Obama Quietly Signs The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" Into Law

[Shadow Wolf]

At least Bush had the decency to hand over the presidency respectably.

He hasn't even handed it over yet. That's still 20-some days away.

? What does that even mean? If Obama would have run again, he would have beat Trump. Let's wait until the russian hacking investigation is over.

And by another large and comfortable margin of both popular and EC votes. I honestly still don't get it: Obama won both by a good margin and he had no mandate, but anyone who complains about Trump's popular vote loss and slim EC margin is just a "whiny liberal" who "[insert insult,]" and just needs to "shut up and accept it." At least the Left isn't pushing to have the states succeed from the Union. But, go figure. The Left challenges the System while the Right wants to ignore the Constitution.

 

[Notanumber]

I don’t like having to listen to their adverts, but this radio station remains unbiased and balanced.

LBC - Leading Britain's Conversation

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Just because some toolish hacks say he quietly signed it doesn't mean he did. It actually seems to have had bipartisan support. And, let's be honest, most people don't know much of what is going on in DC. Swaths of people don't know what congregational district they live in, or who is over it. When you're not intentionally bombarding yourself with political news, most things are "silently" passed, even at town halls and city councils.

That's just ridiculous. The man has not even a full month left in office. What good would it do him to "create his own" anything at this point?

He has done this before. Or did you not recall the fact that he had signed the NDAA act quietly before? Bills that would allow suspected terrorists to be held indefinitely. Congress is well known for silently passing laws so people don't know about it ahead of time. This is not news, it's been done before numerous times

How is it ridiculous? He has already done enough damage and each president has progressively gotten worse. That's part of the plan. Besides he's just a low level puppet. There are still people that are far more powerful and dangerous than Obama will ever be. You would know this if you researched.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He has done this before. Or did you not recall the fact that he had signed the NDAA act quietly before?

How is the NDAA signed quietly when it's signed every year?

How is it ridiculous?

Because there is no possible way for him to benefit from it even if he had ill-boding plans for it.

 

[esmith]

This forum section will be turned off in accordance with the "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act".

 

[Underhill]

The fact that he quietly signed it should give others a clue that this is bad news.

If they quietly signed it, that means a whole lot of people won't know about it. If they did, they would protest. It's harder to get rid of a law that's already signed that one that is proposed.

Knowing that he's an elitist like the others, pretty much anything he signs will be bad and not for our benefit. They want more for themselves and less for everyone else. Including freedom, money, food, ect.

Sounds like he's trying to create his own "Ministry of Truth" and will decide what is "disinformation" Meaning anything that goes against the government must be bad.

And people thought conspiracy theorists were nuts when they were predicting stuff like this.

Congress, where both branches are controlled by republicans, writes the bill, votes on the bill and passes the bill.

But Obama signs the bill, under protest and complaining about it, and he is to blame.

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this?

 

[Acim]

My problem with this Act is:

a) not understanding what it applies to exactly. I currently understand it only applying to foreign reported news that is seen as propaganda/disinformation being used against the U.S. If this is all it is, then would hope the U.S. is not caught doing the same thing, as in presenting disinformation about foreign countries. Would also seem to apply to any movies we make that are intended for distribution outside the U.S.

b) From the wording of the text in the Act:

As needed, support the development and dissemination of fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States and United States allies and partner nations.

"fact-based narratives" would be nice to have an example of so as to understand how that might be later developed. Then contrast this to all narratives that are (allegedly) non fact based which the U.S. (along with other countries) will likely be disseminating. Gonna be a tough road ahead I think, cause at some point I think 'fact based narrative' will be seen as fairly subjective by everyone other than those developing that narrative.

Essentially, who determines what is fact-based? And then all the items that are not fact-based, what happens with them? The real-life examples going forward ought to be fascinating in both the determination and who (which agents) are allowed to spin it and who aren't.

 

[Revoltingest]

My problem with this Act is:

a) not understanding what it applies to exactly. I currently understand it only applying to foreign reported news that is seen as propaganda/disinformation being used against the U.S. If this is all it is, then would hope the U.S. is not caught doing the same thing, as in presenting disinformation about foreign countries. Would also seem to apply to any movies we make that are intended for distribution outside the U.S.

b) From the wording of the text in the Act:



"fact-based narratives" would be nice to have an example of so as to understand how that might be later developed. Then contrast this to all narratives that are (allegedly) non fact based which the U.S. (along with other countries) will likely be disseminating. Gonna be a tough road ahead I think, cause at some point I think 'fact based narrative' will be seen as fairly subjective by everyone other than those developing that narrative.

Essentially, who determines what is fact-based? And then all the items that are not fact-based, what happens with them? The real-life examples going forward ought to be fascinating in both the determination and who (which agents) are allowed to spin it and who aren't.

I'll wager your left one that every real news organization believed they were presenting a
"fact based narrative", whether they were praising Hillary, & bashing Trump, or vice versa.
That quoted phrase can cover a whole lot of partisan mischief.
Let's hope this program doesn't ever extend to domestic news.

 

[psychoslice]

That's not news. That's part of your problem. You don't trust main news because your 'independent news' tells you not to. And you believe them.

Very dangerous.

Well how can I argue with you, you know it all already, and I have all these problems, as I keep saying time will tell.

 

[habiru]

 

[Notanumber]

Can you access LBC in America?

LBC - Leading Britain's Conversation

If so, will this Act end your access?

 

[Notanumber]

Is this the reason that Obama went out of his way to make sure that the UK remained in the EU?

The EU probably has plans to restrict free speech and liberty.

 

[Notanumber]

How would this Act have affected the outcome of the election, would we now have President Elect Clinton on her way to the Whitehouse?

 

[tytlyf]

Well how can I argue with you, you know it all already, and I have all these problems, as I keep saying time will tell.

It's not a matter of argument. It's a matter of taking in multiple news organizations and making an educated decision. Facts have no bias. I've pointed out some non-facts that you've already mentioned. Just fact check and you don't have to worry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is this the reason that Obama went out of his way to make sure that the UK remained in the EU?

The EU probably has plans to restrict free speech and liberty.

Obama will not be around when the 2017 military budget kicks in. Even if he wanted to silence everyone who ever said anything bad about he, he wouldn't be able to with this.

 

[psychoslice]

It's not a matter of argument. It's a matter of taking in multiple news organizations and making an educated decision. Facts have no bias. I've pointed out some non-facts that you've already mentioned. Just fact check and you don't have to worry.

I have fact checked, and I have my own opinion as you do also, you parrot what you have seen and I do the same, so, do you want a cracker lol.

 

[Notanumber]

Obama will not be around when the 2017 military budget kicks in. Even if he wanted to silence everyone who ever said anything bad about he, he wouldn't be able to with this.

I heard that he intends to stick around like a remainer.

 

[habiru]

 

[Notanumber]

There is more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I heard that he intends to stick around like a remainer.

Whatever.