Slashdot Mirror

Well, that and the fact we allow illegal aliens to vote. Seriously. Automatically signed up when they get a driver's license, AND they are allowed to vote in State and local elections.

.

Nope. Why do you lie LynnwoodRooster? Is it just habitual for you, or do you not even know anymore?

Is it possible that you didn't even bother to check your allegations? I mean really, if you believe the California Secretary of State is failing to conduct his duties properly, you should be standing against it.

And since we only have one ballot for a given precinct, that has ALL elections on it (local, State, and Federal), well...

If so, then you're more efficient than some places. My local polls occasionally mix counties, cities, and special tax districts. A few people get handed the wrong ballot every year.

Flashbangs can indeed injure people, and they are regularly used against protesters.
I'm guessing the protesters called them concussion grenades because that is a good description, though it means something else.
The video from the snopes article on the subject shows flashbangs being used against the crowd at about 1:13.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/...

(The article doesn't indicate whether or not the accusations or rebuttals are true)

>* actually we do know where the Wikileaks data came from, a DNC insider

No, all we know is that Assange says it was not Russia. That's not the same as him saying it was a DNC insider. Furthermore that's not the same as saying it wasn't a russian cut-out. It would be pretty damn stupid of Russia to not use a cut-out and Assange would have no way of knowing.

> almost certainly one who was subsequently murdered

Oh jesus christ. You know what? It was Vince Foster in a fucking time machine. It was not Seth Rich and you assholes are shitting all over him to justify your conspiracy fantasies. By falsely claiming he was unhappy with the DNC you disrespect his own choices and beliefs. Shame on you.

Looks like a good counterpoint, until you consider:

http://www.snopes.com/driverle...

Pays to do better research before trying to post gotcha comments.

"Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: [b]authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism,[/b] though the former was far more significant than the latter."

I've talked with people at work who seem to be stereo typical typical "good Christians" and they will bend over backwards to find a way to support pretty much anyone that they think might advance their values, particularly on abortion. It is interesting that abortions have tended to fall more, lately at least, under democratic administrations. snopes. The article mentions that the trend hasn't held forever, but it does seem to have held during the last several presidents.

I don't know I suppose I can understand they find it to be an important issue, but I just can't accept the letting rome burn to get it attitude as rational. You don't buy a car from a known con man just because you liked the color of the seats.

I didn't make up anything,

Fair enough, someone else made up shit, and you're just passing it along. You're a regurgitator, not a creator.

it's how the CA system works now.

Nope, this is how it works:

What is the process?

When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, theyâ(TM)ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. Theyâ(TM)ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of stateâ(TM)s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls.

You're welcome to call the California Secretary of State's office and ask them about their verification procedures. (916) 653-6814

That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered, and there is nothing stopping them from voting.

Except for not being registered.

I will grant that it is not impossible for some person to submit fraudulent documents, however that is a problem for every state. If you want to say there are 3 million illegal votes across the country, again, you're stuck with investigation of every state.

Go for it. Bet you can't commit to that.

Wikileaks trying to glom onto his murder was one of the biggest reasons I stopped trusting them.

Its yet another variation on the bullshit "clinton murders" conspiracy theory and not only is it intellectually bankrupt it is demeaning to Mr Rich himself, making his death into a tool to diminish his own work and political beliefs.

If you're saying there's no proof that Clinton is in any way connected, I'll agree with you. If you're saying we know who killed Seth Rich or why, I'll have to disagree. There are public facing surveillance cameras all around that area, many of which have been mapped out by volunteers. Somehow, his killer or killers have thus far avoided being identified on any of them, though it's being actively investigated. Wikileaks lost their source and then a DNC staffer happened to die. There are enough staff that this could be simply coincidental and it's not clear that even Wikileaks knows who its source was with any certainty. We won't really know anything about this until the actual killer(s) are caught.

You can mistrust Wikileaks' motives all you want, but the email I linked to can be verified cryptographically. It's not like all the Wikileaks docs are even harmful to Clinton. They actually did have an analysts report claiming there was some video causing unrest in Benghazi at the time. We're not able to find any other evidence to support that, but they did actually have a reason to believe that particular claim, even if it appears to have been incorrect in hindsight. Also, they've started leaking items related to Trump now, but that hasn't really been noticed yet.

Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night

Oh jesus fucking christ.
Wikileaks trying to glom onto his murder was one of the biggest reasons I stopped trusting them.

