Thousands on Twitter misunderstand “800 for Trump”

Summary: Tens of thousands of Twitter users misunderstood reporting about Georgia’s Floyd County recount revealing “800 for Trump” when it was featured as a trend on the platform, and mercilessly mocked and bullied Trump supporters in a straw man fallacy over their own mistake. Twitter didn’t correct them.

Math is hard (*not sarcasm) – however…

I admit that I am comically bad at math, myself. But I also don’t mock others for being bad at math. Glass houses and all.

I was not one of the people dunking on Brian Williams and Mara Gay and MNBC’s producers for covering a tweet that claimed a massive mathematical falsehood, endorsing it as true, and no one down the line realizing the mistake they were making in misunderstanding the numbers in front of them. The tweet they all thought was so profound was a blue-check-mark saying “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over.” -Which most people immediately laughed at but I admit that when I first read it, I was like “so what’s the error?” for a solid way-longer-than-I-should-have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqJCeY8cD0

After a minute my brain caught up to realize that “500 million” isn’t “1 million, 500 times” the way the author and pundits thought – it’s one dollar 500 million times (about enough to give every American $1.53).

However… The issue so many people got wrong about Georgia’s recount isn’t just a misunderstanding of math at play like the pundits in that MSNBC flub. This time, nearly 100% of the tweets making the math mistake were using that mistaken perception to ridicule Trump and Trump supporters, often accusing both of the thing they were actually guilty of (also called Narcissistic Projection).

What happened in Georgia

In Georgia, a statewide recount of votes in the presidential election was started over the weekend and on Monday (November 16th) revealed that over 2,600 votes in Floyd County had not been counted. 

The blame for how this happened lays in an unknowable area in between human error, human intent, and the error or intent in the system of Dominion tabulating machines (the same system Trump alleged was falsely tabulating votes against him)… Specifically – a human evidently failed to load a memory stick for the tabulations of an entire voting machine and this was only found out a week after the election and only because of the scrutiny happening from the required recount. So opinions will vary between human accident, human intent, and a flawed system by Dominion that allows such an error by a poll taker to occur.

https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/1328491935288397824

At the time of this writing, the statewide recount is still going on, with the deadline for completion being before Thursday (11:59 p.m. Wednesday).

The Error…

Local source, Coosa Valley News, reported that of the 2,631 ballots, “that it appeared that between 1,600 and 1,900 were cast for President Trump.” – which means that the votes that would have been left uncounted had this scrutiny not happened, favored Trump nearly 2 to 1.

Democrats on Twitter misunderstood that math, thinking the report was the opposite: that the roughly 800 votes for Biden in that batch of nearly 2,000 were a measly 800 votes for Trump.

“800 for Trump”

So many people on Twitter were tweeting mocking-LOL posts that the recount Trump supporters wanted in the state of Georgia was actually yielding over a thousand new votes for Biden and only 800 for Trump that “800 for Trump” started trending. “Trending” pages are created by Twitter editors to highlight round-ups of tweets with words and phrases that are in current high volume.

Featuring this in the side panel like that led to even more people posting with the same misunderstanding of what “net votes” means and of course none of them checked the math on their confirmation bias causing the repetition of the math error to appear in tens of thousands of tweets and retweets.

The correct response, even with this misunderstanding, is to be glad that new votes were counted that otherwise would have – not just to pretend to like Democracy when all you really care about is your candidate of choice winning – but also because this doesn’t change your candidate of choice still being the winner (so far) so there is nothing in it for you to gloat on your political opposition. You could just take the high ground and be like “yay Democracy” and support every legal vote being counted, assured that you’re still getting your way.

Instead – thousands of Tweeters couldn’t help themselves in kicking the other side when they’re down and used their false perception as club to attack.

Twitter, which has been censoring and “correcting” with vague warnings, Donald J Trump’s official account (but not Biden’s) in the months leading up to the election and especially afterward any time he tweets anything about the election (literally anything – not just disputed claims) put no correction, alert, or attempt to curtail the misinformation about the election that was spreading through any of these tweets. 

