Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 4:45 p.m. No.9337822   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7852 >>7881 >>7938 >>8271 >>8502

Do not notable - it's an article that Q posted

Just exploring that article memetically

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2014/01/31/obamas-weaponization-of-government/#6156a7541b92

 

Abstract of article

Is Obama still commanding a shadow network of federal government employees?

Is a network of unelected career federal bureaucrats still taking direction from Obama?

Is Obama still directing a legion of partisan federal workers?

What if present and past officials still take direction from Obama?

Why do Brennan, Comey, and Clapper treat Barry as if he's still the president?

Is he still commanding a network of unscrupulous government workers?

During Obama's presidency

-weaponized the IRS against conservatives

-covert Operation Choke Point administered through DoJ and Treasury intimidated banks to prevent them from doing business with legitimate businesses. Ammo sales, gun sales, home-based charities, gambling, pharmaceutical sales, short-term loans, raffles, Amway and Mary Kay-style sales businesses, and credit repair services. Refused to answer Congressional inquiries on it.

-Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, once headed by Elizabeth Warren

–extended government reach into our daily lives, stretched limits of the law

–by assuming all businesses are predatory, CFPB collected 96 data points from >1B credit cards

–Former CFPB head Richard Cordray told Congress that Americans cannot opt out or prevent this personal data collection

–unconscionable interference with the free market but also a restriction of personal choice for every American.

-abuses of power like Operation Fast and Furious

-suggested to school principals that their disciplinary actions will be scrutinized for racism

The explosion of Federal bureaucracy handed hundreds of agencies, departments, programs, task forces, and commissions are an arsenal that in the wrong hands can be used against our freedom that the government is supposed to uphold, protect and defend.

Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 5:09 p.m. No.9338043   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8206 >>8328 >>8502

>>9337800

>>9337938 baker could title it

Anons answer the 5 questions posed to MSM journalists by WH Press Sec on May 22 re: unmasking of Flynn, Obama's prior knowledge of the case, criminal leaking of Flynn's ID to press, apparent perjury of Clapper Brennan Power and Rice, and Obama's use of opposition research to spy on Trump campaign

Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 5:15 p.m. No.9338094   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8114

>>9337881

Well, it is. We're still uncovering and exposing tons of bad stuff that occurred during Obama's "presidency" that the MSM never addressed.

 

See Obama timeline at

https://www.conservapedia.com/Obamagate_timeline_2009-2014

 

and

 

FISA Abuse Timeline.txt

https://pastebin.com/WWDjHh3g

(list of 199 abuses by Obama)

 

Here are a few of them memed

 

I am trying to focus on making memes that inform with facts, rather than memes that simply accuse or blame.

 

Which is stronger, a meme with facts, or a meme that just says "You're bad!"?

Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 5:21 p.m. No.9338140   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9338115

Creates a confusing situation, doesn't it.

On one hand we don't want the Dems to be have proxy voting in the House. The Repub party sued them over it.

On the other hand POTUS might want to sign this legislation (presuming it passes the Senate too.)

If POTUS does sign it, does that create a precedent that he does not object to House proxy voting?

 

What a tangle.

Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 5:41 p.m. No.9338306   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8328 >>8359

>>9338286

>>9338271

My point is, WE are in charge of our notables.

WE are in charge of how long each one is.

WE are in charge of making information consumable and searchable.

 

If we just title it "some diggz on Obamagate shit" do you think that is going to be much help to researchers or future historians?

If WE ARE THE NEWS, then we need to raise our game and DO NEWS.

That means the title of a notable should be like the headline of an article.

Length depends on the rules of a particular publication.

WE MAKE OUR OWN RULES HERE.

So, shouldn't we make a title that actually connotes the substance of the post?

 

If you were reading notables on an app or, let's say, on an RSS feed (use your imagination!), wouldn't you want a title that informed you of the content, so you could decide whether to click it or not?

 

Think.

 

What does WE ARE THE NEWS mean?

Anonymous ID: 2222b9 May 27, 2020, 5:43 p.m. No.9338328   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8356 >>8359

>>9338306

>>9338206

>>9337800

>>9338043

>>9337767

 

Am I acting up?

No. I am asking all anons to ACTIVELY QUESTION how we work here.

Ask ourselves WHO the consumer is that we are building Notables and NEWS for.

HOW that consumer wants to receive the info.

WHAT we can do to facilitate them.

 

I guess I'm asking us to MATURE in the way we present notables.

Take ourselves seriously and step into a true journalism role.