Why Do So Many Liberals "Like" Mitt Romney On Facebook? 376
pigrabbitbear writes "Mother Jones reports that, 'In recent weeks, a host of liberal types have complained that their Facebook accounts have erroneously "liked" Romney's page, and some are floating the theory that the Romney campaign has deployed a virus or used other nefarious means to inflate the candidate's online stature. This conspiratorial notion has spawned a Facebook community forum, and its own page: "Hacked By Mitt Romney" (cute url: facebook.com/MittYouDidntBuildThat)' So what's going on? Is the Romney campaign engaging in some tech wizardry to hijack Americans' Facebook pages? Seems unlikely, but Romney did somehow manage to acquire millions of fake Twitter followers. But it looks like the Romney campaign isn't behind this one — Facebook and its mobile app is."
Simple mix up (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure the folks just assumed they were liking a page about an android. Honest mistake, that's all.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying they saw "If you Liked Al Gore, check out Mitt Romney" messages and just clicked?
Re: (Score:3)
I have found that just giving the option to click something on a computer compels some people to click things indiscriminately. It also works well with pre-checked check boxes on software installs and updates. Perhaps this is not far from the truth.
Re:Simple mix up (Score:5, Informative)
One other thing is, to participate on discussions on a page, you must "like" it.
So some of those liberals that "like" him may have "liked" him for the purposes of trolling the page.
Re:Simple mix up (Score:4, Interesting)
...which makes this comment from one of TFAs twice as funny:
“I’ve deleted 5 people,” one read. “This is the only place that I have any intolerance. If you like that dude, even just on the Internet, we are enemies. No apologies.”
(Basically, if you facebook-like Romney, that guy considers you an enemy.)
Re:Simple mix up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simple mix up (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just politics. I'd bet that you'd find people who will unfriend anyone who has a different opinion on Bleach Subbed or the latest installment of Mass Effect.
But to get back to the politics part, I saw this yesterday [balloon-juice.com] and your post reminded me of it. I can understand taking politics really seriously, but I've got enough in-laws from various parts of the former Yugoslavia to know that you can take the tribalism of politics way too far.
We're all used to hearing one side call the other "insane" or "evil" or "the antichrist" or "inhuman" because our commercial media is full of that kind of stuff. But when you start seeing friends or family in those overheated terms because of their political views, it's a sure sign that you've let yourself be used by someone else's political agenda, pumped into your head by some media big-mouth.
It's a shame that more people don't realize that the "other side" is mostly just scared.
Re:Simple mix up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple mix up (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not saying any of that shit. I'm saying that ending decades-long friendship over a political disagreement is stupid. Comparing someone with whom you disagree with Hitler or the Antichrist is stupid.
And, last but not least, I'm saying that you are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Peace, Love, and F**K You B**CH
Re:Simple mix up (Score:5, Insightful)
Several people have asked my why I "like" obama's facebook page even though I consider him a mass murder (for drone attacks), and have a litany of other issues with him (most of which apply just as well to Mitt, and I have no intention of voting for him either, I consider them equivalent candidates)
The answer was always that....tthere is no dislike button and I can't troll the page without hitting like. That is also why I like a page on the assault weapons ban, not because I favor gun control, but because I want to argue with the people who do.
Re:Simple mix up (Score:5, Interesting)
One other thing is, to participate on discussions on a page, you must "like" it.
So some of those liberals that "like" him may have "liked" him for the purposes of trolling the page.
This.
If you've ever been to either Obama's or Romney's page, all the comments are pretty much chock-full of hatin' from the other side.
I worked for Microsoft Game Studios for a while and our FB page was pretty much the same way. It was kinda nice, because all of the trolls would hang out on FB and forums... where no one would read them except for other haters. Anyone who was actually playing our game would then be pretty much free to play online relatively unmolested by trolls in-game.
Same thing with youtube... if it wasn't for youtube trolls, we'd probably have many more here :P
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly like Huffington Post, when you are one amongst thousands even tens of thousands of posters do you think anyone is going to read it. It's a game, that just show the most recent post, give people the kick of seeing their own post and seconds latter the comment disappears in the backlog, while their page view remains the same with their comment still appearing. Go back a few minutes latter and it is buried in the comment avalanche.