As an example, take this tweet of Trumps saying that the numbers of his votes are “up big”, which they were at the time (11:49pm, November 3rd), so that was disputed by no one. After midnight, however, vote counting in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin stopped – something I don’t think has ever been done in modern (say, post 19th century) American vote counting on election night – new gluts of votes came in, and the tides started to turn. Trump accurately said he was up in the count and raised attention to the fishy behavior and for that Twitter says “not so fast”:

Keep that standard in mind while looking through the trending page for this “800 for Trump” lie as none of them have corrections by Twitter A.I. or manual editors despite the content they’re gloating about with soppy-wet sarcasm is actually the opposite of what really happened:

No, Alyssa… Georgia is now *less blue due to the recount…

https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1328522859224965120
^Tim O’Brien is an anti-Trump blue-check-mark columnist for Bloomberg and author of Trump Nation. The tweet above was screenshotted before being deleted and can be seen here:

https://twitter.com/Sharpdotjar/status/1328497266961895424
https://twitter.com/EstepHeffernan/status/1328711942962372608
https://twitter.com/Fleshfire/status/1328508241584787457
https://twitter.com/jbwing_5/status/1328543817738444806

Notice how many of these people touting math while failing the math of the claim. Hundreds of the tweets I looked through were ones like this where they are commenting on an accurate tweet (in this case, by Brendan Keefe) with their ignorance:

This guy even made a fan fiction over his error:

This one gets extra points for including the “let me get this straight” trope + “do they not know [the thing I myself am misunderstanding], or am I missing something?”

https://twitter.com/theepictheymer/status/1328522379618889729
https://twitter.com/TJGIII/status/1328516271638515712

I thought for sure this next one was a satire because they ask “since when did [thousands] become thousands?” In addition to the other falsehoods. Yikes. 

This guy with almost 40 thousand followers self-own’s with the roast “Maga. Because learnin’ is hard.” in his tweet showing that learnin, for him, is in fact difficult. 

^his bio identifies him as “Author of Goodnight Loon: Poems & Parodies to Survive Trump, and Goodnight Loon II”… Dozens of comments joined in his ridicule with various versions of the GOP being bad at math – again – while being the ones making the ridiculous math error. 

The sarcastic struggles to understand their own mistakes continue: 

https://twitter.com/angieseyy/status/1328513425190907906

Many were probably misled by this popular Leftist account with almost a million followers, whom I have caught fudging facts at least 4 other times this year: 

The irony of saying “you can’t make this shit up” – literally about shit that the speaker of the phrase made up:

“They apparently can’t count”

Will these people delete their mistakes? So far none of the above have corrected or retracted in follow up tweets as new people keep Liking and retweeting the falsehoods in their original posts.

Sadly – I saw at least a dozen tweet replies being even MORE snarky and sarcastically dismissive even after the corrections were made because they just didn’t want to believe it, didn’t want to look it up, and just stuck with the original narrative. Basically all of them went along this tone and line of logic:

^That one is the best representation of all of these as it wraps up every trop into one reply:

  • over confidence of something they’re dead wrong about,
  • attacks someones capability in sentences riddled with typos and grammar mistakes,
  • brags about how they are actively recruiting people to be as ignorant as themselves

“ur so stoopid but I’ll explain it to you, you poor dumb thing: [total falsehoods]. Get it now, looser? Lol I win. Nobody’s smart but me!” 

“It’s math not opinions”…

How / Why this happened…

The information in these tweets are technically “lies” since the content is untrue and easily verifiably so, but I doubt even one of these people are “lying” (saying something *knowing* it is untrue). Rather, this confusion stemmed from Democrats reading that “Trump could gain nearly 800 net votes” and, since none of them have ever run a business, simply didn’t know what “net” means. That ignorance combined with confidence and a fighting attitude to stick it to the Trumpkins resulted in the mass misinformation train of people bathing in their own errors and feeling like super winners about it.

