FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

For all of you concerned about the proliferation of so-called "fake news" sites, I'm here to help. I know you're all so very concerned that "gullible people" might not be able to discern between internet news stories that are parodies versus those that are "real" and put out by "reputable" journalists. As patriotic Americans, we just can't let such misinformation go unchallenged.

So, I'll post here - for the world to see - news that is obviously fake, or certainly of questionable origin. We'll look at individual stories, and we'll look at sites that put out dubious information specifically designed to fool folks who might believe just about anything they read on the web.

Let's start with a trip down memory lane, and have a look at a couple of our old, whacky friends: those tricksters and politicsusa.com and the Huffington Post. I fear that these two "digital rags" have contributed mightily to the cases of "post-election stress syndrome" (PESS) that is so pervasive these days among folks who lean left in their views.

Here are a couple key examples of why PESS abounds:

The folks at politicsusa.com were merciless in fooling poor lefties, using dubious polling data (pollsters being another fertile source of fake news), polling (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clinton-holds-lead-final-polls-undecided-voters-trump.html) that suggested Clinton was going to win last month's election.

Huffington Post is even more aggressive on this point, with information left on their website that suggests to some gullible folks that Hillary might yet pull out a win with more than a 5 point polling lead (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton). In fact, they bravely declare that their modeling more than 99% of the time predicted a Clinton win. Maybe still fanning hope for an upset in the electoral college vote?

Now, fast forward. Fakenewswatch.com (http://fakenewswatch.com/) is a site that provides a service that identifies sites that publish fake news. The "bad" category is occupied by sites that are "FAKE/HOAX NEWS WEBSITES", defined as sites that "....are satire sites that are not funny. They are an attempt to play on gullible people who do not check sources and will just pass the news on as if it were really true."

Here's a story that comes from a site categorized as FAKE/HOAX NEWS": newsmutiny.com. newsmutiny.com describes itself as "Satire for the wise. News for the dumb." Horrifying.

A lead story today on newsmutiny.com is this one:

Trump Nominates Chris Christie Ambassador to Fatfuckistan (http://newsmutiny.com/pages/Trump-Nominates-Christie.html)

Now, in case there are some poor folks out there who believe this is true, as a service to our readers let me state that this is story is categorically false. The Trump folks have already stated that they will look to aggressively cut government spending. Since Mr. Christie insisted as a condition of acceptance for the ambassador role that the purchase of two adjacent seats for any government air travel to accommodate his girth was a requirement, Trump retracted the job offer.

I'm proud to support this effort to inform, and help counteract the corrosive impact of "fake news".

[finnbow]

The right conflates opinions they disagree with, humor they don't get, and inaccurate polling with fake news in an effort to say "everybody's doing it" or "all news other than Fox News, Breitbart and talk radio are fake news." You've fallen for the scam. Congrats.

Meanwhile, Trump's National Security Advisor and Trump himself suck up this stuff like a vacuum cleaner and tweet it out to the masses and Trump installs one of the great purveyors of fake news as his primary White House policy advisor.

[whell]

The right conflates opinions they disagree with, humor they don't get, and inaccurate polling with fake news in an effort to say "everybody's doing it" or "all news other than Fox News, Breitbart and talk radio are fake news." You've fallen for the scam. Congrats.

Meanwhile, Trump's National Security Advisor and Trump himself suck up this stuff like a vacuum cleaner and tweet it out to the masses and Trump installs one of the great purveyors of fake news as his primary White House policy advisor.

There, there Finn. It's OK. I know these are troubling times for you. I can see it in your posts. Its with folks like you in mind that this thread was created. I just want to help with your recovery and healing.

Trump was named "Person of the Year (http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/)" by Time Magazine. I suspect you'll rush to make the lame point that Hitler and Stalin were once named Person of the Year as well, so I'll save you the trouble of embarrassing yourself with that, since its really not the point.

The point is the observation that the writer of the story makes about the electorate:

For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction extends to cherished norms of civility and discourse, a politics poisoned by vile streams of racism, sexism, nativism. To his believers, he delivers change—broad, deep, historic change, not modest measures doled out in Dixie cups; to his detractors, he inspires fear both for what he may do and what may be done in his name.

So, there you are Finn. The writer understands your fear, and that your fear motivates you and colors your perceptions. Take heart that you're not alone, but also take heart that folks are here to help.

Oh, and Fox News polling forecast a Hillary win, too. So I guess Fox contributed to fake election news as well.

[Rajoo]

To appease the Hillarybots. :D

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/newsweek-hillary-edition1.jpg

[whell]

To appease the Hillarybots. :D

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/newsweek-hillary-edition1.jpg

Thanks for that. I had forgotten about that aborted attempt at fake news. ;)

[donquixote99]

Rajoo, you're getting more whell-like every day.

Speaking of whell...the OP is a stupid argument that misrepresents and distorts reality. It waves the 'great American people' flag and scoffs that no one will be taken in by satire? As if no BIG barrels of bullshit are not presented as real every day, and taken in as such by a whole bunch of people hooked on the right's propaganda narratives.

As if not one just showed up at a pizza restaurant and shot off his gun.

"Pizzagate" puts the lie to the OP, completely.

[donquixote99]

Thanks for that. I had forgotten about that aborted attempt at fake news. ;)

There you go again, distorting reality. Or should I say 'lying.'

[Rajoo]

Rajoo, you're getting more whell-like every day.

Just having a bit of fun DQ and I do owe the Hill's here occasional pleasantries. :D

[donquixote99]

Just having a bit of fun DQ and I do owe the Hill's here occasional pleasantries. :D

Stuff it. You bait for your own pleasure.

[Tom Joad]

Stuff it. You bait for your own pleasure.

Not just his pleasure.

I enjoyed it too. :D

[nailer]

Stuff it. You bait for your own pleasure.

Made me smile. :cool:

[donquixote99]

Not just his pleasure.

I enjoyed it too. :D

You can stuff it too, then. Hard, with a stick. :D


(See the :D? Just a joke. You can take a JOKE, can't you?)

[donquixote99]

Made me smile. :cool:


http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee432/savannahxboo/blowkiss.gif

[Tom Joad]

You can stuff it too, then. Hard, with a stick. :D


(See the :D? Just a joke. You can take a JOKE, can't you?)


I can take anything you throw at me Don. ;)

[nailer]

I can take anything you throw at me Don. ;)

Just wait till he gives you a kiss. :eek:

[finnbow]

On the way to the gym today, I decided to listen to talk radio (as I often do to see what "news" is being pushed by Limbaugh and Co.). Anyway, on the way to the gym, Chris Plante (a far-right bomb thrower) insisted that since Comet Ping Pong was in a liberal neighborhood, the original source of the fake news must have been a disgruntled liberal who got a bad pizza. Then on the way home, Rush Limbaugh's sit-in, Mark Steyn, insisted that there was no such thing as "fake news" and that "fake news" was in fact real news that liberals didn't want to hear. It seems Trump and Co. are feeling the heat over Gen. Flynn and his wayward son (and/or Trump's discredited 3 million illegal votes claim) and are trying to discredit the existence of fake news or to say that it is only a liberal phenomena.

It seems Whell got the memo.

[whell]

There you go again, distorting reality. Or should I say 'lying.'

Missed the little "wink" in that post, didja Don?

Actually you're another one that this thread is all about. I know life has gotten scarier for you post-election, as witnessed by some of your...umm...unhinged posts. Consider this thread outreach, and effort to help folks like you sort things out.

[whell]

t seems Trump and Co. are feeling the heat over Gen. Flynn and his wayward son (and/or Trump's discredited 3 million illegal votes claim) and are trying to discredit the existence of fake news or to say that it is only a liberal phenomena.

It seems Whell got the memo.

Hmmm....I fear Finn may have a more severe case of PESS than I thought.

[donquixote99]

It seems Whell got the memo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQJTJKMvtd8

[donquixote99]

Missed the little "wink" in that post, didja Don?

Actually you're another one that this thread is all about. I know life has gotten scarier for you post-election, as witnessed by some of your...umm...unhinged posts. Consider this thread outreach, and effort to help folks like you sort things out.

Your insults masked as faux concern are just more of your dishonesty.

[finnbow]

There, there Finn. It's OK. I know these are troubling times for you. I can see it in your posts. Its with folks like you in mind that this thread was created. I just want to help with your recovery and healing.

Unlike you, I'm skeptical of politicians on both sides (and didn't vote for Hillary - Kasich was my guy). For whatever reason, manipulation and manipulative people have long been things I strongly dislike, find disreputable, and often strike out against. That's my primary beef with Trump and the campaign he ran, which featured "fake news" as a primary component. Trump helped normalize this behavior with his constant lying and retweeting fake news are things he should be held to account for.

Now that this has come to the fore with Comet Ping Pong (a place I know well and have eaten at several times), I find the concerted effort by Trump and his minions in right-wing media to deny the existence of fake news and how Trump benefited from it distasteful and dishonest.

[Tom Joad]

Unlike you, I'm skeptical of politicians on both sides (and didn't vote for Hillary - Kasich was my guy).

Thanks for showing your true far right stripes.

Kasich would have been worse than Hillary.

If the election had been Kasich vs. Hillary, or any of the other Republicans other than Trump vs. Hillary, I would have voted for Hillary.

The only candidate on the Republican side that was better than Hillary was Trump.

[whell]

Unlike you, I'm skeptical of politicians on both sides (and didn't vote for Hillary - Kasich was my guy). For whatever reason, manipulation and manipulative people have long been things I strongly dislike, find disreputable, and often strike out against. That's my primary beef with Trump and the campaign he ran, which featured "fake news" as a primary component. Trump helped normalize this behavior with his constant lying and retweeting fake news are things he should be held to account for.

Now that this has come to the fore with Comet Ping Pong (a place I know well and have eaten at several times), I find the concerted effort by Trump and his minions in right-wing media to deny the existence of fake news and how Trump benefited from it distasteful and dishonest.

I find this fascinating, really. The selective indignation is stunning. We still have folks right here on this forum this still believe the Gabby Giffords shooter was inspired by Sarah Palin. The story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-debate/story?id=12576437) ran ad naseum in the "mainstream" news. The NY Post ran a story headlining that "Giffords Blood was on Palin's Hands". There was ZERO evidence that the shooter saw or even cared about Palin's "target" ad. Didn't matter a whit, the story was debated in the press for weeks.

Yet you guys are all spun up about a few tweets. Amazing.

[icenine]

Is the New York Post mainstream media? I always thought it was a tabloid.

[finnbow]

I find this fascinating, really. The selective indignation is stunning. We still have folks right here on this forum this still believe the Gabby Giffords shooter was inspired by Sarah Palin. The story (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-debate/story?id=12576437) ran ad naseum in the "mainstream" news. The NY Post ran a story headlining that "Giffords Blood was on Palin's Hands". There was ZERO evidence that the shooter saw or even cared about Palin's "target" ad. Didn't matter a whit, the story was debated in the press for weeks.

Yet you guys are all spun up about a few tweets. Amazing.

You're grasping at straws, dude. The has never been a presidential candidate with such a casual relationship, even contempt, for truth and facts. Trump's own surrogate proclaimed "there are no such thing as facts" as she defended her boss's incessant lying and forwarding of fake news tweets from Infowars and Breitbart (measure at ~75% of what he said - about triple any other candidate present or past). Then he hires one of the premier purveyors of fake news, Steve Bannon, as his key advisor while his national security advisor retweets verifiably fake news, the same fake news which caused some clown to shoot up a local pizza joint. Maybe I take it a bit personally that one of my preferred pizza places gets shot up by some asshole reacting to fake news distributed by, among others, the National Security Advisor and his chief of staff (and son). Unlike you, I expect more from the National Security Advisor.

As for it being just "a few tweets," how about ~30,000 tweets, in which the most frequently source for his retweets was Breitbart. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trumps-information-universe?utm_term=.nhvVYrVXmr#.alGbprbQgr) For whatever reason, I expect the president to be a bit more discriminating as to the source of his "news." Meanwhile, he blows off intelligence briefings and defies the intelligence community when they show compelling evidence of Russian involvement in the election.

There's a reason why the Oxford Dictionary announced a couple weeks ago that "post-truth" was its 2016 word of the year and yer boy, The Donald, is the driving force behind that choice. I guess you're OK with him accusing Ted Cruz's father of conspiring to assassinate JFK - so very presidential of him. If it helps you sleep at night to believe that Trump is a virtuous, dignified person, have at it. I'll pass.

[donquixote99]

Who knows what whell believes when he's lying in his bed. We'll never know. Whell gives little or nothing of himself here. He just throws party-line brickbats.

With his public persona so welded to the party line, if he ever has the slightest doubt of Trump's virtue and dignity, we'll never hear of it.

[bobabode]

Nothing to see here, eh Mike? :rolleyes:

'Feds: Woman made death threats to Sandy Hook victim’s parent'

"MIAMI — A Florida woman has been charged with making death threats against the parent of a child who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre because she thought the attack was a hoax, federal authorities announced Wednesday.
Lucy Richards, 57, of Tampa was arrested Monday after a grand jury indictment on four felony counts of transmitting threats, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ap-sandyhook550p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.684ba976b640

[finnbow]

Nothing to see here, eh Mike? :rolleyes:

'Feds: Woman made death threats to Sandy Hook victim’s parent'

"MIAMI — A Florida woman has been charged with making death threats against the parent of a child who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre because she thought the attack was a hoax, federal authorities announced Wednesday.
Lucy Richards, 57, of Tampa was arrested Monday after a grand jury indictment on four felony counts of transmitting threats, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ap-sandyhook550p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.684ba976b640

And the primary purveyor of this particular trash is InfoWars' Alex Jones, a friend of Trump's whose reputation Trump refers to as "amazing" and who one of the very first people to receive a phone call from Trump after the election.

Here's another factoid for you:

Legitimate news stories outperformed the fake ones in the early months of the 2016 election campaign. But in the last three months, fake news sources saw their engagement surge. There’s a clear partisan dimension to this story. According to Silverman, 17 out of the 20 fake news stories had information favoring Donald Trump.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7484977/sub_buzz_441_1479332078_1.png

[bobabode]

And the primary purveyor of this particular trash is InfoWars' Alex Jones, a friend of Trump's whose reputation Trump refers to as "amazing" and who one of the very first people to receive a phone call from Trump after the election.

Hell, the Twitter prez loves the National Enquirer along with any other bag o' hammers news source that catches his eye. The pendulum has swung once again and now the far right morons are in charge. I hope these idjits don't get us in a shooting war with China.

Welcome to the Confederate States of Idiocracy.

[donquixote99]

The crazy thing in that graph is the lack of resurgence of interest in the mainstream media as the election neared. Instead the fake stuff, with glitter and button-pushing, effectively captured the bounce.

[finnbow]

And now the Pope speaks out against fake news in very strong terms.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly "Tertio" that spreading disinformation was "probably the greatest damage that the media can do" and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/pope-warns-media-over-sin-of-spreading-fake-news-smearing-politicians.html

[MrPots]

The right conflates opinions they disagree with, humor they don't get, and inaccurate polling with fake news in an effort to say "everybody's doing it" or "all news other than Fox News, Breitbart and talk radio are fake news." You've fallen for the scam. Congrats.


The right also believes that if they don't win an election, it's been rigged.

[whell]

Nothing to see here, eh Mike? :rolleyes:

'Feds: Woman made death threats to Sandy Hook victim’s parent'

"MIAMI — A Florida woman has been charged with making death threats against the parent of a child who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre because she thought the attack was a hoax, federal authorities announced Wednesday.
Lucy Richards, 57, of Tampa was arrested Monday after a grand jury indictment on four felony counts of transmitting threats, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ap-sandyhook550p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.684ba976b640

Interesting that you linked to this article. Its an excellent example of WaPp creating fake news. Here's what the article wants you to believe:

A post apparently written by Tracy maintained that Sandy Hook was faked, that no one was killed and that “local co-conspirators” were paid to pretend to grieve their young children.

That claim is not made by the parents, and in fact the professor in question has never claimed that the Sandy Hook shootings didn't occur, never claimed that "no one was killed." Why would WaPo make that claim?

I'm not saying that the folks who question the information that was reported about the Sandy Hook shooting. I've never met him or seen him on news, but from what I've read I strongly believe that Professor Tracy is a crank. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there, and Wapo seems to be playing pretty fast and loose with the facts.

Fake news? Yeah, I think so. Is Tracy blameless here? Well, when you push a stick into a hornets nest, you'd better assume you might get stung, or you're and idiot.

Tracy was an idiot to send a certified letter to the Pozner family demanding for them to prove that one of the photos that were circulating out there of the shooting victims was really their son. What the WaPo story doesn't mention is that one of those same photos showed up a photo montage (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30498745) of kids killed in a Taliban school bombing in Pakistan. That montage is what got the Tracy - again I think the guy is a crank - fired up, and why he sent a letter to the parents, thus stirring up the hornets nest.

To me, seems like some key points for WaPo to leave out, especially since Tracy's beef is not whether or not Sandy Hook occurred, but with the reporting of it, and how the inconsistencies in reporting fueled his...ummm...interesting ideas that there was an effort to embellish or omit reporting on elements of the shooting in an effort to push gun control legislation.

If you're interested, here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJFf3ayQb8A) that is Tracy is connected to.

There! Service provided: fake news addressed. :p

[whell]

The right also believes that if they don't win an election, it's been rigged.

The left believes that if they don't win an election, they need to blow up the electoral college.