So it is all basically a web site draw card for suckers, fool
Re: (Score:3)
Is not this whole thing already essentially explained by the fact that we keep putting "like" in quotes? Are people selectively forgetting that clicking "like" on Facebook is not equivalent to actually liking the thing you clicked "like" on? Just like putting a web page in your "Favorites" list in IE doesn't mean it is your favorite web page?
Imagine it in the context of Junior High note passing:
- Do you like me? Y/N
- I "like" you
- :(
Re: (Score:3)
There is something at work in Facebook. I have several times seen Facebook "Recommended for you" that I should "Like" Mitt's page. This is completely weird because I have never posted anything political one way or another on my Facebook page. I am not really an Obama supporter, but I cannot stand Mitt and would never "Like" him or his page. So, why would Facebook "Recommend" him for me? My tinfoil-hat theory is not something as nefarious as "hacking", but more likely someone paid someone at Facebook to
Re:Simple mix up (Score:4, Interesting)
Gary Johnson has NEVER appeared as a "like" option in FB, even though I am a Libertarian. Those are Sponsored ads and my guess is that Gary Johnson is much better suited to the G+ crowd. The interesting thing is Mitt is also on G+ as is Obama, but I see more +Gary Johnson posts in the WHAT'S HOT section. Or is it just that I tune out Mitt Obama and Barack Romney crap?
Re: (Score:3)
With the amount of linked FB crap on the net, it doesn't take much to build your relationship data. Say you are on a website that has a discussion board. Say the article is about Romney. Say someone says something that disagrees with Romney and you click the Like button or Thumb Up, or make a comment. Well if the forum is linked with FB, it can send the recommendation to their data server. Which is then used to aggregate into your profile.
All the more reason to block the xss stuff.
Issues (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Issues (Score:5, Funny)
That's the great thing about Romney as a presidential candidate: there are so many choices. I like moderate Mitt! I like severely conservative Mitt, with Spock's beard accessory! Collect them all!
If pro-choice Mitt met pro-life Mitt, would there be an antimatter explosion?
Re: (Score:2)
If pro-choice Mitt met pro-life Mitt, would there be an antimitter explosion?
FTFY
Re:Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Like any politician is any better? Gitmo was supposed to closed in January 2010. No tax increases, after the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was a tax. Drone strikes increase 3-fold under Obama. The "most transparent government" said that Benghazi was a protest about a Youtube video, then admitted it was a terrorist attack and are now engaged in Newspeak, claiming they never said it was a protest about a Youtube video.
WMDs in Iraq, Watergate, Iran-Contra, arming the Taliban in the 1980s, the list goes on and on.
Re: (Score:3)
Like any politician is any better?
Yes, almost any politician is. Mitt takes flip-flopping to a whole new level. I seriously have no idea what the man stands for besides getting elected, being rich, and being a Mormon.
Re: (Score:2)
He's an issue whore, aka a politician.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Funny)
A liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar.
The bartender says "Afternoon, Mitt! What can I get for you?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Abortion. He's gone back and forth on that since the 90s.
He's been pretty solidly advocating new laws against abortion recently, but a couple days ago he told the Des Moines Register, "There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda." Then his campaign hastily "corrected" that a couple hours later and said he "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
Re: (Score:2)
Which in and of itself is weasily. He's already on record as saying he would seek to kill Obamacare, except for the bits he figures voters will like.
Seems to be working, too. Certainly he's polling better, though the state projections still heavily favor Obama.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a registered independent and frankly I think that soap dish would be better then 4 years form either of them...
