Slashdot Mirror

Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.

Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.

Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.

He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.

He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.

It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people. He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.

When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".

Give him a chance.

He might actually make things better.

I'm glad you expanded your post because I don't really get what that image is saying. Maybe it's too US-centric for my understanding.

Trump's political positions are mostly a magic 8-ball and it was certainly too early to place him squarely on any political spectrum before the election. He frequently flips his stated positions on a whim. I think we can only judge him by his actions, so we'll have to see what he does when he's finished assembling what appears to be a corporatocratic government. He's putting a fox in every henhouse. I think he could be assembling easily the most fiscally right-wing government in living memory.

To argue that he's fiscally further left than Hillary requires a lot of cherry-picking and optimism, especially now that we've seen some of his actions.

One thing he doesn't waver on is a general tendency toward extreme authoritarianism and extreme social backwardness. I shouldn't have to elaborate on his history of racism and his many socially backward proposals. He's chosen Mike Pence, a leading proponent of "pray the gay away" programs and "Jim Queer" laws, as his VP. He's chosen Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions for his cabinet. He's far to the right of Hillary on most social issues.

And so are you, which might explain why you're OK with Trump, but not why you'd have any interest in Hillary or Bernie or why you call yourself a liberal while calling the left regressive over wacko fringe college politics, using "SJW," the modern general-purpose descendant of "n****r-lover," (side note: Slashdot now triggers the lameness filter if you use the N-word even once) and otherwise spewing what looks like standard alt-right rhetoric. It's bizarre.

Democrats have a problem, sure, obviously, but I'm not too interested in discussing that. We probably agree on most things there.

BTW, the alt-right at the time was indeed broadly a white nationalist movement. It was a hodgepodge of different factions led by a core of neo-nazis. The factions have since split up. I hate to link to Breitbart, but I think this article gives a good overview of the state of things at the time, straight from the horse's mouth. Its only mistake in analyzing the movement is that like many centipedes did, it mistook the neo-nazis for unfortunate hangers-on rather than the the people pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Us Alt-Right nut faces don't generally insult the other side of the debate.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

That has to be a pisstake article! God I hope so.

Us Alt-Right nut faces don't generally insult the other side of the debate.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

"Alternative media"? Is that what it's called now?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Oh do please tell us, all you Wikileaks supporters, just how wonderful an organization it is, as it begins the process of trying to fuck over hundreds of thousands of people whose only crime was verifying their account.

Sure. Let me just start this with something important.

The article is false. Wikileaks does not wish to dox anyone. They wish to create a database of influence. Politician X votes a certain way, you can check and see he was paid off by Corporation Y. Journalist A working for Publication B is owned by Corporation C, which has connections to X, Y, Z, W.

For example, here's a list of reporters who were outed as colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign via the email leaks.

http://imgur.com/a/oO3FS

Here's a second, more exhaustive list: https://i.redd.it/ol970kkt2nyx...

And Breitbart has more details: http://www.breitbart.com/wikil...

(Remember kids, the Genetic Fallacy -- "Herp Derp BREITBART FAKE NEWS" -- means your argument is invalid and I win!)

So. How many of those reporters had disclaimers mentioning that they were actively working with HRC's campaign on their articles talking about HRC, Bernie, or Trump?

Basically, Wikileaks is talking about taking the GamerGate corruption and conflict of interest database, http://deepfreeze.it/ , and port the idea to the mainstream.

Now, having put the above information forward -- the example of the kind of collusion and influence that Wikileaks is wanting to create a map of, can you see why the people at CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News would be a liiiitle upset that someone might want to make a database following their biases, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and the like?

Real Donald might be hitting the sauce, like his deceased older brother.

DJT at third Presidential debate

DJT at New Year's Eve (2017) party.

Notice any difference in complexion?

They're pissed off because their near-monopoly of the lib-left newspapers, CNN (Clinton News Network), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), etc was easily bypassed. That's what cost Hillary the election.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
3 years later, it happened. One of the "legacy gatekeepers", Newsweek was considering doing a story breaking the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. But management killed the story. Instead a lowly store clerk with a modem broke the story... you've heard of Matt Drudge http://www.drudgereport.com/ Hillary clinton's reaction was to whine about the lack of "gatekeepers".

