|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The only coherent ideology Trump seems to have so far is to subsidize the coal industry. And pandering to white supremists, but I don't think that counts as coherent.
|
On November 04 2017 21:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 03 2017 21:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"?
Populism and nationalism?
|
On November 05 2017 01:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 21:45 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"? Populism and nationalism?
If populism and nationalism can be defined as "pissing off the other side" then sure. Trump's actions aren't really one of a true populist. In fact, everything he's done is what a New York elitist from the 1970s would probably do. Which is expected, because that's what he is: an East Coast real estate trust fund baby who is obsessed with how the East and West coast elites perceive him as.
To put it simply, he's no Duterte who seems to walk the talk. Anyone sensible would know that Trump's claims are not remotely coherent because his actions are nearly always the opposite of his talk. The fact that a good number of Americans believe whatever he says, despite everything proving him wrong, doesn't make his populist ideology coherent because I would imagine a coherent ideology would depend on a rhetoric that isn't contradicted by policy and actions.
|
On November 05 2017 01:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 21:45 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"? Populism and nationalism?
which definitions of populism and nationalism are you using?
there are several available; some of which are highly pejorative. but I don't think you're using the pejorative ones.
I'm also not seeing much ideological coherence, more like a bunch of ad-hoc stuff pushed together.
I'm not seeing a thoughtful, rigorous framework which there is an actual attempt to adhere to.
there's a difference between consistent behavior, and of actually having an underlying ideology.
|
Norway28738 Posts
I think he's consistently nationalistic. I disagree with nationalism being a positive (in particular I expect it to yield negative results on a long term basis, not just for 'the world', but also for the US), but I have no problems seeing how Trump is consistent in this regard.
|
For a nationalist, he seems to be obsessed with Putin. He is determined to reduce and weaken the influence of USA. Constantly rails against the independence of judiciary and rule of law. Spends an awful lot of time golfing. That doesn't seem very nationalist to me.
|
The Supreme Court ruled that Police suspects don't have the right to lawyer dogs
http://nypost.com/2017/11/02/court-rules-suspects-request-for-a-lawyer-dog-is-too-ambiguous/
An accused child rapist wasn’t necessarily asking for legal representation when he told cops “just give me a lawyer dog” — because the phrase was too ambiguous, a court has ruled.
“In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel,” wrote Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton following the decision last month.
Warren Demesme is accused of raping a preteen girl and sexually assaulting another underage victim, but wanted his confession of the crime suppressed because it came after invoking his constitutional right to counsel, the Times-Picayune reports.
“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up,” he told police.
But the Louisiana Supreme Court on Oct. 27 ruled 6-1 to deny his claim. In explaining his vote, Crichton said cops don’t have to stop questioning a suspect if the request for an attorney is “ambiguous or equivocal.”
Demesme faces mandatory life in prison if convicted.
|
On November 05 2017 02:26 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that Police suspects don't have the right to lawyer dogs http://nypost.com/2017/11/02/court-rules-suspects-request-for-a-lawyer-dog-is-too-ambiguous/Show nested quote +An accused child rapist wasn’t necessarily asking for legal representation when he told cops “just give me a lawyer dog” — because the phrase was too ambiguous, a court has ruled.
“In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel,” wrote Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton following the decision last month.
Warren Demesme is accused of raping a preteen girl and sexually assaulting another underage victim, but wanted his confession of the crime suppressed because it came after invoking his constitutional right to counsel, the Times-Picayune reports.
“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up,” he told police.
But the Louisiana Supreme Court on Oct. 27 ruled 6-1 to deny his claim. In explaining his vote, Crichton said cops don’t have to stop questioning a suspect if the request for an attorney is “ambiguous or equivocal.”
Demesme faces mandatory life in prison if convicted.
