Slashdot Mirror

Are you referring to the unindicted co-conspirator, aka individual 1?

The guy who's been under investigation by multiple federal and state level agencies since before he was even elected? The guy who'd administration has had 34 people charged so far with over 100 criminal counts and 6 guilty pleas from people in his immediate circle? That guy?

Buzzfeed is the source downstream of all the other press agencies pushing this. The news came out that the author of the article said he didn't see them, even though he claimed he did.> have another source if you want.

This same reporter has a long line of making up bullshit.

Real questions you should be asking, what are they trying to distract from.

You're missing details of different levels of classifications. IIRC there were 3 top secret documents and many more secret and confidential documents. All three of those are considered "classified". I also recall Clinton attempting to avoid responsibility for some of this problem by claiming that she didn't understand the classified markers, despite the fact that Clinton's position required the knowledge and power to classify documents where necessary.

You are completely wrong.

  Initially Comey said 3 but he later clarified in his senate testimony that there were just 2 and that they were mismarked - they had been marked as confidential, were officially declassified but were not fully stripped of all the markings, just the headers.

2016 was the watershed year when the mainstream media finally dropped the mask and came out as full-throated political partisans. They openly supported the most corrupt candidate for President in American history. Their treatment of Trump was unprecedented in its hostility. The media live in an echo chamber where they think that they are loved and adored by the population. They believe they are the final authority on truth and that we, their grateful audience, should believe everything they tell us.

"The Times completely missed the story, and misled its readers in the process." Source: New York Times.

Wikileaks detailing how the Democrats are coordinating with the media. Organization after organization, CNN, McClatchy, Time, WSJ, the list goes on and on. How do any of these people still have jobs after being exposed like this?

Look at all these respected journalists express surprise, dismay, and a total lack of understanding that Hillary lost. They even admit it: "I genuinely do not understand America."

CBS's John Dickerson: Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves

"They stopped being journalists and began being *cheerleaders*, and became people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts to show that Hillary Clinton was an 92, 93, 99 point 9999 chance winner, of winning this campaign."

CNN caught red-handed planting debate questions. http://imgur.com/a/OMD6b#ed8AV... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN cuts off congressman when he mentions Wikileaks with Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

30 second Video: Sheriff asks media not to report Oregon shooter's name, CNN ignores request and does it anyway, including publishing his social media comments. (Note: video was edited by uploader to censor CNN's publishing of the shooter's name)

Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Entire media endorsed Hillary https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4...

CBS's John Dickerson: Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Wow. Just wow. It is hard to see BuzzFeed publishing a 35-page document containing unverified, lurid allegations about President-elect Hillary Clinton that it didn't consider credible.

"They stopped being journalists and began being *cheerleaders*, and became people who had a conclusion that they reached, and then searched for facts to show that Hillary Clinton was an 92, 93, 99 point 9999 chance winner, of winning this campaign.

CNN caught red-handed planting debate questions

Democrats ordered the media to play up Trump - they obeyed! :(

CBS's John Dickerson: Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves

Media changing headlines to attack Trump
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/

The Times completely missed the story, and misled its readers in the process.

Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton

The entire media endorsed Hillary

Government ordered cyber offensives designed to change the leadership of a country are an act of war.

Espionage and covert activities are a normal part of government relations. Saying Russian ads on Facebook are an "act of war" is absurd.

This is a red herring. Espionage might be a side effect of the present situation, given that some efforts were made to use secure russian communications to keep the US intelligence community from knowing what was being communicated between Russia and the Trump White house Source: http://www.businessinsider.com... But it isn't legal, and those caught are punished.

But yeah - saying Russian ads on Facebook are the source of the concept of "Acts of war", and that we dumbass 'Murricans are only thinking of that as an act of war is bullshit. It discards everything else, and is worthy of a paranoid's conspiracy theory frame of mind. Cherry picking what supports one's argument and discarding the rest.

But let's get onto Acts of war. That is the wrong term. What everyone is looking for is Casus belli, not specifically acts of war . There is a relationship, but not a direct tit for tat. A Casus belli can be just about anything. The Bush II administration declared a Casus belli on Iraq for non-compliance with the cease fire in the 1990-91 war. Lame, but an example. WW1 started with the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and was a Casus belli. No direct attack happened.

Actual Acts of war are incidents like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. No questioning that. A few have been manufactured, like the Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation. But still, there is a difference between the two, and Russia and a company in England didn't physically attack the US. Now since physical acts of war preceded the internet - there might be additions to Acts of war given that we and other countries have been stupid enough to put things like the power grid on the internet.

