Elizabeth Warren Mocks Facebook's Ad Policy By Lying About Mark Zuckerberg (cnn.com) 269
"A fresh series of Facebook ads this week by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren seeks to put the social media giant on the defensive -- by telling a lie," writes CNN.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: The ads, which began running widely on Thursday, start with a bold but obvious falsehood: That Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have endorsed President Trump's reelection campaign.
"You're probably shocked," reads the ad, which has already reached tens of thousands of viewers nationwide. "And you might be thinking, 'how could this possibly be true?' Well, it's not."
The ad's own admission of a lie seeks to draw attention to a controversial Facebook policy Warren has spent days criticizing. Under the policy, Facebook exempts ads by politicians from third-party fact-checking... In a statement Friday responding to Warren's ad, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said the company believes political speech should be protected. "If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech," the Stone said...
Warren has become one of Facebook's key antagonists after first calling for it and other Silicon Valley giants -- such as Amazon, Google and Apple -- to be broken up. But her rift with Facebook deepened after leaked audio published by The Verge revealed Zuckerberg fretting about the potential consequences of a Warren presidency. "If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge," Zuckerberg is heard saying at a companywide meeting. "And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. ... But look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight."
Warren responded via Twitter, "What would really 'suck' is if we don't fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy."
An anonymous reader quotes their report: The ads, which began running widely on Thursday, start with a bold but obvious falsehood: That Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg have endorsed President Trump's reelection campaign.
"You're probably shocked," reads the ad, which has already reached tens of thousands of viewers nationwide. "And you might be thinking, 'how could this possibly be true?' Well, it's not."
The ad's own admission of a lie seeks to draw attention to a controversial Facebook policy Warren has spent days criticizing. Under the policy, Facebook exempts ads by politicians from third-party fact-checking... In a statement Friday responding to Warren's ad, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said the company believes political speech should be protected. "If Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech," the Stone said...
Warren has become one of Facebook's key antagonists after first calling for it and other Silicon Valley giants -- such as Amazon, Google and Apple -- to be broken up. But her rift with Facebook deepened after leaked audio published by The Verge revealed Zuckerberg fretting about the potential consequences of a Warren presidency. "If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge," Zuckerberg is heard saying at a companywide meeting. "And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. ... But look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight."
Warren responded via Twitter, "What would really 'suck' is if we don't fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy."
'The Stone' (Score:2)
Must be The Rock's little brother...
No complaint here (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't care which party it comes from, the more pressure that can be put on those unwiped asses (Zuck and Sandberg), the better.
The further this topic is dragged into the sunlight, the clearer the line between advertising, editorials and news will become. Joe Sixpack (understandably) doesn't appreciate what's going on, we all need a deeper discussion to figure it out.
And as a byproduct it may even shine more light on their anti-privacy practices out too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hol up... Zuckerberg is only a problem if you willingly give him your information so he can sell it. Politicians own you whether you agree to participate in their bullshit or not. It just goes to show how insane things have gotten for people to cheer on a greater evil attacking a smaller evil.
I am going to laugh if Zuckerberg manages to make warren look a fool, considering the fact that Warren is already willing to make herself look on, it should not be too hard if Zuckerberg actually tries.
Both of these
Re: (Score:3)
They're using every path they can for developing dossiers on all 7 billion inhabitants of the planet
There fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure how much pressure this puts on Zuck.
I suspect that he is a closet Trump supporter. So accusing him of being a Trump supporter isn't a big deal to him.
popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
Elizabeth Warren vs Mark Zuckerberg
It'll be interesting watching the Slashdot Patriots try to work this one out. But whatever you think of Senator Warren, this was a pretty clever response to Zuckerberg's unwillingness to address Facebook's use for spreading misinformation. And whatever you think of Mark Zuckerberg, you know damn well Facebook should be broken up.
Re:popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
What would a broken up Facebook look like?
Re:popcorn (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally it would look like a hole where Facebook used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
What would a broken up Facebook look like?
In an ideal world, your "social network page" would work just like your email: you can host your account at any party (or just do it yourself), and an open and standardized protocol ensures all those separate social mini-sites work together.