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
What would've happened if Hillary had won?
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

If you take away the undocumented immigrants who are allowed by state law to vote in California, and the absentee ballots filed by the dead, she lost

So now Obama wants to give Trump a going-away present: A shiny new, Vietnam-style, ever-escalating war with Russia, and a public perception that, if he tries to end it, or even keep it from escalating, it's because he's a Russian puppet.

That false perception will never be perpetuated as long as people are reminded that Obama was the initial instigator. Obama was a master of deflection having learned from Saul Alinsky well.

"marijuana users will lead to early onset dementia, and low IQs."

Any studies showing a connection?... I'll wait...

Here you go.

Hahahahahaha!

"marijuana users will lead to early onset dementia, and low IQs."

Any studies showing a connection?... I'll wait...

Here you go.

Oh, you wanted a real source?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/

I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either.

But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.

I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either.
But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.

You know, instead of signalling your worry, you might try being "hopeful". Like the title to your post.

It hasn't really occurred to the left, but Trump is more capable and has more integrity than they give him credit for.

This is obvious when you consider all their predictions have been wrong, in every case. Trump won't win the nomination, Trump is melting down, Trump has *completely* melted down, Trump will never win the election, and on and on. Why should we believe anything the left says, when none of their past predictions have come true?

It's also obvious because everyone is running around looking for the "why" of his success. I mean, it's Russia, it's Wikileaks, it's white supremacists, it's "fake news", it's Breitbart, it's Clinton, and on and on. Do you think that maybe Trump is more capable than you gave him credit for?

And now everyone is running around with their hair on fire over every subtle thing he does. And I mean *really* "hair on fire" over some of his appointments: he'd going to dissolve the EPA and make our pollution worse than China, he's going to stage a military coup and install a fascist regime, [non-political] industry leader appointees are not "draining the swamp", an actual brain surgeon will be incompetent because he has no experience, and on and on.

A lot of us on the alt-right get a big chuckle over the histrionics and fake emotion. We like seeing your heads explode over these things. You, for example, are signalling deep worry, in a way meant to infect everyone else into a state of deep worry. Go for it! (*snicker*)

We on the alt-right are noticing that a) he's not the president yet, b) he's appointing capable people, and c) he's still intending to fix things.

As an example of something we take comfort in, Trump is vetting people by saying "here's my vision, do you agree"? And if there's a meeting of the minds, that person is considered for the position (along with experience and skill and a lot of other things).

So it was that Trump's pick for Labour secretary published a statement showing that he was on-board with Trump's priorities:

My job as a business person is to maximize profits for my company, employees and shareholders. My job as the Secretary of Labor, if confirmed, is to serve U.S. citizen workers – that is my moral and constitutional duty. The public spoke loud and clear in this election, and delivered a mandate to protect American workers. It makes no economic sense to spend trillions on welfare and jobless benefits for out of work Americans while bringing in foreign workers to fill jobs in their place.

As Secretary of Labor, I will fiercely defend American workers and implement my piece of the ten point plan the President-elect laid out.[...]

If you aren't anti-American, it really doesn't look all that bad. In fact, it looks a lot like we might get some competence in government for once.

Consider taking a "wait and see" attitude.

All this worry and panic is over nothing.

You expect these standards to be applied evenly across the board? To everyone? Lmfao. I guarantee CNN/WaPo/NYT/etc. all have permanent spots on the whitelist for this bullshit.

It's only "propaganda" when your opponents are putting it out.

Before or after they started pissing people off by deciding what "was" and "wasn't" an acceptable repo, which magically lined up with SJW views.

"Opalgate", anyone? Read the comments yourself.

https://github.com/opal/opal/i...

https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

Hiring a SJW, Coraline Ada Ehmke, to run "anti-harassment." (Good thing people on the left never harass anyone.)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

The second you start judging what is, and isn't, "moral" (as opposed to acceptable to your standards ala no porn), then people are going to 1) get worried their repo might get affected, or 2) say "fuck you" altogether.

You are a fucking idiot if you don't see the difference. He is literally setting up a fascist regime.

He is literally not.

Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.

Trump recently gave his labor secretary pick his vision for that post, and the labor secretary basically agreed. This all looks very good and should have a positive effect on the nation.

His whole transition looks like this. You guys can't see all the goodness because you're too blinded by losing the election.

From that link:

Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First

1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.

2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.

4. End sanctuary cities.

5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.

6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.

9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.

10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.

FBI: 99% Likely Multiple Agencies Hacked Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

I'll bet you can't point to a single incident ever where it's been used to censor anti-government statements.

