http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/ Part of the transition to the new President that was planned in advance. I hate the guy, but let's hate him for the shit he does, not the false nonsense.The Obama White House website — which includes press articles, blog posts, videos, and photos — will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) beginning on January 20, 2017. If you are looking for a post or page on the Obama administration’s WhiteHouse.gov from 2009 through 2017, you can find it by changing the URL to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. For example, after the transition, this blog post will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward.
Seriously. I saw this on Reddit as well. All of this false information is getting ridiculous. It's getting hard to sift through to find any real information. It was irresponsible of Imzy to put out an email like that. Real information is more important now than ever for people to get their voice heard on the issues they care about.Part of the transition to the new President that was planned in advance. I hate the guy, but let's hate him for the shit he does, not the false nonsense.
If I was one of Trump's people I would throw out so much outrageous click baity garbage and hope that the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" takes hold. Then you come out and look sane and laugh at the "fake news." Do that enough and when it comes time to loot the treasury, sell off the national parks, pave over the forests, gut social security, trash public education and destroy medicare the well is so poisoned that nobody knows what to believe anymore. The next two years are going to be a gong show of a dumpster fire and it sucks that my country is the front row seat for whatever is coming down the pike.
I'm hesitant to write this because it's early days, I don't want to generalize, and I'm really having a hard time sifting through how much spin is on the news and the reason it's there. But so far, it seems to me that Trump's people don't have to do anything. There's so much click baity garbage out there already that it obscures the real issues.
We know from all the Wikileaks drops that the US media went all-in on Hillary getting elected. My hope is that they channel that corruption/anger/oversight(?) into watching the new administration much better than they watched Obama.I'm really having a hard time sifting through how much spin is on the news and the reason it's there.
I just saw a reddit about BBC setting up a team to debunk fake news. This was on Jan. 12, 2017. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5nlf5o/bbc_sets_up_team_to_debunk_fake_news_permanent/ The article https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/12/bbc-sets-up-team-to-debunk-fake-news But it seems to me that even foreign countries have a stake in the outcome of the news.
Yes and no. Snopes doesn't actually have any evidence to support its assertion. Yes some of the old posts are at the Obama White House website now, but web pages aren't tangible things: putting them in one place doesn't automatically remove them from the other. That's a specific choice. It's a stretch to say that those links were changed without the consent of someone in the transition team. This is doubly true given that one of the pages that was added was the new energy plan, which specifically says: (emphasis mine). Clearly some deliberate changes have already been made to the site, and it's ridiculous IMO to suggest that pages on e.g. LGBT rights or climate change being removed were somehow accidental. The new administration could've kept them in place if they'd wanted to, and clearly they don't.For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Same thing, almost exact same story, came in on the day George W Bush was Inaugurated. The old Administration's page goes to an archive and the new people's position papers and articles go up. In theory the transition team writes up a bunch of pages for the website and they go live at noon on the 20th when the new President officially takes over. The story is that the new President is a Climate Change denier who is going to do everything he can to hand over the solar and wind energy sectors to foreign markets and handing out subsidies to fossil fuel industries, not that the website is different.
I'm not doing that at all. I also don't think it's a fair characterization that you're saying that I'm acting as if I am doing so. Do you think Imzy needs to mislead the audience to sow discontent with the new President? I don't. There's plenty of real news out there for them to base that on. They could point to the women's march today. Yesterday, they could have just left off the part about the website and sent the rest of their email. The message would be the same. Instead, they used the non-existence of information on a website that could be timing based to infer something that may or may not be posted later. They readily admit they don't know if there will be new information about it. That's weak information to be making a point about. My point was that making points on weak information can lead to people not paying attention when the real points are made.
Also, this: @francopoli said here I hope you don't think I'm just blasting you with references to avoid replying on the matter: I just said and saw everything I require to reply in other posts.Whitehouse.gov at 11:59AM was all about the Obama Administration. At 12:00PM it became the website of the Trump Administration. The entire whitehouse.gov website was changed. Art, images, layout etc all changed. The Obama stuff was archived as prescribed by US law. The Trump people had a few months to provide the whitehouse.gov admins the data to populate the website. The results are what went live at noon.
IMZY is a website and they are coloured by that bubble. As I explained before they are comparing the website of the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration and making the story about the contents of the website, not the policy differences between to the two men's outlooks. I may be too far in the weeds here and I may be trying to split hay.
I'm confused. Don't you suppose that a president's policies-related outlook would be clearly established on their website? If it would, wouldn't lack of information on certain subjects that are of importance to the contemporary population of the US (or, at least, to big parts of it) indicate that the President has nothing to say on the matter, ergo he doesn't care about it (or, worse, that he has grimmer plans about it that he doesn't want to share because of the possible outcry)? That's the connection that I've made, and I'm not sure why we're arguing this in the first place.As I explained before they are comparing the website of the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration and making the story about the contents of the website, not the policy differences between to the two men's outlooks.
Lena Dunham... this person. Did some more digging into IMZY and it looks like they are trying to become a left-wing Free Republic with a lot of TMZ/Entertainment Weekly and Silicon Valley Venture Capital Culture mixed in. Places like this have their function, but there is a reason I don't go there.It has partnered with Lena Dunham.
francopoli is right when he says that there are going to be a lot of parodies and sarcasm that is not detected and taken seriously. I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Is this sarcasm? I'm pretty sure I know groups on both sides of that opinion, with a group squarely on that opinion.
Lena Dunham is an entirely self-serving person who does more harm than good to feminist movements.