Trump & Truthful Hyperbole

[Seriati]

Deal with what's happening in the real world.  Do you want the Chinese, the Saudis, or the Iranians to have the same influence in the next election as the Russians did in this one?  Do you want them to decide what information to publish or withhold, depending on who they want to win?  How much say for the next Senate, House and President do you want them to have?

Ever heard of Chinagate?  Both the Chinese and the Saudis have influenced past elections by contributing to politicians and political parties, which we have laws against.  Can you explain, why its the Russians releasing true information that bothers you rather than the Chinese and the Saudis potentially buying politicians?

[D.W.]

You could ask if they are bothered by those things.  Or even how they would rank them in seriousness.  But I guess that would remove a cudgel from the toolbox.

[Wayward Son]

Cherry, it's time to stop the "if it happened to the Democrats, it would/wouldn't have been a big deal" fantasy.  You'll never know, and it only reassures what you already believe, whether it is right or wrong.

Asserts that a counterfactual argument has no merit because "you'll never know."

How can something be "counterfactual" when there are not facts involved? 

Please show how the statement:

"If DNC had won, the Democrats would have already started a full-blown investigation into Russian influence of our elections, and perhaps talk of a recount to verify that there was absolutely no rigging of the actual votes."

is any less "factual" that:

"If it wasn't for the DNC hacks, the primary election rigging of the Democrats would be just another wild conspiracy theory. All we'd hear in response to any assertions that it happened is that there is no evidence and that's all just crazy talk?"

Both are pure speculation based on the individual's prejudices.  If you agree with the prejudice, it seems "factual."  If you don't, it seems "counterfactual."  But neither are based on "facts."  And Republicans and Conservatives have to stop pretending that they are.

Deal with what's happening in the real world.  Do you want the Chinese, the Saudis, or the Iranians to have the same influence in the next election as the Russians did in this one?

Goes on to argue "if not for the Russian influence" on the election result. Cognitive dissonance checks out. I'll throw in as a bonus the claim made that the DNC rigging didn't significantly impair Sanders' chances of winning.

Where did you get the "goes on to argue" bit, Fenring?  I don't think the Russians had that big an influence on the election results.  I believe that Americans should have been able to reason away their influence.  I blame the Republican voters for falling for the propaganda--from both the Russians and from their fellow Americans--for electing arguably the least qualified candidate for President in U.S. history.  And I didn't mention Sanders at all.

So where are you getting "cognitive dissonance?"

Don't dismiss my arguments based on what I haven't written. 

[Seriati]

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I honestly believe its not the "manipulation of the political process" that's troubling more than half the posters on this topic, but the direction of the influence.  We have plenty of background on prior manipulations and foreign influences that didn't cause any of these strong reactions.  Heck in this election, we have the illegal release of a page of Trump's tax returns, which was intended to influence voters, and the outraged parties - now - not only were not outraged about that they applauded it, speculated (or made up if you prefer) that this showed he wouldn't have paid taxes for the 20 following years and demanded he proved otherwise.

I just think, you have to be consistent in your moral outrage if you're going to be convincing.

[TheDeamon]

Do you honestly think the "primary...rigging" is anything significant?  I would be willing to bet that the GOP hacks that were kept hidden for selfish reasons by Russia and Wikileaks would be at least as disgusting.

I'm more inclined to think  the Republican e-mails weren't really considered "newsworthy." If they ever do get released, and considering the Russians have copies of them, they probably will be sometime decades from now. One of two outcomes will likely be discovered:

1) The Republican Party was in pretty much in chaos and disarray, starting off rather smug and secure in their support for Jeb and the other "nearly Establishment" guys being the likely candidate, with their own (far less effective) efforts to trivialize Trump. If anything, you'll probably find lots of discussions about what they can to reduce the air time Trump was getting over the other candidates. With them becoming increasingly alarmed, and things being more chaotic/disorganized as the primaries continued right up until it was already too late.

or
2) That the Republican Party is in fact bought and paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce//Fortune 500 and they were smug in "their guys" getting the nomination, and the tale the chaos that ensued as Trump came through and disrupted/destroyed all of their carefully laid plans as "the Tea Party's vengeance" came rolling through.

