Slashdot Mirror

This is a distraction from the breaking story about possible GOP election fraud scandal coming to light in North Carolina.

The allegation is that someone on the GOP payroll was hiring people to go door to door and collect absentee ballots. This is illegal under NC law.

Additionally, those ballots passed through unknown hands, and may have been culled, substituted or otherwise altered in the process.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog...

https://www.mediamatters.org/b...

https://www.motherjones.com/po...

https://www.politifact.com/nor...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...

1. Military ban
2. Medical practices from DHHS
3. Adoption Laws
4. Asserting they aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act
5. Considering rollback of protections under AHCA

6. That took 2 minutes of effort and I ignored a lot. Seriously, this isn't hard.

Politics is dominated by money.

Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency.

The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for.

Which had no discernible effect.

The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.

Yeah, right.

https://thehill.com/opinion/te...

The issue isn't facebook datamining. The issue is that Zuck is happily making money off media campaigns that will end in genocide. While you're worried about the Rohinga, you're missing much, much larger social trends. The progressive groupthink now openly calls for the destruction of rural American cultures and the propaganda campaign has been so successful that 60% of Democrats believe all Republicans are racist and sexist. That's not reality. That's just propaganda spread by Facebook.

Ballots found after the election, breaking heavily for Franken.

Felons casting illegal votes in MN

Ballots "found" 5 weeks after the election change the results by being just enough in favor of the loser, the Democrat, who by virtue of the found ballots, won the election.

You do know that ballots can be traced do you not? I get a numbered ballot that corresponds to a number on the sheet I have attached my signature on, after the ylook it up after I show them my ID and confirm a few other things. You also know that the ballot is not secret? In the local courthouse my voting record is there for everyone to see if they wish.

So instead of the whining and moaning and "Muh Voter fraud!", the evidence is right there in front of everyone. If these ballots were found, following the path backward on each and every ballot is so simple that you could have irrefutable evidence of direct fraud in a few hours.

Wonder why that did not happen? Hint: constant accusations of voter fraud are a much more effective fearvote tool. The touchstones of political parties are not there to be cured, they are there to be wielded like a bludgeon.

Ballots found after the election, breaking heavily for Franken.

Felons casting illegal votes in MN

Ballots "found" 5 weeks after the election change the results by being just enough in favor of the loser, the Democrat, who by virtue of the found ballots, won the election.

Surprising nobody, the person sending bombs to Democratic politicians, supporters, and media organizations is a virulently pro-Trump terrorist.

Apparently it came as a surprise to those who promoted it as a false flag operation or asserted that republicans just don't do this kind of thing

Oh, citations:

https://twitter.com/banditelli...

https://thehill.com/opinion/im... (this article quotes Keith Ellison repeatedly)

Only two, I know. Like an iceberg...

Then the implied and explicit support for open borders:

https://theweek.com/articles/7... ( Zack Beauchamp exchange with a reader, Tom Stephenson, and later Zach states explicitly he is an open borders supporter)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... (Hillary Clinton 'dreamed of “open trade and open borders” throughout the Western Hemisphere.')

Hillary seems pretty mainstream Democrat unless you're trying to hide the details.

The same way that Trump is Russia's pawn even though he's slapping more meaningful sanctions on Russia in 18 months than Obama did in 8 years...

So how does it handle legal ediscovery? Employers are responsible for coughing up employee communications during trial.

Maybe. I am not a lawyer, but the case of the governor and the disappearing text messages seems relevant. Maybe, if the company never had access to the messages, it doesn't have a responsibility to reveal them.

Justice Democrats barely got out the gate before they turned on themselves, forcing their founders to resign over a stupid blog written over a decade ago. Seriously no. The oppressiveness of purity tests with ever moving goalposts in an age where the internet never forgets is utterly toxic.

Warren and Sanders both gave bold passionate speeches that tickled our progressive ears, but when it became time for action still bent a knee to lick the establishment's boots. That's about all they can be counted on. Cortez is an idealistic child that wants open borders and massive social spending; a complete non starter.

Meanwhile, how about that sweet, sweet, cash from fossil fuel corporations.

I think I'll take my chances with the side that isn't anethma to free speech, isn't trying to disarm me, and isn't trying to guilt and find fault and discriminate against me based on my race and gender. And is least likely to pull last minute rule changes to empower super delegates to shut down any populist candidate I care to support.