The broken up Facebook would simply be a collection of hosting companies that take care of storing your particular page. You don't like one? You just move to another...
Re: (Score:2)
In an ideal world, your "social network page" would work just like your email:
Yeah, thank goodness we don't have one or two huge corporations dominating email! /sarcasm
Re: popcorn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like a platform with an open, extensible protocol. Or, like a publisher who takes responsibility for what it publishes. One or the other, but this "neither fish nor fowl" notion that they can be whatever they want to be and violate anyone's privacy whenever it wants and track you everywhere you go even when you're not on Facebook is not what it would look like.
Does that clear things up for you?
never fight someone who buys pixels by the barrel (Score:3)
Facebook can make it hard to find your news. THey have been caught hiding negative stories on themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems you have a whole lot to say about things you don't care about. I think you protest too much, Rooster.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems you have a whole lot to say about things you don't care about. I think you protest too much, Rooster.
He's smart enough to abandon battles when it's obvious he's lost on all levels (can't even get a reaction out of the target) so it looks to me like he's posting just enough... to get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get extra for non sequiturs, or are those pro bono?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On the flip side, any leaks from one of the 5 boxes will be limited in scope. Moreover, they are unlikely to all leak at the same time. It's one of the reasons why the Japanese response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster was to build multiple smaller reactors instead of one large one.
We can debate about Facebook being broken up. But I would any day store putrid excrement in multiple smaller containers, rather than one large container.
Re: popcorn (Score:2)
If China wants to beat us at building a totalitarian monitoring and political influence platform, I say let them.
Gee (Score:2)
revealed Zuckerberg fretting
Gee -- a CEO reflecting on the potential future environment of his company. How revolutionary!
Warren responded
And their opponent responds, also thinking about the future. Why it's like they're trying to have a dialog by speaking AT each other. (Listening? That's just for the little people of no influence.)
But they can't have a real conversation because they're actually representing ideas, AND the issues are too complex to resolve -- resolve?? HA! Try simply iterating them instead -- in a single, or even a thousand
Beta test (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Warren would take that as a win.
Defence (Score:2, Interesting)
Is that really putting Facebook on the defensive? You can argue it's not a perfect policy, but as long as Facebook treats all candidates equally she doesn't have a legitimate objection.
She's just trying to provoke Facebook, and Facebook wins by simply ignoring her. Then all Warren is left with is:
1. Warren has freely and deliberately lied and by admitting it has no possibility of denying that she's lied. We know politicians always lie but they typically don't take pride in it.
2. Warren has explicitly ack
I disagree (Score:3)
She certainly does. If she's not willing to lie and play dirty, that puts her at a disadvantage over those who couldn't care less about lying. I don't vote for candidates who lie, for example.
She's actually gone out of her way to make herself look less honest than Trump.
You gotta be either a potted plant or in a coma to believe this.
I'm a Yang fan, but... (Score:2)
I really like how Warren is hitting her stride right now.
Re: (Score:2)
She's awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
She's been focused the whole time on planning and passing helpful legislation while everyone else is running like chickens with heads cut off.
She's avoided all of the partisan bashing, bullying, and mudslinging. Every time I hear her speak she's taken the high road. Every time she explains herself it's well thought out and considerate.
Every time someone disagrees with her, she wants to hear more and work to take that viewpoint into account. She treats everyone like they're on the same level and nobody is better or worse than anyone else.
I hope she makes it, she's got my vote.
Re: (Score:2)
> She's avoided all of the partisan bashing, bullying,
> and mudslinging.
Except against those of us who make our living working with computers. I soured on Warren immediately when she hopped on that tired old hipper-than-thou "nerds/geeks/dot-commers/techies are the devil and ruining everything" bandwagon. I like my career choice and look forward to continuing in that career for quite a while thank-you-very-much. And if that makes too uncool for Warren, too fucking bad.
That said, in this case she is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice comment, you racist fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you should just claim to be gender special so that you can call them transphobic which apparently trumps being called racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm I wasn't convinced but then you called him a "libtard", so now I'm pretty sure you're arguing from the moral high ground.