[whell]

And now the Pope speaks out against fake news in very strong terms.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly "Tertio" that spreading disinformation was "probably the greatest damage that the media can do" and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/pope-warns-media-over-sin-of-spreading-fake-news-smearing-politicians.html

And there it is. That's exactly what keeps, for example, some folks in this forum animated for months on end about police shootings, and what animates some groups like, maybe, Black Lives Matter.

[donquixote99]

The right also believes that if they don't win an election, it's been rigged.

Reminds me of WC Fields complaining about a card shark: "...And besides, I know what I dealt him."

[nailer]

The crazy thing in that graph is the lack of resurgence of interest in the mainstream media as the election neared. Instead the fake stuff, with glitter and button-pushing, effectively captured the bounce.

Fake news is more entertaining.

[whell]

And now the Pope speaks out against fake news in very strong terms.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly "Tertio" that spreading disinformation was "probably the greatest damage that the media can do" and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/pope-warns-media-over-sin-of-spreading-fake-news-smearing-politicians.html

...and by the way, before you (or the CNBC article you linked to) try to pass the pope off as some great civil libertarian who is interested in freedom and democracy, let me help you with that. He's not. I think what animates this very leftist Pope is the election of Trump, as the last sentence in the article suggests.

This is the same pope who thinks its just fine to have the Chinese government involved in picking church leadership in China. He ignores the "underground" Catholic church in China (which truly believes in the separation of church and state), and supports the "Chinese - approved" church, which is believed to have fewer adherents.

[nailer]

And now the Pope speaks out against fake news in very strong terms.

Media that focus on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement, Pope Francis said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Francis told the Belgian Catholic weekly "Tertio" that spreading disinformation was "probably the greatest damage that the media can do" and using communications for this rather than to educate the public amounted to a sin.

Using precise psychological terms, he said scandal-mongering media risked falling prey to coprophilia, or arousal from excrement, and consumers of these media risked coprophagia, or eating excrement.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/pope-warns-media-over-sin-of-spreading-fake-news-smearing-politicians.html

The idea of sinning against God is fake news.

[donquixote99]

Fake news is more entertaining.

Yes. Often not in so good a way....

[whell]

Legitimate news stories outperformed the fake ones in the early months of the 2016 election campaign. But in the last three months, fake news sources saw their engagement surge. There’s a clear partisan dimension to this story. According to Silverman, 17 out of the 20 fake news stories had information favoring Donald Trump.

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7484977/sub_buzz_441_1479332078_1.png

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

[finnbow]

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist). I've read and seen several interviews with fake news generators, many of whom are non-partisan and only in it for the money. They started out posting equal amounts of pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) and pro-Hillary (and anti-Trump) fake news, but the fake news directed at pro-Hillary people didn't generate anywhere near as many clicks (from which they get paid by online advertisers) as from the pro-Trump (or anti-Hillary) crowd (up to a factor of 10X). So, therefore they simply posted pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stuff because Trump fans seem less capable of discriminating fact from fiction and ate that stuff up.

[nailer]

You sourced that graph from....ummm....Vox, not an exactly unbiased source of news and a contributor to the hyperbole that accompanies "fake news".

However, maybe you can help me out here a bit. Who at Vox, or their source "BuzzSumo" gets to decide what is / is not fake news with sufficient clarity that they can measure and graph it?

It's a conjecture graph. It looks cool, supports the point being made and begs many a question.

[nailer]

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist).

So the graph could be fake news. :cool:

[whell]

Dunno. Do your own research and refute it with facts (if you, unlike the Trump campaign, belief that facts actually exist).

I'd love to refute it with facts if you could point me to the answers to my question about something that you want me to simply assume is "fact". Well, how convenient for you. You posted it, but refer any questions about it to someone else? Pathetic.

Frankly, what you've done is posted "fake news" to support your claims about "fake news". And when challenged about your source and their methodology, you're clueless about it.

[whell]

So the graph could be fake news. :cool:

Bingo!

[whell]

So, therefore they simply posted pro-Trump/anti-Hillary stuff because Trump fans seem less capable of discriminating fact from fiction and ate that stuff up.

Your assumption, based on zero facts. Could easily have been the Media Matters types clicking on all that stuff so they could be prepared to post endless blogs about it.

For that matter, as John loves to suggest, it could have been a "false flag" operation. :p

[finnbow]

Your assumption, based on zero facts. Could easily have been the Media Matters types clicking on all that stuff so they could be prepared to post endless blogs about it.

For that matter, as John loves to suggest, it could have been a "false flag" operation. :p

Here ya go.

But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.)

“My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html

You Trumpinistas are quite something. Trump himself frequently uses fake news from the stump (e.g., thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, 3 million illegal votes in California), he praises one of the craziest conspiracy theorists in the the land (Alex Jones), his National Security Advisor (and son on transition staff) tweets the fake news story that resulted in a pizzeria being shot up, he appoints the editor of Breitbart to his White House staff, and fake news generators admit to targeting Trump supporters exclusively and you throw your lot in with Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes who says "There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

I'm beginning to wonder what it is that Trump must do or say for you to object to it.

[donquixote99]

Your assumption, based on zero facts. Could easily have been the Media Matters types clicking on all that stuff so they could be prepared to post endless blogs about it.

For that matter, as John loves to suggest, it could have been a "false flag" operation. :p

Accuse them of doing what you do.

[whell]

Here ya go.

But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.)

“My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html

You Trumpinistas are quite something. Trump himself frequently uses fake news from the stump (e.g., thousands of Muslim celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, 3 million illegal votes in California), he praises one of the craziest conspiracy theorists in the the land (Alex Jones), his National Security Advisor (and son on transition staff) tweets the fake news story that resulted in a pizzeria being shot up, he appoints the editor of Breitbart to his White House staff, and fake news generators admit to targeting Trump supporters exclusively and you throw your lot in with Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes who says "There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

I'm beginning to wonder what it is that Trump must do or say for you to object to it.

Hey Finn, you're priceless in this thread, and you're doing a great job demonstrating how an average American like you can create "fake news". Pulling Hughes quote out of context is using fine technique for the creating of fake news.

Hughes was actually stating that there was no such thing as facts anymore to individuals on both sides who hold strong positions about politics. Doesn't take a PhD. to notice this. Just spend a few minutes in a forum like this for example and you'll see both sides sometimes interpreting facts in a way that support their positions.

That's exactly what you just did with her quote: pulling it out of context in an attempt to make it sound like she was saying something more like: "Facts??! We don't need no stinkin' facts." That not at all what she said or implied, but that didn't stop you from an attempt to create your own bit of fake news.

See the great service that this thread is providing?

[whell]

Accuse them of doing what you do.

Child. All you've to this discussion contributed is accusations that I'm "lying". You've offered nothing to back that up so apparently that's your response when you disagree with something but can't articulate why. I'm sad for you.

[donquixote99]

Child. All you've to this discussion contributed is accusations that I'm "lying". You've offered nothing to back that up so apparently that's your response when you disagree with something but can't articulate why. I'm sad for you.

Everything you say is exactly as true as that bit.

[finnbow]

Hey Finn, you're priceless in this thread, and you're doing a great job demonstrating how an average American like you can create "fake news". Pulling Hughes quote out of context is using fine technique for the creating of fake news.

So, I guess you're OK with Trump and his NSA tweeting obvious lies and shattering any standards for political discourse and honesty. How low are you willing to let him go before his actions strike you as beneath the dignity of the office and possibly dangerous for the nation? If he hasn't gotten there in past 1.5 years, I guess there's nothing he could do that you wouldn't defend.

[whell]

So, I guess you're OK with Trump and his NSA tweeting obvious lies and shattering any standards for political discourse and honesty.

This thread isn't about me Finn. But I certainly understand - given how poor some of your arguments have been - why you might want to change the subject.

[whell]

Fake news about fake news.

Clinton blasts 'epidemic' of fake news (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309532-clinton-blasts-epidemic-of-fake-news)

Hillary Clinton on Thursday decried the spread of fake news online, calling it an “epidemic” that Congress should take action against.

“Lives are at risk — lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.”

“It’s a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly,” she said.

Following the playbook, Dems manufacture a crisis over a nutjob in a pizzaria then call on government to "fix" it. We have to fix it, of course, because "lives are at risk." :rolleyes:

Why weren't they interested in fixing the media and internet hate fest that spun up and resulted in violence against police?

[finnbow]

This thread isn't about me Finn. But I certainly understand - given how poor some of your arguments have been - why you might want to change the subject.

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news (look again at your OP, along with your post above), interestingly on the same day that Fox and talk radio took up the same campaign, just as Michael Flynn starting taking heat for tweeting fake news from the White House on a story that resulted in a pizza joint getting shot up. One can only surmise that this was done to provide cover for der Trumpenfuhrer who himself (along with several top level appointees around him) is a consumer and purveyor of fake news and whose campaign benefited greatly from it.

Your arguments are typical right wing projection, similar to White Nationalists claiming that everybody but themselves are racists. Just as they contend that those who point out racism are the real racists, stories that point out fake news are themselves fake news. Up is down, down is up.

[whell]

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news (look again at your OP, along with your post above), ....

We could just as easily make it about your flimsy arguments. There's far more of those here than anything else. :p

It is indeed about you denying the existence of fake news....

It is indeed not. In fact, I pointed out right here in this thread the fake news that YOU posted, and that Bob posted.

Fake news certainly exists. One need look no further than, for example: "The attacks in Benghazi where part of a spontaneous response to a Youtube video". Or, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Or, "This stimulus will fund shovel ready jobs that will spur the economy and reduce unemployment." And who can forget Dan Rather's made up documents about Bush's National Guard Service? Or NBC's creative editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call? Of the fact that Brian Williams still works for NBC? Or that Piers Morgan made up photos of Brit soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, got fired for it, but had no trouble being hired by CNN thereafter?

What truly exists is the Left's selective indignation about it, and their suggestions and threats (Obama and Hillary - the two most prominent Dems there are) to use the machinery of government to "fix" it. It is an opportunistic way to trash the 1st Amendment, with the left poised to put themselves in a position to determine what is "fake news" and what isn't.

And there you are advocating for it and defending it. Lovely.

[finnbow]

Fake news certainly exists. One need look no further than, for example: "The attacks in Benghazi where part of a spontaneous response to a Youtube video". Or, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Or, "This stimulus will fund shovel ready jobs that will spur the economy and reduce unemployment."

None of these are examples of fake news. They are politicians making false, exaggerated and/or misinformed statements. This is yet another example of you trying to obfuscate and project. I take it you realize that Trump lied or grossly exaggerated somewhere around 3X as much as the next worse candidate during the campaign. This is not fake news. It is a candidate lying.

OTOH, Trump or Flynn retweeting about 3 million illegal votes in CA, thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey and Hillary Clinton's child sex ring are indeed examples of fake news, their endorsement of which is certainly troublesome. In fact, Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently characterized Flynn's tweets as "demented." Are you OK with a demented NSA who believes and distributes conspiracy theories?

What truly exists is the Left's selective indignation about it, and their suggestions and threats (Obama and Hillary - the two most prominent Dems there are) to use the machinery of government to "fix" it. It is an opportunistic way to trash the 1st Amendment, with the left poised to put themselves in a position to determine what is "fake news" and what isn't.

And there you are advocating for it and defending it. Lovely.

If Trump and Flynn quit slinging false news and lumping praise upon one of its worst practitioners (Alex Jones), this wouldn't be an issue that Fox, talk radio and you would feel a need to discredit.

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate." It seems you disagree with the esteemed Mr. Jefferson.

[whell]

None of these are examples of fake news. They are politicians making false, exaggerated and/or misinformed statements.

Couldn't help but notice that you edited out the parts of my post that you thought didn't quite fit the template. You're getting more like a reporter from WaPo (or maybe HuffPo) every day. :rolleyes:

Of course they are examples of fake news. The Dems spoon fed these nuggests to the press, and they ran with them. Any interest in whether these statements were factual came much, much later if it came at all.

OTOH, Trump or Flynn retweeting about 3 million illegal votes in CA, thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey and Hillary Clinton's child sex ring are indeed examples of fake news, their endorsement of which is certainly troublesome. In fact, Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently characterized Flynn's tweets as "demented." Are you OK with a demented NSA who believes and distributes conspiracy theories?

A have much less problem with a tweet than I do having the mainstream press acting like the communication arm of the White House or the State Department. The bias of the mainstream press - and I strongly suspect that another aspect of this "fake news" BS is the media trying to white-wash their bias in the last election cycle - was obvious. It was so obvious that at least one local paper in FL (http://www.dailycommercial.com/news/20161023/media-election-and-bias) recognized it, and how their recycling of feeds from major news services was impacting their readers perception of the paper's objectivity, that they issued an editorial to their readers acknowledging their errant reporting. Pretty obvious when you read the whole editorial that the editor is no fan of Trump, but here's what the editorial stated:

Has the media been biased against Trump? Yes, we believe so, especially lately. Trump's every utterance, no matter how innocuous, is now parsed, analyzed and criticized by a litany of political pundits. The wire services that the Daily Commercial subscribes to churn out stories almost daily that fact check Trump, which is warranted given his penchant for exaggeration and duplicity. Yet those same services turn out so few stories that fact check Clinton, who also has a strained relationship with the truth.

As Thomas Jefferson famously said, "A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate." It seems you disagree with the esteemed Mr. Jefferson.

No, I agree wholeheartedly. Where you and I seem to disagree is whether the news needs to be "controlled". Hell, you posted a graph that purported to measure "fake news", but you couldn't even articulate the criteria used to identify that fake news.

The news needs no "filter" as Obama proposed, particularly not a filter regulated by the govt and certainly not the left. We don't need the reincarnation of Pravda here, but you sound like you long for the "good old days" of the Soviet state controlled media.

[nailer]

The news is always filtered. By the sources and each recipient.

[whell]

Here's a fake news alert: MSNBC Host Stephanie Ruhle states "Fox News had their Christmas party at a Trump Hotel". Problem is, Fox News hasn't had their Christmas party yet. Nor will it be held at any Trump property.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-host-falsely-accuses-fox-news-of-holding-christmas-party-at-trumps-washington-hotel/

We reached out to Fox News to clarify this statement and were informed that Fox hasn’t had its party yet. That party is not scheduled to be held at Trump’s Washington hotel, or any other Trump property. Instead, it will be held at the Liaison Capitol Hill in D.C.

This was a "news segment" about how a Trump presidency was rife with potential conflicts of interest, as exemplified by charging campaign expenses incurred at Trump properties to his campaign.

Ms Ruhle, idiot that she likely is, would not recognize that this is actually a pretty smart move that used existing rules to lower campaign expenses. This is consistent with previous "news reports" in the media that accused Trump of using existing laws to reduce business expenses. Then Ms Ruhle, to be kind, decides to play fast and loose by suggesting that news competitor has a conflict of interest with the President - elect.

Fake news on display, and corrected here as a service to readers on this site.

[finnbow]

Here's a fake news alert: MSNBC Host Stephanie Ruhle states "Fox News had their Christmas party at a Trump Hotel". Problem is, Fox News hasn't had their Christmas party yet. Nor will it be held at any Trump property.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-host-falsely-accuses-fox-news-of-holding-christmas-party-at-trumps-washington-hotel/

We reached out to Fox News to clarify this statement and were informed that Fox hasn’t had its party yet. That party is not scheduled to be held at Trump’s Washington hotel, or any other Trump property. Instead, it will be held at the Liaison Capitol Hill in D.C.

This was a "news segment" about how a Trump presidency was rife with potential conflicts of interest, as exemplified by charging campaign expenses incurred at Trump properties to his campaign.

Ms Ruhle, idiot that she likely is, would not recognize that this is actually a pretty smart move that used existing rules to lower campaign expenses. This is consistent with previous "news reports" in the media that accused Trump of using existing laws to reduce business expenses. Then Ms Ruhle, to be kind, decides to play fast and loose by suggesting that news competitor has a conflict of interest with the President - elect.

Fake news on display, and corrected here as a service to readers on this site.

Unlike fake news, mainstream media corrects the record when they say something demonstrably false or they punish the person responsible (e.g., Dan Rather, Brian Williams). For example, the inside page of the WashPost has a "corrections" list on page A2 every time something factually incorrect is pointed out to them. Similarly, their website lists ongoing corrections on the bottom each article. Trump and Flynn, OTOH, simply double-down on demonstrably false news articles that they glean from InfoWars, NewsMax or WorldNetDaily.

Your argument (the same one that Limbaugh made again today) is that the only "fake news" is the stuff that appears daily in the WashPost, NYTimes, NPR or PBS. Both he and you conflate opinion, reporting on a counterfactual statement of a (liberal) politician, or poll results or predictions that end up being incorrect as fake news. Your (and his) argument is that if a talking head incorrectly predicts a Lions victory over the Packers, it is fake news or if sports metrics point to a the likelihood a Lions victory that doesn't happen, it's fake news.

Anyway, it's pointless talking to you further on this issue. If you choose to believe that Hillary ran a child sex ring out of a pizza joint, knock yourself out. Just leave your AR-15 at home.

[d-ray657]

Fake news on display, and corrected here as a service to readers on this site.

You intend no service to anyone here. Your posts serve only your ego and, as a byproduct, your party's talking points. Speaking of byproducts, this thread reminds me of grass after it has been processed by a bull.

[whell]

Speaking of byproducts, this thread reminds me of grass after it has been processed by a bull.

Can't think of anyone better qualified to make an informed judgement about bull byproducts than you. :rolleyes:

[whell]

Unlike fake news, mainstream media corrects the record when they say something demonstrably false or they punish the person responsible (e.g., Dan Rather, Brian Williams).

