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.
This would be a simple thing to pass if he didn't make it about him. But an NDA of maybe 5 years for many aspects of most government jobs should be SOP.
This would be a simple thing to pass if he didn't make it about him. But an NDA of maybe 5 years for many aspects of most government jobs should be SOP.
I wonder if it is a mutual NDA that would prevent Trump from writing a book as well.
This would be a simple thing to pass if he didn't make it about him. But an NDA of maybe 5 years for many aspects of most government jobs should be SOP.
A worthy thing to protest. Just watched a program on a channel called Viceland here in the states about methaqualone in South Africa today and its role during Apartheid. Hamilton's Pharmacopeia. It went into many things and brought up Project Coast and a certain Dr Bossa. I find it disturbing that you would associate Trump with Apartheid though.
Project Coast ... a very disturbing event ... hopefully you can see this across the pond. A funny thing that I just remembered, from sources long ago, Quaaludes were introduced onto college campuses during the early 70's by the Nixon Administration to make us protesters too loaded to protest. They were first introduced in Boston and Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. I have a first hand source for this little tidbit. I was a student at Kent State, one of the target campuses back in the day. It all makes even more sense now.
I love that station! Especially F*ck that's delicious! With Action Bronson!
"Oh yes it sure is, I saw it on the news" she claimed.
At that point I decided this was not going to a good place and held my tongue. I didn't bother trying to explain that there are not riots going on but rather (largely) peaceful protests, which are protected by the Constitution. I didn't ask her what she was calling her "news" source.I didn't ask her to explain how George Soros would have the ability to somehow pay people all over the country to "riot". I did, however, ask one question.
" So if your candidate had lost, what do you think the response would have been from his followers?"
"Oh...same thing, riots everywhere" she said with a mischievous smile.
Folks, we have work to do.
Truthiness is now in charge. Skepticism and common sense are for suckers. The average American doesn't think much for himself. Follow the herd!
Google kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.
...
Facebook’s decision to clarify its ad policy language is notable because Mark Zuckerberg, the social network’s chief executive, has repeatedly fobbed off criticism that the company had an effect on how people voted.
...
A Pew Research Center study said that nearly half of American adults rely on Facebook as a news source.
That does work, and for the article below, too. I just wanted to provide a one-click option for right here right now.