Re: (Score:2)
So is it your assertion that Warren was lying about her family story of native heritage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She's not only a liar, she's the kind of liar who would throw her own family under the bus
How would that throw her family under the bus?
in a pathetic attempt to deflect the blame for her lies.
So what's the evidence that she's lying?
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people (or at I) could certainly put that down to just being told she was by family members and believing it, since a lot of people from Oklahoma do in fact have some Native American ancestry, and who would have re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not an assertion. It is a documented fact that she did lie about her Native American heritage. There is a reason I call the big three democratic candidates liar, groopy, and loon. If you have any doubts about who Warren is of the three, she would be the liar.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not an assertion. It is a documented fact that she did lie about her Native American heritage.
[citation needed]
And remember, having a family story turn out to be incorrect doesn't count as lying. It's only lying if you know it to be false. You need to show compelling evidence that she knew that going in in order for it to be a lie.
There is a reason I call the big three democratic candidates liar, groopy, and loon.
Because you are the latter?
Re: (Score:3)
Because you are the latter?
Why don't you grow the fuck up, and stop being a child.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you give Trump the same benefit of the doubt?
I would, absent any evidence to the contrary. Problem with that is, there's always been such evidence. Trump has lied about basically everything since time was time. He's a serial fraudster.
Re: (Score:3)
You're clearly setting a time-wasting trap for me here.
That is what I thought. Next time make a claim, make sure you can prove it. We are done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And the tests she took - and her later apologies - confirm as much. She's not an ethnic Native American, she's not part of any tribe, she does not qualify in any way, shape, or form as an ethnically Native American (her DNA results being about 0.1% the same as peoples from Central and South America). Before you go and mark on forms for employment that you're a specific ethnicity, wouldn't it be prudent to actually figure that part out?
Of course, now it's coming out about her whole "I was fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm talking about the "Liewatha" thing. Some people are desperate for this election to be about things that don't matter.
I don't think this qualifies as "untrue". (Score:5, Interesting)
While it opened with a false statement, even before the end of the ad, you were aware that it was deliberately contrived to be so, in order to highlight problems with the Facebook not censoring untrue statements.
So the message of the ad, in its entirety, is not really untrue at all. It is an acknowledgement of truth (that facebook's policy is such that it does not censor political speech, regardless of its veracity), and an illustration through the use of what amounts to a hypothetical example to try and show how that might otherwise pose a problem (their example is made hypothetical by explicitly stating before the end of the ad that the statement in question was not true). By deflating its own case to that of just a hypothetical example, I believe that it fails to drive home its own point.
'[R]esponsibility to protect our democracy' (Score:2)
Warren makes an especially good point here. The "press" as it used to be called, holds a privileged position because it played an especially vital role as the court of public opinion. It was in the pages of early newspapers that politics were argued. Freedom of the press, the old saying goes, belonged to the guy who owned one--a printing press. That printing press has been replaced by social media.
The lame-ass, complacent fucks who run the journalism business (I feel qualified to say this because I worked f
LOL I was hoping someone would do this (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a little disappointed that it isn't more inflammatory though. Maybe something like "Trump and Zuckerberg caught in threesome with a sheep, click here to learn more!"
Is it really lying if you inform everyone? (Score:2)
Seems like fucking with people, but is it really lying if they tell you outright that it's a device? Seems more like it's trolling to inform. It's still deceptive, but on the political scale, not particularly.
Thank goodness (Score:2)
Someone finally has the courage to stand up and mock Facebook! /sarcasm
I do agree with her on this point, but this really does fall under the category of easly low-hanging fruit. Everyone already hates on Facebook; yet most people keep right on using it.
Lizzie's plans don't pass truth/smell tests either (Score:2)
Protect? (Score:2)
This line: "fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy"
Does this woman believe that Facebook is another branch of the armed forces like the Marines and the Air Force? Or does she honestly think that this corporation can 'vote' in a ballot box?
It is a corporation. It exists to make money. It makes that money by giving people a steaming cesspool of stupidity where everybody thinks their stupidass idea and thought matters. It doesn't get much more democratic than that. Everybody is equal. Her big
Re: (Score:3)
This line: "fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy"
Does this woman believe that Facebook is another branch of the armed forces like the Marines and the Air Force? Or does she honestly think that this corporation can 'vote' in a ballot box?
