Slashdot Mirror

In New Hampshire, no proof of residence or pre-registration is required. On voting day, anyone may show up, sign an affidavit that they live at any address in NH, and then vote. There is no ID or residency time requirement. Nothing is verified or validated.

Actually, they have an ID requirement. And if you dispute any of them, you can check them out.

Residency is a fool's gambit, and as worthless as Trump's claims.

I personally know people who live in RI who also vote in CT and MA where they had previous residences. (All Dems, btw.)

If you actually knew this, then you'd call a media outlet and give their names. Or the local elections offices. Or the local US Attorney.

I personally know illegal aliens who vote in VA using false papers.
(They work for outsourced IT on federal govt contracts, btw.)
They voted for Hillary due to the "immigration" issue.

Again, if you actually knew this, then you'd call a media outlet and give their names.

My personal experience leads me to believe that there is a fair amount of voter fraud, and that it could affect election results in key districts.

So far your experience has been to do nothing, even though you allegedly can testify to a crime.

Really, that's very telling.

It's quite a bit more likely you're making up a story. But if not, fair enough, write down these names and mail them to a media outlet.

If truthfulness was a determining factor in the election Trump would have lost to the third party candidates. He literally would lie about statements he had made less than an hour beforehand. I think one of the political accountability orgs did some kind of analysis of one of the debates and I think they tallied up about 10-20% of Clintons statements as misleading/somewhat untruthful, Trumps statements were closer to the 50% truthful region and most of his stuff was in the lies/blatant lies category.

You're thinking of politifact. Trump scored far worse than Clinon on tuthfulness.

> Military spending is 54% [nationalpriorities.org] of our national budget

False. You linked to a pie chart that looks only at "discretionary" spending, ignoring "mandatory" spending that comprises 60% of the federal budget. Military spending is not 54% but closer to 16% of the federal budget, and that 16% includes Homeland Security as well. See http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Obama actually had a position stating that he would not vote for the FISA amendments act until telecom immunity was removed. When the vote came before the Senate, he voted for it, and then changed his web site to remove that section. He flip flopped quite a bit on surveillance from the time of his campeign to when he took office.

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?

I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!

I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:

* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances

Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.

And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?

The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.

Wrong. In the US legal system, hate speech basically isn't a thing. That doesn't stop SJWs from trying to pretend the term has specific meaning or relevance to legal matters.

Don't be misled by the way that Prof. Tsesis treats Virginia v. Black in that Politifact article. The Supreme Court treated the act in question as a true threat. A message -- spoken, written, or through an expressive act -- cannot be proscribed on the basis of being "hate speech". To be punished by the government, the message must fall into one of the recognized exceptions to the First Amendment's protections, and hate speech is not one of those.

Whoever he is, the facts he cited are incontrovertible — the only evidence ever offered of the supposed "epidemic" is a survey, in which 19% of women reported having been "sexually assaulted" while in college.

No comparison has been offered with non-college women of the same age, and these "assaults" ranged from attempts at unwelcome touching to actual rapes. There is no other evidence to back the bombastic claim that "every fifth woman is raped by the time she graduates college" and therefore the story, which Jon Stewart and others have peddled, is a fake.

Even Politifact finds it dubious — gotta tell you something, uhm?

Here is the question from the article (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/):

“Would [name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect’s transition team?”

The question is loaded, because it is founded on the premise that such registry has actually been proposed by Trump's transition team. It has not. The Intercept itself offers no support for this assertion. The closest it comes is a Reuters article from Kris Kobach, who says he would support re-instituting a special registration program that monitors immigrants coming from countries that have been designated high-risk. This program was originally created after 9/11, and although the countries affected are predominantly Muslim, the program does not specifically target Muslims, nor does it target ass predominantly Muslim countries. Even then, it is unclear to what degree Kobach's comments reflect the incoming Trump administration's actual agenda, since no official statement has been made. Above all, it certainly does not fit the criteria of a "national Muslim registry."

Here are a couple other articles that have attempted to tease out the Trump camp's position on Muslim registries:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...

