Google Tackles Fake News With Global Fact-Checking Rollout (betanews.com)

Google is calling on fact-checking organizations to help it bust fake news -- but it's starting in a small way. From a report: Google's Fact Check feature is not new, but today the search giant is rolling out the feature around the world. A global rollout is important if such a tool is to have any real impact. It's all well and good have reports fact-checked on one side of the world, but it's of little use if the same fake stories remain unquestioned and untested elsewhere. Google is doing its part by making the Fact Check label available in Google News everywhere, and spreading it into search results in all languages as well. The Fact Check label has been around since October, providing an at-a-glance way to determine whether or not a particular story has been verified as true. Google admits that it will not be possible to fact-check every single search result it displays, and the company points out that it is not responsible for the actual fact-checking process.

Comments

CIA MiniTrue

[For a Free Internet]

We know what is best for you

WORKERS MUST RULE!

101

[Anonymous Coward]

is the earth flat in 2017?

Who decides what is fact?

[Attila Dimedici]

Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[ArmoredDragon]

You can use many truths to draw a false conclusion. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Attila Dimedici]

A conclusion is not a fact. So, what you want is someone to check that the articles reach the "correct" conclusions?

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the OP is correct, "mostly false"would be fair news when most of the facts are true.

He's spot on as well. The liberal media will decide on what's fact and what's not. Remember how Hitlery had the election in the bag! Trump had no way of winning. That was fun to watch though. Crying libtards at hitlery's convention. Classic stuff!

Most media is fake news.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Onion.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best houses of lies are built on a foundation of truth.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[David_Hart]

Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?

A fact is either true or false. What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".

For example, the unemployment rate has dropped. Donald Trump is the president. Therefore President Trump is responsible and should be praised for lowering the unemployment rate. The first two sentences facts, the last sentence is an opinion. The opinion would be considered, by most, to be "mostly false". Yes, his presidency may have had an effect on business expansion and hiring people but most of these business plans were in place well before President Trump took office.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

All news are fake, take look at history books to get the idea...lol...fuck google anyway

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Attila Dimedici]

What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".

In other words, Politifact is NOT a FACT checking organization. They are checking whether or not the opinions presented are "correct". If the facts presented in the story are true, I do not need someone else to tell me if the conclusions the author reaches are true or not. If someone is going to claim to be a fact checker, I want them to limit themselves to checking the facts. If they do not, it is just a matter of time, and probably not much of it, before they are calling fake news true because it reaches the "correct" conclusions (or leads people to do so) even though the facts are completely false.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Kohath]

A fact is either true or false. What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".

Yeah, so in the interest of accuracy and being factual, they should change their name to PoliOpinion and change "mostly false" to "contrary to our opinion".

Or they could just keep trying to trick people into thinking their conclusions are factual. It still seems to work on a lot of credulous people.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Trailer Trash]

Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?

Not only "like" Politifact - Politifact is one of the sources behind the scenes. To be fair, there aren't many options other than the obvious "don't even go down this road".

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh come on, the facts don't matter as long as you come to the correct conclusion, right?

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, since the "don't even go down this road" is my preferred option, you obviously got my point. Once you go down the road of determining which articles are accurate and which are not, you are quickly going to start basing that decision on whether or not you agree with the conclusions they reach.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

You yourself may not need it, but low information voters on both sides pay attention to smaller and smaller sound bites every year. Politifact isn't perfect, but you can check their sources and draw your own conclusions.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[fyngyrz]

f the facts presented in the story are true, I do not need someone else to tell me if the conclusions the author reaches are true or not.

You may not. Others clearly do. The evidence is incontrovertible: Tens of millions of votes for an idiot because the voters were unable to draw the correct conclusions from the available facts. Well, that, and playing hermit in echo chambers of idiocy such as Fox "News", Drudge and so forth so they didn't have facts in the first place.

Politifact is trying to do a right thing in an environment where both the liberal and conservative "sides" spend more time spinning than they do trying to actually understand and/or explain the issues at hand.