It is every citizen's responsibility to protect our democracy, whether they work for facebook or not. If you don't help to protect it, you don't deserve it. And our military hasn't fought to protect democracy since WWII. The only thing that makes Facebook possible in the first place is our government. Without it there would be no internet, and no first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to visit the middle east and see how they feel about your freedom there. Dress yourself up in a flag and see how many other people are going to defend your right to be an idiot.
Al Gore did not create the internet. Without reasonable PEOPLE there would be no first amendment. Those same reasonable PEOPLE that gave you the first amendment, also gave you the second expressly to make sure the government wasn't giving and taking everything from you.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to visit the middle east and see how they feel about your freedom there.
I don't go there specifically because they don't feel about it the way I feel about it.
Al Gore did not create the internet.
Read this and weep [umich.edu].
Without reasonable PEOPLE there would be no first amendment.
Without someone protecting your "rights", they aren't rights at all. They're ideals, and meaningless ones at that.
Those same reasonable PEOPLE that gave you the first amendment, also gave you the second expressly to make sure the government wasn't giving and taking everything from you.
Um, yeah. Which puts the onus on you and me to defend democracy. Thanks for supporting my point, I guess, even if you veered way off course.
Re: (Score:2)
I support your idea 9000% on the people defending democracy. I agree that blood pays for those rights. Honestly only frustrated by the assertion that the military doesn't fight to protect it, and that Al Gore is anything but a politician. He schmoozed....a lot....that doesn't make him an engineer or a visionary. Lets just say he was involved...like the public affairs department is involved. They create nothing. They just talk about it a lot...sometimes incorrectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly only frustrated by the assertion that the military doesn't fight to protect it,
I find it frustrating, too, but they fight for corporate profits. Service members may well believe that they fight for freedom, but they are wrong.
and that Al Gore is anything but a politician. He schmoozed....a lot....that doesn't make him an engineer or a visionary. Lets just say he was involved...like the public affairs department is involved. They create nothing. They just talk about it a lot...sometimes incorrectly.
The people who created the ARPAnet tell us that Al Gore was instrumental in making it the Internet. I'm going to respect that.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked her idea of making federal student loans interest free. Uncle Sam doesn't have a problem giving these loans to mega banks. She fell for Trump's mud slinging and made herself look dumb by claiming to be part native american. She's a whopping 1/512th native.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I liked her idea of making federal student loans interest free
It's a stupid idea. The core problem of the student loans is that the tuition is too high. Making the loans cheaper means more supply of money, encouraging further rise of tuition.
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Interesting)
Making the loans cheaper means more supply of money, encouraging further rise of tuition.
1) Zero interest loans to college students are still better from a societal standpoint than institutionalizing debt slavery.
2) The rise in tuition is the same problem as using QE to stoke the economy; the government is interceding in the markets by stealing from taxpayers to fund their interventions. If they crack down on the subsidization of diploma mills (by regulating loan and academic standards), there would be less loaning/thieving via for profit colleges, and the tuition rise would be capped by the limited slots. Just don't guarantee everyone gets a loan.
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
People like to point to countries that do heavily subsidize college education or make it "free" for everyone, but what they fail to recognize is that those countries often have strict limitations about who can attend. Look at a country like Germany which is the economic powerhouse of Europe. Only about a quarter of the population has equivalent of 4 year degree education attainment. They do just fine without people getting college degrees. I'll leave it to the German people to decide if it's fair for 75% of the population to subsidize the education of the other 25%, but people who act like it's a system where everyone goes to college are lying to others or more likely themselves since they never researched it to any large degree.
Further, the current system leaves it up to students to choose what they want to study. If we're going to make it free, there are going to be limitations imposed on what people are allowed to study. Even excluding the "X studies" degrees that are basically jokes, there are a large number of majors where people will receive a degree that doesn't really benefit them. I'm not going to say that a history degree has no value or anything like that, but for the number of people who receive them, it will not benefit many, at least for the cost of the degree.
