Politics-What's on your mind?

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Barrett seems sneaky as all hell. Her voice is shrilling , untrustworthy. Barrett gets a look in her eye's that says crazy ~ Houston we have a problem. ~

Houston says "YOU SURE DO!! WE ARE HERE TO HELP, THOUGH!!!"

Houston/Harris County had double the number of early voters today as we had on the first day of voting in 2016. AND THOSE ARE MAJORITY DEMOCRAT!

The Tea Party live in the sticks and don't vote with us!

[Orema]

On Facebook, Misinformation Is More Popular Now Than in 2016
By Davey Alba


People are engaging more on Facebook today with news outlets that routinely publish misinformation than they did before the 2016 election. Credit...Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

During the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media platforms to spread disinformation to divide the American electorate. Since then, the social media companies have spent billions of dollars and hired tens of thousands of people to help clean up their act.

But have the platforms really become more sophisticated at handling misinformation?

Not necessarily.

People are engaging more on Facebook today with news outlets that routinely publish misinformation than they did before the 2016 election, according to new research from the German Marshall Fund Digital, the digital arm of the public policy think tank. The organization, which has a data partnership with the start-up NewsGuard and the social media analytics firm NewsWhip, published its findings on Monday.

In total, Facebook likes, comments and shares of articles from news outlets that regularly publish falsehoods and misleading content roughly tripled from the third quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2020, the group found.

About two thirds of those likes and comments were of articles published by 10 outlets, which the researchers categorized as “false content producers” or “manipulators.” Those news outlets included Palmer Report and The Federalist, according to the research.

The group used ratings from NewsGuard, which ranks news sites based on how they uphold nine journalistic principles, to sort them into “false content producers,” which repeatedly publish provably false content; and “manipulators,” which regularly present unsubstantiated claims or that distort information to make an argument.

“We have these sites that masquerade as news outlets online. They’re allowed to,” said Karen Kornbluh, director of GMF Digital. “It’s infecting our discourse and it’s affecting the long-term health of the democracy.”

Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, said that analyzing likes, shares and comments to draw conclusions was “misleading” because the data does not capture what most people see on Facebook. The social network does not make other data, such as the reach of posts, publicly available; engagement data is the only information it provides.

Ms. Kornbluh said Facebook users engaged more with articles from all news outlets this year because the coronavirus pandemic forced people to quarantine indoors. But the growth rate of likes, shares and comments of content from manipulators and false content producers exceeded the interactions that people had with what the researchers called “legitimate journalistic outlets,” such as Reuters, Associated Press and Bloomberg.

Ms. Kornbluh said social media firms face a conundrum because their businesses rely on viral content to bring in users, who they can then show ads to. Tamping down on misinformation “just runs against their economic incentives,” she said.

Davey Alba is a technology reporter covering disinformation. In 2019, she won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting and a Mirror Award for best story on journalism in peril.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/t...gtype=Homepage

[Orema]

One of things I like seeing two weeks before the election are the “big guns” who come out front and center to campaign for the party’s elected person. This year for the dems it would normally be the Obamas, previous Presidents and their spouses (Clintons, Carters), previous VPs and their families, the opponents (Sanders), etc.

For the repubs it would be the same (Reagan children, Bush, McCain family, Bob Dole’s old ass, current senior Senators, etc).

But not this year. The dems have big guns but we look desperate, as we are, and the repubs have none. Just Trump, his family, and the Justice Dept.

I don’t think things will ever be the same. Future Presidents, dems and repubs, will use some of the dirty tricks used by Trump.

Guess I should get used to it.

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Orema

One of things I like seeing two weeks before the election are the “big guns” who come out front and center to campaign for the party’s elected person. This year for the dems it would normally be the Obamas, previous Presidents and their spouses (Clintons, Carters), previous VPs and their families, the opponents (Sanders), etc.

For the repubs it would be the same (Reagan children, Bush, McCain family, Bob Dole’s old ass, current senior Senators, etc).

But not this year. The dems have big guns but we look desperate, as we are, and the repubs have none. Just Trump, his family, and the Justice Dept.

I don’t think things will ever be the same. Future Presidents, dems and repubs, will use some of the dirty tricks used by Trump.

Guess I should get used to it.

I think (IMHO) that a real pivot point that began this trend of "gloves off" politics was when President Obama realized that he couldn't be decent and optimistic about dealing with the GOP anymore. They mistook his kind, humble, honest decorum and "when they go low, we go high" with perceived weakness. The GOP, most definitely, were the ones who brought this style of open, hostile confrontation to our political system. I believe that the rest of it has to do with greed, meanness and all of the rest of humankind's worst inclinations. I also think that there are so many negative aspects of human nature that have fed into the general frustration that there is no one simple answer to why things have evolved this way. There have been books written, saying that this is the "arse end" of capitalism, democracy, and well, this is just "what happens" with the impending collapse of democratic societies.

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!! I have thought about how Pop explained that to me so many years ago. He was so right. Pop was a research scientist (phD Entomologist), and he was an excellent critical thinker. I can't help but know, for sure, that if he were still alive today, he would be absolutely floored at how bad things have gotten, just in the past 7 years since he has been gone.