I certainly can. How about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html?utm_term=.bd8dc4da42ab
"In a country whose Nazi past led to some of the strictest laws in the West protecting minorities from people inciting hatred, prosecutors are launching investigations into inflammatory comments as judges dole out fines, even probation time, to the worst offenders."

or...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/08/german-couple-sentenced-migrant-critical-facebook-group/
"A German couple were taken to court and sentenced after they created a Facebook group that criticised migrants and the government's mass migration policy."

There is at least a degree of plausability as Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein's “Lolita Express” at least 26 times, ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, Supposedly Hillary Clinton went 6 times and Donald Trump at least once; after all the best trolls have a basis in fact, a healthy dose of implication and exaggeration to make the lie more palatable.

And... they're off!

Hillary campaign bus involved in deadly crash.

And of course, CNN falsly admits it aired pornography for 30 minutes on thanksgiving.

Synopsis of previous link: 1) A Twitter user in the Boston area reported that CNN was airing hardcore pornography for 30 minutes through local provider RCN. 2) Picked up by The Independent, a leading left-of-center newspaper based in the United Kingdom. 3) Subsequently many other media outlets including Variety magazine, the U.K. Daily Mail, the New York Post, Esquire magazine and Mashable, &c. 4) Eventually, CNN actually confirmed that it did air “inappropriate content” and was seeking an “explanation” from RCN.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened.

Mainstream media has a bit of a credibility problem, yah?

Right wing gutter rag Daily Mail in the UK reports (complete with copious photographic coverage) that Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to pack of hungry dogs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Alt-right news source Breitbart reports same (also complete with photographs of one of the canine perpetrators): http://www.breitbart.com/blog/...

The main stream press also reported this.

Summary of the previous two links:
1) This story appears as satirical post on a Chinese social media network.
2) The story appears in Wen Wei Po, a Hong Kong tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism.
3) The Singaporean Straits Times re-reports the story in english. At this point it seems to make the transition form satire to news.
4) The Western press (left, right and alt-rigth) jumps on board and reports story as fact (often complete with photographs of canine perpetrators).

It seems to me the alt-right press isn't any more professional than the mainstream media. I can believe that N-Korean state henchmen would sic dogs on a prisoner but 120 dogs? Kim himself and no less than 300 senior officials supervising? Really? One senior official supervising something is bad enough, 300 supervising the same event? There is something wrong with journalism in general regardless of political leaning.

And... they're off!

Hillary campaign bus involved in deadly crash.

And of course, CNN falsly admits it aired pornography for 30 minutes on thanksgiving.

Synopsis of previous link: 1) A Twitter user in the Boston area reported that CNN was airing hardcore pornography for 30 minutes through local provider RCN. 2) Picked up by The Independent, a leading left-of-center newspaper based in the United Kingdom. 3) Subsequently many other media outlets including Variety magazine, the U.K. Daily Mail, the New York Post, Esquire magazine and Mashable, &c. 4) Eventually, CNN actually confirmed that it did air “inappropriate content” and was seeking an “explanation” from RCN.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened.

Mainstream media has a bit of a credibility problem, yah?

Right wing gutter rag Daily Mail in the UK reports (complete with copious photographic coverage) that Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to pack of hungry dogs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Alt-right news source Breitbart reports same (also complete with photographs of one of the canine perpetrators): http://www.breitbart.com/blog/...

The main stream press also reported this.

Summary of the previous two links:
1) This story appears as satirical post on a Chinese social media network.
2) The story appears in Wen Wei Po, a Hong Kong tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism.
3) The Singaporean Straits Times re-reports the story in english. At this point it seems to make the transition form satire to news.
4) The Western press (left, right and alt-rigth) jumps on board and reports story as fact (often complete with photographs of canine perpetrators).

It seems to me the alt-right press isn't any more professional than the mainstream media. I can believe that N-Korean state henchmen would sic dogs on a prisoner but 120 dogs? Kim himself and no less than 300 senior officials supervising? Really? One senior official supervising something is bad enough, 300 supervising the same event? There is something wrong with journalism in general regardless of political leaning.

And... they're off!

Hillary campaign bus involved in deadly crash.

And of course, CNN falsly admits it aired pornography for 30 minutes on thanksgiving.