Good luck reforming the Dems. I know its a small comfort, but then when the Washington Post writes a dozen negative hit pieces on you in under an hour, I'll still defend you. Out of a respect for fairness, of course.

nitpicking [..] see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble

Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.

Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.

Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan is the black equivalent of David Duke.

The double standard has been laid bare for all to see.

while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason

Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown under the bus.

>> Investors and insiders have long cited Amazon's size and reach as reason to break the company up. OK, I know journalists don't usually graduate at the top of the class, but it seems unlikely that people who own ("investors") or work for the company ("insiders") want Amazon broken up. I'd suspect the people who really want this to happen would be "competitors", "labor advocates" and most especially "attorneys".

And Trump - 'cause he hates Jeff Bezos (and pretty much anyone else named Jeff at the moment).

[ Though I imagine Bezos would probably still be the majority shareholder in *all* the broken company pieces and that could potentially make him even more wealthy ... So be careful what you wish for Donald. ]

CNN deceptively edited a rioter's speech. What she did was call for the rioters to move their rioting.

> Burnin down shit ain't going to help nothin! Y'all burnin' down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don't wear it. But we need it.

Citation: https://twitter.com/DeeconX/st...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA

CNN apology:

> We shorthanded sister's quote. Unintentionally gave the impression she was calling for peace everywhere.

Unintentionally my ass.

CNN Cuts Live Interview When Facts About Refugees Are Brought Up https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Fake protest staged by CNN film crew at London Bridge terrorist attack scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN gets caught red-handed telling their focus group what to say https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN conducts fake interview in parking lot https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

Top 10 Times CNN Reported Fake News https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

CNN reporter's response when asked why CNN hadn't corrected false gun article: "not playing your game man." http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

CNN threatens man into silence with threats of doxxing https://i.redd.it/jyw161j3wntz...

CNN on family leave before and after Trump backed it https://imgoat.com/thumb/e296a...

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story' http://thehill.com/opinion/whi...
CNN: Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond

The CNN example includes edited video that zooms in on Trump to only show his face and prevents the viewer from seeing what Japanese Prime Minister Abe was doing at a key point of the short event.

Why was Abe edited out? Perhaps because he took his entire box of fish food and dumped it into the pond. Trump followed Abe's lead and did the same seconds later.

But with the zoom edit cutting Abe out, the viewer or reader - with an assist from the caption Â-- is led to believe only Trump dumped his box. The media was not only blatantly overt, but intentional in its deception.

The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

So you are telling me the leftist agenda does not promote (sources below are from left-leaning sites, and one centrist site):

Socialized/single payer medicine
Open borders
Controlling "Big Pharma"
Progressive taxation, especially on the rich

Because this is what the far left is pushing right now.

And? Cut taxes $100, raise them $10. Net taxes, $90 lower.

Response to cuts: complaints about cuts — "people will die because taxes were cut!!!!”

Response to increases: complaints about increases.

Response to anything: complain about it, seek political advantage by spreading negativity and trying to divide people. (Then freak out when one of the groups you divided people into has more electoral votes than you expected.)

Looks a lot like aphasia. At least temporarily, Trump lost the mental capacity to pronounce that word. Not the ability to recognize the word, because he caught himself and tried to pronounce it again, making exactly the same mistake again. Clearly not his dentures or a dry mouth, two theories that were advanced after a previous similar episode. No, it is clear that some wires are crossed inside Trump's brain. Considering who it is, this should be a medical emergency.

Watch his videos and you will notice a number of more subtle, but substantially similar events. And sometimes he completely loses track of the logic of a sentence he is trying to construct. These events seem to be increasing in frequency. That is my unscientific observation. This really needs to be assessed properly and scientifically by medical professionals, except not this guy.

You mean the fake news about Fake News. The deranged conspiracy theory that Putin knew years in advance that a failed game show host could be president, and set out to get him elected by spending a few thousand dollars on Twitter trolls in a $9 billion election.

Yep, that's the one, a ridiculous conspiracy theory thrown out as the entire basis for the criminal investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

FTFY. It's not people who learned a damned thing about Iraq claiming that that Putin is such a master chess player. One that he started grooming a lecherous businessman between one of his several bankruptcies to be president, yet completely unable to anticipate the blowback. Oh, and that genius Putin was dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump, which means the NSA/CIA/FBI would know, and so too would have President Hillary. Who had the election in the bag until she simultaneously slapped her base in the face while not bothering to campaign in a third of the country.