You know what a "pants on fire" rating from Politifact does for me? Makes me realize that the conclusions being drawn are clearly polar opposites, and that it will likely be worth my time to look carefully at the issue. I find that useful, without being an immediate deciding vote on "true" or "false."

Both sides engage in crazy spin. Sometimes what sounds crazy is still true, though. Digging is required.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

A conclusion is not a fact. So, what you want is someone to check that the articles reach the "correct" conclusions?

To the contrary, conclusions are often factual in nature. Checking those is important. 2+2=5 is easy to check, others require a bit more investigation.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb person wrote, "Tens of millions of votes for an idiot because the voters were unable to draw the correct conclusions from the available facts."

Ah. So there was no email scandal. No deals with Russia. No uranium one. No murdering of associates. No Clinton Fdn deals with Qatar and Saudi. And I suppose Bill is squeaky clean too.

I assume by your writing, that you are indeed a Hillary supporter. She lost because she's unpopular. She lost because a majority of the electorial votes have largely been ignored by Obama and Hillary.

Libtards could have had Bernie. Luckily for us, he's not. He's corrupt as well. The DNC propped that ho up as high as they could. Even a lot ofdemocrats voted for Trump.

Get your head out of your ass. She sold us out!

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're called editors and/or producers. Yes.

Or did you forget that 'public education' is, fundamentally, cultural indoctrination, but is a fundamental part of human society?

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound alt-righty.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Attila Dimedici]

Tens of millions of votes for an idiot because the voters were unable to draw the correct conclusions from the available facts

Fortunately, she lost anyway. Unfortunately, the other choice was only minimally better.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Mostly False when stating "the sun is shining now" and the facts in evidence are "it is night out"
it is true the sun is shining somewhere, but the statement is not supported by the facts in evidence, even though they are true.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most media is fake news.

Impotent trolls will troll

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[bloodstar]

Or maybe they should go and do a point by point examination and call out the bullshit. An example, "all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is false. But "I believe all scientists believe carbon emissions by humans are the main cause of global warming." is a fact. Mind you, the belief is incorrect, but if that's what you believe, then by definition, it's a fact. And yes, this is an extreme case to illustrate why organizations like politifact have such a hard time with articles, propaganda, and chain letters. Something can be technically true while still being misleading or wrong. Dismissing it as all judging opinion is ignoring all the work and effort that goes into trying to tease out the validity of articles and the accuracy of their conclusions.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey AC, we're both fake news, aren't we? Between Hitlery and Twitler, I do believe we are now living in an alt-universe.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[painandgreed]

Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?

I'd settle for just links to all related sources.

Re:Who decides what is fact?

[Tailhook]

Who decides what is fact?

NYT, Wapo and Guardian, as far as Google is concerned. Everything not in alignment with those three is "alternative" fact and modded accordingly.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[ArmoredDragon]

In math terms, I think it would be akin to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In other words, 7 correct facts with one subtle error that looks correct at first glance (in this case, step 5) but it really isn't, and it causes your answer to be completely false.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[ArmoredDragon]

He's spot on as well. The liberal media will decide on what's fact and what's not. Remember how Hitlery had the election in the bag! Trump had no way of winning. That was fun to watch though. Crying libtards at hitlery's convention. Classic stuff!

The problem with that was the statisticians made some big errors (essentially, putting too much emphasis on the popular vote) and the democrats really took it for granted, and then cried foul when they didn't get the result that they just assumed was guaranteed.

While I'm not thrilled at a Trump victory, I do take a bit of solace in seeing Hillary lose.

Re: Who decides what is fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as importantly they explain the reasoning behind the conclusion allowing the reader to evaluate the reasoning.

Remember everyone

[DatbeDank]

It's only fake when it comes from non-MSM sources and doesn't peddle the neocon talking points.

Re:Remember everyone

[AmiMoJo]

That's how the alt-media like it. If they became trusted sources of news by publishing mostly true stories, they would become part of the mainstream and lose their appeal.

The whole point of the alt-media is to confirm your suspicions that the world really is against you, that it's not your fault, that you really are the victim here and your suffering is valid, and that you were right all along.