I mean seriously, this was discussion fodder I was posting on last spring. Most of the "Republican Base" is fully aware, and has been aware for years at this point, that "the establishment Republicans in Washington" are fundamentally disconnected from their wants and desires. Donald Trump's early successes were likely a reflection of that. The Tea Party tried in 2010, they tried again in 2012, and they were slaughtered by Party Leadership in 2014. While some remained loyal to the ideals of the Tea Party in 2016, I think most had finally reached their "F--- it!" point and voted to burn the thing down, ergo they voted for the worst primary candidate option available, Donald Trump.

Therefore, the Russians could have released the GOP e-mails also, but it just would have created a wider scandal against the Russians(dumbest move ever), and it would have accomplished exactly nothing, as the people backing Trump already knew the GOP Establishment is a heap of s---. 

The only political party that wasn't disillusioned with its own leadership on a massive scale were the Democrats. So guess who they decided to undermine?

If you were the sole source of news and information about US politics I would have to believe that Democrats are evil spawn and Republicans are blessed saints.  Trump is your man, the GOP is your party, I expect you to own it when the *censored* hits the fan.

Trump is looking to be very authoritarian on a number of issues, which is HIGHLY concerning. I strongly dislike crony-capitalism, regardless of who it is that is practicing it. I hated it under Obama, and I'm going to hate it under Trump.

Authoritarianism is concerning in general, regardless of who has that authority.

So there are a range of things about Trump that I likely share your concerns about. The sad thing is that some of my concerns only recently became your concerns because it's Donald Trump, rather than Mr. Obama with those powers now.

[Wayward Son]

Deal with what's happening in the real world.  Do you want the Chinese, the Saudis, or the Iranians to have the same influence in the next election as the Russians did in this one?  Do you want them to decide what information to publish or withhold, depending on who they want to win?  How much say for the next Senate, House and President do you want them to have?

Ever heard of Chinagate?  Both the Chinese and the Saudis have influenced past elections by contributing to politicians and political parties, which we have laws against.  Can you explain, why its the Russians releasing true information that bothers you rather than the Chinese and the Saudis potentially buying politicians?

"Chinagate," as I recall, was another overblow propaganda smear by Republicans.  The money came into the campaign without the direct knowledge of the Clintons.  When it came to light, they returned the money, as was required.  The nefarious portions were based on speculation and prejudice, without significant proof.  It was just part of the 30 year campaign to smear the Clintons, and recently Hillary, to make sure they would lose if either ever dared ran.  And it worked.  The most qualified candidate lost to one of the least qualified candidates because of this smear campaign.

I don't want the Chinese or the Saudis buying the election, either.  But what did the Republicans do to insure the Chinese didn't buy anyone else?  Nothing.  They just wanted to smear the Democrat.

So stop with the "well, the Democrats did just as bad, so we don't need to worry about it" line and start acting like what you say Conservatives are:  People who believe in principle and act universally to correct problems.  Not like the way they've acted for these past decades, as petty partisans that only look for immediate advantages, the country be damned! 

[Wayward Son]

Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I honestly believe its not the "manipulation of the political process" that's troubling more than half the posters on this topic, but the direction of the influence.  We have plenty of background on prior manipulations and foreign influences that didn't cause any of these strong reactions.  Heck in this election, we have the illegal release of a page of Trump's tax returns, which was intended to influence voters, and the outraged parties - now - not only were not outraged about that they applauded it, speculated (or made up if you prefer) that this showed he wouldn't have paid taxes for the 20 following years and demanded he proved otherwise.

I just think, you have to be consistent in your moral outrage if you're going to be convincing.

What outrages me is the push-back by Republicans--and the Republican-in-Chief--against investigating this at all.

They are acting like Russia is our best friend, that Putin acts in the best interest of the U.S., and that any questioning of Russian influence is tantamount to treason.   That we should just ignore the whole issue, because no one has published the secret reasons for their conclusions, therefore nothing could have possibly happened. 

Because the POTUS-elect rambles on about how the election was rigged, but when his intelligence agency tells him about one potential way it may have happened, he tells them they are full of it. 

While the rank hypocrisy of the Democrats is obvious, the rank and potentially harmful hypocrisy of  the Republicans is vile and treasonous.  Look into the matter and see what we can do to prevent it in the future, even if it turns out to be insignificant, and even if there is nothing we can do.  Don't simply declare that "it's nothing" and ignore it.