These articles highlight comments Trump has made about Muslims and immigration in the past, and point out that he has refused to explicitly say he would never seek such a thing. Sitll, they make it clear that (at least to the best of the knowledge of the journalists writing these articles) at no point has Trump ever actually proposed a national Muslim registry (e.g., "Trump has not called for blanket registration of all Muslims in the US or those seeking to immigrate from other countries.", The Guardian).

So, it is my opinion that asking tech companies if they will support Trump's muslim registry plan is loaded, because Trump does not have a muslim registry plan. Despite that, any answer -- including no answer at all -- can be easily misconstrued as a political statement by the company. And that's exactly what The Intercept has done here.

The Republican Climate Change deniers are passing a law regarding monitoring truth in news? These are the same guys that has recently earned headlines like House Science Committee Tweets Climate-Change Denying Breitbart Article.

The are giving the power to "enforce" what is fake to an incoming president with about 70% of his statements rated from "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ( Donald Trump's file)?

I started to write a novel around this concept a decade ago. My friends urged me to abandon the idea was it was too far fetched. "Not believable," they said. "Would never happen," they argued.

I agreed that it was a silly idea.

Damn.

Does that give license to be inaccurate about this and other things [he said]?

No. Just because Hughes, defending Trump's lies, openly declared that, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts," doesn't mean she is correct. There are facts and, just because someone abuses them, that doesn't give anyone else the right to do so as well. Actually, it means that it means the rest of us have to be more careful to stick to facts.

However, Trump did sail uncomfortably close to the wind on this one. See In Context: Donald Trump's comments on a database of American Muslims from Politifact.

The disturbing truth is that he did not automatically rule out a database for Muslims, which, given the nature of the US Constitution, basic human rights, and common decency, he should have done without hesitation. He left the door open and/or outright endorsed the idea, depending upon how you read the context of his comments. That leaves the question open which means that we, as citizens have the right and duty to speak up for constitutional rights.

This is not a "left wing" or "main stream" media exaggeration. These are Trumps own words. Since some of the people he has picked for positions of power and influence have a history of racist and European supremacist views (again not "left wing media" distortion, but their own words, well documented), this becomes a greater concern.

If Congress hadn't killed the plans for more Navy nuclear powered ships then they'd be using a lot less fossil fuels.

How's that? New submarines are nuclear, and new aircraft carriers are nuclear. The U.S. has been out of the battleship business for some time - so where are these new nuclear ships going to be? And even then, if they started slapping them on cruisers, you couldn't tell the difference in the military's overall energy consumption. And aside from the Navy's use of oil, the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more or less 100% driven by fossil fuels.

The US Navy has been researching synthesized fuels, still carbon based but derived from nuclear power and seawater, not fossil fuels. If Congress would just fund this project properly then we could see this deployed in the military very soon.

Or....Congress could completely gut every single military program and institution outside of the various Guards: Coast, National and Air. It would be more than enough for this nation's actual defense needs. Having a thousand military bases around the world and special forces deployed to 130+ countries has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with empire.

The "drill, baby, drill" people see domestic oil production as a means to stop sending so many of our warriors over to so many sandy places to die for what we can produce here.

Which is another red herring. There is no such thing as a nationalized energy sector in the United States, else the CIA would have have to overthrow its own government. Most of the oil drilled in Alaska, for example, is exported to Japan, because there is only the world oil market.

The Democrats have been openly hostile to nuclear power

As much as they've been hostile to corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP. Which is to say, not at all. Nuclear power hasn't been held back by liberals, peacenicks or Green Peace. Nuclear power has been held back by the fact that it is completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. You can't square the circle of spending 15 years building a $15 billion nuclear power plant when wind and solar are far faster and cheaper to roll out, even building in capacity across the grid to address the baseline red herring.

While many people might not like it things like domestic oil and gas production, and more pipelines, are necessary for a smooth transition away from fossil fuels.

Sorry, but I have to ask: did your eyes get a little crosseyed while writing that? We need more fossil fuel production to transition away from dependence on fossil fuels?