Re:Remember everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is the "alt-media"? Is it InfoWars? Breitbart? Rebel Media (Canadian)? Dave Rubin? Various independent Youtube channels such as Sargon of Akaad or Lauren Southern? All of the above? None of the above?

I acknowledge that particular "alt-media" organizations might fit your description perfectly. I personally don't listen to anything that comes out of Info Wars or Alex Jones because they are just way too "lizard people" for me. I like people who are meticulous about citing their sources such as Sargon. But my point is that I don't think it is fair to paint all of them with a broad brush as you have done. If anything that is not "MSM" qualifies as "alt media" then they have as little in common with each other as any individual computer programmer, doctor or taxi cab driver does.

Fact check for 'Fake News' but not scammers?

[urbanriot]

It tells you a lot about a company when they're more concerned about Fake News (TM) than they are about the advertising revenue they're receiving from a plethora of scammers that regularly bilk less technical folks out of piles of money, specifically seniors looking for phone numbers for well known companies.

All About Quality Control

[EndlessNameless]

Since they're not fact checking, this will depend entirely on how well they oversee the organizations who do. That ought to be a fun dive into governance issues.

It is very easy to lose trust. I can understand why they would want to do this---between meaningless news and fake news, it is already hard to learn about things that matter. But they are going to encounter legitimate scandals and legit-or-not accusations of bias. I hope they have a plan for dealing with this.

Fact checking is an essential piece of journalism. It addresses the same underlying issues as the replicability requirement for science---poor data collection, fraudulent claims, bias, etc.

This is an important function, and if Google cannot deliver it then I have to wonder who can.

"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[notsteve]

Can't we just call it what it is: propaganda?

Re:"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the 'Knife Attacks' by Palestinians against soldiers armed with assault weapons.

Re:"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because independent thought and rejection of the party line isn't actually propaganda. Only approved truths are facts; independent observations are "fake news".

Re:"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[k6mfw]

Can't we just call it what it is: propaganda?

with yesterday being 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson declaring war on Germany, I recall an article some years ago good propaganda is formed in a way that it does not look like propaganda. On outbreak of WWI, Britain cut off communications lines from Germany so US does not get "news wires" from Germany, only from Britain. With just one side reporting, US gets news media from just one side (which Britain became good at writing articles with some facts not mentioned, others embellished) that sways US opinion. Of course sinking the Lusitania and Zimmermen letter didn't help Germany's standing with US. There's lots of other dirty laundry... ethnic cleansing was a huge driver.

Speaking of 100th anniversary of the Great War, back then the world was changing with new energy sources, technology, growing nationalism (much of world was empires but some localized areas wanted their own identity). CSPAN had an interview with president of the WWI museum, he said with social media and rise of nationalism in many countries [I'm thinking passion driven by Trump, Putin, Brexit.] is much like what happened 100 years ago. What was not expected was number of deaths in the millions which was new, even those that count casualties did not know how to tally such large numbers.

Re:"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[notsteve]

Quite interestingI wonder what the German news wires would have been? I was actually referring to a cultural habit of giving feel-good names to things that already have names. Instead of "propaganda", we have "fake news." Instead of "genocide", we have "ethnic cleansing". The feel-good names remove all mention of intention, rendering the terms impotent.

Re:"Fake News" = "Ethnic Cleansing"

[ebvwfbw]

Totally different. If you looked at the "refugees" flooding into Europe, they looked like an invasion force more than real refugees. Mohammadists, they've been trying to kill us for 1400 years. They rape, kill people and the PC bullshit is stopping everyone from calling a spade a spade. They do this at their own peril. Europe will cease to exist if they don't get rid of the invaders.
They don't assimilate, they demand that you adopt their way of life or they'll kill you. Sharia law. The sooner everyone understand this the better. It's not racism BTW, that's bullshit too. This is an idiology, not a race.

Approved News

[Kunedog]

fixd

The Fact Check label has been around since October, providing an at-a-glance way to determine whether or not a particular story has been approved by the Ministry of Truth.