Or worse, declare "it's rigged," and then do nothing to find out how and why, and even try to prevent any investigation into how and why.  That is what is upsetting me about all of this.  A President-elect who seems to think that election rigging is perfectly fine, as long as he wins.

IOW, Seriati, just what troubles you about the Democrats.

[cherrypoptart]

The Deamon

"If they ever do get released, and considering the Russians have copies of them, they probably will be sometime decades from now. One of two outcomes will likely be discovered..."

Good point. If the Republican emails were released they would reveal only that Trump was telling the truth about how corrupt and rigged the system was, exactly like the DNC emails revealed except that was the total opposite of what Hillary was saying.

Perhaps the RNC just had better security though, or at least people who weren't so easily duped by phishing scams. I wonder if these hacks were brute force or social engineering/phishing, or if it's just as Assange says and it was a disgruntled insider perhaps sickened by the abuse he saw of Bernie. Maybe the RNC just didn't get hacked but it wasn't for lack of trying. Pure speculation of course, admittedly.

[D.W.]

Seraiti does make a good point about Trump's tax records.  It may not tick the box for foreign meddling (AFAIK) but it does the others.

I missed Chinagate...  I don't know if that makes you feel it reinforces your point or not though.  You want to push for campaign finance reform?  I'm with ya!

[D.W.]

Good call cherry.  Even if the Republican data was a mirror of the mess the DNC was... it wouldn't matter to Trump.  He (correctly) ran on a platform of resentment towards the establishment and two-facedness of our current system.

Now I think he's still part of it, and people are beyond gullible for following him... but, in this, he WAS telling the truth.  The lie is that he isn't going to do the same thing and was just telling us what we wanted to hear.

Hillary and the DNC just misjudged what we wanted to hear.  Granted I rooted for the guy who seemed honest about his plan for the country.

[TheDeamon]

So stop with the "well, the Democrats did just as bad, so we don't need to worry about it" line and start acting like what you say Conservatives are:  People who believe in principle and act universally to correct problems.  Not like the way they've acted for these past decades, as petty partisans that only look for immediate advantages, the country be damned! 

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Republican Voters who were voting their displeasure this cycle will be out in force again in 2018, we shall see if the Democrats have comparable numbers to offset them. Depending on what Trump and company get up to, don't be surprised if some congressional Republicans end up being primaried, or narrowly escaping defeat in one. If the Democrats aren't careful, and they seem to be failing at waking up, they're going to relive 2002 in 2018. There is a sizable pissed off electorate still out there and voting, and they've had an outsize influence on the off-years since 2010.

It also will be interesting to see how the Democratic party shapes up over the next year in particular. If they continue doubling down, they're probably in serious trouble. As Rush Limbaugh has been playing up this past month, while the Democrats thought they'd reached an apex under Obama, they've been in steep decline since 2008. Nationwide Democrats lost seats in 2010, they lost more elected seats in 2012 even though Obama was reelected. They lost more seats again in 2014, and they lost even more local, state, and federal seats once more in 2016.  The "bench" for the Democratic party is small, and getting smaller.

Much like that other meta-number about who controls what in which state governments. Democrats only have outright control of the Legislative and Executive branches of what? 9 states now? While the Republicans hold dozens. I think 2018 will be an interesting election year to watch, and it's only going to get even more bizarre. Don't be surprised when this "Electoral President" sees his party gain even more seats in congress, even if the person in that seat changes.

[cherrypoptart]

"Do you honestly think the "primary...rigging" is anything significant?"

Going back to the whole massive voter fraud conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence (and wouldn't be any evidence even if it was true), weeding out fraudulent voting basically relies on the honor system because we don't have very good measures in place to prevent massive and organized voter fraud in corrupt districts. If there are districts getting 95% of the votes for Hillary and 100% of the votes for Obama then it's hard to imagine that there is significant security there in the form of honest poll watchers and political officials who will report the fraud they see especially if they are in on it.

What does that have to do with the rigged primary we just saw? Simply, if people are willing to be so corrupt even against someone in their own party it's not hard to imagine their likes having even less integrity when it comes to their political opponents.  Integrity is the main thing stopping voter fraud. And the DNC primary proved there is no integrity there. If they'd do it to themselves then they'd do it to anyone and everyone else too.