I think there's also a question of the necessity of some college or at least the way it's been traditionally taught for some courses. The 100-level courses in a big lecture hall are all but obsolete with the internet and the ability to inexpensively disseminate that information. I'm not claiming that these courses aren't valuable, merely that there's no reason for them to cost thousands of dollars in tuition when it's just a person repeating the same lecture material year after year.
Re: (Score:2)
This, exactly. I get tired of the liberals' comparisons to 'other developed nations' (however that is selected) on an array of issues. While, in fact, 'other developed nations' have major restrictions that are quietly omitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you clearly have an axe to grind, but:
First, it obviously is a sign of education. Don't even try to say on the one hand that there are differences between the genders and then on the other that studying these differences isn't a valid academic field. Honestly, if you can't figure out why gender studies is a sign of education, I would recommend that you improve your education. Doesn't matter whether you mentally associate the field with people being weird on youtube. It used to be that "underwater basket weaving" was the example of a garbage education, that's the one that you should go with.
Second, that's not a common degree. That's just a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just zero interest student loans? Why not zero interest mortgages? Car loans? Consumer loans? Why not force ALL loans to be zero interest, if you're worried about "debt slavery"?
Because the most important resource a country can possibly have - long term - is an educated population. Oil wells run out. Gold mines are finite. Shores can be fished out. But people who can do and who can invent and who can create will always be in demand.
Education and health are in a completely different category of importance than "stuff" loans... even housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero interest loans to college students are still better from a societal standpoint than institutionalizing debt slavery.
False dichotomy. Cap the price at the cost. (But first, let's do something about the administrators' salaries, they are detracting from education because they make as much as 2-3 educators... or more.)
Re: (Score:2)
And I that associated geeks with intelligence, not I-got-mine short-sighted whiners that wouldn't recognize a clue if it had a 10' high sign with blinking LEDs saying "I'm a fucking clue!" on it.
Re: The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
Interest-free student loans sounds good *on paper*, but are a pretty terrible idea in practice.
College tuition costs are a supply-and-demand situation. If the loans become cheaper to service then more people will want them, and they'll still be competing for the same number of college places. So, the colleges will just jack up their tuition fees until the *effective* cost is the same as you had before with the interest factored in, except now MORE money is coming from the government and MORE money is going to the colleges, and LESS money is going back to the government. The students meanwhile won't actually see *effectively* cheaper tuition.
Re: (Score:3)
as an example see the UK.
Tony Blair decided to make student fees £3000 a year, and made funding them via student loans. Today sudent fees are £9000 a year, and a lot of student debt is simply written off after decades because the students cannot afford to repay them, even with low interest rates.
I'm sure its all a big scam designed to take money from taxpayers and give it to university executives without anyone noticing.
Also, the idea of making student fees free by giving grants was
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, the idea of making student fees free by giving grants was a major policy by the lib dems"
And they had a point: the people who enjoyed a free education from university grants (while the country was in an economic slump, I might add) went into politics and denied the next generation the same advantages they had (while the country was *not* in an economic slump, I might add), and trumpeted what a great idea it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They did the same in just about every other field too. Fuckers
Re: (Score:2)
The money doesn't go to university executives. It goes to the student loans company.
I liked a lot of what Blair did, and I have a smart friend who's a senior policy wonk who swears blind that the move to student loans enabled a massive expansion of the % of the population getting tertiary education and improved access for poorer would-be students rather than damaging it, but I cannot for the life of me see how it was better value than just financing a big expansion of the previous grant schemes.
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, if you want to see college costs being reigned in, then make the colleges themselves partially liable for the debts they make students incur. Then you'll see colleges becoming much more responsible and caring much more for the fate of their students.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, if you want to see college costs being reigned in,
Your college failed you, assuming you attended one.
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you have to get behind this President and help him bring manufacturing back to the USA
Then why doesn't the con artist bring the manufacturing of his name brand clothes to this country instead of having them made in China?
Oh, you meant hard manufacturing such as production of equipment. Well sure, we could do that, and the cost of these products would be four times higher than they are now because the labor costs would be significantly higher. I'm sure you wouldn't mind paying four times as much as you do now for the same product.