Its yet another variation on the bullshit "clinton murders" conspiracy theory and not only is it intellectually bankrupt it is demeaning to Mr Rich himself, making his death into a tool to diminish his own work and political beliefs.

While nobody wants a huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times, there are going to be plenty of people on here jumping up and down hoping for the destruction of the NSA... while simultaneously running around like chickens with their heads cut off claiming that Russian Hackers are the sole reason that Trump is president.

Seriously, WTF is this comment and why is it (currently) +4 Interesting?

#1. Many, many people who have been most critical of the NSA's activities have been skeptical of the claim that Russian hackers are the sole reason Trump is president. This includes Glenn Greenwald as well as many in the security community who don't take leaked reports of CIA briefings at face value. I'm not seeing anyone who is anti-NSA spying wholesale accepting the CIA's story. So the premise of your point is not correct.

#2. Even if they DID accept the Putin story... There is no inherent conflict between not wanting a "huge abusive spy agency tracking Americans at all times" and wanting an agency to protect against foreign attack (if one has occurred, which as I said is not certain).

#3. The NSA has done very little that would have prevented the hacks, while actually having done very much to weaken national security-- the kind of thing that facilitates break-ins. They have compromised security algorithms and pushed the RSA to accept them as standards. They have deliberately inserted weaknesses into Cisco products. There are numerous examples of this. If the "Russians" has hacked us because of weak technology, the NSA very well could be to blame. The assumption that they're some kind of shield against attacks appears to be backwards.

#4. Podesta's emails were reportedly hacked via social engineering. Explain to me how you think the NSA's role has been stopping human beings from typing in their own Gmail login information when tricked to do so.

#5. Finally, elucidate on the connection you make between a "huge spy agency tracking Americans at all times" and an alleged nation state hacking campaign. What the hell does the surveillance state agency spying on all citizen activity have to do with these hacks? If anything, the alleged influence of Russian agents in our election occurred WHILE the mass-spying is occurring. Therefore, by your logic, the NSA should stop all spying to stop Putin. Right?. Right??

In short, your post makes no sense, it is not "insightful"-- it connects dots that don't have anything to do with each other. Worse, it is in some ways dangerous because it is really an attack on questioning authority. There is zero contradiction in opposing an all-powerful state surveillance agency on one hand vs. a corrupted electoral system on the other.

Not to mention that those reports of foreigners meddling in our election originate from an agency with a notorious decades of history in... well, meddling with foreign elections.

If the argument was that Al Gore had a particularly high level of environmental impact relative to his wealth and other factors worthy of consideration (his job, where he lives, etc), then that would absolutely be grounds for charges of hypocrisy.

They already tried that, with their campaign about houses. It was making the rounds a few years ago, but is now shockingly obsolete.

They don't even like hearing that Bush moved to a new house, or that if Al Gore wants, he could pay for dozens of homes to be improved to save more energy than shutting down his house.

Literally none of the story is true. Not only did the whole thing start as an online hoax by pranksters, but the images in the supposed Instagram are from people who "liked" the pizza restaurant's page. None of the "FBI charts of code words" are from the FBI. None of the information that the #pizzagate morons point to is true. It is 100% false.

Here is a comprehensive, detailed rundown with citations on the history of this hoax and whether a single fact or assertion about pizzagate has been proven true or is possible to be proven true:

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagat...

The fact that we need a "comprehensive, detailed rundown with citations " in order to recognize that this is complete and utter bullshit is why we have failed as a society.

Literally none of the story is true.

So you bought that fake news narrative without checking?

Not only did the whole thing start as an online hoax by pranksters

How do you know that? Some things are pranks, some things are conspiracy theories (that may even have some truth behind them).

but the images in the supposed Instagram are from people who "liked" the pizza restaurant's page

Here's where you are dead wrong. Some of the images are from associations, but some very creepy ones involving children were found directly on the owner's Instagram account, "jimmycomet", including the young girl taped to the ping pong table with a male standing suggestively behind her. Ha ha, very funny?

None of the "FBI charts of code words" are from the FBI.

But the symbols are.

None of the information that the #pizzagate morons point to is true. It is 100% false.

Maybe if you weren't reading "fake news" and did some checking, you wouldn't be saying this. I haven't even gotten into the kind of art that Tony Podesta (John Podesta's brother) had at his home, which is documented by mainstream sources.

Here is a comprehensive, detailed rundown with citations on the history of this hoax and whether a single fact or assertion about pizzagate has been proven true or is possible to be proven true:

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagat...