Synopsis of previous link:
1) A Twitter user in the Boston area reported that CNN was airing hardcore pornography for 30 minutes through local provider RCN.
2) Picked up by The Independent, a leading left-of-center newspaper based in the United Kingdom.
3) Subsequently many other media outlets including Variety magazine, the U.K. Daily Mail, the New York Post, Esquire magazine and Mashable, &c.
4) Eventually, CNN actually confirmed that it did air “inappropriate content” and was seeking an “explanation” from RCN.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened.

Mainstream media has a bit of a credibility problem, yah?

Nice switch. "incite hatred" is not the same as "incite violence". Anything negative, even true things, can be said to "incite hatred".

Geert Wilders is currently on trial for allegedly violating a similar law. If that hasn't come to Canada yet, give it time.

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

When Obama won election, there were effigies of him being burned in the south. There was vandalism, protests that turned violent, death threats (directed both at him, and at any other "n-word" who might happen to walk past that day). There were five years of birther bullshit (spearheaded by one Donald J Trump - note, you don't have to take CNN's word for anything, you can follow the fucking links for yourself, because with all their faults CNN is an actual news organization and makes some effort to source its stories, unlike some I could name), and the most obstructionist Congress in history.

Right up to the end, the right-wing media has never stopped publishing purest weapons-grade bullshit about the terrible things Obama is doing to America.

I wonder how many are reporting that CNN itself verified that it had broadcast the porn:

“The RCN cable operator in Boston aired inappropriate content for 30 minutes on CNN last night. CNN has asked for an explanation,” CNN said in its statement, seemingly confirming the impropriety.

It's a shame that big media outfits can't even be trusted to accurately report the news about its own activities. It is also a shame that smaller outfits, like Slashdot, are unable to fairly report the story.

Breitbart is a media site with numerous articles by numerous reporters with numerous slants. Claims like "alt-right" have become tools of silencing people with a different agenda than the primarily Liberal/Leftist/Progressive MSM is what they see as a threat. This article is linked on Breitbart, which MSM originally reported on the "Hate Crime" but not so much on the finding of false accusation. It did not fit their agenda but does fit a Republican, and quite frankly should be "news" for everyone.

False accusations abound against Republicans, Trump supporters, and white males. You can find at least 2 other cases which were reported by MSM as hate crimes and anti-Trump supporters which where the original claimant is being charged with falsifying a police report. One for a robbery which never occurred, and another for a beating which never occurred. Meanwhile, there are actual murders and beatings of Trump supporters which MSM happens to ignore.

Hate speech is being used as a broad way of stifling dissent, and people really should be appalled.

I think we're seeing the groundwork laid for an attack on news reporting on the net.

Phase 1 was identifying a problem and giving it a name: "fake news".

This has been going on for about a week, it's in the minds of the people, and we're now ready for phase 2.

Phase 2 is proving that Russia swayed the election using an army of internet trolls, botnets, and malware (such as DDS attacks). It's important because it's an attack on Democracy.

Once that's complete, we'll start to see a selection of possible changes that could fix the problem. Such as individual companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) implementing strategies to identify and weaken the effects of "fake news".

Then we'll see a lot of complaints from lesser-known news sites who lose their advertizing, or domain name, or twitter feed, or facebook feed, and whatnot. Maybe a popup from Google similar to "possible malware site" saying "Breitbart might be a fake news site".

Note that during the election reddit had an algorithm that automatically suppressed the "r/The_Donald" subreddit from appearing on the front page "hot topics" list. This became notable in October when the algorithm failed to work properly for a short time, allowing r/TheDonald to take over the front page "hot topics" list.

I've just now created a mantra we can use to help the process along: "The truth can't survive on it's own".

We need to give truth a little boost if it's to survive online.

Ah yes, the site that has a special section for "Black Crime" is soooooo credible.

You have to realize just how much the recent election shocked the shit out of the media. Wow, there is a whole world out there and they have NO IDEA what is going on. They have been living in a bubble and that bubble was burst, badly, on election night. They are deep hurting and this isn't any kind of fake crocodile tears hurt. It's for real and they are going to engage in the kind of defense mechanisms that humans engage in when they are hurt this badly.

So, what should their reaction be to the fact that the world doesn't conform to how they think? Take a long, hard look at themselves and change? Or double down, adopt a fortress mentality, and deny that there's anything wrong? Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.