[D.W.]

cherrypoptart, While I'd like to agree with this sentiment, it's a bit of what I was getting at earlier with Seraiti.  The "lack of integrity" shown in how they dealt with Sanders, is different from actual voter fraud.  (changing, destroying or fabricating ballots)

There is a gulf to cross between the two. 

[NobleHunter]

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Republican Voters who were voting their displeasure this cycle will be out in force again in 2018, we shall see if the Democrats have comparable numbers to offset them. Depending on what Trump and company get up to, don't be surprised if some congressional Republicans end up being primaried, or narrowly escaping defeat in one. If the Democrats aren't careful, and they seem to be failing at waking up, they're going to relive 2002 in 2018. There is a sizable pissed off electorate still out there and voting, and they've had an outsize influence on the off-years since 2010.

It also will be interesting to see how the Democratic party shapes up over the next year in particular. If they continue doubling down, they're probably in serious trouble. As Rush Limbaugh has been playing up this past month, while the Democrats thought they'd reached an apex under Obama, they've been in steep decline since 2008. Nationwide Democrats lost seats in 2010, they lost more elected seats in 2012 even though Obama was reelected. They lost more seats again in 2014, and they lost even more local, state, and federal seats once more in 2016.  The "bench" for the Democratic party is small, and getting smaller.

Except for the seats they gained in the House and Senate this year? Or winning the popular vote? They didn't have as good a year as it was predicted but it wasn't a rout.

If Trump is as bad as some expect, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP had a bad year in 2018. The GOP establishment's frantic clambering onto the Trump boat might not help them if it sinks.

[D.W.]

Depends on what length Democrats go to obstruct/slow down Trump/Republican efforts.  It's not inconceivable they could spin all their woes and land them in a Democratic party scapegoat's lap.  And they DO tend to have better turnout in non-presidential elections.

[cherrypoptart]

> D.W.

  >     The "lack of integrity" shown in how they dealt with Sanders, is different from actual voter fraud.  (changing, destroying or fabricating ballots)

> There is a gulf to cross between the two.

I agree. And agree with Kasandra too. I'm out on a limb on that as is Trump. As we were also with the birther stuff. Probably we've got it wrong and everything is on the up and up. But when there is a lack of transparency and integrity I guess it just brings out the worst in our suspicious natures.

I disagree with Trump about it being millions of fraudulent votes. That's too much even for me. But I could certainly see thousands of fraudulent votes in some areas, tens of thousands nationwide, which would be more than enough to swing close races. And then again it may only be less than a hundred fraudulent votes each election. It would be nice to know for sure but we probably never will.

[Kasandra]

I disagree with Trump about it being millions of fraudulent votes. That's too much even for me. But I could certainly see thousands of fraudulent votes in some areas, tens of thousands nationwide, which would be more than enough to swing close races. And then again it may only be less than a hundred fraudulent votes each election. It would be nice to know for sure but we probably never will.

It's not a matter of disagreeing.  It's an outright lie because not only does he have no evidence to back it up, but the evidence says it is categorically false.  Would you disagree with him if he said that Russia has not invaded Ukraine?  He has said it, and that is also categorically false.

[D.W.]

cherry, as those numbers are probably possible with... less than a dozen people in total, I wouldn't be totally surprised I suppose if that was revealed.  I don't see it likely to be in the 10s of thousands... But stranger things seem to find the light of day.

It's the suggestion that there is some secret group (mostly of Democrats I guess) working to fabricate votes across the nation and target them to swing elections that will matter, all working in concert that I can do nothing but laugh at.

One person attempting to steal an election?  Maybe two working together?  Maybe a dozen across the nation all working individually with no contact or knowledge of the others?  Sure.  I can't dismiss that.

Start talking about recruiting illegals, or better yet dead people having voted by the thousands or tens of thousands or by the millions and I'll tune ya out as a crazy person <snap> just like that.

[TheDeamon]

It's not a matter of disagreeing.  It's an outright lie because not only does he have no evidence to back it up, but the evidence says it is categorically false.

What evidence exactly says it is categorically false(in regards to voter fraud)? Everything I've seen simply indicates it's "unlikely" to happen in many parts of the country, and "very difficult" in Voter ID states.

I'm unaware of anyone doing anyone asserting they've performed vigorous testing regarding voter fraud in regards foreign nationals(w/o US Citizenship; not to be confused with people holding dual, or more, citizenships) potentially voting in the election.