It's alllllll Russiagaters.

He's switched from "it didn't happen" to "I didn't know about it" to "it wasn't illegal".

Which it isn't, if you're referring to the meeting between Junior and the Russian lobbyist who offered to give dirt on the Clintons. Which didn't actually give any dirt to the Trump campaign, but said lobbyist met Fusion GPS founder both before and after going to Trump Tower. You know, the same law firm behind the Steele Dossier. There's also more dembot swiftboating here, as the Clinton camp was perfectly happy accepting dirt on Trump from Ukrainians.

Pointing out democratic hypocrisy is invariably met with "she lost, get over it" or "that's whatabboutery". Tough cookies. Either you want Hillary indicted for collusion and actually paying foreign intelligence agents to swing an election (see Steele Dossier again), plus money laundering for the Hillary Victory Fund, or you're a partisan hack.

I guess the next logical step is a Nixon style "It's not illegal if the president does it".

Yeah, sure - if there was no break in at the Watergate hotel, no secret tapes recorded in the Oval Office, and no Saturday Night Massacre. Just an unhinged conspiracy theory from Democrats and never-Nixon Republicans that Nixon was a crook.

Another plot hole: why would Russia try to interfere in an election were both parties have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century. Bush tore up the ABM treaty and ringed Russia with missile "defense" systems that would allow the US a higher chance of launching a first-strike and surviving the counter-attack. Obama overthrew a democracy on Russia's border, starting bringing it into NATO and had the largest number of troops in eastern Europe since WWII. To contain Russia's "aggression".

You guys have as much evidence as the Birthers and Chem Trailers have to back up their nutjob theories. But at least those wackos weren't trying to start WWIII.

Democrats on the far left appear to be taking their rhetoric against border security, including calls for the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one step too far. Over the past two months, Democratic National Committee deputy chairman and congressman Keith Ellison has passionately and persistently advocated his position that national borders, specifically the southern border, create “an injustice.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/imm...

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
  Ronald Reagan

Oh now we have another vector. Hmmm

Maybe you're right it's not as if Google doesn't have a pattern of censorship for conservative content. Oh wait what do you know they do.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20...

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/...

So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?

Feel free to go again

Poll: 72 percent say traditional outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading'

Jeez why do rightwingers have such a persecution mentality. Bloody snowflakes.

Did you think that was clever?

* https://www.dailywire.com/news...
* https://www.zerohedge.com/news...
* http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
* https://www.wnd.com/2015/04/tw...

There's a good starter list. Also, in the post you replied to, Jack Dorsey was the name, not Jeff Bezos. Cerebral flatulence.

If you think the Trump/Russia collusion is an insane conspiracy theory, tell me what this means, straight from Don Jr's own Twitter feed: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" The Russian lawyer they met with was described as a "Russian government lawyer".

Funny how you completely ignore the entire thread, from my initial post on, about how it was the DNC/Clinton lawyers who met with the Russian lawyer both before and after the Don Jr. meeting. The meeting was set up as bait. Any campaign would have accepted dirt on their opposition candidate if it was offered. The collusion was by the DNC and Clinton campaign! It was also the Obama administration that gave her a special exemption to remain in the country.

Yeah, insane conspiracy theory

Yes, the conspiracy theory that was initiated and peddled by the DNC and Clinton campaign. The theory they generated and promulgated by paying an ex foreign agent to talk to Russian spies to produce a "salacious and unverified" dossier on their main opposition candidate, which they then fed to the media and back into the FBI via the DOJ by a high up official whose wife was being paid by the very same DNC/Clinton campaign lawyers that produced the document.

That's the real conspiracy, which you are doing your best to ignore. Fail.

Sure. Mueller, a Republican, military veteran, who served under a Republican administration, deliberately filled his staff with Democrats because he wanted to go after Republicans (Trump).

What part of "establishment" do you not get? Trump's nomination was a hostile takeover of the Republican party. To this day, there are still "never Trump" Republicans.

If this administration felt the need to investigate Podesta or Clinton, they have the power and votes to do so. But they haven't.

You keep forgetting that establishment. Rosenstein was the one who appointed Mueller, and set him after Trump. Do you think he's going to investigate himself?