If you just laughed at the idea that the mainstream media is credible after the shit they pulled in the election, then you know what I'm talking about. They were 100% backing Hillary and the whole world saw it. They had themselves convinced that she had a 93% chance of winning and they believed it. After a shock like that, who can blame them for reacting this way? They have a lot to lose. Not just their million dollar salaries, but their entire way of life and worldview is being threatened. Why not attack the truth-tellers? It has a chance of working, and anything's better than actually facing the cold hard truth. Facing the truth is last resort after everything else has failed and the MSM is a long way from that. They have powerful resources and are not about to give up.

Better to get your news on controversial topics from news sources like Infowars or Breitbart. These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media, and they report stories that the MSM refuses to cover. Think about it: when powerful people tell you to ignore news sources, what should you do? (A) Obey and be a good little drone. Or (B) take it as proof positive that these news sources are broadcasting very inconvenient narratives that they really don't want you to know. Hell, I used to think Alex Jones was a crazy man, but damn if they're trying to suppress him then he MUST be saying something important, otherwise he'd just be ignored! Read for yourself, evaluate for yourself, if you think they're full of shit that's your decision. But read them yourself, don't let the MSM tell you what's credible and what's not, because their credibility is bullshit! Make up your own mind!

One side says, "don't pay attention to those others, they're fake!" and the other side says, "consider us, we'll tell you things the other side is hiding, just make up your own mind." What do thinking people do in this situation?

That's hilarious where you trot out the New York Times like it's some kind of credible news site. I don't know if you noticed, but the NYT and the rest of the US mainstream media completely discredited itself in the recent election by coming out in full force backing Hillary. The whole world saw it. And now that they haven't learned a thing and are doing what they always do - show support for the powerful and shit on the little guy - you're still linking to their fake news? Seriously? It's laughable.

Better to get your news on controversial topics from actual credible news sources like Infowars or Breitbart. These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media, and they report stories that the MSM refuses to cover. Think about it: when powerful people tell you to ignore news sources, what should you do? (A) Obey and be a good little drone. Or (B) take it as proof positive that these news sources are broadcasting very inconvenient narratives that they really don't want you to know. Read for yourself, evaluate for yourself, if you think they're full of shit that's your decision. But read them yourself, don't let the MSM tell you what's credible and what's not, because their credibility is bullshit! Make up your own mind!

"Cheese Pizza" stands for CP, which means child porn in pedo slang. You've got these Instagram posts of kids in sexy poses with pedos making comments like "nice pizza". The Comet Pizza logo incorporates pedo iconage. And most damning of all, the NYT is standing up for its powerful friends by publishing defending articles with unsourced allegations like "None of it was true."

A lot of us have been trained to spot bullshit online and the NYT is full of it. Where are their citations? When they make claims, where is the backup? The whole thing didn't start from crazy citizens, it started from the hacked emails where there were very strange references to "pizza" in situations where it didn't belong. When powerful people tell you to stop doing something and there's nothing to see here, you do the opposite.

TOTALLY AGREE. As an ex-military NCO with top secret security clearance - requiring quarterly briefings and signed documents attesting to your understanding of the responsibilities and penalties - I am fully aware of the offenses and penalties for abridging the classified document handling procedures.
INTENT is NOT a requirement, only that it HAPPENED by the person's personal choice and their own volition.
THIS, along with being a well-entrenched part of the 'establishment', is what cost "Hillary - dillary - can't touch me - I'm a politician, a lawyer, and I'm rich" the election, even though the choice was an agonizing one of the 'known devil' vs the 'perceived devil'.

Take a trip down memory lane with the following: (some pro, many con'vict')
http://rense.com/general80/hop...
http://www.wnd.com/2000/04/447...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
https://peterfrancisgeracilaw....
https://www.truthorfiction.com...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://conservativeamerican.or...
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Americans have made their choice, whether through the electoral college or the basic raw vote count - - - being tilted a bit in Hillary's favor, but with the small margin still showing an inherent distrust of the entrenched 2-party system - either side is the same, just a bit different on the talking points - - - basically, the same old shit !

News reports already seem to indicate that president-elect Trump is willing to accept new information and alter his 'campaign promises __LOL__ ' in order to get down to the actual business of running the country.

Most of my friends are die-hard Republicans, but I don't know a single person who (admitted) voting for Trump. I suspect that's because this election wasn't really fought along typical Republican vs Democrat, leftie vs rightie lines.