RIP, Dad. You were so very, very right about so many, many things.

~Theo~

[homoe]

NBC was kind enough to broadcast to the world, yet again, that the President of the United States is completely insane. At one point during a town hall in Miami on Thursday night, Donald Trump explained that he shared a conspiracy theory with his 87 million Twitter followers alleging Joe Biden helped orchestrate the killing of Seal Team 6 members—to cover up that the Osama bin Laden assassination was, in this formulation, faked—on the following basis:

TRUMP: That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody. And that was a retweet. I put it out there, people can decide for themselves.

Sure! Just send it out there to millions of people. Who cares whether it has any relationship to reality? Who cares how many lives get ground up and discarded along the way? It might, in this deeply depressing view of the human race, get you a few votes.

Moderator Savannah Guthrie, doing what she could with a poisoned chalice of an assignment, had an apt response.

GUTHRIE: You're the president. You're not, like, someone's crazy uncle who can retweet whatever.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nbc-...024800314.html

[Cin]

This is what a normal, sane, presidential candidate sounds like. We are so used to the shit show of Donald Trump we have forgotten what the priority of a president should be and what a little humility in our leader might sound like. "Asked by Stephanopoulos what Biden thinks it would say about the state of the country if he didn't win this election, Biden said, "Well, it could say that I'm a lousy candidate and I didn't do a good job."

But what he hoped a Biden loss wouldn't say was "that we are as racially, ethically, and religiously at odds with one other as it appears the president wants us to be."

The former vice president said Trump's strategy is to "divide and conquer," but he, on the other hand, thinks people need hope."
"I'm going to take care of those who voted against me as well as those who voted for me. For real. That's what presidents do. We've got to heal this nation," Biden said

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/key-...bEUZeTJ3h2bKM4

[Cin]

I can't understand what would prompt Feinstein to say these things. If this is how the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee feels, and it appears that it is, no wonder we didn't have a shot in hell of stalling this travesty.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ge-on-the-left

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) praise of her Republican colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), which she followed with a friendly hug, is stirring outrage on the left and prompting calls by prominent liberals for her to step down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats, liberal activists and left-leaning pundits, many of whom were dismayed that Democratic senators didn’t put a tougher fight against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett expressed outrage.

Demand Justice, an advocacy group that has staunchly opposed Trump’s effort to fill the judiciary with conservative nominees, was first out of the gate with a statement calling for Feinstein to resign.

“It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene,” Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, said in a statement circulated about an hour after Barrett’s confirmation hearing ended.

“If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves,” Fallon said, referring to the Sunrise Movement, a grassroots environmental organization.

Prominent voices respected on the left followed with their own stinging criticisms.

“Diane Feinstein praising Barrett, and then inexplicably praising Graham, is a clear sign that she should not remain as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,” tweeted Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor for the Atlantic magazine.

Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard, retweeted Ornstein’s statement, adding, “I’m afraid I agree, much as I like Sen. Feinstein personally and admired her work years ago.”

Feinstein appeared to undercut weeks of arguments by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic senators that Graham’s decision to schedule Barrett’s confirmation hearing a mere two weeks and two days after her nomination was announced on Sept. 26 was an outrageously unfair ramming through of the nominee.

Graham, who is up for reelection, is also one of Democrats’ top political targets in 2020. Donors from around the country poured $57 million into his opponent Jaime Harrison’s campaign in the third quarter of the year.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Graham for speeding Barrett’s confirmation to the Senate floor for a final vote before Election Day after Republicans blocked a hearing and a vote for President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, who was nominated nearly eight months before the 2016 election.

Feinstein didn’t appear to hold any grudge against Graham after he locked in a committee vote on Barrett’s nomination for Oct. 22, preventing Democrats from holding it over for an extra week as the minority party is customarily allowed to do.

“Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in and I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth. It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions and even some ideas — perhaps some good bipartisan legislation we can put together to make this great country even better,” she said.

“Thank you so much for your leadership,” she added.

When Feinstein capped off her praise of Graham with a quick hug, it sparked outrage.

Jon Lovett, who co-founded Crooked Media with prominent former Obama White House veterans, tweeted: “That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein.”

Adam Parkhomenko, a strategist who served as national field director for Democratic National Committee, tweeted: “Excuse me while I go punch a hole in the wall.”

One Senate Democratic aide called the hug “crazy.”

“For her to make those kind of statements and to embrace [Graham] was just bizarre and absurd to me,” said the aide. “This isn’t a progressive versus moderate issue. The intention was to spend this hearing period laying bare why Barrett is a problematic choice."

“That messaging was really important to her junior senator, her colleague,” the aide added, referring to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is on the Democratic presidential ticket, and used her time questioning Barrett to raise a full-throated alarm that she thinks the nominee poses to abortion rights.

Democracy for America, a liberal activist grassroots group that opposed Feinstein in her 2018 California Democratic primary, said Feinstein’s praise of Graham’s handling of the committee is unacceptable.