Everything I stated above is fact

Actually, it's a lot of opinion and disregard for the anti-Trump establishment.

unless you want to start with insane conspiracy theories

*snort* Trump/Russia collusion is an insane conspiracy theory. The DNC and Clinton campaign involvement in initiating and peddling this conspiracy theory is a proven fact. That the FBI agent in charge of both the Clinton email scandal and Trump/Russian collusion was pro-Clinton and anti-Trump is fact. That said agent talked about an "insurance policy" in case Trump got elected is also fact. That the DNC/Clinton lawyer met with the Russian lawyer before and after meeting with Don Jr. is fact. That high-level DOJ employee Bruce Ohr fed info from the Steele dossier into the FBI is fact. That Bruce Ohr's wife was paid by Fusion GPS is also fact. Need I go on? Because I can.

t's impossible to discuss something with a person who doesn't believe basic facts.

Start with yourself.

I have noticed that the people who complain loudest about "witch hunts" with regards to Trump were strangely silent when it came to investigations on issues such as Obama's birth certificate, the multiple Benghazi investigations, Hillary's emails, Whitewater, etc. It seems that only Democrats are capable of witch hunts, and Republican investigations are only done with the purest of motives.

Some discussion here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29...

Regardless, the best way to protect yourself from witch hunts, is to not be a witch, and to not associate with those who are. When numerous people around you start pleading guilty to felonies ("I'm a witch and I admit it!") your case for being a blameless pious churchgoer that never had an impure thought in your life starts to look shaky, and the case for you being the head of the local coven starts seeming more plausible.

So far, the rate of admitted criminality among Trump's friends and associates is starting to make the crime rate among the immigrants he is always complaining about seem paltry by comparison, and yet Trump steadfastly maintains that he has never done anything illegal. I find that very hard to believe, given the evidence that has come out so far, and given Trump's own behavior (e.g. the glowing way he talks about Putin and Russia in general, and seems to consider them no threat whatsoever, while our allies (Europe, NATO, etc.) somehow he sees as a major problem). He seems to have a massive blind spot when it comes to Russia specifically, and I think that one can reasonably ask why that is. His repeated threats to fire Mueller, Sessions, and others, and threats to pull other nasty tricks (threatening to withhold security clearances from those who criticize him, etc.) do not make him seem to be acting like someone who is innocent.

As for "The Russians" and "collusion" being irrelevant to Cohen, a very small amount of research turns up articles like the following. It's not hard to find information on this stuff. If you're actually interested in knowing. Not likely to be covered on Fox News, though.

Some examples:
https://www.reddit.com/r/polit...
http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

Coincidentally, the governor of Missouri and his staff have been accused of violating the state's open-records law by using a message app that automatically deletes messages, but the state Attorney General says it doesn't appear that any laws were violated. One argument is that the law can't require them to make their records available, because there aren't any records. Any more.

Pai was announcing an upcoming report from the FCC's inspector general. That inspector general is David L. Hunt. https://www.fcc.gov/inspector-general He was appointed in 2011, during the Obama administration, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/137015-david-hunt-named-fcc-inspector-general So this an Obama appointee reporting on an Obama appointee, not Pai going after an Obama administration official.

Well, that link was fucked up. Here it is in better form.

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

This happened in 2015. Trump got elected 2 years later. Nice try Hillary.

Don't just sit there and lie. The supposed hack they're talking about occurred during the first week of May, 2017. Here is the story as originally reported right fucking here.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

And the original:

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

http://thehill.com/opinion/nat...

First off I'll point out that one lawsuit like this by a trio of anti-2A activists has already been tossed. So I'm somewhat curious if this will be thrown out as well. http://thehill.com/regulation/...

But more towards my; this may end up being a really stupid move by the state's that are pushing them. Every state with a gun control law that steps outside of what has been passed on the Federal level have used the 10th amendment as a justification for additional arms prohibition. Right now the case for restricting the distribution of these files is quite weak as is. Specially given the text of this ruling, which specially laid out some of the rules of what could and could not be banned. I'm rather paraphrasing heavily, but unless it's something that's already specially banned than these files are not explicitly illegal. I.E. a fully automatic M16 would be illegal, but just the basic semi auto only AR-15 is not. But in resting their entire argument on the 10th amendment you've now set up a situation where a lose by the plaintiff could result in a legal precedent that could be used by persons seeking to challenge ANY state level gun restriction.