I'm tired of so much arguing on if CAGW is real. I want to see people discuss real solutions.

Real solutions have been around since the 70's - and sometimes the 1870's. When wind and solar are already cost-competitive with coal - and that's allowing coal to externalize most of its costs - what justification can there be for nuclear power plants? And again, we can skip the "baseline power" canard as 1) there's no such thing 2) green power generation can be spread across the grid, same as coal or nuclear 3) store excess energy for when it's needed.

If nothing else, you can use spare electricity to pump water into a reservoir, either a lake or water tower, and then use gravity to power a turbine to produce electricity. If that just sounds silly, remember what nuclear power plants do: they heat water. To move a turbine to produce electricity.

Burning more natural gas means burning less coal and oil

Until you factor in all the fossil fuels used in the production of said natural gas, in which case it's a wash. With a side order of earthquakes and poisoned ground water.

He has been asked about it directly multiple times and refused to rule it out:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Refusing to rule out systemic oppression has a lot of people worried.

Maybe if you listened to people you obviously disagree with you might understand their concerns a bit better.

Please then tell me, exactly what don't I understand? Or did you jump to conclusions based on my accurate comment?

He has been asked about it directly multiple times and refused to rule it out:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Refusing to rule out systemic oppression has a lot of people worried.

Maybe if you listened to people you obviously disagree with you might understand their concerns a bit better.

conflict of interest is not illegal when the president does it...

Fixed that for you.

With Obama's position on freedom of speech it seems it's more like just a partisan bloviation. CNN's Tapper: Obama has used Espionage Act more than all previous administrations The federal criminal charges filed against National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden make it seven times that the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act against government workers who shared information with the press. In at least two instances, the government’s investigations have delved into the practices of reporters and news organizations and put reporters in legal jeopardy. This has raised red flags among defenders of the media. In a vigorous exchange on CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper asserted to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post that "the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined." http://www.politifact.com/pund...

Certainly shows the need to do more research on their use and impact on human gut microbiome.

Here are the pages in question for those:
Bernie: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Trump: http://www.politifact.com/virg...

I suspect one reason that they were more generous to Sanders is that his campaign was willing to point them to their source, and that he used a different term (albeit not the proper one) to indicate that he was using a number other than what is commonly meant by the unemployment rate.

As with any source your best bet is to read their research.

Here are the pages in question for those:
Bernie: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Trump: http://www.politifact.com/virg...

I suspect one reason that they were more generous to Sanders is that his campaign was willing to point them to their source, and that he used a different term (albeit not the proper one) to indicate that he was using a number other than what is commonly meant by the unemployment rate.

As with any source your best bet is to read their research.

Conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president

That doesn't change the fact that they're conflicts of interest. Or that they should be a concern.

Of course Trump says "the President can't have a conflict of interest." And Nixon said "if the President does it, then it's not illegal."

So we're fine, right? Wrong.

Or just there's the reality of what you say to get elected isn't realistic.

Well, he warned us the election was rigged.

He did warn you. And you called him a "Pants on Fire" liar for it. Suck it up, cupcakes...

Listen babe, I fully believe Trump was right about it being rigged, and that we need stronger voter ID laws to weed out the millions of illegitimate votes. How can we push for stronger voter protections if we don't take it seriously now?

Conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president

The thing is, whenever anyone criticizes trump or even questions whether he has conflicts of interest with his businesses the standard reply has become "B-b-b-b-b-but Hillary!".

Conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president.

But then again facts don't matter to the left.

Far less truthful in politics than anyone else?

Yes. He uses the classic authoritarian big lie technique.

Remember Obama's peace award from Nobel? First black person elected in a country with so much history of racism? Yes. Please don't come back pretending that racism doesn't exist. As someone who travels and knows people overseas, Obama has also turned around the world standing of the US. We were hated for starting a horribly-unnecessary war. We lost a lot of soft power, and Obama restored a lot of it. Yes, he deserved an award for what his candidacy represented (and delivered, even if that's arguable to you).

Remember those posters of hope?