Re:Approved News

[HiThere]

But that's exactly how it should be done. You post a label, and people can decide how trustworthy the label itself is. You don't keep people from seeing statements that you disagree with, you merely get out front and say "Well, I think these are lies, but here you go...".

Facts?

[unixcorn]

What exactly are facts when it comes to government anyway? A Spin Meter may be a more appropriate use of Google's time. Stating a single fact is one thing but when munged together, most things government deal with are so complex that anyone can pretty much spin things any way they like and still seem factual to one group or another..

The MSM....

[Anonymous Coward]

Left leaning Politifact says Maddow, NBC, other MSM outlets *often* say things that are "half true" or worse.

I'll hold my breath waiting for them to be called Fake News.

Re: The MSM....

[Anonymous Coward]

But the right-wing pundits say nobody ever questions or challenges the left-wing media on the facts.

Now you're saying they are!

Oh no!

Re: The MSM....

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they LIE. FTFY

Isn't this abuse of a monopoly???

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this google using their almost total dominance of search to control the news industry? If a story happens to be true but doesn't fit with the narrative that google wants to put forth could it get burried?

It's not just about libertarian or conservative bloggers. What if an advertiser, let's say big agribusiness, doesn't want peta exposes of bad farms to be seen? Could that be labeled "fake news"?

Re: Isn't this abuse of a monopoly???

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use their shit search engine. It was once the best but these last couple years its been shit.

"Fake news" is fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it odd how every mainstream media outlet simultaneously adopted an identical narrative about "fake news" after the presidential election proved them to be utterly out of touch with what the average citizen wants?

It's almost as though traditional, corporate media companies are all directed by some single entity about how to report on certain topics.

Nah, couldn't be...

Re: "Fake news" is fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

It got traction, but it has been around for years. What, you think, yellow journalism is a new term?

Re:"Fake news" is fake news

[MightyMartian]

It's almost as if Pizzagate was a load of alt right fake news horse shit

Re:"Fake news" is fake news

[HiThere]

Why do you think popular opinion decides what is true?

I can see lots of reasons for being dubious about how accurately this tag will be applied, but disagreeing with popular opinion sure isn't one of them.

Re: "Fake news" is fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... Allow me to wax philosophical, for a moment.

We're not controlled by the media. Maybe we once were, but not now. Now, the media simply reflects what we want to see. We consume it, constantly. We are the media.

Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

If google labels something untrue that is in fact true doesnt that open them to libel or slander suits? It doesn't matter who checked the facts because the statement, however it is indicated, is part of a google product.

If you don't watch the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you're merely uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed.

Pick your poison.

Re:If you don't watch the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll stick with inventing my own facts.

Google is ...

[AnthonywC]

The Ministry of Truth.

Re:Google is ...

[AmiMoJo]

Depends where they set the bar. Say a blog post goes viral, multiple reputable sources check and debunk it, and a human at Google notices and marks all copies of said post as disputed with links to said debunkings, I don't really have a problem with that. The error rate is going to be very, very low and in cases where mistakes are made the reputable media is generally quite good about pointing them out.

If the bar is something like "Brietbart has a long history of publishing fake news and not issuing corrections so let's just mark everything from that site", I'm less keen on it. I'd rather see each story get debunked, or at least the big ones that start to go viral. Simply pointing out that something is untrue or disputed doesn't work these days, there needs to be a counter narrative that only a debunking can provide.

Re:Google is ...

[mvdwege]

If the bar is something like "Brietbart has a long history of publishing fake news and not issuing corrections so let's just mark everything from that site", I'm less keen on it.

You know, if the land around is brown and dead for miles, it is in fact reasonable to presuppose the well is poisoned.

Re:Google is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the bar is something like "Brietbart has a long history of publishing fake news and not issuing corrections so let's just mark everything from that site", I'm less keen on it.

Suppose Google hires a team of people to debunk fake news, and those people choose to only debunk links to Breitbart. They have a policy of not debunking anything from (insert liberal mouthpiece here). Would that be okay?

