FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

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/wo...n-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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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/wo...n-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?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Originally Posted by finnbow

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]

Originally Posted by whell

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.