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Realistically, you should realize that you have 6 choices [isidewith.com] to choose from. If you believe that your choices are 2 instead of 6 then you're taking the bait. Take that quiz and figure out who best represents you, and sack up and vote for that person even if you don't think they'll win. If Romney represents you the best, so be it. But don't vote for him just because you don't think you have another choice, that's a stupid reason to vote for something.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
If you leave the money in circulation then it creates jobs
No it doesn't. Companies don't hire because they're paying less in taxes, they hire because they need people to get things done. Not to mention that taxing doesn't actually pull money out of circulation the way you're thinking -- it slows inflation or causes deflation. Taxes change the value of money, which is why cutting taxes only has short term benefits for an economy; inflation will eventually catch up so despite having more dollars available their value will be diminished. Likewise, when raising taxes, the money the government collects doesn't just disappear. First, it's used to pay for expenditures and goes toward lowering the deficit (and hopefully, eventually the debt). Second, as I mentioned, the rate of inflation will decrease in proportion to the money being taxed, thus resulting in the same amount of wealth in the economy regardless of the fact that there might be less money. Assuming that cutting taxes will create more wealth is like assuming that printing more money will create more wealth; it doesn't, it just affects the currency's market liquidity.
Of course, if you're voting based on the abortion issue, you're the type of sucker the Republicans love. Do you actually believe that guys like Romney and Ryan are against abortion? Even if they were elected, they have no way to overturn Roe v. Wade and they know it. It's just an issue they can make a lot of noise about to rally voters who care about nonsensical issues that have nothing to do with how the country is run. Also, what good is it to save the unborn when most aborted babies, if they were to be born, are likely to end up in prison? Here's a primer. [wikipedia.org]
Finally, a president's economic policies usually take longer than their one or two terms to actually have an effect. One of the many reasons a four year election cycle is stupid. When judging an incumbent's economic policies, one shouldn't consider whether they did good, one should consider whether they will do good. Not to mention the fact that, although the president has more influence over the economy than most, that influence is extremely limited, especially with a divided congress.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, to a certain degree. You hire people because you need to get things done. If you have nothing that needs to get done, then getting them back your tax money doesn't mean a 1:1 ratio to new jobs.
On the other hand, if a company needs to hire more people to get work done, but is being taxed for the amount of money they would devote to hiring those people to grow their business, then the taxes prevented a new job from being created.
In the short term, both parties have it wrong, although in the lo
Re: (Score:3)
I've never seen anyone who refers to Obama as BHO who wasn't a racist/bigot/whackjob-extremist.
Using it immediately labels you as someone who is dissociated from logic.
Yeah, people really shouldn't make such a big deal over his middle name. They should just use BO's first & last name & initials.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Funny)
I believe he's taking a 'wide stance' on the abortion issue.
And "obama care" (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe he's taking a 'wide stance' on the abortion issue.
Governor Mitt did some "liberal" things about healthcare when he was governor of Mass. Then as Rep Pres candidate, he was against Obama Care - similar to what he did - WTF?!? Now, he's back to being in favor of it - I think - I lost track.
Paul Ryan is also a flip flopper. As a Congressman, he brought up some important issues about Medicare - like cutting $700+billion to keep it from going bust - and now as Ryan the VP candidate, he's against it.
That's why when the Presidential debates are happening, I tell
Re:And "obama care" (Score:5, Informative)
Except that our healthcare as it exists today is "up to the states" by and large. And you know what? The states have completely fucked up the laboratory experiment that is Healthcare. We know that doesn't work.
The only real option is a public, single payer system, and getting to a state where the US funds subsidies of drug prices around the world. Recently in AZ, where I live, there was a lady who had a major adverse reaction to a bark scorpion bite. 6 doses of antivenin that is manufactured in Mexico were administered. If she was in Mexico, total cost would have been about $600. Her bill? $35,000 for the same medicine that costs
Want more? I used to work for a multinational. They explicitly said that they will hire more people in Canada, the UK, France and Germany, while reducing their roster in the US. Reason? Healthcare costs. Paying the extra taxes and having universal healthcare is a powerful reason to move good high paying engineering jobs out of the US.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Minimum wage
Vietnam service
Abortion
Roe v. Wade
Stem cell research
Healthcare
47%
Gun control
Climate change and greenhouse gas reduction
It was actually not a joke. There is *no* issue which this man has not claimed to stand for just one side of.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see what all the brew-haha is about on that one. I mean, he actually hit that one smack on the head.