And here's an archive version of the summary Snopes is "debunking". It also has citations, with archives of pages that have since been made private, deleted, or changed.

The symbols from the FBI are apparently from the FBI, though: http://www.snopes.com/code-for...

Whether or not the businesses that used similar symbols were aware of this is unknown (and unlikely), but there are symbols pedophiles use to signal to other pedophiles their preferences.

I repeatedly have to remind a select group of friends when they send me sensationalist stories from The Onion that those stories are satire and not real.

What's even scarier is when a seemingly professional "fact-checker" decides to "debunk" satirical articles.

The MSM has basically taken to saying "this is false" without bothering to actually explain anything. The NYT did a little, but kind of ignored that the images came from the jimmycomet instagram (not random places on the web...).

Literally none of the story is true. Not only did the whole thing start as an online hoax by pranksters, but the images in the supposed Instagram are from people who "liked" the pizza restaurant's page. None of the "FBI charts of code words" are from the FBI. None of the information that the #pizzagate morons point to is true. It is 100% false.

Here is a comprehensive, detailed rundown with citations on the history of this hoax and whether a single fact or assertion about pizzagate has been proven true or is possible to be proven true:

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagat...

If that's true, then it means we're not too far away from #6 of this old joke coming true. First the Simpsons predicts Trump as President years in advance, and now a chain mail from the late '90s is coming to pass? These are scary times to live in.

According to Snopes they have balls.

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jo...

They barely covered a couple of items of evidence in that.

Fair enough, but there appear to be blatantly fabricated "evidence" from the pizzagaters (photos taken from random websites, etc.). There's a huge difference between innocent mistakes or sloppy journalism, and intentional fabrication. And while we're at it, what ever happened to the Fun Time Kidz Day Care conspiracy?

But hey, maybe you're right and we should take these claims seriously. And since /. doesn't let us delete our posts, we'll have some sort of record of this discussion in a year or two when the whole thing ends -- either with serious prison sentences or with nothing.

Just keep moving the goalposts there, brother. Eventually it'll work for you.

Remember this post of yours??

So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

Where is the proof of riots resulting from Obama's election? That's what you imply you have, that's what I've been looking for, and you haven't delivered. That's not me "moving the goalpost," that is you being unable to back up your claim. There is no surprise there because it is rubbish. Conservatives/Republicans didn't riot over their loss in the election.

And no, "I don't have time" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to face that facts.

No, it is a statement of prioritization of my use of time in which replying on Slashdot falls far below the other demands on my time. That isn't hard to understand.

But tell you what, I'll grant you a minor indulgence.

Remember this link of yours above?
http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
or as I render it:
Squeaky Wheels Get the Greece

A photograph purportedly showing a violent anti-Trump protest in the U.S. was actually taken in Greece in 2012.

What a strange link. Are you trying to imply that there really weren't anti-Trump riots going on? That rubbish is easily disposed of:

Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot'

An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said. Police publicly declared a "riot" due to "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" and called the protest "unlawful," according to posts on the department's Twitter page. The crowd was dispersed using "less lethal munitions" and at least 26 protesters were arrested, police said.

Some of the roughly 1,000 protesters in Oakland broke store windows, left graffiti on buildings and threw M-80 firecrackers, Molotov cocktails and bottles at police officers, authorities said. Eleven people were arrested in Oakland, including someone who had seven Molotov cocktails in his possession, police said. Some of those arrested are accused of assaulting police officers.

Just keep moving the goalposts there, brother. Eventually it'll work for you.

Remember this post of yours??

So we're just completely forgetting the actual rioting that happened both times Obama was elected?

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

Where is the proof of riots resulting from Obama's election? That's what you imply you have, that's what I've been looking for, and you haven't delivered. That's not me "moving the goalpost," that is you being unable to back up your claim. There is no surprise there because it is rubbish. Conservatives/Republicans didn't riot over their loss in the election.

And no, "I don't have time" is just a poor excuse for not wanting to face that facts.

No, it is a statement of prioritization of my use of time in which replying on Slashdot falls far below the other demands on my time. That isn't hard to understand.

But tell you what, I'll grant you a minor indulgence.

Remember this link of yours above?
http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
or as I render it:
Squeaky Wheels Get the Greece

A photograph purportedly showing a violent anti-Trump protest in the U.S. was actually taken in Greece in 2012.

