If you're fact-checking a claim, you're supposed to look at the facts of the claim, not base your results on whether or not the source gives you additional information about it.
Either you know what the facts really are of a claim or you don't. If you don't know what the facts actually are, then you have no business rating how true the claim is. Rating essentially the same "fact" true or false based on the source for it reveals something other than fact-checking is going on.
Feel free to explain if Politifact isn't biased, why they contradict themselves on if a claim is true or not based on who said it.
So for $30K, you can patch 400K bot systems to never participate in another botnet? That's less than some companies pay in DDOS protection every month..... just an idea, guys.
Fortunately, we still have Justices on the Supreme Court who will follow the Constitution on protecting freedom of the press, i.e. Citizen's United, since the candidate who was advocating for overruling that decision protecting those criticizing her lost.
In other words, I don't believe Trump has the power to "silence the press", because those on the right who would have to be involved have demonstrated they wouldn't be. You notice the press has no actual fear of the President-elect. People who are afraid don't say and act how they do, that's behavior for people who still believe they run things.
Some people have realized the more you know about the subject of a "news" story, the less accurate it appears to be to you.
Many of those people don't make the leap to understand all the other stories they don't know as much about the subject of are about the same level of accuracy, so congratulations on that.
difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the lies the press tell you differ from the lies the politicians tell you, not that they tell you no lies.
So Trump winning has secured Democracy for the foreseeable future? i.e. now that most of the press is going to go back to actually digging up dirt on and criticizing the administration...
Because they couldn't get the government to regulate the Internet as they wanted to via the normal democratic process using the people's elected representatives, so they did an end-run and got the Dems on the FCC to do it instead.
Now that the people have gotten around to electing a President on an explicit platform of overturning the FCC's actions and he gets to pick the commissioners, there is speculation their end-run won't last very long.
You can apply this same logic also to many of Obama's executive actions, where they basically said Congress doesn't want this to happen, but we'll just ignore the intent of the law and subvert the letter for a different outcome. The problem with that approach is that with a new President and cabinet and agency heads can come a complete reversal.
Assuming they keep their word and repeal Obamacare (and they can use the non-filibuster budget process.. heck, even "deem" it passed in the House if they want...), then what is left of Obama's legacy? A bunch of screwed up middle-eastern countries....
Thanks for confirming my suggestion of your bubble. Most people aren't willing to admit they categorically ignore any information from anyone who doesn't agree with them.
You can quote one of the most partisan NY Times columnists all you want, but Reagan:
A. Presided over one of the best economies in modern times.
B. Never advocated for anything called "trickle-down economics"
C. Reagan deregulation didn't cause the S&L crisis.
This is a serious comment, not an argumentative one. If you really believe what's in your post, you should consider broadening your news sources and where you get your information from.
You sound like you've been stuck in a far-left echo chamber all election season.
The beauty of the Internet is that you can access all sorts of news and points of view. You don't have to wallow in people you don't agree with, but maybe get out a little bit more...
Look at it this way... did any of your normal news sources predictions correspond with reality in the election outcome? If not, that's a good sign you're empirically missing a big chunk of the available information.
Why not? Because I feel bad for all the poor people who will have to go hungry and not be able to have a nice life because of the destruction of wealth and prevention of economic improvement your "changes" will cause compared to the baseline compounding economics involved.
Even if true (and the scientific support just isn't there for it), the future will be much wealthier, more knowledgeable and better able to deal with any related fallout.
You're erring on the side of alarmism, not caution. Caution is to not upend the world's economy for decades based on alarmist speculation.
Magical devices are reserved for women. Men aren't so picky they demand to be able to automatically and inconspicuously send an alert from inside a faraday cage.
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty.
The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.
Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.
A system based on total votes counted for the entire nation is vulnerable by rigging performed by election officials in as little as a single location.
As an example, currently if a heavily Democratic Party controlled State like CA has election officials who rigg things to add votes to Hillary, they only affect the electoral college results from CA, which being heavily Democratic already they've already got. If switched to a system of total votes, they could produce extra "votes" for Hillary where GOP poll watchers didn't show up (because the local race isn't competitive) and seriously affect the overall election. If you want a reverse example, think Diabold in a southern state and the potential ability to add votes when another party controls things.
So one of the reasons for the current system is to limit and constrain issues in a particularly partisan location to that location, rather than making it a nationwide issue. Another reason (the original one for the electoral college) is that different parts of the country have different interests, values and goals, even beyond the typical urban/rural divide. Forcing candidates to win in a lot of places by what may be a smaller amount, rather then simply winning a few places by a ton of votes and ignoring the rest improves their ability to represent the whole country, rather than one single partisan slice popular regionally.
Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.