So the "big beautiful wall" is a metaphor. He'll keep parts of Obamacare instead of repeal and replace. "Drain the swamp" might mean Romney as Secretary of State and a cabinet full of political insiders.
And now no Special Prosecutor to "Lock Her Up"...
Folks that voted for him might be wondering what's going on with the man who promised them these things. Aren't they disappointed?
I assumed a lot of this, which is what led me to prefer Trump over Cruz or now Pence. Not to say I'm happy in any way that we elected him, but to a small degree, I'm slightly relieved.
I don't think you get it, there are only a few diehard "deplorables" who really give a rat's ass about Trump. This election was all about keeping Clinton out of the White House, you see they already got what they wanted, Trump is damn near irrelevant.
I bet you could've said that last part without it starting with a swing at me.
So the "big beautiful wall" is a metaphor. He'll keep parts of Obamacare instead of repeal and replace. "Drain the swamp" might mean Romney as Secretary of State and a cabinet full of political insiders.
And now no Special Prosecutor to "Lock Her Up"...
Folks that voted for him might be wondering what's going on with the man who promised them these things. Aren't they disappointed?
Â
I don't think you get it, there are only a few diehard "deplorables" who really give a rat's ass about Trump. This election was all about keeping Clinton out of the White House, you see they already got what they wanted, Trump is damn near irrelevant.
So the "big beautiful wall" is a metaphor. He'll keep parts of Obamacare instead of repeal and replace. "Drain the swamp" might mean Romney as Secretary of State and a cabinet full of political insiders.
And now no Special Prosecutor to "Lock Her Up"...
Folks that voted for him might be wondering what's going on with the man who promised them these things. Aren't they disappointed?
The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
That does work, and for the article below, too. I just wanted to provide a one-click option for right here right now.
The thing the gets me is the same people who won't be suspicious of outrageous headlines aren't just gullible: If you send them to Snopes or Wiki, they'll say how corrupted those sites are. If you send them to Politifact or some other site with hard numbers, they'll say (and I quote a friend who had just cited a story saying Trump had won the popular vote), "Well, now I don't know WHAT to believe." It's an active, enthusiastic, hard-fought battle to remain in the dark. I know it cuts both ways, politically. It's just exasperating.
It's really hard to cut through the chaff unless you have the time. These days, everyone has news feeds and their sites which spoon feeds more than they can reasonably digest given the time, especially if you work full time and have a life. How many people have feeds from sites that they disagree with and present opposing views ? I don't do feeds of any kind at any level. I just got a FB account this past summer, but only for use for my business if I ever really get it going. I haven't been to it in over two months.
But with everyone living in their own echo chamber of news feeds, its no wonder that things are the way they are. No one is challenged, just reinforced.
I can say for sure that I am much smarter and wiser than when I first landed here years ago. This place has challenged me and taught me how to dig and verify in order to put up stuff that isn't easily knocked down. And in the process, I've learned how to or try to be right for the right reasons, not just right. I've got friends with similar overall views, but they largely come to these conclusions via misinformation and I have just learned to listen and be glad they are close. But when they go out and try to defend their conclusions, they will cite sources that get knocked down all too easily.
When I search stuff, I try to find the source of all the conjecture and build my own conjecture instead of settling for the first interpretation of the source. But I have a lot of time on my hands and have been trained well just by being here and staying here.
Hey kurster you live near Youngtown, what do you think of Tim Ryan from OH 13th District? He has thrown his hat into the ring for US House minority leader, I'm for Pelosi stepping down and from what I have read Tim Ryan is more in tune with the "working class".
Funny you should ask. I moved about 3 miles, 3 years ago and into another district. Ryan is my Representive. I don't know all that much about him, yet. He does hold Jim Traficant's old seat, whom I really liked. The man was framed, but that's another story for another day. He was on Traficant's staff so that gives him a little cred, but Traficant ran against him after he got out of prison as an independent and lost to him.
