Red Mosquito

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics ... index.html

The national security guy can't differentiate between real news and fake news.

McParadigm wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html

1. Create false narrative
2. Share
3. Fool 350,000 people
4. People vote

can't this fucking kid admit he was just dumb? "“Anytime you see me in the future going out there where I think there’s going to be a big audience, I can assure you I’m going to try my best to be balanced with the facts and be very clear about what is opinion and what is not,” Mr. Tucker said."

This wasn't about being balanced with facts. It literally had nothing to do with the elction, trump, protesters, or anything. This kid still can't wrap his fucking head around it. It would be like me going out and taking a picture of a UPS truck and stating that holy shit aliens are about to take over the world and this is proof.

Strat wrote:Is it too late for our gov't to make a bare minium of standards for someone running for president? This whole "anybody can be president" thing is kind of dumb.

Well, not Hillary.

So, to summarize, fake news (which trended greater than 90% conservative) was MORE shared on Facebook and at least as shared on Twitter as real news. And while no direct metrics are available yet, you can see evidence of its impact everywhere.

And this is why I do not believe you can attempt even a cursory understanding of Trump voters that translates into a national narrative. "Economic anxiety," "feeling left behind," etc....you cannot quantify the truth of those statements, because these are also people who just read on Breitbart, and believe with all their souls, that Trump single handedly stopped Ford from shipping jobs overseas. That is a FACTUAL part of their narrative. As were paid Democrat protestors, the Pope endorsing Trump, and mysterious FBI agent suicides. With all that distortion in there, there's no way for you to realistically disentangle and determine what or if real circumstances drew them to vote.

In the end, your interpretation will be as clouded and assumptive as their worldview has become.

McParadigm wrote:So, to summarize, fake news (which trended greater than 90% conservative) was MORE shared on Facebook and at least as shared on Twitter as real news. And while no direct metrics are available yet, you can see evidence of its impact everywhere.

And this is why I do not believe you can attempt even a cursory understanding of Trump voters that translates into a national narrative. "Economic anxiety," "feeling left behind," etc....you cannot quantify the truth of those statements, because these are also people who just read on Breitbart, and believe with all their souls, that Trump single handedly stopped Ford from shipping jobs overseas. That is a FACTUAL part of their narrative. As were paid Democrat protestors, the Pope endorsing Trump, and mysterious FBI agent suicides. With all that distortion in there, there's no way for you to realistically disentangle and determine what or if real circumstances drew them to vote.

In the end, your interpretation will be as clouded and assumptive as their worldview has become.

My interpretation and worldview is increasingly becoming far more concerned with my immediate surroundings, and maintaining a sphere of influence that is about 150K mi² (the size of MT).

This is just wow

My assumption is that this is going to happen more and more, and the question will be less whether there is a conflict of interest and more whether that is something the public even cares about anymore.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:So, to summarize, fake news (which trended greater than 90% conservative) was MORE shared on Facebook and at least as shared on Twitter as real news. And while no direct metrics are available yet, you can see evidence of its impact everywhere.

And this is why I do not believe you can attempt even a cursory understanding of Trump voters that translates into a national narrative. "Economic anxiety," "feeling left behind," etc....you cannot quantify the truth of those statements, because these are also people who just read on Breitbart, and believe with all their souls, that Trump single handedly stopped Ford from shipping jobs overseas. That is a FACTUAL part of their narrative. As were paid Democrat protestors, the Pope endorsing Trump, and mysterious FBI agent suicides. With all that distortion in there, there's no way for you to realistically disentangle and determine what or if real circumstances drew them to vote.

In the end, your interpretation will be as clouded and assumptive as their worldview has become.

My interpretation and worldview is increasingly becoming far more concerned with my immediate surroundings, and maintaining a sphere of influence that is about 150K mi² (the size of MT).

Colstrip cleanup for the win.

digster wrote:

pepperwhiteMFC wrote:I have a feeling that while Trump is making deals, Pence will be the one working with Congress to pass bills. And we may just see Trump lose his shit on Pence at some point for not being an inactive VP, because I think Trump secretly wants to be loved by liberals. Our women are much more loose...

I really don't think Trump will stay quiet long if the dominating narrative of his administration comes to be that Pence runs the show while Trump the buffoon is wheeled out for the ribbon-cuttings. I think he would be fine with that set up, but not if that is how he is viewed by the world. I remember the day after the vice presidential debate everyone was speaking about Pence's skills, and how he had done so well by differentiating himself from Trump; basically, pumping up Pence by insulting Trump in the process.

And Trump couldn't take it. In every speech that day, he talked about how much credit he was getting because he picked Pence, sources revealed that he was pissed that Pence did so well. The guy is an egomaniac; he will go crazy if he's perceived as an empty shell on the throne.

digster wrote:

My assumption is that this is going to happen more and more, and the question will be less whether there is a conflict of interest and more whether that is something the public even cares about anymore.

It'll be more of the same.

1. Fake news stories refute or distract.
2. Trump supporters don't believe facts.
3. Media misinterprets it with "do Americans care about this anymore?"
4. After months of being told they don't care about this anymore, Americans will have deep discussions about maybe we don't care about this anymore.
5. McParadigm hates America.