And that's exactly what it is. You'll find people from both sides of the isle voted for Trump because of what Hillary stood for. The reality is there was more support for Trump because he wasn't establishment, she was. They feel that the current state of government doesn't represent the people. That's why he had the support. The media is at a loss, and still hasn't learned anything from it though.

A lot of people like myself, who are or were heavily invested in politics saw this coming. This has been building for ~20 odd years, and it's very close to reaching the full-on shoot politicians in the streets. The Tea Party stuff was a warning sign, just like AfD, FN, and so on are warning signs. The media refused to listen, the politicians refused to listen. In the end Trump is far less extreme then the next candidate would have been. Just like Le Pen is, just like Frauke Petry is.

I also think there are a lot of people who are in the "I would never vote for Trump" crowd, because they don't want to be associated with some of his more bizarre stances, who secretly voted for Trump when no one was looking.

It's more likely they don't want to be targeted or attacked. You can seem multiple cases of that all over the US. Unlike the people who claimed "Trump supporters" attacked them. Those people who made the claims are being charged with filing false police reports. Off the top of my head, I can think of fake rape, fake assaults, fake vandalism, fake flyers, fake deportation letters, fake claims of harassment and mugging.

The "alt right" was a functional term when used to describe several factions of dissatisfied right wing groups. Breitbart (right wing, but everyone knows that by now) breaks it down:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

A quick glance through the list shows that two of these groups are basically defined by their racism, and the other two are not at all. Breitbart themselves obviously don't claim to be alt-right (I'd call them arch-conservative), but they were defining a term used to describe and classify SEVERAL groups.

By the time the mainstream media got to it, they basically discarded all of that. Instead of an umbrella term, they claimed it was an identity. Only a few groups have labelled themselves as alt-right- all of them super duper racist (any term is an upgrade from super-duper racist, after all, so you'd expect them to do this). This meant that alt-right was now being used synonymously with neo-nazis, and the two groups agreeing with that were the neo-nazis and the media reporting on them. After all, it suits both their interests- the nazis gain relevance and press (and when your group numbers in the low thousands, any press is recruitment), and the press get to point to a scary new group of everyone's favorite bad guy, guaranteeing those precious precious ad sales.

Meanwhile, the entire rest of the group originally classified by the term (who never identified with it) get smeared some in the process.

So was the "alt-right" shown the door? Well, the groups that claimed to be- the actual racists- sure were. But showing racists the door is a trivially optimal strategy. Racists don't make up a measurable voting block, so there's no functional argument. Their arguments were broadly doubted centuries ago and discredited decades ago, so there's no technical argument. Their recommendations fly against any functional morality, so there's certainly no ethical argument.

The nonracists who are no fan of the "conservative mind" inspired style of conservatism while being displeased or disgusted by modern liberalism haven't been shown the door- they seem to the base. By the definition in the media right now, they also aren't "alt-right". So, whatever.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Facepalm. I was tempted to stop reading at this point. But then you said:

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

And I call BS. Where did you read this? In the comments section? I just looked at several Trump articles on HuffPo and did not see the quote you mentioned.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.

Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...

This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.

...and it's fascinating. From a psychology point of view, if you can figure out the forces and rationalizations involved it's an interesting exercise in crowd manipulation and competition for readership.

This almost looks orchestrated.

Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)

This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.

Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.

So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,

Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.

Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.

The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.

As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.

Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...

This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.

...and it's fascinating. From a psychology point of view, if you can figure out the forces and rationalizations involved it's an interesting exercise in crowd manipulation and competition for readership.

This almost looks orchestrated.

Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)

This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.

Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.

So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,

Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.

Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.

The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.

As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.

Funny, I don't recall the Democratic president ever allowing them to work with him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Over and over again, we heard that Obama would not negotiate with the Republicans. Obama was of the opinion that either they allow him to do everything he wants, or he will take his ball and go home. It is impossible to work with someone who won't even talk to you about what they want without throwing a hissy fit.

Back in 1995 the Bill Clinton White House was already scared shitless of the net... http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers
> and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Before the internet, the lib-left elite controlled news. Embarressing stories were hushed up. E.g. President Kennedy was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could dream of, but the MSM kept quiet. Similarly, Newsweek refused to publish the Monica Lewinsky scandal story. But an impertinent upstart with a modem and a web site, Matt Drudge, broke the story.