I don't know any more about him other than the above. I can tell you about his district. It's blue collar as all get out. Salt of the earth people. With the exception of Akron / Summit County (the irregular shape to the far left on the map that was added to the district when we had to redistrict Ohio due to a loss of population, his district easily went for Trump, yet he won big with over 70% of the vote. He has a very safe seat (as long as he doesn't do something really stupid) which is good for someone running for a leadership position. He is certainly in tune with the working class, especially the disaffected and disenfranchised. Y-town is 50/50 black and white. He cannot help not to bring that mentality to the table. I would love to see him unseat Pelosi as leader. I will admit that I did not vote for him this time around, but will pay closer attention to him now and could vote for him in the future.
FWIW, my dream ticket in 2012 was Ron Paul on the top with Dennis Kucinch as veep. Oh well. Rand Paul was on my original short list this time around. So was Trump.
I live in Streetsboro which is the last square shape to the left jutting upward on the top left of the district.
Here's a fix for reading articles that I found that works, at least for the WSJ, which when linked here usually limits how much of the article you see. With Google. Might work the same from other engines, too.
Search the article title (highlite and right click for search google for) and when going in from google directly, the whole article appears without limits. Might work for WAPO, too.
That does work, and for the article below, too. I just wanted to provide a one-click option for right here right now.
The thing the gets me is the same people who won't be suspicious of outrageous headlines aren't just gullible: If you send them to Snopes or Wiki, they'll say how corrupted those sites are. If you send them to Politifact or some other site with hard numbers, they'll say (and I quote a friend who had just cited a story saying Trump had won the popular vote), "Well, now I don't know WHAT to believe." It's an active, enthusiastic, hard-fought battle to remain in the dark. I know it cuts both ways, politically. It's just exasperating.
Here's a fix for reading articles that I found that works, at least for the WSJ, which when linked here usually limits how much of the article you see. With Google. Might work the same from other engines, too.
Search the article title (highlite and right click for search google for) and when going in from google directly, the whole article appears without limits. Might work for WAPO, too.
It does work for WaPo. You'd think newspapers' paywalls would be a little less porous...
You can also flush your browser's history and cache to get around that limit—at least it works for the Post. You may have to also quit your browser and restart it in order to appear as a fresh visitor to the news site. ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I like how at the end he basically confesses he couldn't stop because he was making too much money. Up to that point, he had a reasonable argument that he just didn't see it working out the way it did and that he thought he was helping. Yeah the $10k/month was helping a lot.
You can't really blame him, can you? He was following the capitalist impulse. Unfortunately that motivation doesn't take into account the negative side-effects of your profit-seeking if those side-effects aren't added to your costs. (Fake news articles as equivalent to carbon dioxide emissions...interesting metaphor...).
What struck me was his take that people are getting stupider. I'd agree with that. Amazingly, that trend is occurring when there's never been more information available to almost everyone for near/free.
Hey kurster you live near Youngtown, what do you think of Tim Ryan from OH 13th District? He has thrown his hat into the ring for US House minority leader, I'm for Pelosi stepping down and from what I have read Tim Ryan is more in tune with the "working class".
Here's a fix for reading articles that I found that works, at least for the WSJ, which when linked here usually limits how much of the article you see. With Google. Might work the same from other engines, too.
Search the article title (highlite and right click for search google for) and when going in from google directly, the whole article appears without limits. Might work for WAPO, too.
I like how at the end he basically confesses he couldn't stop because he was making too much money. Up to that point, he had a reasonable argument that he just didn't see it working out the way it did and that he thought he was helping. Yeah the $10k/month was helping a lot.
You’ve been writing fake news for a while now — you’re kind of like the OG Facebook news hoaxer. Well, I’d call it hoaxing or fake news. You’d call it parody or satire. How is that scene different now than it was three or five years ago? Why did something like your story about Obama invalidating the election results (almost 250,000 Facebook shares, as of this writing) go so viral?
Honestly, people are definitely dumber. They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected. He just said whatever he wanted, and people believed everything, and when the things he said turned out not to be true, people didn’t care because they’d already accepted it. It’s real scary. I’ve never seen anything like it.
You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?
My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.
That does work, and for the article below, too. I just wanted to provide a one-click option for right here right now.