Also a highly safe bet that nobody has ever bothered to verify the citizenship status of campaign workers/volunteers on the local level, because nobody has cared about that one AFAIK. And as "foreign influence" only became "an item of concern" after the election, it's going to be more than a little difficult to go back and find examples of that...

Well, aside from Publicly acknowledged Illegal Immigrants who were invited to speak at Democratic Campaign rallies, and at the national convention...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/25/illegal-immigrants-address-democratic-convention/

[TheDeamon]

Start talking about recruiting illegals, or better yet dead people having voted by the thousands or tens of thousands or by the millions and I'll tune ya out as a crazy person <snap> just like that.

In states where they've issued identification to them, it is possible. The probability may be low, but it isn't zero.

They have a state issued ID, they may not have been automagically registered to vote, but for that ID to be "worth their while" and not advertise their illegal status, it has to be virtually identical to the standard ID they'd issue to anyone else. So while the DMV may not register them to vote, as they know they're illegals. There is nothing stopping the Illegal from taking that State Issued ID and then heading down to the nearest polling place and using that very same ID to register to vote.

At that point it doesn't take a grand conspiracy, it just takes careful word of mouth and hope nobody "rolls over" on them. Given that the Obama Admin wasn't looking for it, and the states in question were highly unlikely to be looking for it, and the resources that would otherwise need to be brought to bear to detect it. It is possible, and even probable, that there was a large number of illegal immigrant voters out there. They just need to be very discrete about what they've been doing.

And given the tenuous nature of their presence as it is, they already understand the idea and practice of being discrete.

[D.W.]

And as "foreign influence" only became "an item of concern" after the election, it's going to be more than a little difficult to go back and find examples of that...

Which would you watch.
The made for TV movie about the political crusaders who uncovered a vast conspiracy of Democratic operatives rounding up illegal immigrants and training them how to circumvent the woefully trivial measures meant to stop them from overthrowing the will of "real Americans"...  (This is boring to anyone even if you DO want to see your political opponents dragged through the mud.)

OR

A Tom Clancy worthy spy thriller about a cyber breach at high levels of the government and then masterful propaganda czars plotting how to release their spoils in the most catastrophic and dastardly way possible to improve the chances that a more... pliable president made it into office.  (This could be a fun movie even if you are outraged that the liberal insert-profanity-here director couldn't help but "make it political".)

It seems pretty obvious to me.  We lovez us a good narrative.   

[D.W.]

TheDeamon, the idea that they've been able to remain discreet for as long as these claims have been around is (to me at least) just as silly as the notion that discretion is required to get by as an illegal immigrant in the USA. 

Well, it may be required soon... but I expect Trump to do a 180 on immigration.

[TheDeamon]

And as "foreign influence" only became "an item of concern" after the election, it's going to be more than a little difficult to go back and find examples of that...

Which would you watch.
The made for TV movie about the political crusaders who uncovered a vast conspiracy of Democratic operatives rounding up illegal immigrants and training them how to circumvent the woefully trivial measures meant to stop them from overthrowing the will of "real Americans"...  (This is boring to anyone even if you DO want to see your political opponents dragged through the mud.)

OR

A Tom Clancy worthy spy thriller about a cyber breach at high levels of the government and then masterful propaganda czars plotting how to release their spoils in the most catastrophic and dastardly way possible to improve the chances that a more... pliable president made it into office.  (This could be a fun movie even if you are outraged that the liberal insert-profanity-here director couldn't help but "make it political".)

It seems pretty obvious to me.  We lovez us a good narrative.   

Pretty much, that and anyone who starts to pursue the investigation in a rational manner(which sadly means "racial profiling" because honestly, the largest pools of "potential illegal voters" lies within the Hispanic/Latin American communities as that is where most of the illegal immigrants came from), the person investigating those "dastardly Democratic operatives" immediately gets branded as racist. Meaning the investigator is actually a villain at worst, or an anti-hero at best.

[cherrypoptart]

It would have been easier to think such conspiracies to commit voter fraud were total fantasy if Breitbart undercover reporters hadn't caught high level Democrat operatives like Scott Foval and Robert Creamer, who has been to the White House hundreds of times, on tape describing exactly how to commit massive voter fraud and get away with it along with bird dogging Trump appearances to provoke violence and then make it look like it is Trump and his supporters who are the violent ones. If we relied on the regular media to tell us stuff like that we would never know about it, even now, and the whole thing about Democrat operatives masterminding these events would all be just another conspiracy theory. They also talk about set up a system of plausible deniability for the candidates themselves which makes it easy to imagine this goes all the way to the top, at least with a wink and a nod and plenty of cash to fund operations. When you realize how close we came to knowing nothing at all about the actual nature of our reality and the people who are out there and what they are doing, it's not hard to imagine that this doesn't even scratch the surface.