Really? Still waiting for the "corrections" on Hillary's way over-inflated polling numbers.

Your argument (the same one that Limbaugh made again today) is that the only "fake news" is the stuff that appears daily in the WashPost, NYTimes, NPR or PBS. Both he and you conflate opinion, reporting on a counterfactual statement of a (liberal) politician, or poll results or predictions that end up being incorrect as fake news. Your (and his) argument is that if a talking head incorrectly predicts a Lions victory over the Packers, it is fake news or if sports metrics point to a the likelihood a Lions victory that doesn't happen, it's fake news.

Anyway, it's pointless talking to you further on this issue. If you choose to believe that Hillary ran a child sex ring out of a pizza joint, knock yourself out. Just leave your AR-15 at home.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I've explained it twice in this thread, and provided examples. If you simply want to look at the facts presented and deny them, that's your call.

[finnbow]

Really? Still waiting for the "corrections" on Hillary's way over-inflated polling numbers.

Just as I said. You conflate the reporting of poll results with fake news.

I'm done with this thread. You're incorrigibly obtuse.

[donquixote99]

Very successful whell thread! Trolled along for 7 pages!

[whell]

Very successful whell thread! Trolled along for 7 pages!

Thank you for your hapless contributions. :rolleyes:

[whell]

Fake News Alert: Russia Hacked the RNC Too - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

Never happened. The RNC's computers were not hacked (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reince-priebus-rnc-hacked/story?id=44110357).

"We contacted the FBI months ago when the [alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee] issue came about. They reviewed all of our systems. We have hacking-detection systems in place, and the conclusion was then, as it was again two days ago when we went back to the FBI to ask them about this, that the RNC was not hacked," Priebus said today on ABC News' "This Week."

[donquixote99]

So, who do we believe, NY Times or Priebus. NY Times or Preibus....

[Rajoo]

This is a 'he said, she said' routine.
If the Russians did indeed hack the DNC server (of which we can be fairly certain of from Wikileaks), why would they not do the same to the RNC. Professional courtesy towards Trump? Or are we to believe that the RNC systems are hack proof?

[finnbow]

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

[whell]

So, who do we believe, NY Times or Priebus. NY Times or Preibus....

Even you should be able to frame the question better than that. Do we believe an "un-named CIA source", or do we believe Priebus (who can likely point to individuals at the FBI who can corroborate his story)?

[whell]

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

You want your collection or speculation and opinion taken as fact?

And, I'm glad to hear that Limbaugh can read both ABC News, Politico and Marketwatch, all of whom ran the story the contradicted the NY Times report. Sorry that you can't read it, though. :rolleyes:

There is yet to surface any proof that Russia meddled in the election. The closest WaPo can come is that the hacking MAY have been done by individuals with "ties" to the Russian intelligence. We have no idea what the CIA or WaPo means by "ties", but it is certainly falls short of a direct linkage to the Kremlin.

From WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intelligence-officials-say-russian-hacks-prioritized-democrats/2016/12/12/0fbea4da-c09b-11e6-b527-949c5893595e_story.html?utm_term=.2c17ae1b5020):

The CIA briefed the administration that it thinks the Russians “breached” the RNC systems, according to a senior U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “Obviously there haven’t been the same sort of leaks and pilfered documents spread about from this intrusion as there were from the various DNC and related incursions.”

Other officials familiar with the CIA’s assessment said there is “high confidence” that the RNC was targeted but less certainty that the Russians got inside the committee and stole material.

So, a nice bit of conflicting into there. We also know that the FBI didn't find any evidence that the RNC systems were compromised by hackers.

U.S. intelligence officials said the CIA has identified the “actors” who took possession of those stolen files and delivered them to WikiLeaks. The individuals are known for their affiliations to Russian intelligence services, but “one step” removed from the Russian government.

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures. :rolleyes:

[finnbow]

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures. :rolleyes:

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

In the words of Republican Michael Gerson:
(T)he debate over whether Russia engaged in cyberespionage to help Trump or just to generally mess with American democracy is utter nonsense. Russian espionage resulted in the phased leak of material damaging to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton at key moments during the presidential campaign. Anyone who finds Russia’s motivation mysterious is being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-dangerous-diss-of-the-cia/2016/12/12/19337e88-c095-11e6-897f-918837dae0ae_story.html

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.

[whell]

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

[finnbow]

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election to disrupt and discredit our democracy, we should forego any investigation of their transgressions. Thankfully, there are enough Republicans that are willing to put country before fear of Trumpenfuhrer tweets and support an investigation. Russia interfering and releasing only material negative to Clinton because that's all they could successfully hack or Russia releasing only Hillary material because they favored Trump is a distinction without a difference. We'll likely never be able to divine the exact motive for what they did (disrupting/discrediting America or favoring Trump), but it makes no difference.

BTW, your linked article on based upon a specious premise. Neither the NYTimes nor the WashPost reported that the CIA has proven that Russia interfered specifically to benefit Trump. The CIA said that their analysis led to them have strong confidence that Russia did so. So you and Rush accusing them of saying something they didn't say isn't reason not to investigate - a typical Trump diversionary tactic. I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[Oerets]

All this argument proves to me, the GOP and the Right will sell their souls to advance an agenda. But that is assuming they have souls to sell in the first place.
The Right firmly to the core believes in the dead voting in mass to effect elections but are now blind to Russia. Will not even entertain a independent investigation to see. Willing to embrace Russia and overlook little things like hacking, Ukraine and Syria as acceptable. As long as they are the perceived beneficiaries.



Barney

[donquixote99]

I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

My guess is he's an 'ordinary American' who enjoys doing a fantasy role-play of 'professional internet warrior for the RNC.' As such, he's going to love the idea that you think he's a teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[whell]

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election without a favorite, we should forego any investigation. I'm started to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

Your position is to sling as much crap as you can and hope that it sticks. Please point me to any statement I've made in ANY thread that suggests that we should "forego any investigation". Let me help you: you won't find it.

Now that that's out of the way:

Again, here's what we know:

We have lots of un-named sources making lots of accusations in the press. We've got documents that have been accessed from servers and emails of the DNC and their operatives and posted on Wikileaks. We have accusations that these disclosures somehow interfered with the election. We have Obama, Dems and some Repubs calling a "congressional investigation" which, as they often do, could turn into a circus very quickly. We don't have any smoking gun that ties this to the Kremlin, though we believe that the hackers used methods that are similar to those used by hacking groups that have been used by Russian intelligence before. And half - backed conclusions backed with little to no documentation have been leaked to the press.

To me, this is unprecedented in a number of ways, not the least of which is a very public discussion of intelligence gathering and speculation about that process in the press by the intelligence community. Leaks are not unprecedented, but to have folks as high as the President and the former Secretary of State commenting publicly about intel gathering is. Sure, its the election and sure the Wikileaks stuff made the news, but whatever happened to the good old days of simply saying "We're investigating and have no further comments until the investigation has concluded."

Also, how is this playing in the Kremlin? No one has linked this to directly to the Kremlin, though much speculation about that is being leaked, and there's no clear agreement on it. But public statements about Russia trying to influence the election are, with or without proof, dangerous. And what if the investigation continues and we find out that Russian-based hackers were actually working on their own (some of these groups do have their own agendas) or working for someone besides Russian intelligence, someone not connected with the Russian gov't at all? Too late, the damage has already been done.

Also, has anyone stopped to think what Russian gov't might gain from hacking the DNC? Finn, you earlier suggested that the motivation here is that "Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State." Is there proof that Trump's positions on issues will be demonstrably better than Clinton's for Russia? At best, since Trump has no history in elected office, he's a wild card, and doesn't strike me as consistent or predictable. The "tip the election in favor of Trump" thing doesn't make sense to me.

So, we have an investigation. Then what? What's the end - game if the best we can prove is what we already think we know now: "that Russian-based hackers with ties to Russian intelligence" may have been responsible for accessing DNC servers and emails. What do we do with that flimsy set of facts? Since we had a very public investigation, the politicos will likely believe that they need to have a very public response...one that's motivated by politics rather that logic or prudence.

I think we've let the genie out of the bottle with making this all very public - likely made public for politic's sake - and we're going to have a very difficult time conducting an objective examination of the facts in this case. Or acting on the facts that we do uncover without a healthy dose of politics informing those actions.

[finnbow]

I think we've let the genie out of the bottle with making this all very public - likely made public for politic's sake - and we're going to have a very difficult time conducting an objective examination of the facts in this case.

... so let's not bother trying. Let's give Russia free hand to intervene in democratic elections in the USA, Germany, Italy and elsewhere because intelligence is never absolutely perfect.:confused:

Per Michael Hayden (former CIA and NSA Chief), Trump's appropriate response to this should have been along the lines of:

An administration-in-waiting more confident in itself, in its own legitimacy, in U.S. institutions and in the people it will soon govern might have said, “These are serious issues. We intend to hear them out. Nothing is more precious than our democratic process. We have asked the Obama administration for details.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-already-antagonizing-the-intelligence-community-and-thats-a-problem/2016/12/12/9576a0ca-c0ad-11e6-897f-918837dae0ae_story.html

I'm afraid der Trumpenfuhrer didn't meet this standard of statesmanship.

[whell]

... so let's not bother trying. Let's give Russia free hand to intervene in democratic elections in the USA, Germany, Italy and elsewhere because intelligence is never absolutely perfect.:confused:

I'm afraid der Trumpenfuhrer didn't meet this standard of statesmanship.

Didn't say that, did I? Keep slinging that crap though, Finn. You never know what might stick. :rolleyes:

The point, again, is that this is an investigation that needs to be conducted as most investigations are: by professionals, in private and the details released once a conclusion can be drawn that is based on facts and not half baked conjecture. Have Obama and Clinton making public allegations unsupported by facts ahead of any complete investigation doesn't meet the standard of statesmanship.

[finnbow]

Didn't say that, did I? Keep slinging that crap though, Finn. You never know what might stick. :rolleyes:

The point, again, is that this is an investigation that needs to be conducted as most investigations are: by professionals, in private and the details released once a conclusion can be drawn that is based on facts and not half baked conjecture. Have Obama and Clinton making public allegations unsupported by facts ahead of any complete investigation doesn't meet the standard of statesmanship.

As the Reuters article articulated, Russia's exact intent can never be ascertained with certainty unless the CIA had an undercover agent directly involved in Russian decision-making in this matter.

Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton. This is a distinction without a difference and intended to obfuscate the significance of what happened.

Back to your original assertion of this being "fake news." Both the Times and the Post reported both the CIA's assessment and that the FBI wasn't willing to go as far in terms of provable intent (though all intelligent agencies agreed on Russian involvement (and have since the October 7 joint public release (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national)of this stuff by DHS and DNI)). This is made clear in the NYTimes article you characterized as "fake news" as well as in the Reuters article you cited.

Accordingly, there is absolutely nothing fake about this news. Meanwhile, you continue to assert that any real news that may reflect negatively on or prove inconvenient to Trump is fake. It seems to me that logic and deduction aren't exactly your strong suits.

[Rajoo]

With both the GOP House and the Senate wanting to have Russian hacking investigated should make this thread moot.

[finnbow]

With both the GOP House and the Senate wanting to have Russian hacking investigated should make this thread moot.

It would if it weren't for a significant number of House and Senate members continuing to spew the same silly shit that Whell is (not to mention Trump himself, Reince Preibus, Sean Spicer, Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart and other GOP "thought leaders") and Trump throwing the CIA under the bus in favor of defending Russia at every breath (whether in this matter or in Syria or the Ukraine).

[Rajoo]

It would if it weren't for a significant number of House and Senate members continuing to spew the same silly shit that Whell is (not to mention Trump himself, Reince Preibus, Sean Spicer, Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart and other GOP "thought leaders").

Obama is not going to back off on his order to investigate Russian hacking at this point in time, unless he is a total wimp.

[finnbow]

Obama is not going to back off on his order to investigate Russian hacking at this point in time, unless he is a total wimp.

He won't and shouldn't. He's basically saying to the GOP Congress and Trump "either you support our intelligence agencies or Russia. Which is it?"

[Rajoo]

He won't and shouldn't. He's basically saying to the GOP Congress and Trump "either you support our intelligence agencies or Russia. Which is it?"

Very well put and the bait is well hooked.

[MrPots]

Obama is not going to back off on his order to investigate Russian hacking at this point in time, unless he is a total wimp.

Obama has caved too many times.

[donquixote99]

He won't cave this time, because he has finally lost all hope. Seems paradoxical, but isn't.

[Rajoo]

He won't cave this time, because he has finally lost all hope. Seems paradoxical, but isn't.

I may be willing to bet on it this time. After all what does he have to lose?
It is a certainty that that the FBI & CIA will find something to hang on Putin and this will help Obama settle a score or two. This could be very personal for Obama and besides he will have the western leaders on his side.

[MrPots]

But will it change anything?

No.

The people don't care enough to act unless it involves other peoples private parts and what they do with them.

[donquixote99]

Even then, concern is very selective. Pussy-grabbing is fine.

[whell]

As the Reuters article articulated, Russia's exact intent can never be ascertained with certainty unless the CIA had an undercover agent directly involved in Russian decision-making in this matter.

Probably true. Its also probably true that unless that unless they had that kind of inside info, they'll never know exactly who did this, why they did, this, and at whose behest they did this.

Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton. This is a distinction without a difference and intended to obfuscate the significance of what happened.

No, that's not what I'm saying, but the way you phrased the above makes it pretty clear what your focus is - probably that same focus was others who didn't care for the outcome of the recent election - and why any investigation needs to be investigated out of public view.

What we appear to disagree on is the motive, and whether or not its relevant to this discussion. Motive is critical in not only in prosecuting a criminal case, but it also is critical in the investigative process. But let's set that aside for a minute. You stated the following:

"Your position is that there is a material difference between Russia hacking the election and releasing material only harmful to Clinton and Russia hacking the election with the intention of only releasing material harmful to Clinton."

My first concern is attempting to prove who did the hacking that penetrated the DNC's email systems. The rest of the your apparent concerns - the info that was released in the breach - aren't relevant until we know who did the hacking, or at least who ordered it. We don't have that info yet, but some want to launch into an investigation of the impact that the Russian hacking had on the election, without knowing who did it, and what their motive was. Seems backwards to me, and thus I suspect any investigation by congress would serve a political outcome.

Back to your original assertion of this being "fake news." Both the Times and the Post reported both the CIA's assessment and that the FBI wasn't willing to go as far in terms of provable intent (though all intelligent agencies agreed on Russian involvement (and have since the October 7 joint public release (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national)of this stuff by DHS and DNI)). This is made clear in the NYTimes article you characterized as "fake news" as well as in the Reuters article you cited.

Accordingly, there is absolutely nothing fake about this news. Meanwhile, you continue to assert that any real news that may reflect negatively on or prove inconvenient to Trump is fake. It seems to me that logic and deduction aren't exactly your strong suits.

Finn - you're Hillary-ous. Its absolutely fake news. Contrary to your assertion, the Times story that I linked to didn't state that the CIA and FBI when the headlines say one thing, yet you have to dig pretty deep into the story to find any suggestion of variance between the assessments of the CIA and FBI. Here's the link again (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=1). Point me to the section that you think "makes this clear".

In the meantime, look at the HEADLINES of both the NY Times and WaPo on 12/9/16:

NY Times: Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says
WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.62329bd93e53): Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

And from there, the fake news continues to multiply like rabbits in the left wing echo chamber.

For example, WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-intelligence-officials-say-russian-hacks-prioritized-democrats/2016/12/12/0fbea4da-c09b-11e6-b527-949c5893595e_story.html?utm_term=.69876b81c3bb): U.S. intelligence officials say Russian hacks ‘prioritized’ Democrats

The CIA assessment that Russia waged a cyber-campaign to help elect Donald Trump is based in part on intelligence suggesting that Moscow’s hacking efforts were disproportionately aimed at targets tied to the Democratic Party and its nominee, Hillary Clinton, U.S. officials said.

The lack of a corresponding Republican trove has contributed to the CIA assessment, reported by The Washington Post, that Russia was seeking to elect Trump and not merely to disrupt last month’s presidential election.

This is pretty funny because there's certainly evidence that there was an attempt to hack the RNC (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309915-report-russia-hacked-emails-associated-with-rnc). But I guess since those hacks were not successful, or since the hacks of the DNC's servers were more successful, that's evidence that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected.

[finnbow]

NY Times: Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

WaPo: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Both of those are statements are factual (unlike the Comet Ping Pong story tweeted by Flynn, BTW). The first statement says hackers aided Trump - (i.e., the actions they took aided Trump). True.

The second statement says the CIA believes that the hacking was was deliberately aimed at helping Trump (and not just mucking up the election in general) - also true. The CIA did make such an assessment.

What the CIA didn't say (because it's impossible to do so) is that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Russia's intent was to help Trump (the FBI standard as a law enforcement agency). They said their assessment led them to believe that Russia's intent was to help Trump (their standard as an intelligence agency).

You're caught up in this silly semantic game that basically asserts that unless it can be proven in a court of law that Russia intended only to help Trump and not just generally muck up the election, any factual reporting on the assessment of the CIA is fake news.:confused:

[whell]

Both of those are statements are factual (unlike the Comet Ping Pong story tweeted by Flynn, BTW). The first statement says hackers aided Trump - (i.e., the actions they took aided Trump). True.

The second statement says the CIA believes that the hacking was was deliberately aimed at helping Trump (and not just mucking up the election in general) - also true. The CIA did make such an assessment.