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:So, to summarize, fake news (which trended greater than 90% conservative) was MORE shared on Facebook and at least as shared on Twitter as real news. And while no direct metrics are available yet, you can see evidence of its impact everywhere.

And this is why I do not believe you can attempt even a cursory understanding of Trump voters that translates into a national narrative. "Economic anxiety," "feeling left behind," etc....you cannot quantify the truth of those statements, because these are also people who just read on Breitbart, and believe with all their souls, that Trump single handedly stopped Ford from shipping jobs overseas. That is a FACTUAL part of their narrative. As were paid Democrat protestors, the Pope endorsing Trump, and mysterious FBI agent suicides. With all that distortion in there, there's no way for you to realistically disentangle and determine what or if real circumstances drew them to vote.

In the end, your interpretation will be as clouded and assumptive as their worldview has become.

My interpretation and worldview is increasingly becoming far more concerned with my immediate surroundings, and maintaining a sphere of influence that is about 150K mi² (the size of MT).

Colstrip cleanup for the win.

Just reading about this now, sounds like it might be too late for any immediate impacts. From one article:

It’s likely the [groundwater] will be clean enough for livestock to drink before 2065.

Better nate than lever.

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

My assumption is that this is going to happen more and more, and the question will be less whether there is a conflict of interest and more whether that is something the public even cares about anymore.

It'll be more of the same.

1. Fake news stories refute or distract.
2. Trump supporters don't believe facts.
3. Media misinterprets it with "do Americans care about this anymore?"
4. After months of being told they don't care about this anymore, Americans will have deep discussions about maybe we don't care about this anymore.
5. McParadigm hates America.

Not suggesting this stuff isn't important, but isn't it business as usual (on both sides of the party line)? The more common scenario is to engage in war/invade a country, then rebuild the country using US industries (Halliburton, Louis Berger, etc).

No, I'm not sure I'd say it's business as usual. The incoming U.S. president suggested that the president of another country smooth over business difficulties that will help enrich the company headed by the U.S. president and supervised by his children. He did this during a congratulatory phone call about winning the election. I would guess it's fairly unprecedented. The Argentine president's office is saying it didn't happen.

digster wrote:No, I'm not sure I'd say it's business as usual. The incoming U.S. president suggested that the president of another country smooth over business difficulties that will help enrich the company headed by the U.S. president and supervised by his children. He did this during a congratulatory phone call about winning the election. I would guess it's fairly unprecedented. The Argentine president's office is saying it didn't happen.

LOCK HIM UP LOCK HIM UP!

digster wrote:No, I'm not sure I'd say it's business as usual. The incoming U.S. president suggested that the president of another country smooth over business difficulties that will help enrich the company headed by the U.S. president and supervised by his children. He did this during a congratulatory phone call about winning the election. I would guess it's fairly unprecedented. The Argentine president's office is saying it didn't happen.

While the execution may be different, it's still a guy in the oval office profiting from his position.

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

My assumption is that this is going to happen more and more, and the question will be less whether there is a conflict of interest and more whether that is something the public even cares about anymore.

It'll be more of the same.

1. Fake news stories refute or distract.
2. Trump supporters don't believe facts.
3. Media misinterprets it with "do Americans care about this anymore?"
4. After months of being told they don't care about this anymore, Americans will have deep discussions about maybe we don't care about this anymore.
5. McParadigm hates America.

Not suggesting this stuff isn't important, but isn't it business as usual (on both sides of the party line)? The more common scenario is to engage in war/invade a country, then rebuild the country using US industries (Halliburton, Louis Berger, etc).

Even if "Dick Cheney did it" was a good precedent (and it was a big controversy about a nearly unprecedented conflict of interest then too, so it's really not), Cheney was not on the phone with other nations who had reached out to him as an elected official, requesting state favors for Halliburton.

Nor was Dick Cheney the head of Hailburton, nor was Dick Cheney's kid pledging to run Hailburton while Dick Cheney was in the White House. Some of this kind of thing was inevitable with Trump as the president.

He's sure cleaning up that corrupt gov't!

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

My assumption is that this is going to happen more and more, and the question will be less whether there is a conflict of interest and more whether that is something the public even cares about anymore.

It'll be more of the same.

1. Fake news stories refute or distract.
2. Trump supporters don't believe facts.
3. Media misinterprets it with "do Americans care about this anymore?"
4. After months of being told they don't care about this anymore, Americans will have deep discussions about maybe we don't care about this anymore.
5. McParadigm hates America.

Not suggesting this stuff isn't important, but isn't it business as usual (on both sides of the party line)? The more common scenario is to engage in war/invade a country, then rebuild the country using US industries (Halliburton, Louis Berger, etc).

Even if "Dick Cheney did it" was a good precedent (and it was a big controversy about a nearly unprecedented conflict of interest then too, so it's really not), Cheney was not on the phone with other nations who had reached out to him as an elected official, requesting state favors for Halliburton.

The practice goes way beyond Cheney/Halliburton (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine for more). And I'm sure that those sorts of phone calls happened all the time, with Cheney telling the transitional gov't of Afghanistan "it'll be great, we'll bring in our best guys to fix your roads and install modern utilities." My wife actually interview for Louis Berger some years back, it was gross and scary stuff.