Just skip reading this one because it's who the hell cares, it's meaningless: I'm sorry, but there is nothing wrong with hope itself. If you don't follow with action, then that's a problem. But don't just blast hope.

We got: more drones

In place of American soldiers coming back in body bags. Yes, I'm very happy with the *scaling back* of war, I want it to continue (until it's gone? Idk about that).

more invasion of privacy

Idk about that. The patriot act was a republican thing. I think Obama did scale it back. I'm sure you'll disagree, but whoever's right, I also wished he scaled it back more. But do you really think a Republican will scale it back more? Come back with evidence of Trump's handiwork and I'll believe it.

more attacks on journalists

Are you kidding? Trump attacks journalists more than any politician I've ever seen.

more corruption in the DNC

That you know of. If the RNC were hacked, we could compare apples.

Well, he warned us the election was rigged.

He did warn you. And you called him a "Pants on Fire" liar for it. Suck it up, cupcakes...

Your link shows he kept 46% of promises and compromised on 26% of them. Furthermore, if you read through the list of recently-rated promises, you'll notice that politifact stretches pretty far to give him a positive rating, particularly on the compromise ones.

A particular favorite of mine:

Restrict warrantless wiretaps

Update November 18th, 2016: Some limits on warrantless wiretaps but loopholes remain

Note also that the full list of promises omits several key items, not the least of which was the promise for transparency, which has obviously been broken.

Also another note is there is some evidence that as much as 3 million illegal immigrants in CA voted

"some evidence" appears to be some guy saying so on twitter.

http://www.politifact.com/pund...

> This is the man who will be advising our president on issues pertaining to national security.

Just about everybody Trump has floated for cabinet positions is, at best, second-string material.
Its kinda stunning that (most) of the GOP is going along with a wholesale appointment of incompetence.
They jumped all over Bush for trying to appoint Harriet Miers to the supreme court. But when it comes to Trump, few in his party seem willing to say anything critical. Shit, Obama nominated three republicans for his cabinet.

see? this is how I know were in a coma for the past 8 years:
100% delusional statements like that one, completely disconnected from reality.

read, and be edumicated:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
https://mic.com/articles/22662...
http://www.liberalamerica.org/...

No, 'strongly pro-Mexican' is not an accurate description of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. Snopes has a description of the various 'La Raza's: http://www.snopes.com/judge-cu...

Politifact compiled some of the word salads Trump produced on the topic: http://www.politifact.com/wisc... . If you pull some sound bites from that mess, you could pretend Trump's objection wasn't the ethnicity of the judge, but any rational reading would say otherwise.

An aside: One of the interesting things on the Access Hollywood tape is that Trump actually spoke in complete sentences. That doesn't seem to happen as much now.

If Politifact rejects claims of rigging, then they just can not be true, can they be?

When Trump made the claim that the election was rigged Politifact ruled it "Pants on Fire", because "Given the decentralized nature of our elections, there would be no single way to throw the results," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Oh, FUCK YOU :

Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House. ...

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

So your defense of the Clintons is effectively: they got away with stealing $76,000 worth of stuff.

You're too dumb to know how dumb you are, aren't you?

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Even leftist Snopes has this to say, from your own damn link:

The Clintons voluntarily returned or paid for some gifts due to dispute over whether they had been given to the Clintons personally or to the U.S.

"voluntarily" my ass - AFTER they were busted.

You lamely failed at refuting ONE of the GP's points - what about all the others?

What about Hillary approving the sale of US uranium production to Putin's oligarchs after they donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Slush Fund, err, Foundation?

You pathetic piece of shit. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult shit like that.)

Was your mother on Thalidomide? Your brain development seems limited.

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Do you also love it when retarded right lies about their political opponents? Like when Trump spread a hoax news site's fake story about a protester was paid $3,500 as if it were fact and thousands upon thousands of Trump supporters repeated that story for the rest of the election?

Of course one bit difference is that the retard was Trump, not some semi-anonymous rando from the internet, which makes it just a little less lovable.

