Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 12:38:33 GMT -5
You know, at this point, I have to admit I don't have much idea what to expect from Trump. All I can do is hope his ugliest rhetoric was just talk. (Even if it was, and even if he never does it again, I think it was deeply damaging. But now that he's won, the best I can do is hope he doesn't carry it into effect, and protest if he does.)
I'm not sure what will happen with Paul Ryan, either, after the dust clears.
My magic 8 ball keeps saying "Reply hazy. Try again."
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 13, 2016 22:47:12 GMT -5
That article is from June 14. Any thoughts on whether that makes any difference at all to its relevance now? I mean, he said it, and he referred to the Committee by name, knowing its connotations. But Gingrich said it in June, not yesterday, and I didn't find it in Trump's plan for the first 100 days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 23:13:18 GMT -5
I didn't even notice the date. You know, I HATE the way news sites float up months old articles as though they are new. Several times, I've read (or posted) an article I thought was new...until, heh, I glanced at the date. I saw it hap o en to others in P&CE on multiple occasions. WHY do they float them with the new news? WHY?
Anyway. No idea if that was mere red meat for the base or a serious policy proposal that will kick off the second hundred days. I think I'll google and see if there's an update.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 13, 2016 23:31:12 GMT -5
ARGH! Sorry - I missed the date, too. I can't find anything newer, so probably it was just another case of Newt farting out his mouth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2016 23:52:05 GMT -5
I must, of course, tease you...
...but I've done it, too, and more than once. So have many regulars on P&CE. It's the way they refloat old articles as though they are new. And right now, as we are all anxiously awaiting to hear what Trump's plans are, it seems like a current part of them. I missed the date, too, when I read it.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 14, 2016 0:10:06 GMT -5
I blame social media, too - people find old articles and share them as if they're new. I'm usually a better spotter than that. *hangs head in shame*
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 14, 2016 0:44:34 GMT -5
I've tended to jump at Facebook links too -- it's so easy to do. It's one of the reasons I've disabled my news feed (though kept the account, as I like having friends). I've resolved, belatedly, to make an effort to avoid using Facebook as a news source. Other reasons: - "Others shared": more articles like the same, leading to confirmation bias - Fitness for purpose: Facebook for me was originally social only, and it's crept into 'news' space. And, Number 1: The sandstorm of news and divisive responses is just sapping my soul, which I'm not ready to give up just yet. Jeff Zuckerberg apparently acknowledges* that Facebook has been a conduit for fake news, and needs to do better. *: This 'article' is founded on a Zuckerberg post, and it asserts without substantiation that most of the fake news is pro-Trump. Consult your local reputable news source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 1:22:04 GMT -5
I went off facebook a while ago -- I got tired of my conservative and liberal friends and relatives sniping at each other (For pete's sake, I wanted to say, I like you all -- can't you try to get along?!), and tired of annoying colleagues and ex-dates trying to friend me. But yeah, the news thing got ridiculous.
I just want...the news. I don't want it filtered for my predispositions. I'd like those to be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 14, 2016 1:34:53 GMT -5
I just want...the news. I don't want it filtered for my predispositions. Nobody wants news filtered for your predispositions. *shudder*
|
|