If the “net 800” thing makes sense to you then skip this paragraph. If you’re still absorbing those words the way I did with the MSNBC flub because math is hard (again: not being sarcastic), then just remember that economically, “net” means the total of something after its deficits. Think of the word “net” like a physical net that you carry something in and that something being what you get to take home. As in – if our lemonade stand pays $24 for ingredients and earns $25 in sales then we sold $25 worth of product – but the “net income” (profit) for that round is only $1 (income minus expenses, which here is 25-24). This is important because Democrats want to tax and regulate businesses while not understanding – and making no effort to understand – businesses they want to tax and regulate. Many of you here no doubt thought my lemonade business example of just $1 profit ($25 in sales minus $24 in expenses) was silly because its either unrealistic that even a small business would make such a small profit margin, and/or even if they did then “oh well” because they shouldn’t be in business if they can’t earn enough to pay half of that dollar in taxes to the government (which didn’t help buy, make, or sell anything but still gets paid) plus a government forced hourly minimum wage to anyone the lemonade biz hires. My example, however, uses the average profit margin of the restaurant business, which is 3-5% (4 percent of $25 is $1).

And that’s what makes this important to spotlight. Not that people got a thing wrong or even that they were jerks about it – but that a billion dollar mass media corporation is actively censoring opinions by the President that they don’t like while not only giving safe haven to verifiable falsehoods but actually featuring them as a highlight for people to go check out.

Something to be aware of.

——————————-

Update: The following tweets originally included in this post were deleted by their [presumably embarrassed] authors so I replaced them with others above but saved the list of shame for posterity since despite being so nasty about it, NONE of them corrected their mistake in follow up tweets (correct me if I missed anyone who did) after having misled the thousands who read it – they just quietly deleted the lie and moved on.

^(the last two was a pair of those who doubled down on the falsehood when corrected by multiple people before ultimately realizing their critics were right and deleted it all) 

Mainstream Media parrot lie about Trumps George Floyd sentiment over equality

President Trump held a news conference regarding the improving job market but diverted from the subject of economics to also comment on the pertinent subject of equality and justice as they pertain to police interactions. He honored George Floyd and noted that equality is “really what our Constitution requires and it’s what our country is all about“ and hoped that Floyd might be gazing from heaven with gladness that the country is going through that focus. Nice words. So naturally, every liar who hates him lied about it…

Trumps actual quote + my imagined paraphrase of the collective voices crafting the response went exactly like

“President Trump: “Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race … Hopefully George Floyd is looking down right now & saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country … in terms of equality”.

-followed by something like:

Corporate Press: “crap. Way too unifying and positive. um… lets go with ‘Trump sez Floyd would be impressed by the current jobless rates’, or something. No one googles this shit anyway lol”…

Not very classy, guys… It’s one thing to run with the “Trump sed to drink bleach!” type of fake quotes without looking up the actual video because you think its funny and doesn’t need to be accurate because “it sounds like something he’d say anyway” but you’re really gonna bring George Floyd into that game of liars telephone?… Rude.”

Take a look at this lineup of over a dozen blue-check-marks repeating the lie.

I didn’t examine the time stamps to located which chickens came before which eggs on when the media’s domino of dishonesty started toppling on this narrative, but they all went with the basic theme of cutting out the separation of topics between the economy and equal justice in policing in order to squish Trumps words about the George Floyd together with the other topic of the U.S. economy. The context and separation of topics was in no way unclear, but most news media knows people don’t fact-check anti-Trump reports to any degree of consequence, so it was an easy editorial choice to go with the lie.

I encourage you to follow the link to the other examples of how this was reported, but the award for most boiled-down version of the narrative was this Bloomberg post that basically just took the talking points of the smear and made it a news report. The headline reads “Trump Invokes Floyd in Jobs Remarks as Black Unemployment Soars” as a double misleader that both lies about the President invoking Floyd “in jobs remarks” (he didn’t. It was a conference on job growth but Floyd was never mentioned in any context of anything about jobs) and adding the “as [this other negative thing happens]” technique of leading the reader (as opposed to reporting on Trumps thesis that a strong economy will bring racial justice). The byline bullet point below the headline contradicts it by admitting that Trump said ‘A great day for him’ ‘after remarks on equality’ (not remarks on jobs…), and then reports that black unemployment rose to 16.8%. Then they use *this* photo of Trump mid-action of getting up or down from his seat, just to make sure the point is driven home to the reader that we’re not supposed to be viewing this favorably.