What a strange link. Are you trying to imply that there really weren't anti-Trump riots going on? That rubbish is easily disposed of:

Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot'

An anti-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon, revved up as protesters confronted police Thursday night. What started out as a peaceful march, with more than 4,000 people, quickly turned violent. Over the course of the evening, "anarchists" in the crowd threw objects at officers, vandalized local businesses and damaged cars, Portland Police Sgt. Pete Simpson said. Police publicly declared a "riot" due to "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior" and called the protest "unlawful," according to posts on the department's Twitter page. The crowd was dispersed using "less lethal munitions" and at least 26 protesters were arrested, police said.

Some of the roughly 1,000 protesters in Oakland broke store windows, left graffiti on buildings and threw M-80 firecrackers, Molotov cocktails and bottles at police officers, authorities said. Eleven people were arrested in Oakland, including someone who had seven Molotov cocktails in his possession, police said. Some of those arrested are accused of assaulting police officers.

For one thing, she was poised to put single payer back on the table (Mr Clinton was going around talking about it).

I am far more anti-Trump than I am anti-Clinton, but I am beyond skeptical about the idea that Clinton would make another serious effort at single-payer health care, especially after she has already announced that it will never happen — which she did right after taking massive stacks of Big Pharma money for the first time. Mr. Clinton was going around talking during the DNC primary, too, and interfering with polling places. Even if not outright illegal, that was sleazy. Mr. Clinton talking about things does not interest me.

Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell

No, it was not. Not unless you share the misconception, that any questioning of a Black President is racist — the notion I ridicule at the top of this sub-thread. And, of course, Trump didn't invent it. Clinton's campaign, apparently, didn't either, but they did carry the torch before Trump picked it up.

then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well

That was his father's... If you looked carefully at Hillary's father, you'd find her being drastically different from him.

And whereas you need to go all the way back to when Confederate flag was cool and God hated fags to smear Trump, Hillary's campaign proved themselves racist in 2016.

Despite the things you expect him to fuck up, he will probably do some beneficial things, too... with an eye towards beneficial is in the eye of the beholder.

Geeesh! Are there no wives tales left?

Many organizations were explicitly white-only

And that's just as terrible as having an explicitly latino-only or black-only group.

Insofar as LBJ, while they might label it "unproven", they do a pretty good job of showing it wouldn't have been out of character: http://www.snopes.com/lbj-voti...

As noted in several online dictionaries, "La Raza" means "the people" or "the community."

If it simply meant "the people" or "the community", why would it explicitly limit itself to latinos and hispanics? Is the implication that whites and blacks, and other non-latinos aren't "people"? Or maybe they must be excluded from "the community"?

Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:
  Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
  Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench
  Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.
  Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.
  Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.
  Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.
  Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.
  Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.

It is obvious, from the goals stated by the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, that they are focusing on a single race. If a white adopted child of a latino family joined the legal profession, it wouldn't count to them. If a white spouse of a latina applied to be a judicial candidate, it wouldn't count to them. If the white parent of a latino adopted child was promoted as an attorney, it wouldn't count for them. These, most intimate communal bonds of parent, spouse, and child, are violated by ideas of racial segregation, and give the lie to any translation of "La Raza" as "people" or "community".

I think we've all forgotten how to laugh, because so many of these fake news stories do not even pass the laugh test.

I especially liked the Ivanka Trump story:

"While appearing on The View, Donald Trump said if his 25-year-old daughter Ivanka wasn’t his child, he would date her. Meanwhile, Ivanka said if Donald Trump wasn’t her father, she would mace him."

That was so on the nose that you had to laugh. And, duh, it was really a line delivered by Conan O'Brien, not Ivanka...

The Dems call all republicans racists because they are republican. Now the Republicans can fight back and call all Democrats pedophiles. In today's media led world there is in fact nobody who is not either a pedophile, a racist, or a nazi.

Don't forget when Dems tried to call Trump a pedophile too.

Yep, that's the level of political discourse these days, both sides seeing how far they can go to demonize their opponent as the worst human being on the planet. I think political discourse today has gotten worse than it was during the McCarthy era, and is rapidly approaching an 1850's level of vitriol. And the 1850's vitriol led to a civil war.

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.

By the way, snopes doesn't think much of James O'Keefe, either. But that just means they're working for the other side, and not to be trusted, right? Just like everyone else who tells you something you don't want to hear.

For the answer to this, check his tweets back in 2012.

Article from 2012
Snopes.

Trump downplayed that Chinese hoax thing long ago and claimed he was joking.