What the CIA didn't say (because it's impossible to do so) is that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Russia's intent was to help Trump (the FBI standard as a law enforcement agency). They said their assessment led them to believe that Russia's intent was to help Trump (their standard as an intelligence agency).

No. You WANT it to be true, but it is false, and it therefore is fake news. Look at what the NYT article says:

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.


If we don't even know who the hackers actually are - other than they "have ties to Russian Intelligence" and they use methods common to groups that have worked with Russian intelligence, and we don't know who is directing them, how can we conclude "with high confidence" what their motive is? We can't. So, the CIA - whoever inside the CIA is leaking this crap to the NY Times - is inferring that since these unknown Russians hacked the RNC and the DNC, but didn't leak any RNC info, that they must have been "promoting" Trump. It states right in the NY Times article: One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

So, even through we know that attempts to penetrate the RNC's systems were attempted but not successful and thus the hackers were not successful at getting any emails, documents, whatever, we're asked to believe that the logical conclusion is a lack of info distributed from those systems by Wikileaks and others - who apparently never had it to start with - represents an effort to promote Trump? Its leaked BS from unnamed sources. BS = Fake News.

The second story from WaPo makes the same "case": that the disproportionate leaks gives the CIA high confidence that there was an effort under way to help Trump. More BS. BS = Fake news.

You're caught up in this silly semantic game that basically asserts that unless it can be proven in a court of law that Russia intended only to help Trump and not just generally muck up the election, any factual reporting on the assessment of the CIA is fake news.:confused:

Nope. Never said anything about "a court of law". I'm looking at the facts presented and stating that they don't add up. I'm also looking at reporting based on reports from un-named sources and questioning the conclusions being reported.

[finnbow]

No. You WANT it to be true, but it is false, and it therefore is fake news.

I'm tired of your semantic silliness and obfuscation. In case you actually have a genuine interest in understanding the history of the DNC hacks and the behind-the-scenes investigations used to determine the Russian culpability, here again is some real news (that you'll call fake because it doesn't implicate a 400# New Jersey teenager:p). It's an interesting in-depth read, but it may make your head explode as it is chock full of facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Unfortunately, I now have come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in facts, analysis and reason, but prefer to parrot the twisted logic provided by Limbaugh and other Trump carnival barkers. Don't even bother to rebut any of the article's contents. It's far better researched than any response Limbaugh or Fox has told you to run with.

And if you really want to read about real "fake news" and its real life implications, here's the latest report on a real "fake news" story tweeted from Trump's staff.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-charges-to-be-filed-against-man-involved-in-dc-pizza-shop-incident/2016/12/13/6c45e14a-c141-11e6-9578-0054287507db_story.html

[whell]

I'm tired of your semantic silliness and obfuscation. In case you actually have a genuine interest in understanding the history of the DNC hacks and the behind-the-scenes investigations used to determine the Russian culpability, here again is some real news (that you'll call fake because it doesn't implicate a 400# New Jersey teenager:p). It's an interesting in-depth read, but it may make your head explode as it is chock full of facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

Unfortunately, I now have come to the conclusion that you aren't really interested in facts, analysis and reason, but prefer to parrot the twisted logic provided by Limbaugh and other Trump carnival barkers. Don't even bother to rebut any of the article's contents. It's far better researched than any response Limbaugh or Fox has told you to run with.

Nice temper tantrum. :rolleyes:

Let me refer to to the inconsistencies in the article that you linked to above.

Here I introduce you to the narrative that the media - and you - have been pushing for a while now:

It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

Next paragraph:

This time, the burglary was conducted from afar, directed by the Kremlin, with spear-phishing emails and zeros and ones.

We have no proof, and there remains dispute within our own intelligence community, that any hacking efforts were intended to boost Trump. But that doesn't stop the NY Times from stating categorically that the Kremlin was "directing" the hacking efforts. The article states that the hackers are "allegedly" connected to Russian intelligence. Does that make it OK for our CIA to confirm to the media that the Krelin is "directing" these efforts? That kind of open speculation is dangerous.

The article also links to an "infographic", which states:

According to intelligence officials, the Russians were as surprised as everyone else by Mr. Trump’s victory.

Well, if the Russians were surprised by Trump's victory, how does that comport with their alleged efforts to boost Trump.

Finally, as I've said earlier, hacking was certainly an issue. I don't think that anyone is stupid enough to think that we're not hacking the Russians. Two wrongs don't make this right. However, I'd still offer that we've failed to connect the dots to the Kremlin. But, with all the crap, bad behavior, lack of ethics and poor decision-making documented in the emails - and I''m still waiting for anyone to dispute the content of the documents - this all couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of folks.

[finnbow]

Nice temper tantrum. :rolleyes:

Let me refer to to the inconsistencies in the article that you linked to above...
Your argument still does not render this article or any of the other Times or Post article "fake news." You can argue with the semantics the authors used, some conclusions drawn, but not the facts contained therein, including the fact that the CIA made an assessment that this was done to help Trump (i.e., the hack hurt Hillary, thereby helping Trump - a perfectly reasonable conclusion). Why don't you spend some time on Breitbart (Trump's news source of choice (https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trumps-information-universe?utm_term=.oaPzzALLxL#.vnyVV1JJLJ)) and give me your reviews of their articles on this topic? I still don't really understand your main beef. All intelligence agencies agree the Russians were behind this, but don't fully agree on Russia's motivation (was it disruption, supporting Trump, or both as it became clear that Trump had a chance). It simply doesn't matter to anyone who cares about electoral integrity and Russia fucking with it.

I''m still waiting for anyone to dispute the content of the documents - this all couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of folks.
Yet again, this point is irrelevant (and inadmissible in a court of law for you so worried about standards of evidence). These were private communications stolen by Russia with the intent of influencing/disrupting the election. Do you actually believe Paul Manafort's, Steve Bannon's, or the RNC's emails wouldn't contain similar embarrassing stuff (or much worse considering Manafort's relationship with Petro Poroshenko (Putin's puppet in Ukraine) and Bannon's connections to the White Nationalist movement)? Moreover, on what basis to these folks "deserve" to be hacked? Because they were running against Trump? It seems you and Putin share this belief.

[Dondilion]

And from there, the fake news continues to multiply like rabbits in the left wing echo chamber.



Hilarious!

[MrPots]

I'm curious why there is such an uproar over fake news but complete silence on all of the lies and fabrications uttered by politicians during elections. Why do we allow politicians, police and government to lie but condemn civilians for the practice. Why do we allow this double standard?

We're an odd animal for sure.

[donquixote99]

Citizens are not to blame for 'fake news.' Propagandists are. In's on behalf of political interests.

What you think are 'citizens' are shills, with bots employed to 'comment' and share. The going viral business isn't left to chance.

[nailer]

He won't and shouldn't. He's basically saying to the GOP Congress and Trump "either you support our intelligence agencies or Russia. Which is it?"

The GOP has been running on an anti government since 1980 and has seen significant success. Trump won as an anti establishment candidate, he's not going to stop now and this is a constituency safe issue. In the overall scheme of things it's a tempest in a teapot.

[donquixote99]

Except with the foreign element, Trump's position could sour from anti-government to anti-USA. That would not be so constituency-safe.

[Rajoo]

Except with the foreign element, Trump's position could sour from anti-government to anti-USA. That would not be so constituency-safe.

But who is going to fight him or the GOP?
Funny that people here were predicting the utter destruction of the GOP but since this election, it's the Democratic Party that is in shambles, total absence of leadership with the losers Schumer and Pelosi ensconced at the head of the table on two ends.

[donquixote99]

Lack of unity on the left is not good, but it's all too typical, except when there is an unusually strong leader to rally the troops.

[whell]

Your argument still does not render this article or any of the other Times or Post article "fake news." You can argue with the semantics the authors used, some conclusions drawn, but not the facts contained therein....

If the facts presented are in dispute - such as the assertion that the hacks were "directed by the Kremlin", then of course you can argue with the facts. When something is published as a fact by a publication as august as the New York Times...ahem... but is not substantiated, then it is fake news.

Yet again, this point is irrelevant (and inadmissible in a court of law for you so worried about standards of evidence).

There you go again. I've never stated that I was "worried about standards of evidence", but you've suggested twice now that I was. Why are you pushing this falsehood? Emulating the NY Times maybe? :eek:

These were private communications stolen by Russia with the intent of influencing/disrupting the election.

Yes, but we still don't know exactly who in Russia or why they did it, do we?

Moreover, on what basis to these folks "deserve" to be hacked? Because they were running against Trump? It seems you and Putin share this belief.

Do we really need to rehash this? They weren't just running against Trump, they were running against one of their own - Bernie Sanders. They knew they weren't supposed to pick sides, but they did. Karma's a bitch.

[whell]

By the way Finn: one of your favorites, David Brock (a.k.a. poster boy for unhinged lefties everywhere), hates what the media is up to.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/david-brock-trump-clinton-media-232562

Brock, an edgy former Clinton hunter-turned-defender, is expressing an opinion increasingly being shared by many on Clinton’s campaign team: They shouldn’t have bothered to defend the endless and endlessly damaging email story – they should have refused to defend it all and pivoted to a harsh, attention-grabbing attack on her real opponent: the press.

But Brock does provide insight on the strategy that the Dems already appear to be pursuing - probably in partnership with the press:

“We're in a bad situation, the Democratic Party,” he said. “Hillary Clinton's loss has exposed the lack of Democratic power in this country at all levels. … But we won the popular vote; we ought to act like it. And so I think the strategy is — it's pretty simple. The strategy is to keep Trump unpopular and let me tell you why we need to keep him unpopular.”

In other words, let's conjure up a whole lot more fake news!

[finnbow]

If the facts presented are in dispute - such as the assertion that the hacks were "directed by the Kremlin", then of course you can argue with the facts. When something is published as a fact by a publication as august as the New York Times...ahem... but is not substantiated, then it is fake news.

The intelligence community is not disputing that this was directed by the Kremlin. In fact, they said exactly that in a formal release on October 7. What's fake is John Bolton's (under consideration for Trump's Deputy SoS, BTW) assertion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/12/john-boltons-false-flag-conspiracy-theory-about-the-cia-and-russia-fits-a-clear-pattern-for-him/?utm_term=.b83dd898f677) that this was a false flag operation, possibly orchestrated by the Obama administration. You seem perfectly content to have Bolton and Michael Flynn spewing demonstrably ridiculous and false shit like this while complaining that the NYTimes correctly reported the nature of the CIA's intelligence assessment.:confused: You're really ought to just give up on your silly misdirection and projection when it comes to fake news. You obviously have no idea what it is and you sound more unhinged and idiotic (i.e., like Tom Joad) with every post.

Do we really need to rehash this? They weren't just running against Trump, they were running against one of their own - Bernie Sanders. They knew they weren't supposed to pick sides, but they did. Karma's a bitch.

Bernie was never one of their own. He was a registered Independent. Regardless, your apparent position that the DNC's actions vis-a-vis Bernie somehow justify Russia's actions is as ridiculous as it is traitorous.

[nailer]

... Bernie was never one of their own. He was a registered Independent. Regardless, your apparent position that the DNC's actions vis-a-vis Bernie somehow justify Russia's actions is as ridiculous as it is traitorous.

How is it traitorous?

[finnbow]

How is it traitorous?

By saying that the victims of illegal hacks by Russia had it coming to them (e.g., they deserved it, karma, etc.). I interpret that as applauding the illegal actions of a our primary geopolitical foe (something Trump himself did when he said “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” a statement former CIA chief Leon Panetta reacted to as follows: “I find those kinds of statements to be totally outrageous because you’ve got now a presidential candidate who is, in fact, asking the Russians to engage in American politics. I just think that’s beyond the pale.”). I agree with Panetta regarding Trump's support (and Whell's from my POV) for Russian hacking. YMMV.

[MrPots]

The GOP has been running on an anti government since 1980 and has seen significant success. Trump won as an anti establishment candidate, he's not going to stop now and this is a constituency safe issue. In the overall scheme of things it's a tempest in a teapot.

Unfortunately his anti government campaign is evolving into a total corporatocracy which in the end will be disastrous for the average taxpayer who will end up making up for the taxes the wealthy and corporations will be relieved of, and for the working man who will see any work and wage guarantees evaporate and end of life safety nets like SS and medicare dissolved.

Trump voters have pretty much fucked over themselves and everyone else but the ultra wealthy.

[nailer]

By saying that the victims of illegal hacks by Russia had it coming to them (e.g., they deserved it, karma, etc.). I interpret that as supporting the illegal actions of a our primary geopolitical foe (something Trump himself did when he said “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” a statement former CIA chief Leon Panetta reacted to as follows: “I find those kinds of statements to be totally outrageous because you’ve got now a presidential candidate who is, in fact, asking the Russians to engage in American politics. I just think that’s beyond the pale.”). I agree with Panetta regarding Trump's support (and Whell's from my POV) for Russian hacking. YMMV.

Based on your argument, mine does.

[finnbow]

Based on your argument, mine does.

Fine, but I just happen to object to encouraging or supporting Russian hacks of our electoral process. I'm funny like that.

[whell]

The intelligence community is not disputing that this was directed by the Kremlin. In fact, they said exactly that in a formal release on October 7. What's fake is John Bolton's (under consideration for Trump's Deputy SoS, BTW) assertion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/12/john-boltons-false-flag-conspiracy-theory-about-the-cia-and-russia-fits-a-clear-pattern-for-him/?utm_term=.b83dd898f677) that this was a false flag operation, possibly orchestrated by the Obama administration. You seem perfectly content to have Bolton and Michael Flynn spewing demonstrably ridiculous and false shit like this while complaining that the NYTimes correctly reported the nature of the CIA's intelligence assessment.:confused:

Oh, you mean the October 7th memo (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national) that also stated that the Russian activity couldn't influence the election?

The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

So, how again was the Kremlin going to influence the election in favor or Trump?

You're really ought to just give up on your silly misdirection and projection when it comes to fake news. You obviously have no idea what it is and you sound more unhinged and idiotic (i.e., like Tom Joad) with every post.

If there's anyone who would know unhinged, it would be you Finn.

Bernie was never one of their own. He was a registered Independent. Regardless, your apparent position that the DNC's actions vis-a-vis Bernie somehow justify Russia's actions is as ridiculous as it is traitorous.

Oh, I see. So, even though it was specifically against the DNC by-laws, you're saying that it was perfectly OK for Debbie and others in the DNC to make the decision to tip the scales for Hillary because "he was never one of their own." Pretty friggin lousy attempt at justification.

And you know damn right well that I was not "justifying" Russia's actions. Keep flailing, though. You'll hit the target eventually. "Karma's a bitch", "what goes around comes around", "comeuppance"...pick your favorite expression. Debbie and company screwed Sanders, so no one should be weeping for them if their actions got them broomed.

[donquixote99]

If illegal foreign interference with our election doesn't qualify as 'enemy action,' I'm not sure what does.

Treason, per the constitution, ..."adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Denying, defending, or openly inviting the enemy action seems to meet the 'aid and comfort' test, to me.

[whell]

By saying that the victims of illegal hacks by Russia had it coming to them (e.g., they deserved it, karma, etc.). I interpret that as applauding the illegal actions of a our primary geopolitical foe ....

I'm sure you would interpret it that way. Most of your "interpretations" of my posts have been pretty self-serving. :rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

I'm sure you would interpret it that way. Most of your "interpretations" of my posts have been pretty self-serving. :rolleyes:

Most of your interpretations have been defense of treason.

[finnbow]

Oh, you mean the October 7th memo (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national) that also stated that the Russian activity couldn't influence the election?

The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

You conveniently skipped the first sentence:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

What you highlighted is their belief that voting machines can't be hacked via the Internet - a true statement that doesn't contradict the point they made in the first paragraph. They're drawing a distinction between email hacking (which they believe the Russians did) and hacking voting machines (which they didn't).

I'm tired of going around in circles with you on this. If you're trying to somehow draw an equivalency between Trump, Flynn and Bolton spewing fake news with the NYTimes accurately reportedly on a CIA analysis that you don't like, you're pissing in the wind, but too obtuse to understand why your feet are wet.

I'm done with this thread until the next time you post a bogus "fake news" article from the WashPost or the NYTimes, at which time I'll again be happy to point out how ridiculous you are.:p

[whell]

I interpret that as applauding the illegal actions of a our primary geopolitical foe (something Trump himself did when he said “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” a statement former CIA chief Leon Panetta reacted to as follows: “I find those kinds of statements to be totally outrageous because you’ve got now a presidential candidate who is, in fact, asking the Russians to engage in American politics. I just think that’s beyond the pale.”). I agree with Panetta regarding Trump's support (and Whell's from my POV) for Russian hacking. YMMV.

I found that statement hilarious. Your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

I found that statement hilarious. Your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

As arguments go, mockery is crap.

[bobabode]

I found that statement hilarious. Your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

What's hilarious is watching punch yourself in the face over and over again, Mike.
Please continue. :D

[whell]

Most of your interpretations have been defense of treason.

I suppose from your perspective - loopy as it is - that's a true statement.

[finnbow]

Casting doubt upon Russian attempts to influence our elections by calling intelligence assessments and press coverage thereof "fake news" is dishonest and unworthy of a citizen of this great country. Moreover, conflating such vital news coverage with the slimy shit that is indeed fake news (e.g., Hillary's child sex ring, thousands of NJ Muslims celebrating 9/11, 3 million illegal votes in CA) being slung by the incoming administration is despicable and an insult to those who believe in the importance of the fourth estate to democracy.