The Louisiana supreme court are fucking idiots if they can't recognize that it's "lawyer, dog".
|
He's not really consistently nationalist in the sense of literally behaving in nationalist fashion all the time, but then again that erraticism is so typical of every nationalist in reality that you could call it consistent again
Depends on what definition you go with I guess
|
Trump is very much akin to a populist oligarch. Devoid of any sense of principle and elected by promising absurd things against a truly terrible and tone-deaf establishment opponent, thrust into an office where he has to balance appealing to the pragmatic establishment core, appeasing his populist base, and lining his pockets. The biggest difference is that since this is the US rather than some East European country, there isn't some foreign benefactor pulling the strings; it's just playing out the way that it will go. Of course, the US system is a fair bit more stable, so life mostly goes on and we just hear about stupid things rather than be directly impacted by every dumb thing Trump does.
|
louisiana has one of the worst justice systems in the country iirc.
|
“If NYT can publish the likes of Vladimir Putin and a Hamas terrorist (without informing their audience of his conviction), then we can entertain opeds from Milo, the value of which you can read for yourself,” Ingersoll told TheWrap in an email. “Also, he’s not reporting for us. There’s a distinct difference between the opinion section here and the news section, like most other media outlets.”
“Nobody uses Putin’s oped to call into question the credibility of Maggie Haberman’s reporting. We expect the same standard from our media colleagues,” he added.
(He's not getting paid, but he is being given a weekly column)
|
On November 05 2017 02:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +“If NYT can publish the likes of Vladimir Putin and a Hamas terrorist (without informing their audience of his conviction), then we can entertain opeds from Milo, the value of which you can read for yourself,” Ingersoll told TheWrap in an email. “Also, he’s not reporting for us. There’s a distinct difference between the opinion section here and the news section, like most other media outlets.”
“Nobody uses Putin’s oped to call into question the credibility of Maggie Haberman’s reporting. We expect the same standard from our media colleagues,” he added. (He's not getting paid, but he is being given a weekly column)
Controversy sells and here is someone seemingly offering it for free.
(not to say anyone should work with Milo but the world is what it is)
|
On November 05 2017 01:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 21:45 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"? Populism and nationalism?
There’s a few flaws in the argument that Trump has put Republicans in a coherent place on policy or anything else.
|
On November 05 2017 02:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think he's consistently nationalistic. I disagree with nationalism being a positive (in particular I expect it to yield negative results on a long term basis, not just for 'the world', but also for the US), but I have no problems seeing how Trump is consistent in this regard.
For a nationalist he sure like to berate his own country's journalists, justice system and intelligence agencies constantly. He has very little respect for institutions to shaped the country. I wouldn't say that's consistent.
Opportunistically nationalistic is more like it. Like the whole stand for the flag nonsense, while he himself talks through a military flag down at dark ceremony during an interview at a base a week later.
|
On November 05 2017 02:26 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote:The Supreme Court ruled that Police suspects don't have the right to lawyer dogs http://nypost.com/2017/11/02/court-rules-suspects-request-for-a-lawyer-dog-is-too-ambiguous/Show nested quote +An accused child rapist wasn’t necessarily asking for legal representation when he told cops “just give me a lawyer dog” — because the phrase was too ambiguous, a court has ruled.
“In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel,” wrote Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton following the decision last month.
Warren Demesme is accused of raping a preteen girl and sexually assaulting another underage victim, but wanted his confession of the crime suppressed because it came after invoking his constitutional right to counsel, the Times-Picayune reports.
“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up,” he told police.
But the Louisiana Supreme Court on Oct. 27 ruled 6-1 to deny his claim. In explaining his vote, Crichton said cops don’t have to stop questioning a suspect if the request for an attorney is “ambiguous or equivocal.”
Demesme faces mandatory life in prison if convicted.
Very stupid decision. Censure or impeach that guy.
|
Amid the distraction of Facebook's blockbuster earnings this week, the company quietly admitted to hosting more phony accounts than previously revealed.
The social network upped its estimate of the portion of fake accounts from 2 to 3 percent and the number of duplicates from 6 to 10 percent, Business Insider first reported.