But let's dig a little deeper.

So now we get to the hacking of both the Republican and Democrat servers, but the systematic release of only the Democrat party information. https://www.snopes.com/news/20... Interestingly a Republican from Texas also broke this, then retracted it a few moments later - which in some cases indicates the veracity of the original statement. https://www.mediaite.com/onlin... But that's pretty interesting - I wonder why the Republican data wasn't presented? And if people think that the DNC's marginalization of Bernie Sanders was bad, they conveniently forget how actively Republicans worked to destroy moderate Republicans in order to replace them with ideologically pure candidates.

So we have a really sketchy attempt to use Russian crypto equipment, selective hacked data disclosure, and an unfolding story of Russian money coming into NRA dark campaign campaign funds for the politicians they own, and more. Facebook is a blip on the screen, but disturbing on the whole because in some of the other countries it was involved in more violent activities.

Regardless, the whole Facebook issue is that Cambridge Analytica was caught once, supposedly deleted the data, didn't, then used it and more data again, and as it turns out, are a really slimey organization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The shock of the whole thing was that it finally proved beyond doubt that Facebook is directly involved in the Cambridge Analytica malfeasance. That they will sell your data to organizations that are pathological in nature. That some people were naive enough to not think thair data would be used in such a fashion was hammered home.

but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed

Ha ha. You must only get your information from those fake news places. Real Americans who get their information from totally legitimate journalists know that the hack was an inside job and that Trump and Russia are blameless.

There have been a significant number of cops killed in ambush style killings this year alone

You mean like this one last night by the guy with the alt-right Facebook page and Pepe memes?

https://www.mediaite.com/onlin...

Any reputable news site will cover a number of Antifa cop shootings.

So, it turns out that the guy who shot five deputies in Colorado yesterday was an alt-right jackoff with actual Pepe memes on his Facebook page.

https://www.mediaite.com/onlin...

And you still haven't posted a citation to one of your "Antifa cop shootings".

Also known as congratulations on your white penis.

The Uranium One conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked by now, but the Russian interference is ongoing and still relevant. Clinton isn't even a public figure these days, but Trump is president (in part due to Russian interference).

The right's newfound Russia Defending Syndrome is beyond parody.

Charities are often scams on both sides. e.g. The Clinton Global Fund.

Sorry, but the Clinton Global Fund has been assessed as not a scam, nor has its parent entity.

Why did it's funding go dry the day the bitch lost?

Why did the GOP tell so many lies about it?

Sorry HornWumpus, but you've discredited yourself.

You're just too much of a partisan ideologue.

PS:

Increasing the average farm plot size should be a goal.

It is. Of the Corporate Farming Oligarchy.

Stop being an ignorant mouthpiece, at least insist on being an informed one.

Then again, you're obsessed with the losing candidate, while the winning one just might be incapable of feeding himself in a few weeks.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/a-theory-on-what-motivated-stephan-paddock-and-why-therell-be-more-of-him-in-the-future//
Thus, exactly right- since nobody has any morals anymore, the toys have to be taken away from the babies.

Maybe not typical left wing. But perhaps hedonist.
https://www.mediaite.com/online/a-theory-on-what-motivated-stephan-paddock-and-why-therell-be-more-of-him-in-the-future//

Here's a link.

It doesn't explain why she missed the training course(s). Normally a CEO has assistants to make sure such appointments are scheduled and kept. I wouldn't expect a CEO or equivalent to micromanage such scheduling all themselves. Therefore, the failure was a team effort. Yes, she "should have" found a way, but "should have" is not the same as "gross negligence".

Wait till Trumpcare fails. There's a reason they won't even tell their own Senators what is in it.

Hmm..."We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it"...where HAVE I heard that before?

In the lies and misrepresentations being told about what Nancy Pelosi ACTUALLY said?

IOW, so what else is new, other than which Party is trying to pass some sort of health-insurance reform without telling anyone what they're actually voting for?

Nothing has changed, the GOP is still hiding the truth from the American people. First they were lying about the contents of the Affordable Care Act so badly that Pelosi ACTUALLY said: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." because of their storm of lies but of course, the GOP continued that pattern of lies, and twisted that to claim to mean that somehow, people didn't have the ACTUAL bill to review and examine. But they did. It was published, and Representatives and Senators from both sides were regularly talking about it to the people.