With the number of outlets that ran with the fake narrative in the mainstream media – you can imagine the level of less stringent fact checkers repeating it all over social media. I scrolled through 4 different people posting 3 different links with the lie on Facebook before I even looked other areas to see the ditto’s echoing the line that Trump claimed a deified figure of history would be their fan.

This meme was basically a fake news re-tread of a 2013 story that actually in where Justin Bieber visited the Anne Frank museum and opined that “Anne Frank was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a Belieber” (his name for his followers).

The problems with (and cover up for) rushed mass mail-in voting

President Trump has expressed concern about states, particularly the key election states of Michigan and Nevada, changing their voting rules this election year to shift to mail-in voting in the name of safety because of the Wuhan Coronavirus.

Increased mail-in voting increases potential for fraud, so naturally this should be a bipartisan issue, right? You would think the Democratic party might have an interest in protecting Democracy and specifically – the citizens rights to have their vote counted and not illegally cancelled out by a fraudulent tally. But no… the Democrat party and its partisan defenders take the opposite position and ridicule the concern in the first place.

Straw-manning the issue

The first tactic to ridiculing a point with merit to it is to remove the merit and argue against an alternate dumber version of the argument in a technique known as the Strawman Fallacy.

While Trump has been rightfully suspicious of the fast track attempt to use mass mail-in voting as the standard for this years election, Trump critics bashing him on this strawman his position into “any vote by mail is bad” which is a much easier position (that he never took) to tear down, especially since military votes are by mail and Trump himself votes absentee ballots. This technique was used to roast the President as a hypocrite by media who made no attempt to give readers a glimpse into what the actual concern expressed is or might be.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza summed up this dumb non-point on a CNN.com article (which is notable because it would be one thing if a journalist displayed this level of lack-of-journalism on their blog or social media profile but to do so on their platform of alleged journalism only validates via illustration, Trumps claim that CNN is Fake News):

President Donald Trump made very clear that voting by mail — an alternative many are suggesting to deal with the ongoing stay-at-home directives — is a very bad thing. And more than that, he suggested, it’s deeply corrupt.”No, mail ballots, they cheat,” said Trump. “OK, people cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they are cheaters.”

You might have noticed that Trump is not terribly thorough and precise with every sentence that casually references another that he’s said in that moment or the week prior when he speaks off the cuff to an audience that knows (or he thinks knows) what he’s talking about (like supporters at a rally or members of the press) and this makes for easy attack points by dishonest media critics to just isolate those moments instead of doing that journalism thingy where they aggregate the facts on the topic together and report them in a way to inform the people of the Presidents position. Instead, these corporate press outlets pluck these moments out of any further explanatory context and rebut the literalness of those isolated phrases rather than the collective explanation. The above quotes are not the only comments the President has said, yet Cilizza uses those and those alone to dishonestly summarize his position. With the false premise that “Trump thinks no one should ever vote by mail”, the premise is set for the “gotchya”. In reality, the lines above were spoken, as I noted, in reference to his previous comments on the subject regarding hastily expanded mass mail-in voting and Trump made the mistake of mentioning it in a press conference where he assumed the reporters attending would have been good enough at their jobs to know the subject matter.

Nah. Instead of referencing the larger issue, a reporter was all “uhhm, didn’t you just recently vote by mail?” and Trump was all “Duh. Yea. You can do that in Florida and I was in the White House so I voted absentee” and the reporter was like “how do you reconcile that?” and Trump was like “Wtf b*ch”. *(Paraphrased / not a real transcript).