PolitiFact is "Mostly False"

[ABEND]

I don't see an entry for what probably most hurt Hillary's chances in the 2016 election. That is, she blamed a YouTube video for the 9/11/2012 terror attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya and his staff in Benghazi.

I also do not see an entry for the oft repeated phrase "the Russians hacked the election."

There's a ton of hair splitting regarding statements made by Trump and other Republicans.

PolitiFact appears to be just another propaganda site. It's probably sponsored by the Russians with the intention of demoralizing Trump supporters (cf., ABC, CBS, *NBC, NYT, WP, LAT, PBS, ...).

Re:PolitiFact is "Mostly False"

[mean pun]

I don't see an entry for what probably most hurt Hillary's chances in the 2016 election. That is, she blamed a YouTube video for the 9/11/2012 terror attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya and his staff in Benghazi.

If that really hurt Hillary's chances US voters are idiots. Yes, in the initial fog of war the blame may have been misplaced. That is not fake (deliberate incorrect) news, that is just people trying to understand a complex situation.

I also do not see an entry for the oft repeated phrase "the Russians hacked the election."

From what I have seen, the phrase "the Russians hacked the election" is only repeated by people using it as a straw man. It may be oft repeated in those circles, and it is indeed fake (deliberately incorrect) news, but I think it is too obviously fake to need labeling. What is a real concern is that the Russians influenced the election by stealing documents, influencing the social media, and other mechanisms that still need to be uncovered. Coincidentally, your post could be an example of such influencing of the social media, if you would be working for the Russians. It contains the kind spin and deflection that such influencing would use, although it is perhaps a bit too much on the tinfoil side.

There's a ton of hair splitting regarding statements made by Trump and other Republicans.

Well, not all their statements are shiny examples of clarity, so some attempts at interpretation are sometimes necessary. Some of their statements are shiny examples of blatant and easily falsified untruths, for example some of Pres. Trump's tweets about the attendance of his inauguration, and repeated White House statements announcing that the President is working this weekend, later contradicted by evidence that he was in fact playing golf yet again. There are plenty of other examples. Commenting on that is not splitting hairs, it is calling out childish lies.

PolitiFact appears to be just another propaganda site. It's probably sponsored by the Russians with the intention of demoralizing Trump supporters (cf., ABC, CBS, *NBC, NYT, WP, LAT, PBS, ...).

I'm sorry, but this is too alternative fact for me. Perhaps you need a better supplier for your tinfoil?

Re:PolitiFact is "Mostly False"

[ABEND]

I got as far as "in the initial fog of war the blame may have been misplaced."

Think about this. Do not just regurgitate talking points. Image how you would think about this if it was Trump instead of Hillary. You'd be ranting about Trump and "red herrings" and "what is he trying to hide," etc. Anyhow, if there were any truth to the video rumor then, the video was so inflammatory that Hillary should have done her best to keep the existence of the video as quiet as possible to protect innocents from attacks by persons driven violently insane from this video. Instead, she gave it international publicity.

In regards to your ad hominen attack, blaming the Russians is de rigeur. Many senior U.S. senators have been doing so.

Re: The LIBTARDS....

[Anonymous Coward]

Most media is alt-left libtard.

Bidirectional problem

[s.petry]

CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent.

Using a very limited set of facts to support your position is called confirmation bias. People introducing additional facts to question the narrative are simply labeled "fake news". "Conspiracy theorist" is a bit dated, but that was the line pushed from the 60s or so. The people exposing CIA operations were labeled, yet we found through more facts that many nefarious operations did in fact exist.

Conspiracies are relatively common, yet the media has demonized the term so that people can't talk about them. This is despite knowing that the Mafia was and is a real group, US citizens have been and are being kept under surveillance illegally, etc...

Re:Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us more about Pizzagate, Mr. Alt-Right.

Re: Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent.

Yes, the extent by which Fox News does it is not the same, it is more.

Re: Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Another story that will prove to be true.

Remember the CIA's involvement in latin America

Re:Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"CNN and MSNBC are both masters at using a cherry picked set of facts to support a narrative. Other sources often do the same, just not to the same extent."