But perhaps now we know everything there is to know. Nothing more to see here. Move along citizen. Move along.

[Kasandra]

Problem?

Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee have paid at least $1.8 million to a political operative whose roster of companies include several that have been repeatedly investigated for voter registration fraud, even as Trump has complained that the election is rigged against him.

Three employees of Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm owned by conservative operative Nathan Sproul, pleaded guilty in Florida four years ago to felony charges related to altering and destroying scores of voter registration forms. There were no formal actions against the firm.

Yet recent federal campaign finance reports reviewed by The Associated Press show Sproul is now back on the RNC's payroll, this time with a firm named Lincoln Strategy Group, a renamed version of his former firm Sproul & Associates, an Arizona-based firm that was investigated for alleged voter registration misconduct in Nevada and Oregon.

No, he works for the RNC.

[cherrypoptart]

It's well known that the Republicans are, shall we say... zealous... about purging voter rolls of people who are ineligible to vote such as felons in states where they aren't supposed to vote, dead people who aren't supposed to be voting in any states but still do in many, and other people who are not eligible to vote. I'll admit they can go overboard and inaccurately purge people who are eligible to vote. Perhaps they do it by accident or maybe they do it on purpose. Or a bit of both.

If they pleaded guilty in Florida four years ago to felony charges related to altering and destroying scores of voter registration forms then why were no formal actions against the firm? Did the men involved who pleaded guilty serve lengthy prison sentences at least?

At least you now admit that there are conspiracies to commit mass voter fraud. Maybe we are close to common ground.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/virginia-voter-fraud-case-expands-to-focus-on-gop-firm/2012/11/02/76285252-24eb-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html?utm_term=.f911cbb155e6

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-campbell/voter-fraud-the-gop-witch_b_1945586.html

There are lots of accusations in these stories to back up your conspiracy theory about Republican organized voter fraud in the form of illegal purging of voter rolls. A point was made though that the company has yet to be convicted. Everything backs up exactly what I've been saying all along that this happens on a bigger scale than we're led to believe and it's very difficult to prove anything and even if you could the penalties are negligible compared to what is gained by cheating.

[Kasandra]

It's well known that the Republicans are, shall we say... zealous... about purging voter rolls of people who are ineligible to vote such as felons in states where they aren't supposed to vote, dead people who aren't supposed to be voting in any states but still do in many, and other people who are not eligible to vote. I'll admit they can go overboard and inaccurately purge people who are eligible to vote. Perhaps they do it by accident or maybe they do it on purpose. Or a bit of both.

Yes, Republicans are "...zealous..." but Democrats are...evil...when they do the same thing?

There are lots of accusations in these stories to back up your conspiracy theory about Republican organized voter fraud in the form of illegal purging of voter rolls. A point was made though that the company has yet to be convicted. Everything backs up exactly what I've been saying all along that this happens on a bigger scale than we're led to believe and it's very difficult to prove anything and even if you could the penalties are negligible compared to what is gained by cheating.

A perfect example of self-justification. 

1: Your team cheats, but I can't prove it.
2: My team got caught cheating.
3: Therefore, your team cheats better because we can't catch them.
4: If they're that good at it they must be doing it everywhere all the time.
5: I'm a skoller, give me a degree for thinking.

[Fenring]

On the topic of truthful hyperbole and fake news, here's a hilarious article about Snopes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

It doesn't even require a tl:dr because the opening factoids are funny enough by themselves.

Now a DailyMail.com investigation reveals that Snopes.com's founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.

He has since remarried, to a former escort and porn actress who is one of the site's staff members.

They are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of 'embezzlement' and suggesting he is attempting a 'boondoggle' to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.

[rightleft22]

Been reading some interesting articles on the ‘search engine manipulation effect’

First I don’t consider this a conspiracy of company like Google but the nature of search engines and psychology. It’s harder to see what we don’t already expect to see. 