Ultimately I think this case will probably be tossed without comment. But if these states seek to push this all the way up to SCOTUS you could see a complete collapse of any state level gun control laws.

Too bad paywall... But some form of criminal conspiracy? Like conspiring with a presidential candidate to win a debate? So far, what we have are people being indicted for actions taken prior to the Trump campaign (and, in fact, often whilst working with strong Democrat lobbyist groups), or for "lying" about something that wasn't criminal, prohibited, or illegal in any way, shape or form (basically a process crime).

Now, there ARE several indictments of Russians, but given that the previous Administration told the cyber security chief to stand down about investigating any issues, well - it seems that the previous Administration should be held complicit to any Russian wrongdoing.

Too bad paywall... But some form of criminal conspiracy? Like conspiring with a presidential candidate to win a debate? So far, what we have are people being indicted for actions taken prior to the Trump campaign (and, in fact, often whilst working with strong Democrat lobbyist groups), or for "lying" about something that wasn't criminal, prohibited, or illegal in any way, shape or form (basically a process crime).

Now, there ARE several indictments of Russians, but given that the previous Administration told the cyber security chief to stand down about investigating any issues, well - it seems that the previous Administration should be held complicit to any Russian wrongdoing.

You still haven't addressed what's going to happen to those people who are still in distress under UBI.

I did elsewhere by noting we cannot do away with social workers and we certainly need more PSAs revolving around the proper management of money.

You're the one who started the walk towards not letting them eat at McDonalds.

That argument is not mine. In point of fact, that argument was Obama's.

I have no horse in this race... but i can smell when the sh*t stinks

Did you check your shorts? Just sayin'.

And I can't see why Putin would care for Trump to win over Hillary, Feel free to enlighten me.

He wants to reestablish the Soviet Union and a weak American president over whom he has kompromat can help him with that.

But don't take my word for it, Putin said it himself in no uncertain terms that he wanted Trump to win:

https://www.theatlantic.com/in...

Even the White House, which for some reason edited the official transcript of Putin's remarks, which were made on camera, had to finally put them back, because editing out Putin saying, "Yes, I wanted Trump to win" just made Trump look even more guilty, and at this point, they're just trying to put out the wildfire that's headed their way.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...

What do you mean, what do I mean. The UK just blocked extradition of a suspect based on how the US treats suspects and prisoners - whereas Sweden directly handed asylum seekers over to the CIA to be tortured in 2001. In 2013 Sweden went to great lengths to arrest a founder of the Pirate Bay in a non extradition country, and upon his arrival in Sweden, immediately interrogated him for weeks without a lawyer or any outside contact for an unrelated crime in an unrelated country - and then later deported him to said country.

If you're really hung up on citizenship, just refer to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which forbids transporting prisoners to where they may be tortured. Sweden and the UK are both signatories, as is the United States to this treaty - one it has been in flagrant violation of ever since Bush's first year in office. Bush of course had a worldwide kidnapping and torture program. Obama also violated the treaty when he refused to prosecute those who committed torture, and tortured Chelsea Manning with eighteen months of solitary confinement and then pronounced guilty in a textbook case of unlawful command influence. The current Secretary of State is a big fan of torture, and the head of the CIA is a torturer.

So both the immediate parties involved would have to break a law they agreed to if Assange ends up in US custody. But it wouldn't be the first time they have done so - Sweden had been a signatory to the convention for over 15 years when it handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza to the CIA at an airport. Also note that the CYA move Sweden tried by getting "assurances" from Egypt that they wouldn't torture the men, but that was found insufficient by the UN Human Rights Committee.

That's because he is down to more or less just his psycho base supporters. An alarmingly large group but they support him no matter how crazy he gets.

Actually it's because the public has become immune to the constant Russia hysteria. When a CNN producer (John Bonifield) and a news anchor (Van Jones) are caught on video saying that "there's nothing to the Russia collusion", and "we talk about it all the time for ratings", people tend to stop believing the collusion narrative.

Since Trump came into office, the US is exporting weapons to Ukraine and cutting into Russia's profits on energy exports, it becomes difficult to accuse him of working for Russia as those are actions that were directly in his power that work against Russia.

Sources:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
http://thehill.com/homenews/me...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/0...