Just cut the shit out, Whell.

[donquixote99]

I suppose from your perspective - loopy as it is - that's a true statement.

My statement proceeds, by short and obvious steps, directly from the constitution. It is practically self-evident.

[HarmanKardon]

Thank you, Pat, for your comment.

[donquixote99]

Thank you, Pat, for your comment.

Seconded. In this whole thread, Pat has contended through extensive and persistent smoke and fog with great determination, and an incisive devotion to preserving fact and truth.

[finnbow]

Thank you, Pat, for your comment.

Seconded. In this whole thread, Pat has contended through extensive and persistent smoke and fog with great determination, and an incisive devotion to preserving fact and truth.

Thank you, gentlemen. I guess I take it personally when one of my favorite pizza joints gets shot up by a delusional fake news consumer (of which there are many) only to have Whell conflate such shit with necessary coverage of Russian attempts to influence our election. This kind of shit gets my dander up (a new idiom for you, Chris.;)).

[whell]

You conveniently skipped the first sentence:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

What you highlighted is their belief that voting machines can't be hacked via the Internet - a true statement that doesn't contradict the point they made in the first paragraph. They're drawing a distinction between email hacking (which they believe the Russians did) and hacking voting machines (which they didn't).

I'm tired of going around in circles with you on this. If you're trying to somehow draw an equivalency between Trump, Flynn and Bolton spewing fake news with the NYTimes accurately reportedly on a CIA analysis that you don't like, you're pissing in the wind, but too obtuse to understand why your feet are wet.

I'm done with this thread until the next time you post a bogus "fake news" article from the WashPost or the NYTimes, at which time I'll again be happy to point out how ridiculous you are.:p

OK, one last time:

I didn't skip anything. Where our most recent exchange started, and I've said over and over again, is that there's no proof that the Kremlin was attempting to tip the scales for Trump. The section I quoted specifically stated that the hacks could not influence election results. Sure, that memo also stated that the hacks were intended to influence the election. That was on Oct 7.

Fast forward to the latest accusations that the Kremlin was trying to influence the election for Trump. You can't convert the very general statement "trying to influence the elections" to the latest allegation "trying to influence the election for Trump simply by pointing at Wikileaks. There's no way to "influence the election for Trump" unless the Russians get to the voting machines, which the Oct 7 memo states didn't happen.

So, the allegation must specifically be that the release of the emails - as released by Wikileaks - were the tool that the Russian gov't used to tip the election in favor of Trump. The conclusion by "unnamed sources" from the CIA was that the emails releases were unfavorable to Dems but not Repubs. But there are problems with that conclusion, as I've articulated earlier. Attempts to access the DNC systems were successful, but the FBI reports indicated that the attempts to access RNC systems were not successful. So how is it that this is interpreted by the CIA as tipping the election in favor of Trump when the was no compromised RNC data to release?

How can we attribute motive based on this set of facts? We can't. But the NY Times simply took the story and ran with it - complete with the "unnamed source as the authority for the story, and they apparently forgot to confirm whether RNC data had been hacked. Fake news.

Contrary to your breathless assertions to the contrary, this is not a defense of Russian activity. This has been exclusively a commentary on the content of the news reports. This is the same news that was in the tank for Hillary before the election. It stands to reason that stories like this - and the media's spin on them - should be subject to a healthy level of skepticism.

There remains no evidence that the Russians were attempting to tip the election in favor of Trump. Period. That is one of the Dem's key talking points. It also makes about as much sense - meaning not much - as any of the other election excuse-making the left comes up with. In fact, according to the NY Times story you posted, the Kremlin was as surprised by Trump's win as anyone in the mainstream media was.

I actually suspect that, if the Russians were trying to do anything, it would have been to discredit Clinton. Its not semantics to say that taking specific action to discredit Clinton is different than taking specific action to help Trump. The motives are different, and the objectives are different. What makes more sense, by the way:

- Releasing emails that show Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary inflates Trump? Or;

- Releasing emails that show Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary damages Clinton?

I think its the latter, which makes me even more suspect of the NY Time story, and the Dem mantra that the Russians were in the tank for Trump. I doesn't make any sense.

[bobabode]

Thanks Mike. Please don't stop illuminating the pretzel logic that the right has to use to excuse what Trump and his cronies in the Kremlin did in the 2016 election. The argument that Republicans were ever tough on communism is being shown for the sham it always has been.

[finnbow]

OK, one last time:

Not interested. Just shut the phuck up.:eek:

I trust David Sanger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Sanger)'s work far more than your delusional ramblings.

[whell]

Thanks Mike. Please don't stop illuminating the pretzel logic that the right has to use to excuse what Trump and his cronies in the Kremlin did in the 2016 election. The argument that Republicans were ever tough on communism is being shown for the sham it always has been.

Oh. So now Trump has operatives in the Kremlin? Sounds like Disney expanded Fantasyland to your part of California, Bob. :rolleyes:

[whell]

Not interested. Just the phuck up.:eek:
.

A common response from the left when they've run out of anything intelligent to say...which is typically pretty early in the discussion. :p

[finnbow]

Thanks Mike. Please don't stop illuminating the pretzel logic that the right has to use to excuse what Trump and his cronies in the Kremlin did in the 2016 election. The argument that Republicans were ever tough on communism is being shown for the sham it always has been.

Actually, it's the other way around (Kremlin cronies in the Trump administration) - Manafort, Carter Page, Flynn, Tillerson and Trump himself (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/).

[merrylander]

Sheit has mike gone right off the deep end? Due to PC problems I have not visited PC for several days only to come back and see all the babbling. Sad to see.

[bobabode]

Oh. So now Trump has operatives in the Kremlin? Sounds like Disney expanded Fantasyland to your part of California, Bob. :rolleyes:

Having problems understanding English today Mike?

[finnbow]

Well whaddya know?

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

[whell]

Well whaddya know?

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

Well, whaddya know? Still no "intelligence officials" on record, still anonymous sources. And still no consensus that anyone was trying to tip the scales for Trump.

Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump. The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.

In fact, there's more in your post that aligns with the the idea that, if anything, this was about screwing Hillary:

"It is most certainly consistent with the Putin that I have watched and used to work with when I was an ambassador and in the government," said Michael McFaul, who was ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014.

"Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.

Thanks for providing additional evidence that the NY Times story was fake news.

[whell]

Actually, it's the other way around (Kremlin cronies in the Trump administration) - Manafort, Carter Page, Flynn, Tillerson and Trump himself (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/).

OK, Finn. You win. Based on this hit piece in Time, Trump MUST be the Russian equivalent of the Manchurian candidate. :rolleyes:

Isn't it odd that no one wants to mention Hillary's financial history with Russia anymore?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

[finnbow]

Thanks for providing additional evidence that the NY Times story was fake news.

You're an disingenuous troll, Whell. The NYTimes correctly reported that the CIA assessed that Russia tried to help Trump by hurting Hillary, but that there wasn't full consensus among the intelligence agencies on the motive. There was, however, no disagreement that Russia was trying to disrupt/influence the election. While doing so, however, they only targeted Hillary (with whom Putin had an axe to grind). I guess that somehow proves to you that they were somehow agnostic as to who won.:confused:

Just cut the shit out, Tovarich. Are you trying to win the "Russian Order of Friendship" award like the SoS nominee?

[finnbow]

OK, Finn. You win. Based on this hit piece in Time, Trump MUST be the Russian equivalent of the Manchurian candidate. :rolleyes:

Isn't it odd that no one wants to mention Hillary's financial history with Russia anymore?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

In other words, "I lost the argument. Now let's change the subject and try to further obfuscate."

Cut the shit out, Whell.

[donquixote99]

Cutting the shit out is exactly what he never does, no matter what. He's getting something he really wants from doing this. Maybe it's a fantasy reward feeling that he's a brave soldier in the war on liberalism. Or else it's money.

[finnbow]

(H)e's a brave soldier in the war on liberalism...

...who rabidly defends Putin (just as his Trumpenfuhrer does) while Putin actively wages a war on liberal democracy around the world. Quite the patriot he is.:cool:

[donquixote99]

The 'kids in Macedonia' report from Buzzfeed. Must-read if you missed it when it came out. A part of how the fake news got all-over Facebook.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.cayX02Bx7#.rnoObQ7J9

[whell]

You're an disingenuous troll, Whell. The NYTimes correctly reported that the CIA assessed that Russia tried to help Trump by hurting Hillary, but that there wasn't full consensus among the intelligence agencies on the motive. There was, however, no disagreement that Russia was trying to disrupt/influence the election. While doing so, they only targeted Hillary (with whom Putin had an axe to grind). I guess that somehow proves to you that they were somehow agnostic as to who won.:confused:

Just cut the shit out, Tovarich. Are you trying to win the "Russian Order of Friendship" award like the SoS nominee?

Before you resort to the time-honored lefty tactic of name calling as a debate tool, let me suggest that, as usual, your facts are screwed up. The NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=1) did not state this.

Your spin on the article makes it sounds like the CIA was suggesting that hacks were targeting Hillary, and Trump was somehow the accidental beneficiary. While that spin may be closer to the truth, its NOT what was reported in the NY Time article.

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.

The RNC was NOT successfully hacked, Again, no proof that there was ever an attempt to "promote Trump." PERIOD.

You and the NY Times both need to clean up your reporting of the facts.

[whell]

...who rabidly defends Putin (just as his Trumpenfuhrer does) while Putin actively wages a war on liberal democracy around the world. Quite the patriot he is.:cool:

I've asked this before and you whiffed on it, so I'll ask it again:

Please point me to a single post where I've defended Putin.

[finnbow]

The 'kids in Macedonia' report from Buzzfeed. Must-read if you missed it when it came out. A part of how the fake news got all-over Facebook.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.cayX02Bx7#.rnoObQ7J9

I saw a lengthy feature on this town and these people wherein they interviewed several of the hackers. Meanwhile, Whell parrots Rush Limbaugh who says the biggest purveyors of "fake news" are the WashPost and NYTimes.

Maybe I should start a thread on Russia's state-sponsored athletic doping just to watch Whell deny it.

[finnbow]

I've asked this before and you whiffed on it, so I'll ask it again:

Please point me to a single post where I've defended Putin.

It's the entire point of this thread, Tovarich. Own it.

[nailer]

It's the entire point of this thread, Tovarich. Own it.

No, it's not.

[whell]

It's the entire point of this thread, Tovarich. Own it.

Happy to. And as I suspected, you can't answer the question.

[finnbow]

Happy to. And as I suspected, you can't answer the question.

Your persistent efforts, through convoluted logic and obfuscation, to discredit intelligence reports of Russian/Putin involvement in our election do indeed defend Russia/Putin. That much is clear. What isn't clear is your motive. Sound familiar?

Why don't you spell out your motive for all of us to see?

[whell]

Your persistent efforts, through convoluted logic and obfuscation, to discredit intelligence reports of Russian/Putin involvement in our election do indeed defend Russia/Putin. That much is clear. What isn't clear is your motive. Sound familiar?

Why don't you spell out your motive for all of us to see?

Damn, you can't even get the minor details right. It's no wonder you miss the big picture.

I've not "discredited" or denied that hacking occurred. I still don't think we can prove who did it, and if we can't do that it's pretty difficult to discern motive. Yet the media is talking leaks from "officials" and unnamed sources in the CIA which and running with them as fact. That includes your latest link from NBC suggesting Putin did it.

Certainty appears as if the hacks came from Russia, and there's apparent circumstantial evidence connecting it to Russian intelligence. From there, it's probably not hard to then say the Russian gov't was involved. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation.

But apparently you, and probably many others, treat the suggestion that this was all about a Putin effort to favor Trump as gospel because when someone points out the apparent lack of evidence and reporting based on unofficial leaks, you accuse them of treason. :rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

Damn, you can't even get the minor details right. It's no wonder you miss the big picture.

I've not "discredited" or denied that hacking occurred. I still don't think we can prove who did it, and if we can't do that it's pretty difficult to discern motive. Yet the media is talking leaks from "officials" and unnamed sources in the CIA which and running with them as fact. That includes your latest link from NBC suggesting Putin did it.

Certainty appears as if the hacks came from Russia, and there's apparent circumstantial evidence connecting it to Russian intelligence. From there, it's probably not hard to then say the Russian gov't was involved. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation.

But apparently you, and probably many others, treat the suggestion that this was all about a Putin effort to favor Trump as gospel because when someone points out the apparent lack of evidence and reporting based on unofficial leaks, you accuse them of treason. :rolleyes:

Anything beyond that is more than is needed to say, as I do, that enemy action, sourced in the official apparatus of the Russian state, has been taken against the United States.

I think you realize how sour this is likely to go on you.

[finnbow]

Certainty appears as if the hacks came from Russia, and there's apparent circumstantial evidence connecting it to Russian intelligence. From there, it's probably not hard to then say the Russian gov't was involved. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation.

The Russian government is Putin, dimwit. What, again, is your motive in continuing to try to obfuscate Russian/Putin involvement?

BTW, having just listened to Limbaugh on the way back from the gym, I already know the next obfuscation tactics that Trump/Putin apologists plan to employ. The theory goes that since the intelligence agencies are pissed that Trump has been dissing them for the past weeks, they chose to leak false info on Russian/Putin involvement in the election as payback to destroy Trump. Furthermore, this entire thing is being orchestrated behind the scenes by Obama. :eek:

Sorry to expose your next obfuscation before you had a chance to sling it, but it seem that Joad may have done so anyway in another thread. Maybe he's trying to take the mantle of prime Putin apologist away from you.:p

[whell]

The Russian government is Putin, dimwit. What, again, is your motive in continuing to try to obfuscate Russian/Putin involvement?

BTW, having just listened to Limbaugh on the way back from the gym, I already know the next obfuscation tactics that Trump/Putin apologists plan to employ. The theory goes that since the intelligence agencies are pissed that Trump has been dissing them for the past weeks, they chose to leak false info on Russian/Putin involvement in the election as payback to destroy Trump. Furthermore, this entire thing is being orchestrated behind the scenes by Obama. :eek:

Sorry to expose your next obfuscation before you had a chance to sling it, but it seem that Joad may have done so anyway in another thread. Maybe he's trying to take the mantle of prime Putin apologist away from you.:p

Well I'm glad we have you as our Limbaugh show correspondent, but I'm sure you'll find a way to get that wrong too.

The left, especially in the last couple months, has been pushing this notion that Putin is the ultimate strongman who controls every aspect of Russian government, right down to the minutiae level. That, of course, isn't the case. WaPo made this point in a "The Post's View" editorial just a couple months ago (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/strongman-putin-is-so-fragile-hes-cracking-down-on-polling/2016/09/13/354f4374-7917-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.4a77b9767198). Its also a point that has been made recently by Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russias-president-fights-keep-control). Russian political history if rife with intrigue, in-fighting and the last few decades are no exception.

So while I agree that Putin is the current President and has consolidated his power much like his predecessors, keeping power in Russia is a constant struggle. Therefore, I don't buy this notion that nothing happens in Russia unless Putin knows about it.

That said, could he have orchestrated the hacks? Sure. But the evidence and rationale presented so far is pretty damn flimsy. It is far to flimsy to support drawing conclusions about supposed intent.

What's my motive? I don't care for the BS that has been sold as news and regard this "hacks were designed to favor Trump" story as just another bit of that BS. Nothing you've presented here so far changes that view, and in fact some of it has reinforced that view.

[whell]

Anything beyond that is more than is needed to say, as I do, that enemy action, sourced in the official apparatus of the Russian state, has been taken against the United States.

I think you realize how sour this is likely to go on you.

Nah, don't think so. Of course, if "enemy action has been taken against the United States, and we've know about it for about a year now, we're certainly not scaring anyone with our response.

[nailer]

Nah, don't think so. Of course, if "enemy action has been taken against the United States, and we've know about it for about a year now, we're certainly not scaring anyone with our response.

The response is part of our long term we need to be scared of the Russians strategy. The Establishment will be using this, and lots of other stuff, to minimize Trump's exercise of presidential power.

[whell]

Faithless Elector Fake News

The widely circulated and commented upon "faithless elector (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0)" op-ed from the NY Times is turning out to be more fake news. The NY Times no doubt rushed this piece into their op-ed pages without slowing down to ask a few basic questions. It was then picked up as a news piece and repeated elsewhere (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=25&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwimpP-anfnQAhVBRiYKHdk1CnsQFgh6MBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2016%2 F08%2Fdonald-trump-electoral-college-texas-chris-suprun-227422&usg=AFQjCNEi9Y149g78mIFil0rAJu4hg7VlkA&sig2=49IrzGpTek4puBSay2inNg).

Turns out the "faithless elector" is a likely a fraud (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/texas-news/no-record-of-faithless-elector-chris-suprun-as-a-911-first-responder/371421191).

You can't make this stuff up...unless you're a lefty.:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Well I'm glad we have you as our Limbaugh show correspondent, but I'm sure you'll find a way to get that wrong too.

The left, especially in the last couple months, has been pushing this notion that Putin is the ultimate strongman who controls every aspect of Russian government, right down to the minutiae level. That, of course, isn't the case. WaPo made this point in a "The Post's View" editorial just a couple months ago (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/strongman-putin-is-so-fragile-hes-cracking-down-on-polling/2016/09/13/354f4374-7917-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.4a77b9767198). Its also a point that has been made recently by Stratfor (https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russias-president-fights-keep-control). Russian political history if rife with intrigue, in-fighting and the last few decades are no exception.