I guess the truth hurts....
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
No, he didn't.
He took a statistic from a WSJ article that said 47% of the population was getting a check from the gov't for one reason or another and assumed that meant they were all welfare queens, life-long Democrats and rabidly pro-Obama.
He didn't take into account the number of people getting Social Security. Nor Veteran's Benefits. Nor Military Pensions. Hell, nor active duty military drawing a paycheck. Nor many, many other categories of payments that go to people who aren't just in it for a handout.
Or are you trying to tell me that every military person, active duty or retiree; senior citizen or person drawing veteran's disability is a died-in-the-wool Democrat and Obama supporter?
He was talking to a bunch of fucking morons who can't think beyond simple sentences and telling them what they wanted to hear. He was being a money grubbing, lying politician.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
My grandmother and grandfather invested post-tax for decades. They did this so they could draw their investment income in retirement and not have to pay federal tax on it. In their retirement years they collected Social Security -- for which they paid into earlier, and drew from their retirement funds -- which had been taxed years before. They paid no income tax during their retirement years and rightfully so.
My daughter has a job that earned her only a couple of thousand dollars last year. She didn't pay income tax because she lived at home and went to school full time. She was claimed on MY return and her income was reported there.
However, under the method used by the WSJ she would be reported as paying no Federal tax as it was all returned.
Keep in mind, anyone working has Social Security and Medicare withholdings. Both are FEDERAL taxes they pay and aren't returned at tax time. They just aren't INCOME tax.
The amount of money would would collect from the lowest end of the spectrum is offset by what it would cost for you to collect. You'd actually LOSE money processing their returns and everything that goes with it.
Think of those pictures that occasionally make the news where a doctor frames the $0.01 check he received from Medicare and the $0.42 stamped envelope next to it. Are you honestly saying you want to see that?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong. Demanding that EVERYONE pay SOMETHING is an example.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone who works pays Federal taxes on their wages.
Not everyone pays Federal Income taxes, because Income taxes are only supposed to be paid on wages earned over a certain level required for some standard of living.
Example: When I was in college (which I paid for, unlike so many of the welfare-children who drank away mommy & daddy's hard work), I worked part time and made about $12k/year. Between standard deductions, student tuition deductions, and student loan interest deductions, I paid $0 in federal income taxes. However, I still paid FICA (and a couple other small taxes, I think), and that wasn't an insignificant amount, considering that I was paying my own way through college.
Another example: My mother (one of those greedy, money-grubbing teachers) raised three children on $19k/year. She also paid no income taxes, but still paid a decent chunk in FICA, property, and state taxes. I've heard people complain about how pissed they are that some people don't pay Federal [Income] Taxes. My response has always been: My mom would have gladly traded spots with you. She'll pay income tax, and you can sleep in a cold house because there isn't enough money to keep the house any warmer.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Informative)
The statistic has a narrow meaning but has been taken and padded to sound like half the country is mooching.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, anyone working (or able to work) should be working AND...have to pay SOME federal tax..I don't care if it is $10 or so....just as long as everyone has some skin in the game, eh?
I couldn't disagree more. First of all these people ARE paying taxes...just not income tax. They pay payroll taxes, often sales taxes, often property taxes etc.
I've had others including a close friend make this "everyone should be paying some income tax" argument, but I'm sorry. A working family that has to choose between buying their kids shoes or food should most certainly not pay income tax.
This whole thing about people who aren't paying income tax always seems to imply that this is something new. These people under similar circumstances wouldn't have paid income tax at any time in our history, because making them do so is just plain wrong. If anything, the big difference is that decades ago the same people would have been much more likely to be making enough money to exceed the tax threshold, which if you ask me has much more to do with this new Gilded Age the so-called "free markets" have given us than anything else.
Re:Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it was more along the lines of 47% of the people in the US that pay no federal tax...many of which are also on the dole...
You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make your belief fact. Here are Romney's exact words:
Frankly, anyone working (or able to work) should be working AND...have to pay SOME federal tax..I don't care if it is $10 or so....just as long as everyone has some skin in the game, eh?