So what Pelosi actually meant was rather the opposite of what the GOP claimed she said. And she wasn't unique, they did it with Obama and Clinton as well. Yet it has become a right-wing shibboleth, a mantra, repeated until the delusion is shared.

On the other hand, the GOP Senate is not revealing their own text to the public, they are not meeting with the public, and even their own are saying:

“No, nor have I met any American that has. I’m sure the Russians have been able to hack in and gotten most of it.”

“I’m very eager to see the language. I don’t think it gives enough time to thoroughly analyze the bill, but we’ll see when it comes out.”

"as far as I know the overwhelming majority of my colleagues haven't been able to see it either."

"It has become increasingly apparent in the last few days that even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us, it's apparently being written by a handful of staffers who are members of the Republican leadership in the Senate,"

The fact is, there are numerous quotes from GOP senators admitting they haven't had a part in writing the bill, not even a chance to read it. And they're timid, at best, in their objections to this secretive process. But they aren't able to deny what we already know. The sausage is being made, in secret, and they don't want us to see it.

Want me to find quotes from the House version of Trumpcare? It's the same story. Prevarications and lies, numbers of GOP Representatives admitting they never read it. Not to mention the haste in passing it, and the lack of public involvement.

It's not new. It's exactly the way the Republican party has decided to operate. And yes, they do try to blame others for their own offenses. They never take responsibility, or clean out the log in their own eye.

Really, you think nobody is familiar with what has been going on? You think you can just throw out your spurious misquoting, and not actually be demonstrating the very problem? Hardly. You might as well be chanting about "57" states or "you didn't build that" for all the validity it has.

And with the way the GOP is going, I'd dare them to call snap elections if they could. Well, technically they could, they'd j

And this is not going to make anybody forget about Seth Rich, murdered by the DNC for releasing the Podesta emails to Wiki leaks.

His parents certainly won't forget him, nor the fact that your and your fellow assholes keep fictionalizing his death in a sad attempt to smear political opponents.

Nope, the other AC has it right. I saw it live on TV on CNN. They were claiming she was upset because they used the song, and were trying to stir up some ballyhoo about it. THEN she came out with the "Why do you lie, CNN?" tweet.

.

CNN's interpretation is hardly a lie, the tweet was real. Let's see, asking people to remember the first line of the song, does indeed come across as a sardonic remark to me, and fits well enough with CNN's interpretation of unhappiness. To me, it's Nancy Sinatra whose accusation was off-base. Probably why she deleted it.

Sorry, but if this is the kind of thing produced, it's going to be unpersuasive in terms of skewering CNN. Rather the opposite effect.

There was the list of Russian propaganda outfits who helped trump supplied by PropOrNot. There was the Russians Hacking the electrical grid. They linked that to Trump via the Trump Russia hacking angle. The was the WaPo Op-Ed claiming Trump’s OMB Pick was unqualified because he never served on Budget Committee, except he did. http://www.mediaite.com/online...

A compromise with the GOP? The hell it was. Not even ONE member of the GOP in the House or Senate voted for this, not even one. This whole thing was 100% the Democrats doing. Republicans wanted NOTHING to do with this.

Except for the amendments they approved.

But hey, you know what? They had 6 years to do anything else. But all they did was scream repeal, but then what?

Remember the "You are going to have to pass it to find out what's in it" thing from Ole Nancy P at the time? Why did she say that?

Yeah, we remember the narrative, as what she was actually saying was that the GOP was lying so much about it, that the average person had no idea what was in it. Some people still confuse the ACA and Obamacare as if they were separate things.

Because the Republicans where just a few hours away from being able to actually having enough votes to stop the ACA with the election of a republican in the Special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat who was to be sworn in. There was not even time to READ the bill before everybody had to vote.

March 10was the speech, months after th Senate had passed their bill, leaving the House to confirm it in two weeks.

Democrats had to pass this sight unseen, which is what their leaders asked and what they did.

Nope. There was plenty of scrutiny and debate.

Many are no longer in office because of this.

Nope. Try gerrymandering.

I consider the ACA to be the start of the long decline of democrats power who have been losing more and more power as they tried to cling to this ACA mess... Obama killed your party, it's power, it's credibility with all this mess and until you realize it, you will be the opposing party, the party of "no" and nothing else.

Well, that's what worked for the GOP, isn't it? Except you know, losing the popular vote.

Ouchies. Three Presidential losses of the popular vote in a row, and not too well in 2010, guess you ought to reconsider which party is dying.

Smells like more of what I am starting to refer to as 'Trumped up news'.