Multiple sources say that Facebook confirmed that the message is real.

http://thehill.com/policy/tech...

http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

https://www.theglobeandmail.co...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

I guess you have a Pastebin or a blog or something that says otherwise... But rather than argue, it might be easier to wait until his trial to see what evidence is presented. Doubtless Facebook will have provided logs etc.

ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is Trump right about ABC news being a "fake news" site?

Huge list with examples of misleading and false reporting coming from the major media networks. CNN, Washington Post, Fox News, New York Times, RT, Guardian, NBC, ABC, etc.

ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is ABC news a "fake news" site?

I have always thought so along with their contemporaries.

Anybody else expecting this to be used to punish people who raise facts that the 'dear leader' (of whatever country) finds distasteful?

First we get powerful people using fake news to bend the minds of voters into idiot sheep

Next we get powerful people using the fear of fake news to charge and persecute people who disagree with them, even if they do so using facts

Does anybody else feel that we are moving backwards in time and will soon be serfs to our lairds?

We do the same thing in the US, except it isn't the government doing it. Facebook, Google, Twitter - everyone wants to have their hand in what is right and proper for the general public to view, they all have political bias, and have wildly publicized failures.

I should point out that the InfoWars article on spirit cooking turned out to be correct in all its particulars - that specific article is not in any way fake news.

That's a pretty clear philosophical point to make: do you censor sites or individual articles? At what point does a site get censored as being predominately fake news?

That specific article was politically inconvenient for the anointed hero of many people, so in that particular instance do you think any sort of "social consensus" could be reached as to whether or not it's fake?

ABC news reported that Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to 5 charges of manslaughter, which is pretty specific, damaging, and completely fake. Is ABC news a "fake news" site?

Youtube articles on the subject of guns have now been marginalized removed from ad income and blocked... on what appears to be a social whim: outrage whipped up by some teenagers in a highly-publicizes shooting. Those articles used to be, and still are, completely legal and not offensively violent or lewd. Is the "fake news" system being used to force a political agenda?

Everyone seems to find it their duty to correct our invalid thinking and gently guide us to the correct groupthink.

It's not just the middle east that's moving to restrict speech, it's all the big players.

(For reference, dig into today's controversy about [Papa John's founder] John Schnatter using the "n-word" on a corporate phone call. It's readily apparent form the evidence what really happened - see if you think there's any real controversy there. Much of what's being reported is completely fake.)

given that the officer was in violation of a 2015 Suprem Court decision by holding the defendant until the drug dog showed up anything that followed on from that illegal search, like the marijuana and whatever other evidence was used to get the warrant for the phones, is inadmissible in any US court and must be thrown out it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Puerto Rico can't even get a referendum passed in that country for statehood with the support of other political parties beside the ruling one(PNP). IOW, no majority of Puerto Ricans can be bothered to show up at the polls to vote for statehood. They've tried in 1967, 1993, 1998, 2012 (all during Democratic administrations), and 2017 (Obama allocated money for federal support of referendum) and failed every single time.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/337751-puerto-rico-statehood-bid-a-total-failure

I thought the Supreme Court decided, only a couple of years ago, that extending a traffic stop even by a few minutes for the purpose of waiting for a drug dog to arrive was unconstitutional. Isnâ(TM)t this marijuana possession charge thus bogus, and the subsequent âoeprobable causeâ created by it to request the phone search also unconstitutional? http://thehill.com/regulation/...

Fox doesn't need to "tell" anyone anything other than what democrats say. Or are you saying Kirsten Gilibrand, Alexandria Cortez, Bill de Blasio, and others are lying? Even in the clinton emails talked about supporting open borders.

Democrats really do have a problem of being quoted.

http://thehill.com/opinion/imm...

. Donald Trump could bring about world peace, socialized healthcare, and give out his entire fortune to orphans. They still would despise him and deny he did anything positive at all.

Trump is never going to do any of those things.So far he's destabilized world peace, has made it harder for people to access health care in the US, and separated children from their parents. Hell if he did only one of those things you mention I'd nominate him for a Nobel.

I would have voted for Bernie if I had been given a chance.

But I was not surprised that he, and pretty much every other Democrat, and Republican,voted for this bill. Of the two voting against, one was R and one D...

It's not because he was afraid of anything. It's because most of the people in DC crave power above all else, and this bill was a pure manifestation of power of people as they come.

This delusion that there is more than a micron of difference between R and D must end.

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.

So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.

Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.

So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.

Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie