U.S. Politics

[Designer1]

2 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

He knows very well what he's doing.

I know but it's nice to play along sometimes 

Anyway, that Trump fella...

Edited November 17, 2016 by Designer1

[maqroll]

I never thought I'd be cheering on Mitt Romney for Secretary of State..

[Keyblade]

Quote

Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’

What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.

Paul Horner, the 38-year-old impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire, has made his living off viral news hoaxes for several years. He has twice convinced the Internet that he’s British graffiti artist Banksy; he also published the very viral, very fake news of a Yelp vs. “South Park” lawsuit last year.

But in recent months, Horner has found the fake-news ecosystem growing more crowded, more political and vastly more influential: In March, Donald Trump’s son Eric and his then-campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, even tweeted links to one of Horner’s faux-articles. His stories have also appeared as news on Google.

(Paul Horner)

In light of concerns that stories like Horner’s may have affected the presidential election, and in the wake of announcements that both Google and Facebook would take action against deceptive outlets, Intersect called Horner to discuss his perspective on fake news. This transcript has been edited for clarity, length and — ahem — bad language.

[The only true winners of this election are trolls]

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 storyabout 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.

(Twitter via Mediaite)

Why? I mean — why would you even write that?

Just ’cause his supporters were under the belief that people were getting paid to protest at their rallies, and that’s just insane. I’ve gone to Trump protests — trust me, no one needs to get paid to protest Trump. I just wanted to make fun of that insane belief, but it took off. They actually believed it.

I thought they’d fact-check it, and it’d make them look worse. I mean that’s how this always works: Someone posts something I write, then they find out it’s false, then they look like idiots. But Trump supporters — they just keep running with it! They never fact-check anything! Now he’s in the White House. Looking back, instead of hurting the campaign, I think I helped it. And that feels [bad].

You think you personally helped elect Trump?

I don’t know. I don’t know if I did or not. I don’t know. I don’t know.

Donald Trump's victory speech, in less than three minutes

 

Play Video2:16

 

Early on the morning of Nov. 9, Republican President-elect Donald Trump addressed supporters in New York, declaring victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Here are key moments from that speech. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

I guess I’m curious, if you believed you might be having an unfair impact on the election — especially if that impact went against your own political beliefs — why didn’t you stop? Why keep writing?

I didn’t think it was possible for him to get elected president. I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn’t messing them up as much as I wanted — but I never thought he’d actually get elected. I didn’t even think about it. In hindsight, everyone should’ve seen this coming — everyone assumed Hillary [Clinton] would just get in. But she didn’t, and Trump is president.

[Facebook has repeatedly trended fake news since firing its human editors]

Speaking of Clinton — did you target fake news at her supporters? Or Gary Johnson’s, for that matter? (Horner’s Facebook picture shows him at a rally for Johnson.) 

No. I hate Trump.

Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that “no joke . . . in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it’s the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans.” That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.

Yeah, it is. They don’t fact-check.

But a Trump presidency is good for you from a business perspective, right?

It’s great for anybody who does anything with satire — there’s nothing you can’t write about now that people won’t believe. I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line — and people went along with it!

Facebook and Google recently announced that they’d no longer let fake-news sites use their advertising platforms. I know you basically make your living from those services. How worried are you about this?

This whole Google AdSense thing is pretty scary. And all this Facebook stuff. I make most of my money from AdSense — like, you wouldn’t believe how much money I make from it. Right now I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense.

[Google’s top news link for ‘final election results’ goes to a fake news site with false numbers]

I know ways of getting hooked up under different names and sites. So probably if they cracked down, I would try different things. I have at least 10 sites right now. If they crack down on a couple, I’ll just use others. They could shut down advertising on all my sites, and I think I’d be okay. Plus, Facebook and AdSense make a lot of money from [advertising on fake news sites] for them to just get rid of it. They’d lose a lot of money.

But if it did really go away, that would suck. I don’t know what I would do.

Thinking about this less selfishly, though — it might be good if Facebook and Google took action, right? Because the effects you’re describing are pretty scary.

Intersect newsletter

The corner of the Internet and interesting.

Sign up

Yeah, I mean — a lot of the sites people are talking about, they’re just total BS sites. There’s no creativity or purpose behind them. I’m glad they’re getting rid of them. I don’t like getting lumped in with Huzlers. I like getting lumped in with the Onion. The stuff I do — I spend more time on it. There’s purpose and meaning behind it. I don’t just write fake news just to write it.

So, yeah, I see a lot of the sites they’re listing, and I’m like — good. There are so many horrible sites out there. I’m glad they’re getting rid of those sites.

I just hope they don’t get rid of mine, too.

Clicky

I mean, this is something people have pretty much known but it's crazy hearing it from the horse's mouth. Maybe it was their 'economic anxiety' that made them allergic to facts and quick to repost articles even they knew were incorrect.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Keyblade

[MarkLillis]

Is his election really going to change things?

Or will the senate be able to control him?

Honestly don't know exactly how much "power" a president has....but if he really is the type of person his comments make him out to be then will everybody else with any type of influence just stand by and let him do dangerous/inconsiderate/strange things?

Am I putting to much faith in democracy?

He was elected and it wasn't an army coup or anything like that.

He is a businessman not a general....

Edited November 18, 2016 by MarkLillis

[Chindie]

Given that the Senate is now 'on his side', whilst they might be able to control the more batshit 'you just can't do this Donald' stuff, they might like a lot of the slightly less insane stuff. And he's also surrounding himself with influential people who like a lot of the stuff he's gone on about. And more.