Not that I support the man (or in fact could really care less directly about US politics), however it seems very important to quite a group of people to
make it look like the sky is falling right now. It is quite sad to see the side that believes they stand for fairness, doing the right thing, caring of others, etc
having to throw so much dirt so bitterly. Its like watching monkeys at the zoo fighting over scraps.

No it's not. It raising the alarm over alarming actions. It's the same thing thing that happened to some other guy. It's the same thing that yet some other guy did many many times.

when you think the press is critical of you, and not the other guy, you're just biased. when you complain and criticize almost non-stop, then call it unfair when other people criticize and complain about you, you're just a fucking cry-baby.

Ah, you mean the fake tweets that got Milo kicked of Twitter

No I mean her real tweets. You enjoy that boundless hypocrisy in action now. Bonus: Someone else repeats her garbage word-for-word gets banned.

Libtard , really the Russians are coming is getting really old quick. The WaPo corrected ie retracted the entire story. http://www.mediaite.com/online...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lin...

First up, this was on CNN

The unedited version of that is a bizarre exchange in itself. It's almost like Obama and that lady understand that they're talking about a particular thing (citizens who have family members here illegally, maybe?) but don't really clarify what that is. Also, I would have liked for him to stop her when she says "and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country" and point out that that's not what citizen means. Citizen is a legal distinction, not a state of being. Canada contributes to this country. Canada is not an American citizen and can't vote.

They showed a quick screenshot of the site where the other lady found the story though, which is here. It specifies what they edited out, which does seem a little deceptive but, again, it was like they were talking about one thing when people watching (including me) were hearing something else. I agree with Cavuto, when talking about illegal immigrants and voting it should be made obvious that they can't vote. Maybe they covered that earlier in the interview, I don't know. I'm not sure how someone here illegally would even vote though, when I go in I show my ID and they look at their list to make sure I'm at the right place. You can't just walk in and cast a ballot. I guess if someone is bound and determined to vote or appear to be a citizen then they can get fake identification, social security, etc, and that kind of thing is fairly difficult to stop if someone is really determined. I don't think that people can casually just go and vote if they decide they want to though.

Interested in your thoughts on this.

We do need to strengthen the entire process. I find it hard to believe that the government wouldn't know who its citizens are, at some level in some department. Even if that's just the social security administration, or State, or somewhere. One of the agencies has to be able to tell, and it seems like another symptom of the problem of disparate governments or agencies not sharing data with each other. I'm trying to get a green card for my wife, and the applications (e.g. I-130, I-864, etc) do ask to make sure I'm a citizen and list the various ways to prove that (birth certificate, etc). I think that these symptoms are sort of a casualty of the state/federal divide, the case for stronger states rights sometimes has side effects of putting up walls between the state and federal governments so that a state, for example, can't determine if someone is a citizen by looking them up. I think that should change, I think that even a police officer who pulls someone over should be able to look them up in a federal database and get basic personal information like their name, date of birth, and status in the US. They should be able to tell that I'm a citizen and my wife is here on an H1-B without us needing to prove it. Likewise, they should be able to tell when someone isn't on that list, and that should be used in the voting process.

Assange was on Hannity today, and again, said the leaks did not come from Russia.

Julian Assange Speaks to Hannity, Says That Russian Gov’t Was Not His Source

Bringing up 538 is pretty random. But since you did. He was the one pollster who consistently said that Trump had at least a 30% chance of winning.

trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton

nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

nate-silver-warns-media-against-dangerous-assumption-trump-isnt-really-closing-in-on-hillary

election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump

nate silver forecasts showing clinton with 99 chance of winning dont pass commonsense test

nate silver projects trump will win florida

nate silver 511 chance trump-winning-if-election-held-today

nate silvers terrifying-prediction prepare president-trump

election update as the race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton

Oh please, the point AC is making is that a competent subordinate (Clapper) would have discussed his testimony to a co-equal branch of the government with his boss (Obama) before doing so. What kind of executive (Obama) would not have discussed this ahead of time? I for one EXPECT the executive branch to have their ducks in a row, and if they don't then that's incompetence.

Besides, Obama has already tried using the excuse "I read about it in the papers just like you" already, and we know that's not true.

captcha: bluest

Obama's the one I hear ominously talking about fake news, not Trump.

You're right. Trump: "Forget the press — read the internet, study other things" Trump is all about embracing fake news. He just doesn't call it fake news.

I think the US needs more protectionism against China to return to a more fair state.