We all have skin in the game, by virtue of the fact that, as American citizens, we are collectively affected by federal policy. That's a dumb phrase too often trotted out by asshole narcissists.
Do us all a favor and don't be an asshole narcissist.
I don't like it that a large block of people are just voting themselves more money out of the general tax fund.
Yea, well, then demand that corporate lobbyists be banned from DC. I know you must be talking about corporations, since the poor people you so blithely dismiss hardly have access to the resources required to "vote themselves more money."
It's a bit mind blowing, how much influence some people think the least of our populace have over the government, meanwhile dismissing the vast amount of overt corporate influence that actually exists.
Re:Issues (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the truth hurts....
Like the truth about Mitt being two-faced at the head of this thread?
Re:Perfect Match (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure this is futile, since you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier, but here we go:
a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks
Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.
claims to hate the oil industry while taking huge donations from BP before the oil spill.
Any politician wil take any money offered. If Koch offered Obama money he'd take it, if Michael Moore offered Romney money, he'd take it just as quickly.
On the other hand, during the Republican debates Romney said he wants Roe v Wade overturned, two nights ago said he wouldn't outlaw abortion.
I do agree with you on one thing: The press does not care at all what Democrats will do, and rationalize any action they take. However, the same goes for Republicans. The "liberal media" is a myth; ABC only looks liberal compared to Fox or Rush, who are slightly to the right of Mussolini.
At least when you vote Republican you know the press will do their damnedest to catch them out in something
That's pure laziness; the Republicans make it easy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't understand. When Romney changes a position, it's called "flip flopping".
When Obama changes a position, it's called "evolving".
This flip-flopp accusation crap (Score:2)
Democrats in 2012 acting like Republicans from 2004
And folks wonder why 3rd parties are gaining more traction.
Re:Perfect Match (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
Re:Perfect Match (Score:4, Insightful)
You've been intentionally avoiding them. Tax plans, abortion, health care, opinions on the "47%," it takes a thick layer of willful ignorance or perhaps a carefully filtered media intake to not notice what he's doing.
Re:Perfect Match (Score:4, Informative)
http://mittromneysflipflops.com/ [mittromneysflipflops.com]
I took a quick perusal and there was a pretty good list. Anybody who doesn't think Romney is a serial flip-flopper has their head in the sand.
Sure, Obama and every politician does to some extent, but Mitt takes the cake.
Re: (Score:3)
Not over four years (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, the Republican party got a lot of media attention in part because they had, like, 6 people running for the position of a Republican candidate
That's just the last two years.
The media has ignored just about any possibly negative thing to say about Obama over the course of four years; even longer if you include the campaign leading up to the last election.
There would be no such problem with Romney, even after the election is over. The press will gladly latch on to each and every mistake made. Ind
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The press has been building in this direction for about 10 years now. There used to be some bias, sure, but there was at least some attempt at even-handedness. Now we seems firmly back to 18-19th century-style yellow journalism. When the National Enquirer was up for a Pulitzer because they were the only paper to run a political scandal story, something is pretty broken.
In an odd coincidence, redership/viewership of major news outlets has plummetted over the last 10 years. Almost as if a new out
Proof is in the reporting of what was and now is (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Obama is carrying over, and mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security) yet receives none of the same negative coverage of same that Bush received - I fail to see how you can possibly make the case that Obama's negative coverage is anywhere near what a Republican would receive.
Romney cannot carry forward the same policies without a ton a negative press. Obama can. That has been proven to us over four years now.
Re:Proof is in the reporting of what was and now i (Score:4, Insightful)
mostly doubling down on, most Bush policies (use of drones, attacking Libya for freedom, warrantless wiretapping, funneling government money to large corporations, TSA/Homeland Security)
The drone strikes was part of his original campaign. He stated that he would strike in Pakistan with them and all the other candidates said they would not. I completely support this.
Now "attacking Libya for freedom"? Can you explain what you are trying to say here? We are attacking Libya for freedom? That makes no sense. We have no troops in Libya. We are not attacking an abstract idea in Libya.