The hope was he'd be a puppet and his cabinet would be more seasoned, if unfortunately Republican, politicians. Even accounting for the President's power being overstated, he's looking like he's surrounding himself with enablers.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Given that the Senate is now 'on his side', whilst they might be able to control the more batshit 'you just can't do this Donald' stuff, they might like a lot of the slightly less insane stuff. And he's also surrounding himself with influential people who like a lot of the stuff he's gone on about. And more.

The hope was he'd be a puppet and his cabinet would be more seasoned, if unfortunately Republican, politicians. Even accounting for the President's power being overstated, he's looking like he's surrounding himself with enablers.

Using Michael Portillo as my source ( yeah I know , but tbf he seems quite astute on this week , called Brexit win and a Trump win ) he was suggesting last night that this isn't quite that cut and dried   ... Seems a lot of Trumps proposals are more democrat type policies (info structure spending I believe was the example given) and that he might need republican support to get through policy X and democrat support to get through policy y  ( the reasoning was a bit more sophisticated than that ,I've just paraphrased it , badly)

This week also seemed to suggest that Trump is Pro- British but kinda anti -EU ( as opposed to Obama ) and that Trumps people were keen on a free trade deal with the UK  ... can be an interesting year

[chrisp65]

Given that Trump wants massive infrastructure spending, a reduction in debt, a stronger military and reduced taxes...I'd say at absolute best he can do 50% of that.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Given that Trump wants massive infrastructure spending, a reduction in debt, a stronger military and reduced taxes...I'd say at absolute best he can do 50% of that.

75% is clearly possible, but not "best"

[StefanAVFC]

 

[Keyblade]

Quote

Jason Miller, the communications director for the transition team, released a statement on Thursday in response to reports that the incoming administration has been considering a register for Muslims arriving in the US:

President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false.

The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe, but the president-elect plans on releasing his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.

 

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Given that Trump wants massive infrastructure spending, a reduction in debt, a stronger military and reduced taxes...I'd say at absolute best he can do 50% of that.

 

Depends what you mean by debt.

I had assumed that the infrastructure spending would be government-funded, since anything else would be barking mad.  Silly me.  It seems his team are thinking of PFI-PPP models, where users will pay for the cost of infrastructure, presumably through road pricing, tolls, and other rentier mechanisms.

Companies will be offered a lower charge for repatriating overseas profits than the normal tax rate.  In that event, there could be some extra one-off government income while also making companies better off than if they had been taxed (selling anticipated future public assets at a heavy discount, you could call this).

There will certainly be tax cuts, and these will massively benefit the rich, while reducing future government income.

It is therefore theoretically possible to have privately funded infrastructure, tax cuts, cuts in overall government spending, and a one-off boost to government income from the deal on overseas profits which then gets used as a one-off boost to military spending. 

You might then have slightly reduced government debt, but increased personal debt through exposing even more people more fully to the predatory behaviour of rentier companies.  Obviously that is unsustainable, and was one of the big factors in the 2008 crash.  You will also have an increased military with a smaller tax base to support it in future, again creating a problem for tomorrow.  The rich will have got richer, more companies will have found more ways to screw ordinary people, and the steaming pile of excrement will be on collision course with the rotating ventilation device. 

[StefanAVFC]

12 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

 

Trump really is an expert at saying a lot but really saying absolutely nothing at all.

[Keyblade]

15 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Trump really is an expert at saying a lot but really saying absolutely nothing at all.

He speaks like he's talking to 5 year olds, which doesn't reflect so well on his supporters. Gotta say though, he's mastered the art of plausible deniability. 

[maqroll]

His top advisor is a white supremacist, his AG pick is an Alabama good old boy, and Flynn is certifiably bananas. It's a KKK wet dream so far.

[maqroll]

8 hours ago, MarkLillis said:

Or will the senate be able to control him?

He'll have to contend with the more moderate members of the GOP, but he'll also come up against the ACLU, which is already spoiling for a fight. 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

His top advisor is a white supremacist, his AG pick is an Alabama good old boy, and Flynn is certifiably bananas. It's a KKK wet dream so far.

And while the country worked itself into a tizzy over racial politics, Mr Trump and his friends quietly emptied out its pockets and placed the contents with a corporate elite.

See also: And while the country worked itself into a tizzy over immigration, Mrs May and her friends quietly emptied out its pockets and placed the contents with a corporate elite.

[villakram]

Mr. Bannon gives an exclusive interview to the Hollywood Reporter  screw you NYT etc! Well worth a read.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747?utm_source=twitter

"... He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids."

[Awol]

3 hours ago, maqroll said:

His top advisor is a white supremacist, his AG pick is an Alabama good old boy, and Flynn is certifiably bananas. It's a KKK wet dream so far.

Flynn is a good pick. He was forced out by Obama for refusing to manipulate intelligence & conceal extent of problems in Iraq at the time. Principled and prepared to speak truth to power when required.

 If Trump can get Jim Mattis on board as SecDef and Jack Keane out of retirement and in as DNI then they'll be in very good shape.  Obviously that's a big"IF", but probably who I'd go for in Trumps position.  

[snowychap]

Trump settles Trump University lawsuits for $25m

Quote

Donald Trump has settled three Trump University lawsuits for $25m (£20m), the New York Attorney General has said.

The US president-elect was being sued by former students who paid $35,000 (£28,000) for real estate "secrets" from his "hand-picked" instructors.

Mr Trump had repeatedly said he would not settle the class-action lawsuits.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the settlement was a "stunning reversal" by Mr Trump and a "major victory" for victims.

...more on link

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Flynn is a good pick. He was forced out by Obama for refusing to manipulate intelligence & conceal extent of problems in Iraq at the time. Principled and prepared to speak truth to power when required.

 

Interesting that he publicly admitted that the US government armed and supplied Al-Qaeda and ISIS in order to undermine the government of Syria.