Having worked for a company that designed a search engines for its products as well as dependent on SEO of web search engines. With the product search engine the goal was to present the customer with the images that their history indicated they were most likely to respond to.  You might call this the customer bias.

I experimented on Google with news and found that there was a search bias that recognized my concern with Trump and so recommended stories that tended towards confirming my concerns.    To find views that differed from mine I had to work at defining my search key wording.

I also noticed that of the thousands of articles and such written on a topic I tended to see the same ones on the first page despite changing a keyword or two.

Anyway it was interesting and I expect future topic for many a thesis. 

[Kasandra]

If there is one thing about the Internet that I find most cringe-worthy, it is the way that sites track individual's "preferences".  I'm still seeing ads for things I considered buying or did buy 6 months ago.  If I bought winter boots in October, why would I want to look at ads for boots the rest of the winter?  Your comment about Google is on point, as well.  My wife likes that sites tend to "know her" and offer her things she will probably like, something in the model of Pandora or other music service sites.  The world of things she is not ever hearing about is infinitely greater than things that match the notion that "...if you liked that you might also like...".  God save us from consistency bias.

[Seriati]

Having worked for a company that designed a search engines for its products as well as dependent on SEO of web search engines. With the product search engine the goal was to present the customer with the images that their history indicated they were most likely to respond to.  You might call this the customer bias.

Want to freak yourself out, open up a Facebook app on your phone and have a conversation with something about some kind of common products or services, then scroll down the app and see how long before something like your discussion shows up.  Can't prove its listening (there's any number of potential confounders), but the number of times something relevant to the conversation has shown up on us is disturbing.

[rightleft22]

Website analytics freaks me out
We like to think of ourselves as individuals impervious to manipulation however it takes the collection of surprisingly little information to create a accurate profile that can be used to 'influence' us.

[TheDeamon]

I experimented on Google with news and found that there was a search bias that recognized my concern with Trump and so recommended stories that tended towards confirming my concerns.    To find views that differed from mine I had to work at defining my search key wording.

I also noticed that of the thousands of articles and such written on a topic I tended to see the same ones on the first page despite changing a keyword or two.

Anyway it was interesting and I expect future topic for many a thesis.

TED is way ahead of you, here's a talk from 2011 on exactly this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s

edit: At about 2:50 he starts talking about what happens when he had some friends "Google 'Egypt'" and take Screenshots of their first screen of search results.

[TheDrake]

If there is one thing about the Internet that I find most cringe-worthy, it is the way that sites track individual's "preferences".  I'm still seeing ads for things I considered buying or did buy 6 months ago.  If I bought winter boots in October, why would I want to look at ads for boots the rest of the winter?

Ah, but this should be easily remedied by having your email provider inform the ad agencies that you ordered some boots and received a receipt and removing it from search preference. I'm still looking at ads for a lab bench that I bought four months ago. I look at a lot of things, so I'm not sure which algorithm or cookie monster tagged it as a hot preference.

[Kasandra]

It's even more cringe-worthy for me, because at least one web ad server company is using MPP database software that I was a core developer of to bid in real-time on ads to be served to web pages based on who the user is.  The ad server company has to complete their bid in a few milliseconds and give a price.  It's impressive how much data the ad servers can churn through quickly, but they retain their data for far too long.  I've just retired (mostly) and will spend some of my golden time figuring out how to more thoroughly cover my internet tracks and anonymize my purchase history.

[TheDeamon]

It's even more cringe-worthy for me, because at least one web ad server company is using MPP database software that I was a core developer of to bid in real-time on ads to be served to web pages based on who the user is.  The ad server company has to complete their bid in a few milliseconds and give a price.  It's impressive how much data the ad servers can churn through quickly, but they retain their data for far too long.  I've just retired (mostly) and will spend some of my golden time figuring out how to more thoroughly cover my internet tracks and anonymize my purchase history.

About the only thing I can come up with that would confuse the mess are the "preloaded" VISA Cards, depending on how you go about obtaining them, they're going to be hard pressed to tie them back to you short of other links.

[Kasandra]

There's a funny story that if you manage somehow to go completely off the grid, no credit cards, no subscriptions, no web purchases, rent rather than own, and pay with cash or barter, one day you'll open your front door and find a free subscription to American Survivalist on your "*censored* Off Mat".  That's because even the black hole you make in the world defines the space you occupy.