Warrantless wiretapping, yes I would like to see this stopped.
funneling government money to large corporations
You do realize that the Republicans are the greatest the supporters of corporate welfare? The amount this is happening under Obama vs Bush is laughable. It's like complaining about a couple drops of water in the desert vs being on the bottom of the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
Re: (Score:3)
If Romney were elected you bet he WOULD carry forward the same policies without a ton of negative press, just like Obama. Bush Jr. got so much negative press because he was the first to do these awful things, but that cherry is popped now.
I think the negative lashing out was more about the press being convinced he stole the election, because we didn't spend the next year and a half auditing every hanging chad in the country.
Of course, with tools like these [slashdot.org] the framework is being put in place call any election for "the other guy" rigged.
Because Romney is a liberal. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Liberal" is yet another term co-opted by the spin doctors over time. Other such terms are "hacker" and "anarchist". None of which are recognized by the general public under their original definitions.
Re:Because Romney is a liberal. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you'd asked me about Romney a month ago, I'd have said he seemed like an okay guy. Boring, but okay. I'd have voted for him if I thought he had a better economic plan than Obama.
But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all. He went through the motions of expressing regret, but that asshole smirk was the only genuine, believable part of his entire performance. What kind of person does that, I thought? Then it hit me: the kind of person who picks on a gay kid, holds him down, hacks off his hair, then when confronted years later, lies about it. An asshole.
That Romney went back behind the curtain again for a bit. I wondered if maybe I'd been too harsh on him. Then came the 47% clip. Some people said he was just playing to the crowd. But again what I found striking was the way Romney spoke. He was dynamic, engaged, alive. He didn't sound like the pandering guy on the campaign trail. There was conviction.
People ask about the real Mitt Romney... watch those speeches, and you'll see him, you'll see the real Mitt Romney slip out from behind the carefully constructed mask.
Re:Because Romney is a liberal. (Score:4, Insightful)
But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all.
And the fact that Obama kept saying it was a protest of a video and not a terrorist attack for weeks after even the State Dept was claiming that there was no protest doesn't both you at all? It's one thing to criticize the president over inaction, and 16 hours of silence qualifies as inaction on the part of the White House, but to lie about the cause to try to minimize the political damage is simply disgraceful. And then there is there is the fundraising in Vegas while people were dying overseas at our embassies... I guess we just have different priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Using "Like" to stream "Lies" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Does Anyone Care? (Score:2)
Or are we now in an age where the popularity of a candidate on Facebook now is part of how we determine the candidate's potential for office?
I hope not, but am afraid it may be so.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are buying fake Twitter followers, and talking about how many Facebook likes you have ... then someone seems to believe that's a valid metric.
I bet it even bumped his Klout score. Which, again, someone believes means something.
Obligatory Sun Tzu (Score:5, Insightful)
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. - Sun Tzu
I'd be willing to be the Obama campaign has an account somewhere that has liked Mitt as well.
Black Box voting should come to mind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that you neo-cons oppose doing it up correctly? IOW, you only push for it part way, but not for all? Kind of strange is it
Re: (Score:2)
They could contact the USPO and have then vet it for mailed in. Likewise, PX can do it for military and the embassy could do it for other out of nation.
I actually like that idea. Have people vote in person using existing government infrastructure. If that had been in existence for the past 8 years, those absentee ballots that I received AFTER election day while deployed may have actually counted.
uhh, practical reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they just wanted to see what his current platform was by viewing their wall.
Also, it's routine for people to "challenge" the choices of others when those choices are apparently strong and rigid. Maybe some liberals "like" conservative topics/people as a way to show their friends that they've considered those topics/people.
That's a different segment of voters though ... (Score:2)
Could be. But those people are probably not the same people who are complaining that their facebook account erroneously liked Mr. Romney.
The obnoxious whining of the "independent" (Score:2)
Bless your heart. You must be one of these [hulu.com].
A one act play (Score:2)
Maw: Who you gonna vote fer?
Paw: I dunno, who you gonna vote fer?