Cilizza used the actual back and forth, where the reporter actually did say “How do you reconcile that” and Trump said he was in the White House, probably not even catching on that the reporter was trying to trap him and thought she was just being stupid, and then called it “obvious hypocrisy” instead of the non-contradictory reality it is. The lying title of that Cilizza article, btw, is “Donald Trump’s blatant hypocrisy on voting by mail” even though only an approximate 26 lines of the post (including the “how do you reconcile that?” transcript) are dedicated to that false premise and 56 lines afterward acknowledging the higher propensity of mail-in fraud, but making excuses for it as not a big enough deal to do anything about…

The problem with mail-in fraud

Cilizza gets to the point that “The problem is that Trump thinks absentee voting is good for him but not for other people. Because of, er, fraud.” – which again, is false. Trump never said or implied anything about the current absentee voting system in place – his comments were only about rushed state wide mass mail-in voting – but Cilizza can’t just be out there writing posts like “Trump is right about this issue” – so first came the false “lol what a hypocrite” thesis that headlined the post, and then buried underneath comes the acknowledgement of the issue at hand:

Now, what Trump is right about is that absentee voting and vote-by-mail have been the places in the recent past where the small amount of voter fraud that exists has been discovered. (Nota bene: The only difference, effectively, between absentee voting and vote-by-mail is that in the former you have to request a ballot while in the latter a ballot is sent to you.)

Yea… doy…

The concern is, again, not that registered voters who mail in their ballots are currently doing a bad thing, but that a new policy automatically mailing ballots to millions of people that didn’t ask for them, comes with the obvious potential of mailing voter fraud opportunities. Without a thorough review to do this right, you’re potentially sending millions of ballots to people who don’t exist or are ineligible voters.

For such a policy to avoid this obvious loophole for election theft, the voter rolls would have to undergo a re-indexing to update the Governments inefficient system of doing seemingly simple tasks it manages to fail at like keeping track of people who moved, are registered in multiple states by accident or on purpose, who have died or have been convicted of a felony that makes them ineligible to cast a vote.

Trying to make the non-controversial a controversy

Situations like this where journalists want to editorially slant a message but not completely bald-faced-lie about it entirely do so by couching the truth they don’t want focused on in a swarm of “yea, but still”. Again – I’m picking on CNN’s Chris Cilizza here, but only because his article on the subject was so exemplary of the others who did the exact same thing in the same way. In his pre-mentioned article he admits to national mail-in fraud but when talking about specific examples, makes sure they are only ones that are obscure, hyper-local, and from a long time ago, such as one in the Democratic primaries for local offices like sheriff in “the late 1990s” (couldn’t give an exact year, bro? “1997” is in both the top of the article and its URL…), quoting from what “The New York Times wrote back then“:

“Many of the absentee voters were assisted in voting by supporters of various candidates after claiming that they could not read (sometimes despite high school or college degrees) or that they suffered from physical maladies (one saying he had been kicked in the head by a mule).”

More recently than the “the late 90s”/1997, in “the early aught-tens” (2012), a piece published by the New York Times titled “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises”.

The NYT caption on this photo reads: “An absentee ballot in Florida. Almost 2 percent of mailed ballots are rejected, double the rate for in-person voting.”
-Credit… Sarah Beth Glicksteen for The New York Times

The Times article reports that election administrators say that just the increasing trend of more people choosing to vote by mail “will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud”, noting in particular that voting by mail contains “vastly more prevalent” fraud than the in-person voting fraud that most media attention surrounds. Despite being from 2012, it offers more pertinent historical record highlights than CNN-Cilizza’s 1997 Georgia sheriff primary example, such as:

In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time. Before this year’s primary, for example, a woman in Hialeah was charged with forging an elderly voter’s signature, a felony, and possessing 31 completed absentee ballots, 29 more than allowed under a local law.

The flaws of absentee voting raise questions about the most elementary promises of democracy. “The right to have one’s vote counted is as important as the act of voting itself,” Justice Paul H. Anderson of the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote while considering disputed absentee ballots in the close 2008 Senate election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman.

Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.

Which is exactly Trumps stated concern that Cilizza and other Trump critics are trying to dismiss. One has to wonder why that might be…

Vox writer Aaron Rupar responded to this with the headline “Trump isn’t even trying to hide his self-interested reasons for opposing mail-in voting” with the byline quoting Trump saying “For whatever reason, [it] doesn’t work out well for Republicans”, calling that an example of President Trump “saying the quiet part loud” when it comes to his opposition to mail-in voting. The reality is just the opposite: disproportionate Democrat votes in increased mail-in ballots than exist in the rest of the voting tallies suggests evidence to exactly Trumps concern about fraud.