An example commonly quoted in alt-right media is Bernie Sander's vs. Donald Trump's number for unemployment among African-American youths. Bernie Sanders claimed "over 51%", and that number was confirmed as "Mostly True" by fact checking site politifact.com. Trump's very similar sounding statement "59%", however, was judged as "Mostly False" by the same site.

Obviously there are differences in wording between Sander's and Trump's statements, which may make one statement more trustworthy than the other one, but the overall impression remains, that fact checking is not always done in a neutral way. As a result, alt-right media had a free path to discredit all fact checking sites, making the important task of fact checking mostly irrelevant and ineffective in these circles.

An example commonly quoted in alt-right media is Bernie Sander's vs. Donald Trump's number for unemployment among African-American youths. Bernie Sanders claimed "over 51%", and that number was confirmed as "Mostly True" by fact checking site politifact.com. Trump's very similar sounding statement "59%", however, was judged as "Mostly False" by the same site.

Obviously there are differences in wording between Sander's and Trump's statements, which may make one statement more trustworthy than the other one, but the overall impression remains, that fact checking is not always done in a neutral way. As a result, alt-right media had a free path to discredit all fact checking sites, making the important task of fact checking mostly irrelevant and ineffective in these circles.

This whole fake news is a made up controversy by the mainstream news sources to give the people something else to blame and try to overshadow the real debate. The real problem as I see it is the proliferation of fake experts. What really caused the news media to go over the deep end this election cycle is fake fact checkers. Snopes is far from perfect and is biased, but Polifact just makes shit up (1)(2). They literally have different people saying the same things, and they award one a rating of "Mostly False" (its way off, 1/3 of the quoted number) and the other "Mostly True".

With access to these fake experts the news can say anything it wants, and provide sources and experts to back up their news. The media creates these "experts" by giving them credibility, while in turn these "fact checkers" lend credibility to the media. It's a cycle of both self delusion and self promotion.

This whole fake news is a made up controversy by the mainstream news sources to give the people something else to blame and try to overshadow the real debate. The real problem as I see it is the proliferation of fake experts. What really caused the news media to go over the deep end this election cycle is fake fact checkers. Snopes is far from perfect and is biased, but Polifact just makes shit up (1)(2). They literally have different people saying the same things, and they award one a rating of "Mostly False" (its way off, 1/3 of the quoted number) and the other "Mostly True".

With access to these fake experts the news can say anything it wants, and provide sources and experts to back up their news. The media creates these "experts" by giving them credibility, while in turn these "fact checkers" lend credibility to the media. It's a cycle of both self delusion and self promotion.

All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.

The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.

Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.

in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.

This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.

why they are the most trusted news network in the US

It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.

Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.

The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets

Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.

If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo

All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.

The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.

Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.

in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.

This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.

why they are the most trusted news network in the US

It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.

Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.

The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets

Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.

If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo

All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.

The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.

Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.

in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.

This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.

why they are the most trusted news network in the US

It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.

Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.

The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets

Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.

If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo

All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)

You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.

The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.

Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.

in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.

This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.

why they are the most trusted news network in the US

It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.

Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.

The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets

Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015, with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox and CNN. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed.

If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo

The US does overspend, but its military spending as a proportion of GDP is actually not that far off from other developed countries. It could stand to cut down, but the US also has a huge economy in general. Moreover, military spending is closer to 16%, not 25%. No other major world power can project force the way the US can. The American navy is, practically speaking, the only real blue water navy in the world. Because American interests are everywhere, other world powers know that any conflict between them will involve America. Their economies are either too small (Russia) or they don't have an interested in a big military (Germany).

and immediately politifact

You idiot. Have you learned nothing? The main stream media have destroyed any presumption of balance during this election. Who do you think runs politifact.com?

The Tampa Bay Times

Yet another rag that shilled for Hillary for the last 18 months. Wow. You are one gullible idiot.