So while I agree that Putin is the current President and has consolidated his power much like his predecessors, keeping power in Russia is a constant struggle. Therefore, I don't buy this notion that nothing happens in Russia unless Putin knows about it.

That said, could he have orchestrated the hacks? Sure. But the evidence and rationale presented so far is pretty damn flimsy. It is far to flimsy to support drawing conclusions about supposed intent.

What's my motive? I don't care for the BS that has been sold as news and regard this "hacks were designed to favor Trump" story as just another bit of that BS. Nothing you've presented here so far changes that view, and in fact some of it has reinforced that view.

Good God, you are such a stooge. And a willing one at that. Love strong man leaders do ya? Don't bother answering that, it's obvious you do.

I've worked with Russians who left their country because Putin is EXACTLY what you've been led to think he isn't.

If you love Putin so much, you know where Russia is and you're free to go anytime you like.

[BlueStreak]

The response is part of our long term we need to be scared of the Russians strategy. The Establishment will be using this, and lots of other stuff, to minimize Trump's exercise of presidential power.

"Minimize" Trumps influence?

I hope they neuter that prick.

[whell]

Good God, you are such a stooge. And a willing one at that. Love strong man leaders do ya? Don't bother answering that, it's obvious you do.

I've worked with Russians who left their country because Putin is EXACTLY what you've been led to think he isn't.

If you love Putin so much, you know where Russia is and you're free to go anytime you like.

Nice try mis-characterizing my post, Dave. Please point me to any post where I've stated any affinity for Putin. You can try to make that post about me all you want, but you're the freakin stooge for purposefully trying to make the post something its not.

[whell]

Hey Finn - don't look now, but looks like John Kerry isn't point the finger at Putin for the hacks. By your standards, he's a tratior!!!

Secretary of State John Kerry wouldn't accuse Russian president Vladimir Putin of masterminding hacks on Democrats to throw the U.S. presidential election today.

He cast doubt on a report claiming that Putin personally ordered cyber attacks on Democratic operatives Thursday afternoon, using air quotes as he talked about the anonymous 'intelligence officials' behind the leaking.

'Look, I am not going to start making comments at this point. I haven’t commented on this publicly because of the job I do,' Kerry said. 'I’m not going to comment on anonymous reports from intelligence officials that are not identified that have quotes around the concept of intelligence officials.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4039038/John-Kerry-REFUSES-join-claims-Putin-hacked-election-casts-doubt-intelligence-officials-speaking-it.html

I don't agree with Kerry about much of anything, but he's got this one right.

[whell]

Wall Street Journal - Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers

http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-security-foiled-russian-hackers-1481850043

Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.

But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. And people close to the investigation said it indicated a less aggressive and much less persistent effort by Russian intelligence to hack the Republican group than the Democratic National Committee. Only a single email account linked to a long-departed RNC staffer was targeted.

Independent computer security experts said it was plausible that the RNC’s filtering systems stopped any potentially dangerous emails from reaching their targets. But the fact that they failed doesn’t mean they preferred one candidate over another, nor that they don’t harbor plans to leak embarrassing information about Republicans or Mr. Trump in the future, now that he’s about to assume the presidency.

So, once again, the NY Times report that the Russians succeeded in hacking both the DNC and the RNC but only released the emails they pulled from the DNC and sat on the emails they pulled from the RNC in an effort to promote Trump is FAKE NEWS!

[finnbow]

I don't agree with Kerry about much of anything, but he's got this one right.
The fact that he doesn't want to be dragged into a disagreement between the CIA and FBI is to his credit. It doesn't mean, one way or the other, whether Russia did or didn't target Trump specifically. Moreover, it doesn't matter. The Russians hacked our election in a manner that benefited Trump and different intelligence agencies have different beliefs as to how to apportion their motives between disruption and helping Trump. Regardless, the hacks benefited Trump whether or not it was Russia's primary motive.

Your argument can be summed up as "There's a material difference between the Russians hacking in a manner that solely helped Trump and Russia hacking in a way intended to solely help Trump.:confused:
If they didn't intend to help Trump, they sure went about it in a funny way.

So, once again, the NY Times report that the Russians succeeded in hacking both the DNC and the RNC but only released the emails they pulled from the DNC and sat on the emails they pulled from the RNC in an effort to promote Trump is FAKE NEWS!

This doesn't negate that fact that the Times truthfully reported on what the CIA told them. Reporting what the CIA tells you they believe to be true isn't fake news. It's news.

What's interesting is that fake news hit the headlines when an idiot believed the same fake news as Trump's National Security Advisor (and his son on Trump's transition team) believed and shot up a pizza parlor in the days before it is revealed that the intelligence community believed the Russians hacked the election in a manner that was clearly favorable to Trump (and which the CIA, alone among them, assessed was primarily to help Trump and not just disrupt the election without regard to who benefited).

In order to spin these two negative events in their favor, the GOP conflates one with the other - "Forget Flynn's tweet on Hillary's child sex ring. The real fake news are the reports saying the Russians hacked the election." You've been a willing accomplice to the charade, whether deliberate or as a result of childish gullibility. This shows you're either disingenuous or an idiot (or possibly a disingenuous idiot).

[finnbow]

W(h)ell, whaddya know?

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html

Whell - Maybe you should ask the moderator to move your original post and what follows on this subject outside of this fake news thread you started. While you're at it, admit you been duped by right wing propaganda (i.e., fake news) into carrying their water on this issue.:rolleyes:

[whell]

W(h)ell, whaddya know?

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html

Whell - Maybe you should ask the moderator to move your original post and what follows on this subject outside of this fake news thread you started. While you're at it, admit you been duped by right wing propaganda (i.e., fake news) into carrying their water on this issue.:rolleyes:

Right wing propaganda? is that what Reuters is?

This was just 3 days ago:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

Now, three days later, Comey allegedly accepts the CIA's conclusions, when only 3 days ago there was a lack of evidence?

Two days ago, there was apparently a phone discussion (http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/comey-to-trump-the-russians-didnt-influence-the-election-n2259827) between Trump and Comey, and Comey dismissed the idea that Russia was trying to tip the election one way or another?

Nah, I think I'll wait a few days before drawing any additional conclusions.

[bobabode]

Right wing propaganda? is that what Reuters is?

This was just 3 days ago:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

Now, three days later, Comey allegedly accepts the CIA's conclusions, when only 3 days ago there was a lack of evidence?

Two days ago, there was apparently a phone discussion (http://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/12/14/comey-to-trump-the-russians-didnt-influence-the-election-n2259827) between Trump and Comey, and Comey dismissed the idea that Russia was trying to tip the election one way or another?

Nah, I think I'll wait a few days before drawing any additional conclusions.

If what you read over at Townhall was correct, Comey has completely changed his mind. Read the WaPo link, Mike.

[finnbow]

Right wing propaganda? is that what Reuters is?

This was just 3 days ago...

Three days ago ain't even yesterday's news. Your article has been overtaken by events. You seem to hanging your hat on the notion that there's a material difference between Russian hacking that ended up only helping Trump and Russian hacking intended to help only Trump. It was a distinction without a difference from the start (though you readily bought into it) and today it's no longer even a distinction.

You get more and more nonsensical the more desperate you get. You're in a deep hole already with your fake news assertion (the NYTimes correctly reported that the CIA believed Putin was responsible). Quit digging. You're approaching a Tom Joad level of foolishness. At that point, you'll be irredeemable.:p

[whell]

If what you read over at Townhall was correct, Comey has completely changed his mind. Read the WaPo link, Mike.

Oh, I read the WaPo link. It quotes Comey as saying that "earlier this week" he met with Clapper and company. Well, earlier this week he was also on the phone with Trump telling a different story. You'd think that if he knew he was meeting with Clapper, he'd delay his discussion with Trump. It just seems odd.

[finnbow]

German judges and state prosecutors need to crack down straight away on fake news disseminated through social media platforms such as Facebook, Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview published on Sunday.

Maas, a Social Democrat in conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition, has repeatedly warned the U.S. technology company to respect laws against defamation in Germany that are more rigid than in the United States. He told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper the principle of free speech did not protect against slander.

"Defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech," Maas said, just days after other top government officials called for legislation to tackle "hate speech" and fake news on Facebook and other social media platforms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-facebook-fake-idUSKBN1470CN

Unlike the OP, it seems that the ever logical Germans are able to recognize what fake news is and isn't.

[nailer]

German judges and state prosecutors need to crack down straight away on fake news disseminated through social media platforms such as Facebook, Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview published on Sunday.

Maas, a Social Democrat in conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition, has repeatedly warned the U.S. technology company to respect laws against defamation in Germany that are more rigid than in the United States. He told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper the principle of free speech did not protect against slander.

"Defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech," Maas said, just days after other top government officials called for legislation to tackle "hate speech" and fake news on Facebook and other social media platforms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-facebook-fake-idUSKBN1470CN

Unlike the OP, it seems that the ever logical Germans are able to recognize what fake news is and isn't.

Sounds like he wants Facebook, and other social media, to police their sites in a way many Americans would perceive as a restriction to their free speech right. Maybe the Germans will come up with a legislative fake news filter for the Internet and a policing bureau to implement/enforce said filter.

[Oerets]

Simple fix, just post news that comes from accredited major news organizations.

They can filter porn so I ask why not ISIS and fake news too?

Free speech applies only to government when limiting not private IIRC.







Barney

[finnbow]

Simple fix, just post news that comes from accredited major news organizations.

They can filter porn so I ask why not ISIS and fake news too?

Free speech applies only to government when limiting not private IIRC.

Barney

They could do it, but they're more concerned with ad revenue than they are with ensuring that they don't post fake news. Fake news gets so many hits that Facebook profits heavily from it.

[Dondilion]

Simple fix, just post news that comes from accredited major news organizations.

Barney

Like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, HUFF etc. :D

[Oerets]

They could do it, but they're more concerned with ad revenue than they are with ensuring that they don't post fake news. Fake news gets so many hits that Facebook profits heavily from it.

Ahhhh Capitalism rises it's head and strikes again!



Barney

[whell]

Well, at least the Germans had 25 or so years of Freedom of the Press since reunification. Looks like Merkel wants to return to the "good old days" of the GDR.

Really, the German's want to regulate malicious gossip on Facebook? That'll be fun to watch.

[whell]

Simple fix, just post news that comes from accredited major news organizations.


Barney

Just like they used to do in Nazi Germany. Interesting idea Barney. Who does the accreditation? The "party"?

[Oerets]

Just like they used to do in Nazi Germany. Interesting idea Barney. Who does the accreditation? The "party"?

Accredited news backs up their stories with facts and names on record. These are checked and we have someone taking responsibility. Not trolls using their imagination to conjure in order to get clicks for revenue.


Barney

[finnbow]

Well, at least the Germans had 25 or so years of Freedom of the Press since reunification. Looks like Merkel wants to return to the "good old days" of the GDR.

Really, the German's want to regulate malicious gossip on Facebook? That'll be fun to watch.

You obviously know nothing about Germany or German law. They have had laws against malicious and false insults (Beleidigung) and other restraints on press freedom and freedom of expression for decades, as had Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom) and most other countries of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany

[whell]

You obviously know nothing about Germany or German law. They have had laws against malicious and false insults (Beleidigung) and other restraints on press freedom and freedom of expression for decades, as had Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom) and most other countries of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany

You're such a clueless tool. Look what you posted:

German judges and state prosecutors need to crack down straight away on fake news disseminated through social media platforms such as Facebook, Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview published on Sunday.

The call here is not JUST about dealing with folks saying nasty things about each other on Facebook. The Justice Minister as saying he thinks German judges and state prosecutors need to sift through Facebook posts and police the content. How do you think this will happen? What does the process look like? Who gets to decide what gets prosecuted and what doesn't? Who make the rules? Just like in any bureaucracy, it won't be the law that provides the boundaries. It will be individuals making the rules and creating the processes whereby "offenders" will be identified and prosecuted.

In a way, this is poetic justice. Zuckerberg supported folks who think like this in the most recent election. We thankfully didn't let them near the White House in this election, but Zuckerberg may someday have to deal with this in Europe. Won't that interesting to watch?

[whell]

Accredited news backs up their stories with facts and names on record.
Barney

Give me a break! Show me how the NY Times backed up their story with names on the record for the NY Times in this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=1

Newspapers and broadcast news are all about quoting "top officials" and sources who only speak on the condition that they remain anonymous.

[donquixote99]

There are names on the by-line. They get fired if they are shown to have made anything up.

[whell]

There are names on the by-line. They get fired if they are shown to have made anything up.

Cow manure. Folks like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair get away with it for years before anything catches up to them. Brian Williams gets recycled from NBC to MSNBC. Fareed Zakaria gets to his own show on CNN as a reward for plagiarism.

[finnbow]

You're such a clueless tool. Look what you posted:

German judges and state prosecutors need to crack down straight away on fake news disseminated through social media platforms such as Facebook, Germany's Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in an interview published on Sunday.

The call here is not JUST about dealing with folks saying nasty things about each other on Facebook. The Justice Minister as saying he thinks German judges and state prosecutors need to sift through Facebook posts and police the content. How do you think this will happen? What does the process look like? Who gets to decide what gets prosecuted and what doesn't? Who make the rules? Just like in any bureaucracy, it won't be the law that provides the boundaries. It will be individuals making the rules and creating the processes whereby "offenders" will be identified and prosecuted.

In a way, this is poetic justice. Zuckerberg supported folks who think like this in the most recent election. We thankfully didn't let them near the White House in this election, but Zuckerberg may someday have to deal with this in Europe. Won't that interesting to watch?

The bolded words were from the article, not from me. Moreover, the article makes clear in the last two paragraphs that Germany expects Facebook to police their content, not for the German government to do it. You sure do get spun up about stuff you don't understand.

[finnbow]

Give me a break! Show me how the NY Times backed up their story with names on the record for the NY Times in this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=1

Newspapers and broadcast news are all about quoting "top officials" and sources who only speak on the condition that they remain anonymous.

For the last time, the NYTimes article was factually correct. The CIA does indeed believe that Russia was behind it in an effort to harm Hillary, exactly as the Times reported. There's is not even a whiff of fake news in the article. Meanwhile, your Dear Leader lies with impunity, praises Alex Jones, his National Security Advisor tweets conspiracy theories, and Trump puts Bannon, one of the biggest purveyors of fake news, as a key White House advisor. You're piece of work, Whell, and seem to have bought into far right projection and propaganda.

Facebook acknowledges the problem with fake news on its site and has launched steps to try to stop it. http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-vs-fake-news-sites-social-network-announces-plan-fight-hoaxes-your-newsfeed-2461285

[donquixote99]

Cow manure. Folks like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair get away with it for years before anything catches up to them. Brian Williams gets recycled from NBC to MSNBC. Fareed Zakaria gets to his own show on CNN as a reward for plagiarism.

The culture of ethics I refer to does exist in print journalism. Rarely, clever people evade the system, but the way the way the print journalism industry reacted when the problems were uncovered shows that corruption is not general, as you suggest.

TV news emulates the standards of print journalism, at best, imperfectly.

[whell]

The bolded words were from the article, not from me. Moreover, the article makes clear in the last two paragraphs that Germany expects Facebook to police their content, not for the German government to do it. You sure do get spun up about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, but YOU picked the section of the article you wanted to quote. And before you backpedal too far, the article YOU linked to has the following headline:

"German courts should go after fake news on Facebook now: minister" Which means, in case you fail to understand the magnitude of the headline, the Justice Minister of Germany is urging German prosecutors and courts get more aggressive in this area, REGARDLESS of what Facebook might or might not do to "police itself".

From the article you linked to:

"Justice authorities must prosecute that, even on the internet," he (Maas) said, noting that offenders could face up to five years in jail. "Anyone who tries to manipulate the political discussion with lies needs to be aware (of the consequences)."

The issue of fake news has taken on new urgency after warnings by German and U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia has sought to influence elections and sway public opinion.

German government officials have expressed concern that fake news could influence the parliamentary election expected in September, in which Merkel will run for a fourth term.


The first part that I highlighted above: unlike Germany - the constitution in this country protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and very specifically was crafted to so that POLITICAL SPEECH was protected. You stated at the end of your quote that "it seems that the ever logical Germans are able to recognize what fake news is and isn't." Well, it looks like the "ever logical" Germans want to specifically get aggressive with controlling political speech on the internet - particularly when they can leverage the weight of the government's prosecutorial power on an entity like Facebook where private citizens can be identified and targeted. And we then see that the driver is probably not "defamation laws" as much as it is Merkel's re-election.

I'm sure that Merkel and Maas would likely benefit greatly from controlling "fake news", like observations that her lax immigration policies may have contributed to increased terrorist activity in Germany. I fear the incident in Berlin today may turn out to be another sad example.

[finnbow]

I'm sure that Merkel and Maas would likely benefit greatly from controlling "fake news", like observations that her lax immigration policies may have contributed to increased terrorist activity in Germany.

Articles about immigration problems and terrorism in Germany aren't fake news and that's not what this is about. They concerned about the concocted gibberish that you refuse to even acknowledge exists. Once again, you're demonstrating your abject obtuseness as to what constitutes fake news.

In this country, the GOP and Trump are the great beneficiaries of fake news. Accordingly, they, like you, are the ones twisting the argument 180 degrees by calling actual news unfavorable to Trump fake while dismissing the existence of the fake news that the GOP and its minions sling each and every day on talk radio, Breitbart, InfoWars, etc and broadcast via Twitter by Trump and his staff. You've bought into this silly meme hook, line and sinker. Try as you might, nobody else here is buying the line of shit you're selling. You sound like a mindless dittohead.