Except that the major reason the US is exporting jobs isn't because other countries aren't "fair". It's that the US's standard of living is much higher than most other countries and hence the costs are much higher. Even if other countries adopted and enforced all the same labor practices, environmental standards, etc and enforced them, it'd still be quite a time before their standard of living and hence cost of living would increase to the point that most other countries wouldn't have a trade advantage for durable goods.

China is just singled out as an example because it has a massive population and massive resources. India has a massive population but a lot of its resources were already taken by the British. Meanwhile, Russia is unable to capitalize on its massive resources and instead seems too focused on an energy economy, which I can only see backfiring as renewables are heavily the future--ie, Russia looks like it'll be screwed by oil again.

There are plenty of Asian countries who would love to export more to the USA. I voted for Trump partially on that issue.

Which changes nothing, fundamentally, except accelerating China's push towards a strong middle class and a further move away from lending money to the US. I don't see Trump pushing austerity in the US, though. Especially the higher taxes. So, a move towards demands of even cheaper, lower quality goods and a further drive to export jobs--as it's the only way to make the goods cheap enough for the people who still have jobs.

Synergy.

Interesting article on that here
http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Looks like the shift is occuring during the last few years.

It's still not correct according to the major manuals of style.

http://thegrammarexchange.info...

"Hereâ(TM)s what the New York Times Manual* states at the entry president:

â âoeIt is President Lamm(without a given name) in a first reference to the current president of the United States. In later references President Lamm; the president; Mrâ¦.Lammâ

This style is seen in todayâ(TM)s New York Times, as in the example in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...

The order of mention is this: âoeBarrack Obama, President Obama, Mr. Obamaââ¦..âPresident George Bush, Mr. Bushâ

As you see, though, the Times sometimes goes against its own rules, citing the first name, too, as in this example.

â President Barack Obama moved quickly on Wednesday to lay some touchstones for the âoemore responsible, more accountable governmentâ he has promised, ordering a salary freeze for senior White House staff, tightening rules on lobbyists and establishing what he said was a new standard of greater government openness. âoeHowever long we are keepers of the public trust, we should never forget that we are here as public servants,â Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for staff members in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
_______

So, in answer to your question, I think it is correct for the first mention of the president to be President (Barack) Obama, and for subsequent mention to be Mr. Obama.
The style may be different in different publications or in different situations. I like this particular style.

There is something else to be considered: you could leave out the honorific President or Mr., as well as the first name, and use only Obama. Some newspapers use this style. I find it jarring and rude in a newspaper, but in a personal letter, it would be acceptable.
"

But I'm not going to loose my cool over it.

As it turns out, for the purposes of hiring and firing, political orientation is a protected class in some states, such as California. Which is why the CEO of Grubhub had to backtrack from his original e-mail to employees asking Trump supporters to resign.

(Original Story), (Backtracking story)

In the case of Twitter, I'm not sure if they aren't already exposed to some legal consequences for their decision--however, I'm not seeing the AG of California stepping up and doing anything here, since it's pretty clear in this political climate we're slowly turning all of these tools (both legal and technological) into weapons to bash the opposition--generally the right, as most tech companies both reside in liberal areas and tend to lean liberal themselves.

However, given the problems Twitter seems to be having as a business (being unable to monetize its audience without breaking the platform), I suspect pissing off half your audience is not going to help the bottom line--and ultimately Twitter may find itself on the losing end of free market competition.

Perhaps you were just saying racist things? I am a progressive and I have conservative friends and we mocked President Obama all the time, but we mocked some of his policies, we never attacked his children (unlike some people on the right) nor his wife, his race, culture or religion. Perhaps you need to take a hard long look in the mirror (you do not need to tell us the results) and ask yourself if you are really being honest with yourself.

Yeah, I remember conservative cartoonist publishing a cartoon with Obama's kids as dancing monkeys and conservative were not only okay with this obvious racism but even defended it! Only people on the right seem to think its okay to attack children and to portray minority as monkeys. Oh wait...

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.

Yes:

http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Has Breitbart ever retracted anything they've said?

Yes.

Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.

The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.

I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.

Donald Trump is really smart. Denying it is denying the facts. Here's Marke Halperin's analysis, which nails it: http://www.mediaite.com/online...

It's all written over the Breitbart media output, you just have to read it.

Or you just take his former wife's sworn testimony during their divorce proceedings.