In that same Vox piece, Rupar totally makes stuff up about to boost mail-in voting by claiming Trump totally makes stuff up to discredit mail-in voting:

However, Marc Thiessen writing in the Washington Post that, Trump’s concern about mail-in ballots is completely legitimate brings further examples, not the least of which being that:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III, concluded in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that “vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” Carter and Baker also pointed out that citizens who vote at nursing homes “are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation.” In Florida, there is even a name for this: “granny farming.”

Thiessen also notes items of consequence that the higher rates of mail-in ballots not even being counted are undisputed.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that in the 2008 presidential election, 7.6 million of 35.5 million mail-in ballots requested were not counted because they never reached voters or were rejected for irregularities. That is a failure rate of more than 21 percent. In 2008, it did not matter because the election was not particularly close and mail-in ballots only accounted for a fraction of votes cast. But imagine the impact that would have in a close election in which mail-in voting is tried on a massive scale.

Again: more than a tiny bit suspicious that so called “Democrats” would be downplaying these known threats to democracy, no?

As admitted by Cilizza (again – in his article that calls Trumps absentee voting “hypocritical”), Thiessen also cites the difference between absentee votes and a state-wide change to mass mail voting:

Moreover, there is a huge difference between sending ballots to a small number of citizens who request them and requiring that they be mailed to every registered voter, as Democrats are demanding. Under the Democrats’ plan, ballots would inevitably be sent to wrong addresses or inactive voters, putting millions of blank ballots into circulation — an invitation for fraud. Add to that the danger of what Democrats call “community ballot collection” (a.k.a. “ballot harvesting”) where campaign workers collect absentee ballots in bulk and deliver them to election officials, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Seems more like the validation of Trumps concern about a rushed change of plans to enact state-wide mail-in voting this election year is far from controversial – it’s nearly universally agreed upon by data published and opined in the same sources that are attacking this concern (NY Times, WashPo, CNN, just to name the 3 quoted in this post by me).

Know who else agrees? Chris Cilizza…

In the same article mentioned several times in this post – the one dubiously calling Trump a hypocrite in the title and claiming that voter fraud shouldn’t be a concern, Chris Cilizza says the same thing as Trump. Specifically that:

So, there’s no question that past history has suggested that absentee balloting and vote-by-mail are more likely than in-person voting to be subject to bad actors. Which makes sense since the vote is being cast, usually, in the privacy of your home, as opposed to at a polling place with official poll watchers and election officials not only keeping an eye out for any irregularities but also taking the ballot from you as soon as you cast it.

-Chris Cilizza, CNN

Which, again:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is thats.the_.point_.gif

Miller, Tiller, and Price: 3 old white guys walk into a bar

Breaking: comedian, Larry Miller, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and as-of-now Former HHS Secretary Tom Price are apparently different people.

In related news: the first guy in the picture is Tom Price has resigned. I know you don’t care, and you have no reason to, so here are the quick hits:

HHS Secretary is the leader of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Tom Price was the guy in charge. He was an advocate for doctors.

He got hassled in the press over flying in private jets at taxpayers expense even though he claimed he was reimbursing tax payers for those flights. So he resigned because of all the bad publicity – and yes, he reimbursed the United States Treasury for his private flights, like he said.

Here he is performing his famous “Five Levels of Drinking” bit on stage in the 90s:

*Addendum: it’s been brought to my attention that this might be Tillerson in the above comic routine. Standby for further research.

Update: Interesting observation – Every time the President focuses on policy, that Cabinet secretary disappears.