Maw: I think I'ma gonna vote fer Romney.
Paw: Why you gonna do that?
Maw: Well, people on Facebook like him.
Paw: what about all those policies that you disagree with?
Maw: Who cares about that? People on Facebook like him. That's what really matters.
Why "Like"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I have friends on Facebook that "like" pepsi, amex, costco, walmart, etc...
Why do they post religious jesus quotes in cheesy photos of angles or little girls praying, or images with stupid insperational quotes, or stupid photos of things to "like": Like if you don't want to kill kittens, etc...
Tempted many times to simply post on my wall: "Seriously WTF is wrong with you people!"
This is not a Romney issue, it IS a Facebook issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I have noticed a ton of my friends that "like" things I know they know nothing about.
For example, a friend of mine that is a stay at home mom that can't use her iPhone "likes" Barracuda networks. When I asked her about this, she was clueless.
I've also seen many other friends liking things that do not fit them at all. I mean, they shouldn't be even seeing ads for these things, so I don't buy TFA's assumption that these are fat-finger issues.
Nuthin' that happens on facebook surprises me... (Score:3)
Moron filter? (Score:2)
If you use the number of "likes" (or any other information from Facebook) to make decisions of any kind...you might be a moron.
Meh (Score:2)
And I constantly hear about Obama because one of my friends "liked" him. Don't see much difference from the lame ads on youtube and pandora :P
I won't join Facebook until... (Score:5, Funny)
They add a Loathe button.
Re:I won't join Facebook until... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like this.
But I don't have any mod points.
So I'm just going to leave this oddly meta post about liking what you just said.
Social networking, such a mystery. (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
Most Apple users consider themselves "Internet experts" and are really clueless
Apple Maps
They click to like the local farmers market/Headshop/Union headquarters...
Apple maps has that listed as "Mit Romney!"
Viola... mystery solved.
Like == Follow (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory cartoon (Score:2)
Cartoon [caglecartoons.com]
Just a precursor... (Score:2)
This is just a precursor to the election, when many liberals will also unknowingly vote for Romney- some of them several times.
I "Liked" both (Score:2)
Because Fuck You. That's why.
Sponsored Posts (Score:2)
Easy (Score:3)
Because American "liberals" are closer to the conservatives in most other countries. There is no left-wing in the US anymore, only 50 shades of right.
Re: (Score:3)
They're right-wing. At best they're comparable to slightly less-conservative centrists in Europe.
But something as roughly 30% Social Democrats as in the EU? There is nothing like that in the US political landscape. And that's with the Left here in Europe complaining that the Social Democrat parties have shifted too much to the right.
Yes, the US is '50 shades of right', no messing.
It's the terminology, stupid. (Score:3)
"Like" in Facebook is used to indicate interest, as in "I'd like to see more stuff like this." So when someone says something like:
It's basically a misunderstanding of what Facebook means when someone says they like something. This is a problem, because it's not easily resolved. You could add a "show me more stories like this" button, but that's not an action word so it's more confusing and doesn't evoke the same emotional response. You could add a "dislike" button, but then you have the question of how you interpret the dislike. Do you show them more things like that assuming they like to dislike it, or do you show them fewer assuming that they dislike disliking it.
Does anyone else have any ideas about how you can resolve this and still retain an intuitive, uncluttered interface that people would want to use?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody believes that you are anything but an Obama supporter trying to "show" everyone what Romney supporters are like.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fake accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
go fuck yourself, seriously, there is no typical obama supporter you twit, just like there is no typical romney support. But your a typical douchebag, so there is that.
Well, at least he's behaving better than you (or are you the same person trying to be funny?), not that that is saying much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I think social conservatives are busybody prudes, and I believe in trickle-down government.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I don't support him. Romney is a liberal. Meanwhile, idiots like you are calling him a conservative. Its laughable how you just say the stuff Democrats have been programmed to say for so many years, even when they clearly and obviously do not apply. The guy implemented Obamacare before it was known as Obamacare, even before Pelosi adopted it. He is fill-blown liberal, an opinio