Hillary Clinton was unhappy, and mused about "editing function" and "gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Democrats/Lib-Left don't like free speech. Think Russia, China, Germany, etc. During the recent campaign, the Democrats were openly talking about shutting down Breitbart after the election... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> "We've had a conservative media in this country for a while," says the email, sent
> Thursday and signed by deputy communications director Christina Reynolds.
>"I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right
> to exist Reynolds' acknowledgment that the regular conservative media
> has a "right to exist," though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which
> apparently has no such right. "Breitbart is something different," she says.
> "They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. "

Oh, and since you were so busy lapping up what your TV told you, you should note the fact that the so-called "alt-right" doesn't even exist.

Have you told them this?

In post election polls 78 percent of people said the media was biased.

Even if you don't trust that source (and seeing as how you believe some fantasy about people trusting the media I'm pretty sure you think Breitbart is the devil) there are many other polls that say similar things.

Never have people been more sure the media is lying to them; the fact is we all know the news today is propaganda. Why else do you think trump won when the media was posting false stories about him daily?

Not to mention they continue to do so; but once you've cried wolf a thousand times the times after become rather droll and inconsequential. Which is a shame because, over time there will be wolves...

The pollsters did not use the same methods as before, Reuters changed polling formulas when it did give them answer they wanted http://www.breitbart.com/2016-... and just deleted polls http://archive.is/B12MC when that didn't work.
Trump used a UK internal pollster had no problem correctly predicting where to campaign http://mashable.com/2016/11/10....
  Look at Trumps schedule the last few days , do you think his campaign went to MI,WI,NC,PA, and FL for the hell of it? Notice he only lost one of those https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Breitbart, because mainstream sites don't mention it.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas...

I've heard that TPP and TTIP are already going through their death throes thanks to Trump.

You are incorrect.

TPP is dead.

Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election has prompted President Barack Obama to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

According to the Journal, the White House had hoped to push the deal forward in the lame-duck session of Congress, assuming Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Her loss has already changed the political landscape:

Also of note since Trump won: Canada has said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, stock market has hit new highs, money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found, and two of Trumps scandals (the underage rape, and the muslim hajib thing) were found out as complete fabrications.

I'm waiting to hear the liberals on Slashdot spin the death of TPP as a bad thing because it was due to Trump.

I've heard that TPP and TTIP are already going through their death throes thanks to Trump.

You are incorrect.

TPP is dead.

Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election has prompted President Barack Obama to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

According to the Journal, the White House had hoped to push the deal forward in the lame-duck session of Congress, assuming Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Her loss has already changed the political landscape:

Also of note since Trump won: Canada has said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, stock market has hit new highs, money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found, and two of Trumps scandals (the underage rape, and the muslim hajib thing) were found out as complete fabrications.

I'm waiting to hear the liberals on Slashdot spin the death of TPP as a bad thing because it was due to Trump.

There was about 280 ppm CO2 in 18th century. There is >400 ppm CO2 at voting booths now. At least, given that they are in closed spaces.

.

Your elite attitude -- and hers -- are the primary reason for the rise of Donald Trump over more considered views.

but because the left was so quick to label anyone that supported him as a deplorable, racist, sexist, bigoted misogynist. People that are not any of those things don't like being labeled that. What we're seeing is the attempted suppression of opposition by the left failed and likely actually fueled votes that may not have happened otherwise.

The word for this is bigotry.

https://www.google.com/search?...

The democrats, and especially the social justice crowd, has been highly bigoted against people who don't share their viewpoint. In my opinion, the most egregious example of it was this:

http://the-toast.net/2013/08/2...

Which only took two years to turn into this:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

TL;DR: Kid gets denied heart transplant because of bad grades and long rap sheet. Doctors were accused of being racist, so he gets heart transplant anyways in spite of this happening to everybody, regardless of race (I personally was initially denied kidney transplant listing myself, though for health reasons which I later resolved.) Two years later, in a criminal rampage, the kid attempts to shoot an old lady in the head during a robery, flees the cops in a high speed chase, strikes a pedestrian, and then dies in a high speed collision with a lightpost. Meanwhile somebody else likely died while waiting for a heart transplant that should have been theirs. Thank you social justice.

The devs at reddit had a special algorithm running that artifically suppressed the trump discussion page from appearing on the front "most active" page list.

This came to light about a week ago, when the algorithm had a bug and stopped working, and the trump pages started showing up.

It was quickly corrected, though...