Hmmm, maybe that is why the con artist hasn't brought the manufacturing of his name brand clothes to this country and instead relies on the cheap labor in China. I guess leading by example is too difficult for our Liar-in-Chief.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Insightful)
Like any other businessman . . and wanted to buy American stuff, just couldn't.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. He doesn't even hire Americans at his failing golf clubs. He has literally said he doesn't hire Americans because they want full-time jobs. However, rather than use local hiring agencies who have thousands of people looking for jobs [newsweek.com], he hires foreign workers using H-2B visas.
Not only that, we know how much he hates illegals stealing all those jobs from Americans. It's why he and his corrupt family hire illegals at another of their failing golf courses [shareblue.com].
Oh, and guess what. His latest misadventure, his failing winery in Virginia, is also using illegal workers [slashdot.org].
So cut the crap about him wanting to hire American or buy American. He's a liar, plain and simple. His excuse that he couldn't find drywall or glass panels domestically is utter bullshit. Corning based in New York makes those glass panels and National Gypsum makes the drywall. All he does is find excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
The interest rate was not what caused the student loan problem. The issue was poor education at high cost institutions and the fact that many recruiters said "just sign here and worry about it in 5 years".
Get the institutions providing that education to put some skin in the game and the money spent for the education will become more efficient. Come up with a 5 year metric gauging cost of that institution's education vs the mean salary of graduates 5 years after leaving, perhaps with other components and a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The smartest presidential candidate in a while (Score:5, Informative)
"anything the government touches does nothing but increase in cost."
This _sounds_ good, but where's your evidence? Universal health care costs less [jhsph.edu] and has better outcomes [healthsystemtracker.org] than the U.S. system, state universities are more efficient than private [usnews.com], municipal utilities charge less than investor-owned utilities [utilitydive.com], and public roads are more economically efficient than toll roads [governing.com].
Check your assumptions.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some people on the right are losing their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
She's the worst kind of enemy -- an apostate. She was originally a laissez-faire conservative fairly far out on the right wing of the Republican Party. Her academic research used neoclassical economics to examine the response of individuals and business to the law, and advocated deregulation to achieve economic efficiency.
Warren was an advocate of using empirical methods to study the effects of regulation, and she began her research into consumer bankruptcies with the assumption that people were gaming th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Democrat (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are republicans so quick to call out these 'lies' and give a pass to the great liar himself?
In the past we used the tendency of telling falsehoods by a politician in order to assess whether what is coming out of their mouth now is any measure of what they really plan to do. With today's administration, what is said today has no bearing on what will happen tomorrow...the great liar will fabricate whatever he wants to justify action.
I give Warren a pass on the pregnant thing. I can easily see her being shown the door in 1971 and the administrators doing a little CYA with the "oh darn are you sure you want to resign?", and then recording that in some meeting notes.
Regarding the Native American issue, I believe she grew up with people around her telling her repeatedly she had Native American ancestry and there was no reason not to believe it. Most people would never question those stories from parents, grand parents, and other relatives. As far as I can tell she never thought she was lying...she thought it was true!
No politician will be squeaky clean, and America certainly has shown they can tolerate a dirty president. I would rather listen to what she has to say now and hope that she will implement what I hear. With the great liar anything said now will be gone with the wind tomorrow.
Re: Democrat (Score:2)
If you don't think you're lying, you're not lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Democrat (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all Democrats lie, but she has a LONG history of lying.
And yet, you have no problem defending the Liar-in-Chief who literally lies multiple times per day, sometimes within minutes of each other or even contradicting himself within minutes.
When your game is over you can look up the 10,000+ lies he's told so far and compare those against Warren's.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Democrats lie, but she has a LONG history of lying.
And yet, you have no problem defending the Liar-in-Chief who literally lies multiple times per day, sometimes within minutes of each other or even contradicting himself within minutes.
When your game is over you can look up the 10,000+ lies he's told so far and compare those against Warren's.
Why does it matter? If a person is of such poor moral character that they need to lie like that, why put either of them in office? It’s not like this is an either-or sort of thing. Even in America....
Re: (Score:2)
Said the person that has lived inside of one of the greatest "corrupt systems" in the US? I think AOC is a blistering fucking moron, but damn does she not have some good points to make when pointing out some of the corruption going on up there?
So you think a moron is someone who makes good points? I do not think that word means what you think it means.