He repeated it several times. And I dare you to find the "joke" in this tweet from Donald:

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

In fact, he stated that he thought climate change was a "hoax" or "bullshit" no fewer than five times, and none of them seem to have any "joking" in them.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-t...

Or maybe you think that linking to quotes from Donald Trump is "fake news" and it's just the MSM trying to make him look stupid by linking to his actual words.

He's long said that he wants to address climate change without crippling the economy to do so.

Really? Let's see what he said in his own words...

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

http://www.snopes.com/donald-t...

Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... [snopes.com] - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc

She did laugh, but not about what the original circulated story had her laughing about, nor the context that the story implied. The original story was "she gave an interview where she admitted she knew he was guilty. And she laughed about it."

Specifically from the article: "The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as "terrible." She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)." Note that he pled guilty. This is not disputed by either side. It's also not questioned that ALL people under trial are entitled to a vigorous defense. Hillary Clinton had him take a polygraph which he pass, and she was chuckling that he passed it, somehow.

Also note that it was the prosecution who pushed for the plea deal to avoid the daughter having to testify. That's in the legal record and it directly contradict's the story's assertion. Do you have a problem with Snopes's explanation of events? I'm still looking for the false or misleading conclusion or argument here from the Snopes article.

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.

When you alter you contradict your own fact checking to include partisan interpretations and equivocation to bolster an agenda, you lose credibility.

Snopes is no longer a credible source for fact checking when they don't stick to facts as stated BY SNOPES. Now I have to suspect every analysis on editorializing. Snopes provides their own custom narrative on judgement re: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... - she did laugh, she did plea bargain him out, etc. Don't say false when it's true, but you are trying to meet your own overall conclusion. It really soured me. Yes, the story is basically false, but the fact checking there is factually incorrect. Her behavior isn't all that strange among defense attorneys.

That being said, the idea of "fake news" is tricky subject when real news can be spun so hard. Facts get blurred when put together in unexpected ways to form a new headline which is almost always to meet some agenda. On the other hand, a news story always starts with a perceived context, so which is more correct? The more factually correct or the more coherent narrative?

the public has lost faith in the media broadly

Snopes included.

After faithfully repeating President Obama's promise, any "undocumented citizens" who vote will not be prosecuted for such fraud, the site declared the claim, that he made such a promise "False" anyway.

That's when even my industrial strength bullshit-meter blew up...

You rail on snoops about this article but did you even look at any of the evidence they presented? Did you watch the video or even READ the short transcript where the quote comes from? They were debunking a short "out-of-context" video posted somewhere on Facebook by showing the entire interview. I don't see anywhere in the transcript or video where he encourages illegal aliens to vote. At most, he tells any of their family that are citizens to vote in their place.

I am not saying the interview was some great piece of journalism, its more of a polticial ad than anything. I am just saying its not what was presented on Fox News.

If I am wrong, cite please.

the public has lost faith in the media broadly

Snopes included.

After faithfully repeating President Obama's promise, any "undocumented citizens" who vote will not be prosecuted for such fraud, the site declared the claim, that he made such a promise "False" anyway.

That's when even my industrial strength bullshit-meter blew up...

Fact-checkers are now grossly partisan and, to borrow a phrase, should not be doing a lot of talking. Consider the following hilarious example:

There are non-funny examples too.

There's a few things I noticed: First, a (false) rumor, dating back to 2007, in which Fox News opened the door to generating false news, an argument that both bashes Fox News and gave legitimate argument to the idea that false news is protected under the First Amendment. (Source: Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics... ) Ever since then, the argument between which cable news channels, and which media outlets overall, were accurate, based on political bias, with Fox receiving a bunch of flack on both sides for being able to generate fake news. Meanwhile, it also gave some legitimacy to fake news sites which catered to their crowd.

Second, the Tea Party movement, documented in The Billionaire's Tea Party (Info: http://documentaryheaven.com/the-billionaires-tea-party/), which, while started as a grass-roots project, quickly was usurped by those with money. (NOT going to mention names...) Many of the "Fake News Sites" I've seen so far, when they list their origins, tie back to some smaller party - but many (coincidentally) share the same sources, and nearly the same articles, as their similar-leaning counterparts - many without providing an accurate original source or tying back to each other.