Birth Certificate Apologies

Now that President Obama has released his birth certificate, I demand apologies from the people on both sides who spread lies, intentional or otherwise. APOLOGIZE…

FROM ANTI-BIRTHERS: You were wrong. The stock response to anyone who dared to mention the fact that the birth certificate had until now remained hidden, was a false claim that “he [President Obama] HAS [released it]”. Even when anti-birthers like myself would observe that the document released was in fact not a birth certificate and did not prove anything on this issue in the context of still mentioning that the conspiracy theory is ridiculous and wholly without merit – you people still smeared us as being birther-nuts and kept falsely saying the birth certificate was already released. You were wrong. It was just now released. Apologize. It is not okay to spread lies just because the other side is peddling a theory based on lies. You fight lies with TRUTH. not more lies. APOLOGIZE.

FROM BIRTHERS: You were wrong. I’m not going to waste time in dissecting exactly why it is insanely stupid to hold the belief that Barack Obama’s mother who was living in Hawaii whilst pregnant, flew via 1960s air travel all the way to Kenya to have her baby and for some reason have someone plant a false newspaper birth announcement back in her Hawaiian hometown newspaper (and for what gain or motive?). Instead lets just stick to the obvious: you said the birth certificate would show he was born in Africa. here it is… it doesn’t say that. You were wrong. APOLOGIZE.

Top birther Jerome Corsi’s book will be released on May 17, 2011 (this is not a joke):

You were wrong. You invested a lot of money into something you will not get back unless you continue to scam people with claims that “the book is more relevant now, than ever”. Don’t do that. Escape with a shred of dignity and admit you were wrong and eat the losses on the book.

APOLOGIZE….

Equally annoying are the people who drove this as a news story, almost entirely for partisan reasons. MSNBC covered it extensively with full segments, back to back while I never saw anything about it on Fox except in single question form by a host or comment by guest to dismiss how dumb it is. Still though, it wasn’t that big a deal in relation to everything else across the board anywhere. Contrary to the Presidents claim, the Birther controversy was 4% of newshole, not ‘dominant’ story.

An analysis of cable news coverage shows that 19 percent of the cable news airtime studied focused on the 2012 election last week. Mark Jurkowitz, Associate Director of PEJ, provides this breakdown of the coverage by cable network:

MSNBC
including “The Ed Show,” “Hardball,” “The Last Word,” and “The Rachel Maddow Show”

  • 28% of airtime studied was devoted to the 2012 election
  • 10% of airtime studied was devoted to Obama
  • A subset of that Obama airtime was coded “citizenship and religion rumors” to include “birther” coverage, which was 92% of the Obama coverage


Fox
including “Special Report w/Bret Baier,” “Fox Report w/Shepard Smith,” “The O’Reilly Factor,” “Hannity”

  • 16% of airtime studied was devoted to 2012 election
  • 5% of airtime studied was devoted to Obama
  • A subset of that Obama airtime was coded “citizenship and religion rumors” to include “birther” coverage, which was 8% of the Obama coverage


CNN
including “The Situation Room,” “John King, USA,” “In The Arena,” and “Anderson Cooper 360?

  • 11% of airtime studied was devoted to 2012 election
  • 5% of airtime studied was devoted to Obama
  • A subset of that Obama airtime was coded “citizenship and religion rumors” to include “birther” coverage, which was 100% of the Obama coverage.

Jurkowitz says MSNBC consistently devotes more of its airtime to politics, based on PEJ’s research, while CNN generally spends the least amount of time on politics of the three cable networks.

While MSNBC’s coverage may have been devoted to questioning or debunking the president’s citizenship issues, that network spent the most time discussing it.

Donald Trumps reaction was to tell everyone “you’re welcome”, taking full credit for the release. This is…valid. His headline making on the issue indeed is probably what changed it from a useful tool for the Administration to use to make Republicans look like crazy morons into an actual detriment that they needed to clean up before it made them look worse. Still though: he has to cop to the fact that his hunch was wrong, his “research project in Hawaii” never actually existed, and just on the plain old facts, he lost on this. Admit it already…

Trump on Presidential Policy

I am urprised he came out against same sex marriage with such a weak response. he’s still formulating an opinion on abortion (or rather “why” he’s prolife and what he’d do about it) but thinks its gonna go down fine with a “meh i just dong…*cringes* feeeeeel good about it” on this issue? disappointing. he could be an interesting voice if he was better managed (along with some of the others who have no shot at the actual nom).