The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-26-2018, 09:51 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
I'm always amused by people who are saying the special investigation is too expensive, when trump has spent 77 million dollars of taxpayers' money playing golf - https://trumpgolfcount.com/. Even more interesting, a decent amount of that goes into his own pockets, as the secret service has to pay him for their stays at his hotels and resorts. Emoluments anyone?
He's also pretty hypocritical about all of this, as he's spending much more time playing golf than Obama:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-150-d...f-club-1090729
He's also pretty hypocritical about all of this, as he's spending much more time playing golf than Obama:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-150-d...f-club-1090729
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:06 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
Oh I know, the investigation is focused on: Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:11 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
The investigation of Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, however, is baseless and costing tax-payers millions. Trump is also trying to have it stopped in order to reduce wasteful spending.
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:15 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
I guess wherever possible does not include 'not going golfing at your own resorts'. Apparently him going golfing and spending 77 mil on it is OK, but spending 20 mil on figuring out whether Russia is undermining the US democracy is too much? What are you smoking?
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:21 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
We are not spending $20 million to figure that out whether Russia is undermining the US democracy, we are spending $20 million to investigate If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. Can't you read the highlighted text?
Serious note: if you honestly believe that the Mueller investigation is actually determining whether Russia is undermining the US democracy -- you must live in a such a warm happy-place. And again, if you really do, when do you think we should throw in the towel? When another tax evader is uncovered? When someone else perjures themselves? Or do you believe this investigation should continue, limitlessly, until Trump's presidency is finally over in 2024?
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:30 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
I'm sorry, but this is completely false as proven by Joe Perez and Bahurd.
We are not spending $20 million to figure that out whether Russia is undermining the US democracy, we are spending $20 million to investigate If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. Can't you read the highlighted text?
Serious note: if you honestly believe that the Mueller investigation is actually determining whether Russia is undermining the US democracy -- you must live in a such a warm happy-place.
We are not spending $20 million to figure that out whether Russia is undermining the US democracy, we are spending $20 million to investigate If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. Can't you read the highlighted text?
Serious note: if you honestly believe that the Mueller investigation is actually determining whether Russia is undermining the US democracy -- you must live in a such a warm happy-place.
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:39 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
Cost aside, at what point should it end?
How long do you think it takes to thoroughly investigate Trump's election campaign?
So far in 466 days, they've done so much digging they were able to uncover 2 tax-evaders and a liar, but have been unable to find coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
Relatedly off-topic: do you find it curious that Cohen retained the legal counsel of the Clintons?
How long do you think it takes to thoroughly investigate Trump's election campaign?
So far in 466 days, they've done so much digging they were able to uncover 2 tax-evaders and a liar, but have been unable to find coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
Relatedly off-topic: do you find it curious that Cohen retained the legal counsel of the Clintons?
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 10:46 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Total Cats: 38
Cost aside, at what point should it end?
How long do you think it takes to thoroughly investigate Trump's election campaign?
So far in 466 days, they've done so much digging they were able to uncover 2 tax-evaders and a liar, but have been unable to find coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
How long do you think it takes to thoroughly investigate Trump's election campaign?
So far in 466 days, they've done so much digging they were able to uncover 2 tax-evaders and a liar, but have been unable to find coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
Relatedly off-topic: do you find it curious that Cohen retained the legal counsel of the Clintons?
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 11:36 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
we has computers now. and online ****.
also, five men were actually arrested breaking into the watergate, which sparked the investigation. unlike the mueller investigation, the democratic party paid for a baseless report against a political foe which sparked the investigation.
also math:
the break-in was: June 17, 1973
the investigation began: May 18, 1973
Nixon resigns: Aug 8, 1974
Ford ends the investigation: September 8, 1974
at best 447 days, at worst 813 days.
also, five men were actually arrested breaking into the watergate, which sparked the investigation. unlike the mueller investigation, the democratic party paid for a baseless report against a political foe which sparked the investigation.
also math:
the break-in was: June 17, 1973
the investigation began: May 18, 1973
Nixon resigns: Aug 8, 1974
Ford ends the investigation: September 8, 1974
at best 447 days, at worst 813 days.
Last edited by Braineack; 08-26-2018 at 02:04 PM.
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 01:49 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
i think whomever made this got his events wrong -- the plane thing didnt happen IIRC it was a rocket he set off. but he did cut some power lines that caused a fire with his plane.
he also voted against party, and something he campaigned for, to repeal obamacare, just in spite of trumpff. he tried to ban UFC in the 90s. he would have made a great Manchurian candidate though.
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 03:45 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,071
Total Cats: 6,623
Full paper: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2018.304567
Abstract:
Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
David A. Broniatowski PhD, Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH, SiHua Qi SM, Lulwah AlKulaib SM, Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, Sandra C. Quinn PhD, and Mark Dredze PhD
Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content.
Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity.
Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ2(1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ2(1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ2(1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive.
Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.
Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567)
Abstract:
Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
David A. Broniatowski PhD, Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH, SiHua Qi SM, Lulwah AlKulaib SM, Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, Sandra C. Quinn PhD, and Mark Dredze PhD
Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content.
Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity.
Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ2(1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ2(1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ2(1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive.
Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.
Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567)
Reply
0
0
08-26-2018, 04:59 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,507
Total Cats: 4,079
Full paper: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2018.304567
Abstract:
Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
David A. Broniatowski PhD, Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH, SiHua Qi SM, Lulwah AlKulaib SM, Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, Sandra C. Quinn PhD, and Mark Dredze PhD
Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content.
Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity.
Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ2(1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ2(1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ2(1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive.
Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.
Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567)
Abstract:
Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
David A. Broniatowski PhD, Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH, SiHua Qi SM, Lulwah AlKulaib SM, Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, Sandra C. Quinn PhD, and Mark Dredze PhD
Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content.
Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity.
Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ2(1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ2(1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ2(1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive.
Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.
Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567)
Reply
0
0