Third, and particularly damning, is the lack of acknowledgement and respect for human error that used to exist. Between the major sites reporting false news from either tabloid or fake news sites, and the typical errors humans can make in either fact-checking, editing or reporting, major media has discredited itself and shot itself in its own foot. The fact that social media has tied into this - both by allowing linked information from all sites and by giving an outlet to all people to complain as well as report - has fueled these notions and made it harder, when errors are made, to fix those errors. (It also discredit's Snopes' argument, when you think about it - it's faster to spread misinformation on Facebook, and harder to prove false afterward, with people clinging onto the false record.)

There's also stuff I see in the comments area, much of which is probably also true: the educated levels of people now compared to points in the past, the lack of proper editorial and fact-checking people working with journalists, the fact that "people only hear what they want to hear" and are stuck in "echo chambers," etc. It's a combination of all of these factors - and probably some we haven't discussed or thought of yet - that's causing the problem.

There's a few things I noticed: First, a (false) rumor, dating back to 2007, in which Fox News opened the door to generating false news, an argument that both bashes Fox News and gave legitimate argument to the idea that false news is protected under the First Amendment. (Source: Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics... ) Ever since then, the argument between which cable news channels, and which media outlets overall, were accurate, based on political bias, with Fox receiving a bunch of flack on both sides for being able to generate fake news. Meanwhile, it also gave some legitimacy to fake news sites which catered to their crowd.

Second, the Tea Party movement, documented in The Billionaire's Tea Party (Info: http://documentaryheaven.com/the-billionaires-tea-party/), which, while started as a grass-roots project, quickly was usurped by those with money. (NOT going to mention names...) Many of the "Fake News Sites" I've seen so far, when they list their origins, tie back to some smaller party - but many (coincidentally) share the same sources, and nearly the same articles, as their similar-leaning counterparts - many without providing an accurate original source or tying back to each other.

Third, and particularly damning, is the lack of acknowledgement and respect for human error that used to exist. Between the major sites reporting false news from either tabloid or fake news sites, and the typical errors humans can make in either fact-checking, editing or reporting, major media has discredited itself and shot itself in its own foot. The fact that social media has tied into this - both by allowing linked information from all sites and by giving an outlet to all people to complain as well as report - has fueled these notions and made it harder, when errors are made, to fix those errors. (It also discredit's Snopes' argument, when you think about it - it's faster to spread misinformation on Facebook, and harder to prove false afterward, with people clinging onto the false record.)

There's also stuff I see in the comments area, much of which is probably also true: the educated levels of people now compared to points in the past, the lack of proper editorial and fact-checking people working with journalists, the fact that "people only hear what they want to hear" and are stuck in "echo chambers," etc. It's a combination of all of these factors - and probably some we haven't discussed or thought of yet - that's causing the problem.

And yet we have DNC operatives on video boasting about both giving and receiving cash to go and cause trouble at Trump events. Not to take all the fun out of your narrative or anything.

I've watched some of those videos, and what we actually have is some heavily edited videos that purport to show DNC operatives boasting about those things. Videos created by a man who has been repeatedly found to use deceptive editing to invent controversies. Unless we can review the entire recorded footage without the editing, we will never know what really happened. So while it looks bad, we already know, from past controversies that were exaggerated, that looks can be very deceiving.

No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news.

No, it's worse than fake news. I used to work in Radio. Whenever an entertainer ( Talk show host ) was terminated they would pile us into a room and explain the issue the host had and why they were irrelevant. It was explained that all forms of media. Radio, Talk shows, TV, Newspapers, all of it is classified as the 'entertainment industry' with no compunction other than getting a broader audience, and better ratings so advertising revenue

There is an FCC policy "against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news." but as you will see from the following snopes article it's extremely easy to bypass, and inexpensive for them if they get caught at it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

http://www.snopes.com/californ...

No, illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote in CA, so stop spreading that FUD.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

Look at the vile hatred that was spewed from one side in particular.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

The vast majority of people on either side are completely peaceful. But when you look at the retoric that was spewed by one candidate in particular, it's not hard to see why people are angry.

Also, what happened to the whole "rigged election" thing? Seems like the ol' Trumpster clammed up on that subject right around November 8th, didn't he?

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

http://www.snopes.com/anti-tru...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nb...
http://www.alternet.org/electi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...
https://www.rt.com/viral/36431...
http://occupydemocrats.com/201...
http://www.nytimes.com/video/u...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/...
https://thinkprogress.org/sher...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fb...

Don't act as if this is some one-sided thing. Please.

Because the mainstream media sources don't have fake news. They may get news wrong, but they certainly aren't out there fabricating stories like Pepsi attacked Trump.