[d-ray657]

I should note here that the title of this thread is false and misleading. The nonsense presented by the OP is in no way a service of nor is it endorsed by Politicalchat.org. If the OP wants to flatter himself by saying that his posts are a service to Politicalchat, he can fantasize all he wants. But, I suppose it is asking too much to expect him to be honest about what he is offering.

[whell]

Articles about immigration problems and terrorism in Germany aren't fake news and that's not what this is about. They concerned about the concocted gibberish that you refuse to even acknowledge exists. Once again, you're demonstrating your abject obtuseness as to what constitutes fake news.

In this country, the GOP and Trump are the great beneficiaries of fake news. Accordingly, they, like you, are the ones twisting the argument 180 degrees by calling actual news unfavorable to Trump fake while dismissing the existence of the fake news that the GOP and its minions sling each and every day on talk radio, Breitbart, InfoWars, etc and broadcast via Twitter by Trump and his staff. You've bought into this silly meme hook, line and sinker. Try as you might, nobody else here is buying the line of shit you're selling. You sound like a mindless dittohead.

That's exactly what this is about, and thank you for confirming it. Obama alluded to it a few weeks ago suggesting there should be a "filter" on the news. Now here comes Merkel and company with an election coming up, and she wants a filter as well. How quaint.

Fake news is the left's latest attempt at censorship. Period. Take a news story that the left doesn't like and simply label it fake news. Someone in the press has an unflattering story? Label them a purveyor of fake news. Who gets to decide what fake news is? Of course, our friends on the left. Who are the "approved sources" of non fake news? Of course the same news sources that are routinely in the tank for the left. Lovely.

[finnbow]

Take a news story that the left doesn't like and simply label it fake news. Someone in the press has an unflattering story? Label them a purveyor of fake news...

That describes perfectly the entire purpose of this thread. Sorry, but your ridiculous projection ain't working on me.

[barbara]

I hope this is fake news....

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect


If it's true it really cheapens the office of the presidency.
And it's hard to tell what " charity" will benefit.

[bobabode]

I hope this is fake news....

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect


If it's true it really cheapens the office of the presidency.
And it's hard to tell what " charity" will benefit.

Another source, "The Hill" http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311122-trump-brothers-behind-nonprofit-offering-access-to-president-elect-report

Maybe they'll get to hunt with Dick 'Shotgun' Cheney?

[whell]

FAKE NEWS ALERT

From VOX (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/19/14012970/electoral-college-faith-spotted-eagle-colin-powell): Monday's Electoral College results prove the institution is an utter joke

OK, so its probably an editorial, but with Vox its hard to tell the difference between what passes for news and what is meant to be an editorial.

What the story gets right: When Donald Trump won the presidential election in November, some liberals and activists had a cool-sounding idea. What if, they mused, they could in fact block his win through the Electoral College, which actually casts the ballots that will officially make Trump president?

But when the electors gathered across the country Monday, this plot backfired embarrassingly — more electors defected from Hillary Clinton than from Trump.

Yeah, that fiasco had to be embarrassing for some liberals. But its often hard to find lefties that have a sufficient sense of decency to be embarrassed by this.

What the story gets wrong: The record number of defections for the modern era — there hasn’t been more than one faithless elector in any one election in the past century — proves that the Electoral College isn’t a system that can be relied on to accurately reflect the will of voters in the states. And yet it also isn’t a system where electors feel completely free to make up their own minds.

What we actually have is a system in which the vast majority of electors vote in accordance with state outcomes — except for essentially random defections by little-known, idiosyncratic people who happen to have won elector slots. And that is a system that’s badly vulnerable to a very serious crisis.

No, there's nothing wrong with the system of using electors. Its actually quite brilliant. Now if hysterical leftists (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-chants-of-shame-erupt-as-wisconsin-1482175133-htmlstory.html) would quit trying to mess with it every time the system doesn't produce the results they prefer, we'd all be better off.

[finnbow]

FAKE NEWS ALERT

From VOX (http://www.vox.com/2016/12/19/14012970/electoral-college-faith-spotted-eagle-colin-powell): Monday's Electoral College results prove the institution is an utter joke

OK, so its probably an editorial, but with Vox its hard to tell the difference between what passes for news and what is meant to be an editorial...

Yet another example of you not knowing what fake news is and isn't, not that we really needed any further confirmation of that.:rolleyes:

[CarlV]

Not that we didn't already know this story was phony as a 3 dollar bill from the get go....


According to the newly released court papers, the FBI sought a search warrant two days after Comey's letter on Oct. 30 to review "thousands" of emails on a Toshiba laptop. Those emails, Comey said in his letter, were found in an "unrelated case."
Sources close to the investigation have said the emails were discovered during an unrelated probe into former Democratic U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
In an affidavit, an unnamed FBI agent said there was "probable cause" to believe that correspondence between Clinton and an unnamed individual whose name was redacted was located on the laptop, including emails with classified information.
While the affidavit provided no indication that any emails from Clinton or with classified information were actually found on the laptop when the search warrant was sought, it said emails to State Department accounts had been located.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/search-warrant-materials-used-clinton-email-probe-unsealed-172729218.html?ref=gs


Carl

[whell]

Yet another example of you not knowing what fake news is and isn't, not that we really needed any further confirmation of that.:rolleyes:

What we disagree on - amongst other things - is the definition. The left wants to own the definition of "fake news" so that they can use it as both a term of art and political convenience. In other words they want to make it up as they go along, particularly when there's a story that doesn't align with their chosen narrative. And then they want to own the "filter" that "protects us" from "fake news".

Nothing new here, really. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have been under attack both abroad and in this country for ages. Fake news is simply another flavor.

[whell]

Yet another example of you not knowing what fake news is and isn't, not that we really needed any further confirmation of that.:rolleyes:

Oh, and if you don't think that woman In the video got herself all whipped up over the fake news about the electors and about Trump, you're deluded.

[d-ray657]

What the wrong wing has done with the concept of "Fake news" is quite similar to what it has done with the concept of Christianity - distorted it all out of proportion to serve the ends of those whose ideas cannot flourish in an atmosphere of truth.

[whell]

What the wrong wing has done with the concept of "Fake news" is quite similar to what it has done with the concept of Christianity - distorted it all out of proportion to serve the ends of those whose ideas cannot flourish in an atmosphere of truth.

What the hell are you talking about, counselor? And by the way, Merry Christmas.

[finnbow]

What the wrong wing has done with the concept of "Fake news" is quite similar to what it has done with the concept of Christianity - distorted it all out of proportion to serve the ends of those whose ideas cannot flourish in an atmosphere of truth.

Their fixation on obfuscation and mislabeling of fake news is done for several reasons -to discredit real news that reflects poorly on Trump, to distract from Trump and Flynn consuming and spewing fake news themselves, and to poo-poo its possible influence on the election. Whell has taken it upon himself to pursue this same strategy on these pages. His objective is clear, but nobody's buying it.

This latest fake news projection and misdirection campaign comes on the heels of a decade's long effort by the GOP to discredit mainstream news sources in favor of conservative "news" sources (Fox News, talk radio, Breitbart, InfoWars ...) that can be depended upon to reliably carry their water. The nation's attention to "fake news" revelations threatens to harm the credibility of conservative media (and Trump) and they (and their minions/pawns/stooges like Whell) are striking out to ensure that conservatives continue to trust the stuff coming from these sources. What good is propaganda if people stop believing it?

[whell]

What good is propaganda if people stop believing it?

Interesting that you should ask that question. That's the exact question that has been haunting the traditional news sources, and their credibility is now worse than it has been in years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx). When the traditional news sources act as if they've become a propaganda arm for the Democrat party, it should be no wonder that they take a major credibility hit. ...and you just keep lapping up the tripe that they publish.

You want to discount this point of view. Fine, don't take it from me. Take it from one of the media's own (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0):

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

So, the media decided not to check their biases at the door. They allowed their biases to influence their reporting because there was some sort of "consensus" among journalists that Trump was somehow dangerous, and it would therefore be disingenuous to their readers to leave their biases out of the reporting. As the writer of the article notes:

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Well, when the facts come colored with the reporter's bias, because the reporter has convinced him/herself that their bias is fact, news reporting is no longer news reporting. It's fake news.

You might reply that we should fear Trump. As the article points out:

“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage — copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’s senior editor for politics. “It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.”

Well, there's no responsible person who would look at that comment and call "bullshit" on it. I certainly don't recall the media hyper-ventilating, or providing "copious and aggressive coverage" - to nearly the same degree about Obama's familiarity with the Russians, even when he was caught on tape (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326). Certainly no one felt that this familiarity should result in questions about Obama's fitness as president.

And was it familiarity with the Russians that caused the administration to delay reacting to the hacking (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-democrats.html) in the first place? Maybe they didn't want to upset Putin to keep him engaged on Syria? They didn't want to make Vlad mad? Don't see any "copious and aggressive coverage" on Obama's failure to react appropriately to this. Only now, after Hillary has lost, is Obama choosing to make a public display of his dissatisfaction with the Russians...but the media has no problem with this.

And you keep bemoaning the "non-traditional media": Brietbart, etc. Who do you think allowed Breitbart to gain a foothold? Its no coincidence that as the credibility - and market share, and readership, and advertising revenue - of the traditional media has waned, other sources of news have flourished. You might not like their content, but the traditional media has only themselves to blame for giving these news sources market share.

[donquixote99]

And old legal aphorism states that 'hard cases make bad law.' It means that cases way outside the norm lead one to stretch or break the principles that serve well normally.

Apply to the case of journalism and Donald Trump.

Normally, when a candidate grossly insults a strong minority group, the newspapers would say "Look what Donald Trump just said about Mexicans," and that would be the end of Donald Trump.

That's not how it went this year. Repeat 40 times or so, and the journalists finally catch on that the 'normal' journalism is just feeding the beast. The journalists feel used, among other things. They become self-critical and cast about for the right thing to do in a very unusual situation.

One thing they do is provided fodder for you. That doesn't make the news false, and you have actually just put up yet another FAKE ARGUMENT.

[icenine]

Interesting that you should ask that question. That's the exact question that has been haunting the traditional news sources, and their credibility is now worse than it has been in years (http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx). When the traditional news sources act as if they've become a propaganda arm for the Democrat party, it should be no wonder that they take a major credibility hit. ...and you just keep lapping up the tripe that they publish.

You want to discount this point of view. Fine, don't take it from me. Take it from one of the media's own (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0):

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

So, the media decided not to check their biases at the door. They allowed their biases to influence their reporting because there was some sort of "consensus" among journalists that Trump was somehow dangerous, and it would therefore be disingenuous to their readers to leave their biases out of the reporting. As the writer of the article notes:

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Well, when the facts come colored with the reporter's bias, because the reporter has convinced him/herself that their bias is fact, news reporting is no longer news reporting. It's fake news.

You might reply that we should fear Trump. As the article points out:

“If you have a nominee who expresses warmth toward one of our most mischievous and menacing adversaries, a nominee who shatters all the norms about how our leaders treat families whose sons died for our country, a nominee proposing to rethink the alliances that have guided our foreign policy for 60 years, that demands coverage — copious coverage and aggressive coverage,” said Carolyn Ryan, The New York Times’s senior editor for politics. “It doesn’t mean that we won’t vigorously pursue reporting lines on Hillary Clinton — we are and we will.”

Well, there's no responsible person who would look at that comment and call "bullshit" on it. I certainly don't recall the media hyper-ventilating, or providing "copious and aggressive coverage" - to nearly the same degree about Obama's familiarity with the Russians, even when he was caught on tape (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326). Certainly no one felt that this familiarity should result in questions about Obama's fitness as president.

And was it familiarity with the Russians that caused the administration to delay reacting to the hacking (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-democrats.html) in the first place? Maybe they didn't want to upset Putin to keep him engaged on Syria? They didn't want to make Vlad mad? Don't see any "copious and aggressive coverage" on Obama's failure to react appropriately to this. Only now, after Hillary has lost, is Obama choosing to make a public display of his dissatisfaction with the Russians...but the media has no problem with this.

And you keep bemoaning the "non-traditional media": Brietbart, etc. Who do you think allowed Breitbart to gain a foothold? Its no coincidence that as the credibility - and market share, and readership, and advertising revenue - of the traditional media has waned, other sources of news have flourished. You might not like their content, but the traditional media has only themselves to blame for giving these news sources market share.

Ah, yes - the young ape with a shovel. I hear you're planning another archeological expedition. Cornelius, a friendly word of warning - as you dig for artifacts, be sure you don't bury your reputation.

[whell]

And old legal aphorism states that 'hard cases make bad law.' It means that cases way outside the norm lead one to stretch or break the principles that serve well normally.

Apply to the case of journalism and Donald Trump.

Normally, when a candidate grossly insults a strong minority group, the newspapers would say "Look what Donald Trump just said about Mexicans," and that would be the end of Donald Trump.

That's not how it went this year. Repeat 40 times or so, and the journalists finally catch on that the 'normal' journalism is just feeding the beast. The journalists feel used, among other things. They become self-critical and cast about for the right thing to do in a very unusual situation.

One thing they do is provided fodder for you. That doesn't make the news false, and you have actually just put up yet another FAKE ARGUMENT.

Speaking of fake arguments, thank you for reminding me of the Mexican comment fake news.

Here's the text (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/?utm_term=.95c7124c7ab3)of those comments that you're referring to:

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.

It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.

So, did Trump say anything that was factually incorrect? Particularly the most inflammatory allegations about "drugs, crime and rapists"?

Trump made these comments in 2015. At that time, 2014 data (https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2014-ice-immigration-removals.pdf) was available from ICE. ICE's Enforcement Report suggests that removal of such illegal aliens is a top priority. It also states that the top country of origin for removals was, and has been for years, Mexico. ICE's data also indicates that removal of individuals with criminal convictions was a top priority: "On November 20, 2014, Secretary Johnson issued a memorandum directing ICE to discontinue the Secure
Communities program and replace it with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) to more effectively identify and facilitate the removal of criminal aliens in the custody of state and local law enforcement agencies."

Data (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf) from the Congressional Research Service shows the population of US prisons - both citizens and non-citizens. It certainly shows that a significant number of non citizens are currently in federal prisons for drug crimes and violent crimes including rape and murder.

Then you have the anecdotal evidence. For instance:

Man who was deported 10 times since 2010 faces rape charge in Kansas (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article106987417.html#storylink=cpy)

The sad story of Jamiel Shaw (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/02/local/la-me-1103-jamiel-shaw-20121104). Shaw's killer - Pedro Espinoza - was an illegal immigrant who had just been released from jail.

Then, of course, there were reports (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html) that 80% of the young women and girls crossing the border in the US were victims of rape. Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants, bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.

However, its also a crime that the traditional media misrepresetned Trump's quote and turned it into FAKE NEWS. Its the same fake news that you were obviously influenced by based on your comments above. Here's a great articl (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/the_media_needs_to_stop_telling_this_lie_about_don ald_trump_im_a_sanders_supporter_and_value_honesty/)e - from a person who describes himself as a " liberal, Puerto Rican professor" and a Bernie Sanders supporter. It specifically sites examples of the FAKE NEWS created by the traditional media who misrepresented Trumps comments. From the article:

Compare such words with Trump’s words. Which is worse? Writers excerpted the phrase: “they’re rapists,” as if it were about all Mexican unauthorized immigrants, or worse, about all Mexican immigrants, or even worst, about all Mexicans. But that’s not what he said. That’s not what he meant. It was just a remark about some of the criminals crossing the border.

The trick for misrepresenting Trump’s words can be used against anyone.

And contrary to your assertions the other day that print journalists who disseminate false don't last long in their jobs, I'd wager that most if not all of the authors of the articles cited in the Salon piece quoted above are still employed.

[whell]

Ah, yes - the young ape with a shovel. I hear you're planning another archeological expedition. Cornelius, a friendly word of warning - as you dig for artifacts, be sure you don't bury your reputation.

Get back to me when you can start making sense.

[donquixote99]

Those Trump remarks were crap and six paragraphs of pretzel logoc (and doubling down) can't clean up the emotional smack Trump was delivering, to the lasting and severe harm to America. Trump normalized hate.

"They're sending...." It xenophobia deluxe, no matter what little disclaimers he was careful to squeeze in. Nothing was faked. Everybody got the real message.

[whell]

Those Trump remarks were crap and six paragraphs of pretzel logoc (and doubling down) can't clean up the emotional smack Trump was delivering, to the lasting and severe harm to America. Trump normalized hate.

"They're sending...." It xenophobia deluxe, no matter what little disclaimers he was careful to squeeze in. Nothing was faked. Everybody got the real message.

Well, you can inject your own bias and make inferences about what Trump said, like you're doing above and apparently like the media did. If you want to do that, as someone who is not a member of the media, that's fine and dandy. If someone who purports to report news objectively writes a news story and injects their own biases with the objective of misrepresenting those comments, that's fake news.

[donquixote99]

Well, you can inject your own bias and make inferences about what Trump said, like you're doing above and apparently like the media did. If you want to do that, as someone who is not a member of the media, that's fine and dandy. If someone who purports to report news objectively writes a news story and injects their own biases with the objective of misrepresenting those comments, that's fake news.

Everything the NY Times inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?

On Tuesday, he vowed to build a “great wall” on the Mexican border to keep out rapists and other criminals, who he said were sneaking into the United States in droves.

Everything the Washington post inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?

[no mention]

Everything that ABCNews,com inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?

