not how arguments work.
As a quick example though, the current investigation into Trump has nothing to do with the Steele dossier. Zer
Re: (Score:2)
The Steele dossier started the Russian collusion story because the DNC was hacked and they wanted to find a Russian connection. It was the basis for FISA to monitor the Trump campaign during the election. The wife of a member of Muellers investigation worked for Fusion GPS when the dossier was commissioned. Other members of his team wanted "an insurance policy" for a Trump victory in the election.
I don't know how you can claim that the Russian collusion investigation has nothing to do with it when it starte
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because the investgation was triggered by a DNI report [dni.gov] which was subsequently investigated by the FBI and led to a special counsel [justice.gov] being appointed after Trump fired the guy looking into the election which made him president.
See? Real facts are not hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I not post real facts? Care to dispute which fact I posted wasn't real?
You are not disputing what I said. You are shifting to one report from January that doesn't say much of anything. High confidence from agencies that have lied to Americans before. Great, how is that different than listening to a partisan shill and why should I trust them until things are official?
There was other justification to fire Comey from the recommendation of the guy overseeing Mueller. The point is that the FBI has damaged th
Re: (Score:2)
Read my post again. The answer is simple and right there.
Re: (Score:2)
-.- I maintain my position because you haven't addressed anything . The FBI has damaged their reputation and their perceived impartiality.
Re: (Score:2)
WaPo, not WSJ. My bad. Still, the point stands nicely.
The Stupidity Generator. (Score:2)
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 thoug
Social Media Lies (Score:2)
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.
Obama says: (Score:3)
Practice safe text!
"spreading misinformation" (Score:3)
So he's talking about media then, not social media.
Yeah, that is bad traditional media! Bad Media! Stop it.
Yes it resulted in Barack Hussein obama. (Score:2)
The very height of irresponsible.
If you want a view from outside America (Score:3)
...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... [wnd.com]
(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.
Re: (Score:3)
why would black people vote for him so monolithically? What the hell did he DO for them, except psychologically?
It's not just what he did for them psychologically, although you shouldn't discount the importance of that. It's also what he did to their enemies. He shook their feelings of security. We had some years of relative quiet from the racist gallery. Since Trump has been elected, it's worse than before. Underprivileged groups everywhere are suffering for the emboldenment of the Trumpanistas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, I believe I explained my methodology. I did a google and grabbed the top link. That's not a way of finding accurate information, but a way of finding out *popular* references. Many people consider that the most-read list of grievances against Mr. Obama for being "divisive", presumably the people who find Mr. Obama divisive. I've actually never heard of the periodical in question, all I know is that it is popular with a certain set of people, the ones I am attempting to ask for *specifics* on his
The irresponsible use ... (Score:2)
... is on the part of the social media -- not the users of same.
social media my ass!! (Score:2)
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 contr
That's called Chutzpah (Score:2)
Trump may be dividing America worse than Obama did, but that doesn't mean Obama was guiltless.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously calling the BBC "biased"?
Jesus H Christ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 [youtube.com]
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 s
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 fleei
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ it is defined a royal charter and the former head said "BBC is worryingly close to becoming an arm of the Government".
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha no [businessinsider.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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 ne
Re: (Score:2)
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. [wired.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever think that your right leaning views are so far right past being moderate yourself.
Re: In other words (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
A quick look through your posting history tells us your opinion is _worthless_ in this regard.
Re:Good for the goose? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
(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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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, n
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.