Before someone lazily asks for a citation:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Facebook Unblocks DNC Email Leak After WikiLeaks Accuses Them of Censorship

just two that I quickly found

Talk about CNN, I see funny when CNN edited an interview with RT's Anissa Naouai, in which CNN’s Amanpour definitely planted to show her "guest" is a fool. Forget about "freedom ranking", I saw here is Anissa was much more open, transparent and smarter than Amanpour.

Where will I get my supply of incoherent antisemitic tweets and polls mocking Hillary's pneumonia?

Consider:

Obama's IRS targeted his political opponents - by admission (under oath) by the IRS's own inspector general in testimony before congress. The responsible parties were either hidden or "punished" by being given better jobs with more pay plus paid time off.

Obama's State Department has been fighting in the courts for two years to help Hillary hide her documents.

Obama's DOJ seems to have been caught in league with the Clinton team they were supposedly investigating. They APPEARED to be giving immunity to witnesses as part of a case, but never empaneled a grand jury to hear that immunized testimony and actually helped team Hillary destroy evidence that was (and still is) under subpoena by congress (google: DOJ + laptop + "cheryl mills").

We now know from that leaks that Hillary buddy (and now DNC chair) Donna Brazile was working at CNN during the primaries and in that role was getting debate and forum questions in advance and forwarded at least one question to team Hillary to help her beat Bernie. She has now been rewarded with the chairmanship of the DNC.

Oh, as a cherry on top of this sundae, The Democrats in California have re-wired the elections so that the senate race this fall will be between two Democrats (no Republican is allowed on the ballot). The one favored to win is Camilla Harris who is famous for, among other things, supporting the criminal prosecution of anybody who disagrees about global warming.

This is how fascism arises in a Democracy

Big media and big tech companies all aligning with a big central government that has aligned with a political party and is implementing speech codes and using government force to intimidate those who dissent. As usual, it's the progressive left encouraging it all (google: National Socialist Workers Party). Sic transit freedom and liberty.

OK, you have video proof that Barack Obama can read (and write):

http://www.mediaite.com/online/was-president-obama-caught-on-old-tape-demanding-ribs-and-pussy

I guess he uses words with too many syllables too.

What is it with you people about him not wanting to release his taxes while he is under an active audit? Don't give me that BS about there is no IRS restriction either. While there is no explicit IRS restriction, his tax lawyers are smart in advising him not to disclose until the audit is complete. No different than when your lawyer tells you not to discuss anything during an active investigation.

When he decided to run for president, I guess there was no way he could have known he'd be expected to release his tax returns.

http://www.mediaite.com/online...

Nobody has to "smear" Donald Trump with BS. He does it himself so much it's made his skin orange.

You're changing the subject from candidates to the actions of angry activists.

Nope. The "angry activists" were the subject of your post. If they can organize themselves into a mob sufficiently threatening to warrant cancelling a major campaign event in a major city, alluding to roughing them up may not be particularly outrageous.

Tempers always flare in a run-up to elections. But Conservatives, for better or worse, are always behind Democrats' "rank-and-file" in violence (and you better pray, we stay that way). Heck, absent Conservatives to beat up, Democrats some times attack other Democrats. In this recent incident in Cleveland, for example, KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist "Church" — three Democratic Party outfits — have been reported as throwing urine at each other!

I know BLM can get out of hand some times but to hear you talk about them it sounds like they're part of some super conspiracy

They certainly are a conspiracy, though, of course, not the "civilization-ending" kind. 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte, for example, were from other states — somebody organized them and paid their travel (and lodging) expenses.

Probably, the same body, that fanned the Ferguson killing of a thug trying to get to policeman's gun beyond all proportion — and popularized the "Hands up don't shoot" lie . Now, has Hillary Clinton been behind it? Maybe not. But she certainly did try to earn the thugs' support by soliciting endorsement of the deceased thug's mother.

Here's a new one you might like. Actual recordings of Trump's views on women.

Not even Trump supporters would believe it

I don't think we want to test the extremes of what Trump supporters would believe. From all appearances, they are a rather credulous lot when it comes to their Dear Leader.

http://www.mediaite.com/online...

"69% of Trump voters believe that if their candidate loses, it will be because the election was rigged. A mere 16% of Trump supporters think that a Clinton victory would come about because she won more votes.

Perhaps even odder, 40% of Trump voters believe that the long-extinct ACORN will be responsible for the election fraud. ACORN has not existed since 2010. "

Banning reporters is a totally Republican thing, isn't it?

The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.

An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.

Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.

The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.

An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.

Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.