“It’s not the hugging, it’s the calling this one of the best set of hearings,” said Neil Sroka, the spokesperson for the group. “It’s an important reminder that she’s a senator for another era and Californians are incredibly poorly served by that kind of representation on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I can’t imagine very many Democratic voters in the state of California think the Republicans’ attempt to stick a far-right extremist on the court less than 20 days before the election is acceptable,” he added.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by theoddz

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!!
~Theo~

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Cin

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

You know, the truth is, I really don't know why. I think the answer may lie in the individual's self serving human survival instinct (human nature) that is focused inward instead of to the group. They say that the difference between humans and animal beings "lower" on the scale is our (humans') ability to think critically and reason out problems. I would almost venture to think that our inclination to lash out/place blame on others in our same situation is probably linked to Darwin's theory involving the survival of the fittest amongst us. It's already been established that, on the whole, all too many have lost the ability (or have never had it) to think critically. For critical thinking to exist, one must be able to see the circumstances, situations and truth/fact that surround them and be able to evaluate these factors to find root causes and begin the solving process. I don't know when the schools stopped teaching our children to think critically, but it's my opinion that a lot of it probably originates with this and was deliberately planned and executed. When people cannot use the power of intellect and reason and observation, they resort to decisions made based on ignorance, malfeasance and emotional manipulation of the truth. In short, they are "easily led". That's why Trump was able to get elected in the first place. In recent years, many people have largely ignored the political climate in this country. Too many are too reliant on others to tell them what to think that they've become totally unable to know how to think. Have you noticed how many young people these days no longer read a book, or newspapers?? Too many of our countrymen/women/people cannot even tell you the names of their congressional representatives and Senators. You'd better believe that they can name the characters on reality television and figures in pop culture. It is absolutely head spinning and just plain disgusting, really.

There is a quote from the famous philosopher, Plato, and it says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

Now, if Trump, McConnell, Barr and the likes of enablers like Lindsay Graham can manage to keep us looking the other way with pop culture, video games, reality shows and other such bullsh1t, they can continue to sit in their own private little boxes and eat up all of the food and water while we, the 99% of "the others" will be entertained and distracted.....all the way to our impoverished graves.

I'm sorry I rambled on. I hope my general idea came across through all of this!!

Thanks for bearing with me.

~Theo~

[Pacificblu]

Although famine and economic inequality bring out the worst in most people, it is a thin veneer we all wear. If the world suddenly experienced something like an EMP by another country (China comes to mind), it would put an end to modern “everything” as we know it.

No electricity to pump fuel, no transport of food, sewage back up, total anarchy. People will do anything if their children are starving, and will kill because there aren’t any laws or police to stop them. People are already mean, they just have most of what they “want” and it keeps them in check.

The majority of people are only kept in check by the fear of the law.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by theoddz

You know, the truth is, I really don't know why. I think the answer may lie in the individual's self serving human survival instinct (human nature) that is focused inward instead of to the group. They say that the difference between humans and animal beings "lower" on the scale is our (humans') ability to think critically and reason out problems. I would almost venture to think that our inclination to lash out/place blame on others in our same situation is probably linked to Darwin's theory involving the survival of the fittest amongst us. It's already been established that, on the whole, all too many have lost the ability (or have never had it) to think critically. For critical thinking to exist, one must be able to see the circumstances, situations and truth/fact that surround them and be able to evaluate these factors to find root causes and begin the solving process. I don't know when the schools stopped teaching our children to think critically, but it's my opinion that a lot of it probably originates with this and was deliberately planned and executed. When people cannot use the power of intellect and reason and observation, they resort to decisions made based on ignorance, malfeasance and emotional manipulation of the truth. In short, they are "easily led". That's why Trump was able to get elected in the first place. In recent years, many people have largely ignored the political climate in this country. Too many are too reliant on others to tell them what to think that they've become totally unable to know how to think. Have you noticed how many young people these days no longer read a book, or newspapers?? Too many of our countrymen/women/people cannot even tell you the names of their congressional representatives and Senators. You'd better believe that they can name the characters on reality television and figures in pop culture. It is absolutely head spinning and just plain disgusting, really.

There is a quote from the famous philosopher, Plato, and it says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

Now, if Trump, McConnell, Barr and the likes of enablers like Lindsay Graham can manage to keep us looking the other way with pop culture, video games, reality shows and other such bullsh1t, they can continue to sit in their own private little boxes and eat up all of the food and water while we, the 99% of "the others" will be entertained and distracted.....all the way to our impoverished graves.

I'm sorry I rambled on. I hope my general idea came across through all of this!!

Thanks for bearing with me.

~Theo~

Sad but so very very true. The deliberate dumbing down of America was a big success. I am certain it was not accidental that schools stopped teaching critical thinking. It is interesting to note how there are IQ limitations on police officers.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-cou...-a-cop/5420630
US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop
Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high"

I do think the powers that be use our baser instincts, our worse inclinations to keep us separate. They feed our fears and demonize people and groups for us to focus our discontent toward. We can't attack the 1%, we can't tax corporations or the rich because we could be in their number someday, ridiculous as that sounds it's in our sociological make up to think we have unlimited opportunity so we need to protect the rich. It's really sad. They systemically keep us off balance and at odds with each other. It's in their best interest we never find our power.