[no mention]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/politics/donald-trump-runs-for-president-this-time-for-real-he-says.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/donald-trump-to-announce-his-presidential-plans-today/?utm_term=.17c00c3810dd

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-announces-2016-presidential-campaign-make-country/story?id=31799741

[whell]

Everything the NY Times inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?



Everything the Washington post inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?



Everything that ABCNews,com inserted into their report about the Mexican rapists stuff in Trump's announcement speech. Anything fake in it?



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/politics/donald-trump-runs-for-president-this-time-for-real-he-says.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/donald-trump-to-announce-his-presidential-plans-today/?utm_term=.17c00c3810dd

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-announces-2016-presidential-campaign-make-country/story?id=31799741

Look at the links in the Salon article.

[donquixote99]

Look at the links in the Salon article.

I'm interested, but what Salon article?

[finnbow]

Speaking of fake arguments, thank you for reminding me of the Mexican comment fake news.

Here's the text (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/?utm_term=.95c7124c7ab3)of those comments that you're referring to:

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.

It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.

You're defending that xenophobic drivel? Good for you. You've shown who you really are.

The notion that Mexico is sending people is unadulterated bullshit. People are indeed coming, but Mexico is not sending them. Secondly, they are not predominately rapists, criminals and drug smugglers. Were it not for them, this country's construction, agriculture and hospitality industry would all go belly up. I suppose xenophobic, racist pricks don't recognize other racist, xenophobic pricks for who they are. Actually, it seems they find them appealing, vote for them and defend them. Good for you.

[whell]

You're defending that xenophobic drivel? Good for you. You've shown who you really are.

The notion that Mexico is sending people is unadulterated bullshit. People are indeed coming, but Mexico is not sending them. Secondly, they are not predominately rapists, criminals and drug smugglers. Were it not for them, this country's construction, agriculture and hospitality industry would all go belly up. I suppose xenophobic, racist pricks don't recognize other racist, xenophobic pricks for who they are. Actually, it seems they find them appealing, vote for them and defend them. Good for you.

You have an issue with the stats from ICE, take it up with ICE. Defending the words? No. Demonstrating how those words were serially mischaracterized? Yup.

You keep spinning like that Finn and WaPo might just ofrer you a job. I think I was clear enough about what my point was. You must have worked pretty hard to miss it.

[whell]

I'm interested, but what Salon article?

Post 206 in this thread. See link embedded in the words "great article".

[bobabode]

Still spinning your wheels in this dishonest and ridiculous thread Mike? Do you own the rights to PoliticalChat.com?

(pssst, this site is a .org my clueless friend. :rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

Post 206 in this thread. See link embedded in the words "great article".

Not so great article. Checked the whole list of cites. They each basically said 'Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists.' Not one said 'Trump called ALL Mexican immigrants rapists.'

If Trump gets off with the defense that he didn't say or mean 'all,' then his critics should get the same benefit, shouldn't they?

This is all BS word games in any case. "They're sending..." was a clarion call to wake up American Xenohpobia, and wake it up it did.

Think this lady, (http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/louisville-jefferson-mall-racist-video-facebook-watch-jc-penney-penneys-jcpenney-kentucky-woman-tirade-banned-hispanic-ban/) the one in Oeret's thread, ever spent one second of her life parsing whether Trump meant ALL Hispanics are bad people? She's working off emotion--anger and resentment towards the 'other.' "Some I'm sure are good people" counts for nothing. These emotions don't make such nice distinctions.

This will get bloody, and Trump has been, and I'm sure will be, largely to blame. He let the racist genie out of the bottle. I wonder if you will ever admit what evil harm has been done?

[whell]

Not so great article. Checked the whole list of cites. They each basically said 'Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists.' Not one said 'Trump called ALL Mexican immigrants rapists.'

If Trump gets off with the defense that he didn't say or mean 'all,' then his critics should get the same benefit, shouldn't they?

This is all BS word games in any case.

You obviously didn't check them all, or if you did, you chose to ignore some things. Here are a few of the fake news links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-moral-minority.html?_r=1

Mr. Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” and his...

Not what he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-chaos-its-trumps-campaign-strategy/2015/12/09/9005a5be-9d68-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html?utm_term=.f4a73a7870c2

He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” questioned Sen. John McCain’s ...

Wow, now the quote is spun as "all inclusive": Trump must think that Mexico is a whole country filled with rapists according that quote.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8fb9556f269e49e7818981f457a0f592/ap-gfk-poll-republicans-view-donald-trump-most-electable

Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals during his announcement speech...

Sure, he said some were, but he also said that some were good people. Why leave that part out, unless you're trying to advance a particular narrative?

And again, while the remarks are not artfully constructed and certainly not "PC", there are verifiable facts in the remarks. Illegal immigrants have been convicted of drug crimes and violent crimes including assault, rape and murder. That cannot be disputed. It doesn't mean that all of them have, it doesn't mean a majority have.

But what's lost in the media hysteria about the remarks is a larger problem of a porous border, US citizens that have been made less safe by lack of border control, and periodic mass migration (which causes its own set of issues) encouraged by the prospect of easily defeated border security. I think the focus on the non-PC nature of the comments was a purposeful distraction from Trump's the larger discussion about border security.

[donquixote99]

You obviously didn't check them all, or if you did, you chose to ignore some things. Here are a few of the fake news links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-moral-minority.html?_r=1

Mr. Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” and his...

Not what he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-not-chaos-its-trumps-campaign-strategy/2015/12/09/9005a5be-9d68-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html?utm_term=.f4a73a7870c2

He referred to Mexicans as “rapists,” questioned Sen. John McCain’s ...

Wow, now the quote is spun as "all inclusive": Trump must think that Mexico is a whole country filled with rapists according that quote.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8fb9556f269e49e7818981f457a0f592/ap-gfk-poll-republicans-view-donald-trump-most-electable

Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals during his announcement speech...

Sure, he said some were, but he also said that some were good people. Why leave that part out, unless you're trying to advance a particular narrative?

And again, while the remarks are not artfully constructed and certainly not "PC", there are verifiable facts in the remarks. Illegal immigrants have been convicted of drug crimes and violent crimes including assault, rape and murder. That cannot be disputed. It doesn't mean that all of them have, it doesn't mean a majority have.

But what's lost in the media hysteria about the remarks is a larger problem of a porous border, US citizens that have been made less safe by lack of border control, and periodic mass migration (which causes its own set of issues) encouraged by the prospect of easily defeated border security. I think the focus on the non-PC nature of the comments was a purposeful distraction from Trump's the larger discussion about border security.

Sure, there are some criminals in the immigrant population, as there are in all populations. That justifies holding them up as an invading menace? Only as a morally depraved way to get votes.

The cost is discrimination. The cost is hate, rants in cash register lines and much else. The cost is a homeless man beaten to death. The whole cost is far from reckoned, and may go ungodly high.

Like I said, none of the reports said "all." Your claim that Trumps remarks were distorted is BS word games. Trump, to get elected, instigated and normalized hate, and you defend that. This is not a matter on which 'men of good will' can differ. You have chosen evil. Fuck you to hell.

[whell]

Sure, there are some criminals in the immigrant population, as there are in all populations. That justifies holding them up as an invading menace? Only as a morally depraved way to get votes.

The cost is discrimination. The cost is hate, rants in cash register lines and much else. The cost is a homeless man beaten to death. The whole cost is far from reckoned, and may go ungodly high.

Like I said, none of the reports said "all." Your claim that Trumps remarks were distorted is BS word games. Trump, to get elected, instigated and normalized hate, and you defend that. This is not a matter on which 'men of good will' can differ. You have chosen evil. Fuck you to hell.

Merry Christmas to you too, Don. Always nice to see you demonstrate how to carry on a discussion without hateful rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[MrPots]

This is not a matter on which 'men of good will' can differ.

And men of goodwill need to stand up and fight it.

[MrPots]

Merry Christmas to you too, Don. Always nice to see you demonstrate how to carry on a discussion without hateful rhetoric. :rolleyes:

Don speaks truth, not rhetoric. learn the difference.

Hateful rhetoric is what the Fuhrer trump used to get himself elected?

The hateful rhetoric which you found so enlightening and appealing.

[finnbow]

You have an issue with the stats from ICE, take it up with ICE. Defending the words? No. Demonstrating how those words were serially mischaracterized? Yup.

You keep spinning like that Finn and WaPo might just ofrer you a job. I think I was clear enough about what my point was. You must have worked pretty hard to miss it.

You've characterized deserved criticism of Trump's xenophobic, racist clarion call as fake news. Defending his indefensible words is beneath contempt and you have discarded all pretense for why it is you support Trump. Gonna burn a cross in your front yard as a Christmas decoration?

[donquixote99]

Merry Christmas to you too, Don. Always nice to see you demonstrate how to carry on a discussion without hateful rhetoric. :rolleyes:

The hateful rhetoric is "They're sending rapists." Your defense of the same puts you in the sewer with your dear leader. Sorry, but I don't say 'Merry Christmas' to sewer rats.

[MrPots]

Not to be contradictory, but sewer rats really don't deserve to be put in the same bin with Trump supporters. They aren't being hateful and mean for the sport of it.....

[donquixote99]

It was just an expression, but I take your point, and apologize to the sewer rats.

[whell]

It was just an expression, but I take your point, and apologize to the sewer rats.

I can see you're a man of strong convictions. :rolleyes:

Because you came onto this thread and expressed the opinion that you disagreed with this attempt to promote civility. I've just been trying to explore with you exactly what you disagree with. I think civility is good stuff, and I favor more of it.

[whell]

You've characterized deserved criticism of Trump's xenophobic, racist clarion call as fake news. Defending his indefensible words is beneath contempt and you have discarded all pretense for why it is you support Trump. Gonna burn a cross in your front yard as a Christmas decoration?

Sorry, but you're not even trying to read what's been posted here much less engage in any reasonable discussion of it. If you did, you wouldn't have posted the comments above. You comments are what are beneath contempt.

Have a wonderful Holiday.

[donquixote99]

I can see you're a man of strong convictions. :rolleyes:

Occasionally, strong convictions call for strong expression.

You get all the civility you rate, given the amoral and harmful 'politics' that you defend.

[Tom Joad]

The hateful rhetoric is "They're sending rapists."

Which is taken grotesquely out of context.

Here is the correct quote in it's entirety.

Something that you will never see from the Trump haters.

Especially the last sentence, which the Trump haters pretend doesn't exist.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

[donquixote99]

The last sentence does not exist, as regards the function and effect of the punching of the xenophobia button. It was just thrown in so apologists for his crap could use it later, like you are doing, you stupid troll.

[Tom Joad]

The last sentence does not exist, as regards the function and effect of the punching of the xenophobia button. It was just thrown in so apologists for his crap could use it later, like you are doing, you stupid troll.

You took a 48 word statement and condensed it to 3 words in order to use it for the express purpose of demonizing Trump.

And you call me the Troll?:rolleyes:

[donquixote99]

You took a 48 word statement and condensed it to 3 words in order to use it for the express purpose of demonizing Trump.

And you call me the Troll?:rolleyes:

"They're sending rapists" is indeed the essence of the message. You can parse the 48 words six ways from Sunday, but that's all just wordplay BS. What matters is the effect.

Do you think the lady ranting at the checkout counter is a great analyst of every word of the 'beautiful flowing sentences' of the Great Leader? I think she got the message, though.

I call you 'stupid troll,' btw.

[whell]

"They're sending rapists" is indeed the essence of the message. You can parse the 48 words six ways from Sunday, but that's all just wordplay BS. What matters is the effect.

Do you think the lady ranting at the checkout counter is a great analyst of every word of the 'beautiful flowing sentences' of the Great Leader? I think she got the message, though.

I call you 'stupid troll,' btw.

What matters is the message in context, not what folks who disagree with the messenger want to do with the message.

This forum has changed for the worse since the election. The blind hatred and complete loss of perspective from members on the left appears to preclude anything close to a reasonable debate.

Oh well, it was fun for a while.

[donquixote99]

What matters is the message in context, not what folks who disagree with the messenger want to do with the message.

This forum has changed for the worse since the election. The blind hatred and complete loss of perspective from members on the left appears to preclude anything close to a reasonable debate.

Oh well, it was fun for a while.

Do not accept your characterization of 'principled opposition' as 'blind hate.' That's just yet more empty insult, actually.

Not having so much fun any more? Cry me a river.

[whell]

Do not accept your characterization of 'principled opposition' as 'blind hate.' That's just yet more empty insult, actually.

Not having so much fun any more? Cry me a river.

Not much "principle" in saying "Fuck you straight to hell", is there Don. Blind hate is exactly what that is. So, many happy returns.

[donquixote99]

Not much "principle" in saying "Fuck you straight to hell", is there Don. Blind hate is exactly what that is. So, many happy returns.

Well, in fact, principle was a strong factor. Goes to motive.

And, definitely, not blind.

[finnbow]

What matters is the message in context, not what folks who disagree with the messenger want to do with the message...

Having listened to his message about Mexican rapists live when Trump made it, I understand the context perfectly well. "Taking something out of context" is the classic excuse when a politician says something indefensible or profoundly stupid. Trump's comments were both as is your defense of them. Let's now hear your defense of his comments on Judge Curiel or on pussy-grabbing and how the coverage thereof somehow constituted fake news. I'm sure it will be equally inane.

[whell]

Having listened to his message about Mexican rapists live when Trump made it, I understand the context perfectly well. "Taking something out of context" is the classic excuse when a politician says something indefensible or profoundly stupid.

The problem is, Finn, that you want Trump's comments to paint him as a "racist". You need to paint those comments as racist. Because you have nothing else.

Trump's comments were both as is your defense of them. Let's now hear your defense of his comments on Judge Curiel or on pussy-grabbing and how the coverage thereof somehow constituted fake news. I'm sure it will be equally inane.

No one disagrees that the Billy Bush conversation was not appropriate. It was "locker room banter" between two men, one of whom didn't realize he was being taped. No excuse for the comments, and no excuse other than needing a "hit piece" for releasing the tape.

[nailer]

No one disagrees that the Billy Bush conversation was not appropriate. It was "locker room banter" between two men, one of whom didn't realize he was being taped. No excuse for the comments, and no excuse other than needing a "hit piece" for releasing the tape.

Well, other than it being real news.

[donquixote99]

Bam!!!

[finnbow]

The problem is, Finn, that you want Trump's comments to paint him as a "racist". You need to paint those comments as racist. Because you have nothing else.

One need not paint them as racist. They are racist, designed to throw red meat to the racists in the GOP base. Paul Ryan said exactly that with regard to his Judge Curiel comments.

[nailer]

Which is taken grotesquely out of context.

Here is the correct quote in it's entirety.

Something that you will never see from the Trump haters.

Especially the last sentence, which the Trump haters pretend doesn't exist.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Why didn't you post a YouTube of Trump saying this? Probably because the last sentence's actual context would come across more clearly. This Trump statement is clearly xenophobic, but I am enjoying your havoc generation.

[nailer]

One need not paint them as racist. They are racist, designed to throw red meat to the racists in the GOP base. Paul Ryan said exactly that with regard to his Judge Curiel comments.

Trump is GOP's southern strategy karma coming home to roost. :cool:

[whell]

One need not paint them as racist. They are racist, designed to throw red meat to the racists in the GOP base. Paul Ryan said exactly that with regard to his Judge Curiel comments.

You otherwise hate Ryan but agree with him in this case? Why don't you sling some more BS Finn? For soneone who suggested earlier ~ post 227 ~ that arguing about context was nothing more than excuse making, what excuse will you come up with for quoting Ryan from a statement where he was actually supporting Trump? Since that's the context of the statement you referred to, i guess that means that you support Trump too?

[donquixote99]

Sigh. Typically stupid argument. You just have to argue, whether you have a good point or not.

[finnbow]

You otherwise hate Ryan but agree with him in this case? Why don't you sling some more BS Finn? For soneone who suggested earlier ~ post 227 ~ that arguing about context was nothing more than excuse making, what excuse will you come up with for quoting Ryan from a statement where he was actually supporting Trump? Since that's the context of the statement you referred to, i guess that means that you support Trump too?

Sorry, but I can't follow your inanity. The operative question is whether Trump is indeed a racist or just cynically employs racist rhetoric to appeal to his base. I find neither admirable nor defensible. I'm glad you like it though.

[whell]

Well, other than it being real news.

BS. The media didn't bother to critically examine Obama at all. Remeber Brokaw admitting, after the election of course, the media really didn't do a deep dive on Obama.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw

Yet Trump was pursued aggressively, and as we later learned the media was in the tank for Hillary (putting further lie to the notion that Trump somehow benefited from Russian hacks).

[Tom Joad]

Why didn't you post a YouTube of Trump saying this? Probably because the last sentence's actual context would come across more clearly. This Trump statement is clearly xenophobic, but I am enjoying your havoc generation.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I loves me some youtube. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TML2cApMueU

[nailer]

BS. The media didn't bother to critically examine Obama at all. Remeber Brokaw admitting, after the election of course, the media really didn't do a deep dive on Obama.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw

Yet Trump was pursued aggressively, and as we later learned the media was in the tank for Hillary (putting further lie to the notion that Trump somehow benefited from Russian hacks).

Nice use of the I've got nothing BS reply with an Obama deflect and Hillary chaser. Thanks for the good point acknowledgment. :)

[Tom Joad]

One need not paint them as racist. They are racist, designed to throw red meat to the racists in the GOP base. Paul Ryan said exactly that with regard to his Judge Curiel comments.

Ryan is much much much worse than Trump.

However, it comes as no surprise to me that you are a fan of his.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U