All that shit just to clarify how much of a moron you are. 70% lies according to PolitiFact? How many of those did you check? Not many apparently. You just believe what is spoonfed to you like the simpering fool you are. Here's an example:

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Donald Trump says that many Americans are paying more for health care than to pay their rent or mortgage for the first time in history. PolitiFact finds it "Mostly False." How does a fact-check go about making a truth distinction about "many instances"? How many is "many"? And if pinning down "many" poses a challenge, how does one go from that challenge to finding out whether it's happening for the first time in history?

To figure out whether many Americans were paying more for health care than for their mortgages or rent, PolitiFact focused on national average rent figures. PolitiFact reasoned that if average rent was higher than average health care expense, then Trump was largely wrong even if some individuals were paying more for health care than for rent/mortgage.

That's bullshit. Rents and mortgages vary widely according to region. Cities with very high median rent distort the average national rent figures. The same type of distortion occurs with average mortgage figures. Median national rent will tend to be lower than the average national rent. And half of renters pay less than the median, right? The same goes for median mortgages.

If an appreciable number of persons pay more for their health care insurance than for their rent, then Trump's claim is plausible. And if the median cost of health insurance is closing the gap with the median cost of rents or mortgages then it follows that an increasing number of people are probably paying more for their health insurance than for their rents or mortgages.

Politifact is biased and shit. So are you.

You mean despite this article showing direct quotes from Trump's social media campaign?

I'm flabbergasted that people as stupid as you exist.

Yes, people who see things other than the way you do, MUST be stupid, and that flabbergasts you.

Of course, that same attitude can be applied to others who see you, can't it?

Do you actually think the "KKK" is still a thing? Really?

Yep, and if not them, tons of other White Power Nationalist groups.

People do keep tabs on this.

Let's be frank, here, whatever is left of the KKK is a handful of useful idiot rednecks and a whole lot of government agents.

Sure man, sure. It's all fake then. Now that's a rabbit hole to go on down then.

After Trump "disavowed" the "KKK" endorsement, he was asked about 20 more times by the media why he wouldn't disavow the KKK. Funny how that works.

You mean after Trump said he knew nothing about David Duke. Which is an even bigger problem because Trump has denounced him over the years.

I'm sorry, but regardless of any question of racism or not, Trump's memory looks suspect from that exchange. And the timidity of Trump's response? It makes it seem less genuine. A forced denunciation isn't convincing, sorry. It's funny, it's like people can see you aren't committed to it or something.

If nothing else, you should be able to honestly admit that Trump's response was less than persuasive to many people, and that he fumbled that ball himself.

If you can't, then you won't understand the problem, and you'll just continue to make that same mistake that Trump did.

Yet, here we are, and people like you still actually believe this tripe because it fits your worldview.

For your own sake, please, I beg of you. Wake up and realize that the whole world isn't out to get you and there isn't a "racist" around every corner. The world is a much better place once you realize most people are just that: people trying to get through their days unbothered. Continuing to believe a lie after it's long since been disproven doesn't help anyone except the master of puppets who're pulling your strings.

Again, it's a time where somebody could say something about you. Wake up and realize there are still racists in the world, and that continuing to die they exist, continuing to refuse to admit to their continued existence, doesn't help your case with people who can see and recognize it happening. Dylan Roof isn't a goof who just woke up one day and acted crazy entirely on his own. Wade Michael Page didn't exist in a vacuum. Frazier Glenn Miller, Jr didn't come from nowhere. Cliven Bundy didn't make his racist statements on his own. Nor dozens of others.

Now maybe you can say that you have no association with them yourself. But then you have to admit to their existence, not deny it, and dismiss those concerned about their brand of hate. Maybe you can denounce them, if you admit they exist, but you know what? We live in a world where BLM is treated as a hate group in the entirety by the right. Where any protest, any criticism, any objection to the right, is treated as if it came from a group dedicated solely and exclusively to blind hate and intolerance. So that comes right back at you, don't it? I can admit there is the risk of violence from the misguided elements of the left, and from instigators, without compromising my beliefs. You seem to be baffled by the mere notion.

Like how you started your own post.

Me thinks the log in thine own eye is far greater than the mote in another's.

Amusingly, the captcha is unaware. A telling lesson. Don't be so unaware.