That means that as many as 270 million of the platform's 2.1-billion-strong user base could be fraudulent or duplicated — a population verging on the size of the United States.
Facebook said the change was due to better tools for tracking illegitimate activity rather than a sudden spike in fishy sign-ups.
Unlike Twitter's anything-goes attitude, Facebook is famously strict about verifying the real-life identity of each of its users. In some cases, it even goes so far as to demand official documentation.
Yet fake accounts have still managed to proliferate on the platform — some because of innocent user mistakes and others created to spread spam or operate as part of shady networks of bots. Duplicate accounts also often represent real activity from the same person using multiple profiles, according to Facebook CFO Dave Whener.
The revelation comes after Congress grilled Facebook and other tech companies this week on their role in spreading Russian-affiliated propaganda during the presidential election. The proceedings focused on the work of a Kremlin-linked "troll farm" called the Internet Research Agency, which used Facebook pages to disseminate tens of thousands of posts to as many as 126 million Americans.
Facebook has previously said that the actors behind pages that spread fake news or misinformation have used fake accounts to juice their interaction numbers and thus game the company's algorithm.
The social network's made a show of purging tens of thousands of fake accounts at a time before various global elections.
Each of these efforts were part of a larger campaign Facebook embarked on after the U.S. presidential election to rid the platform of fake news, misinformation, and hoaxes of any kind.
Source
|
On November 05 2017 02:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 01:39 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 21:45 zlefin wrote:On November 04 2017 14:51 oBlade wrote:On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 It doesn't mean Trump is a philosopher king so it's not rebutted by "look at this instance of derp." It means he's the force that proved the viability of a coherent ideology besides copying the Democratic platform. So the party has political options besides saying "Romney lost so we'll have to go with amnesty" and it means they have to come up with healthcare and can't just spam "repeal and replace" to get elected and then never follow through because they have the White House now, they'll pay a price for inaction. It's basically about accountability, they have to have principles and do things according to them. Trump didn't invent most of the ideas but he's borne them for a while and had the most success. I'm not seeing a coherent ideology at all. what is this alleged "coherent ideology"? Populism and nationalism? There’s a few flaws in the argument that Trump has put Republicans in a coherent place on policy or anything else.
You didn't read what was said, there's an ideological rift in the party that splits about 3 ways but mainly the interesting one is, speaking broadly here, between those who looked at past failures and thought the answer was to become a discount version of the Democrats, and those who have an ideological alternative. Only one of those has a future. Trying to be Democrats will mean you lose every time to actual Democrats. Trump has proven the viability of the latter.
|
Norway28738 Posts
On November 05 2017 03:07 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2017 02:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think he's consistently nationalistic. I disagree with nationalism being a positive (in particular I expect it to yield negative results on a long term basis, not just for 'the world', but also for the US), but I have no problems seeing how Trump is consistent in this regard. For a nationalist he sure like to berate his own country's journalists, justice system and intelligence agencies constantly. He has very little respect for institutions to shaped the country. I wouldn't say that's consistent. Opportunistically nationalistic is more like it. Like the whole stand for the flag nonsense, while he himself talks through a military flag down at dark ceremony during an interview at a base a week later.
Nationalistic doesn't necessarily mean 'thinks his or her own country is the greatest', it's more about always promoting national interests over global ones. There's no conflict between being nationalist and targeting institutions or journalists, especially not when phrased as 'they are hurting our ability to be self-deterministic' or 'working against our agenda in favor of the agenda of globalists'. If there is one area where Trump has actually been consistent, it is attacking 'bad deals' that favor other countries rather than the US, and saying how he is going to make better deals that are more beneficial to the US.
I can't think of a single piece of policy, or even tweet he has made, where he favors a 'globalist' rather than a 'nationalist' agenda. For me, that's part of why I oppose him so strongly.
|
To what are these ideological rift in the party that splits about 3 ways that you speak of? Not critizing you, I am genuinely interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