Bullshit Mountain called. Fox News wants to know how much you charge for rimjobs.

"Conspiracies are relatively common, yet the media has demonized the term so that people can't talk about them."

This is because the vast majority of them are patently false, and there is a correlation between belief in conspiracy theories and general hatred of groups trying to get more political influence.

Trump is literally being sued for inciting violence at his rallies, where he encouraged supporters to 'deck' and 'get him outta here'.

I thought Bush was the worst president in American history. Clearly the republicans saw that as a challenge.

Re:Bidirectional problem

[s.petry]

I never exonerated any media outlet, you invented a narrative. As to the extent I pointed out, Fox at least presents Democrats (not just moderates but the extreme leftists) and their supporters. The two worst don't bother with any discussion that does not suite their narrative.

When you come out of your fantasy land about statements I never made, how about you let us know a reasonable number of true conspiracies that you would support being talked about. Until Snowden, we had plenty of theories about Government spying on us but Snowden was proof. Until Comey came out and said that there in fact were classified emails on Hillary's server, it was conspiracy. Until it was released that Rice was unmasking people, perhaps illegally, it was right wing conspiracy.

What is the number you find acceptable to discuss? Or it it simply "shut up and believe everything you are told" in your world view?

The number of "wrong" does not in any way nullify the need to find the truths in the world. If you are content believing everything your Government and sponsored media tells you, you are as well off in China or Russia as here in the US. Please move at your earliest convenience.

Re:Bidirectional problem

[fredrated]

People introducing additional facts to question the narrative are simply labeled "fake news".

"fake news" is the use of lies in place of facts. Or in your world is everything a fact, real or not?

Re:Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because the vast majority of them are patently false

Like...?

How about this one: the NSA is listening to everything that we do and selectively ignoring it. Prior to Snowden, this was absolutely a conspiracy theory and considered "patently false" (it's too big of a problem everyone with the technical know-how assumed). Now we know it's true. Not only do we know it's true, but we know that it has gotten worse since being revealed.

Or this one: the above is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, yet we cannot even sue to stop it because we don't have standing court. At the same time, our beloved secret courts (FISA Court) upheld mass collection of our communications as legal even without any reason to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secret_law

Trump is literally being sued for inciting violence at his rallies, where he encouraged supporters to 'deck' and 'get him outta here'.

And this is fake news. You're literally making up a quote that Trump told supporters to 'deck' a person. The closest he came to saying something like that was here:

After receiving a notice from his security that someone might be planning to throw tomatoes at him (again), Trump told his supporters to “knock the crap out of them I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.” The crowd vociferously cheered him on.

However, if you watch the video: it's clearly a joke. And here in lies the problem with liberals: a joke is a statement of fact when it's not a Democrat saying it. I'm sure CNN and MSNBC ran with what you said though, so I suppose I can only fault you so much for doing absolutely no research while slamming those you disagree with...

Kind of like how CNN is running stories about Trump golfing more than Obama, because he goes to Trump-owned golf resorts. Being at a golf resort that it itself a much larger resort is not the same thing as golfing, which apparently CNN is unable to decipher (including the use of the phrase "many times" rather than concrete numbers). Don't take this the wrong way: Trump has golfed since being elected, but not as many times as the story suggests. But he has also golfed with other politicians (both foreign and domestic), which is a common business tactic for that generation. That's different from solely golfing with celebrities or friends, which Trump is hypocritically guilty of doing, but seemingly not as a dominant majority yet.

Re:Bidirectional problem

[rickb928]

"Conspiracies are relatively common, yet the media has demonized the term so that people can't talk about them."

This is because the vast majority of them are patently false,"

With the revelations that many more 'conspiracy theories' are indeed true than previously hoped for, that paradigm is collapsing. Indeed, the tool used now is more and more the 'big lie'. Tell the biggest whopper as often as you can for as long as you can, and when the truth comes out, everyone is either desensitized to the truth and dismisses it, or is fatigued into thinking this was settled already.

Or, as more and more realize the game, we begin to believe nothing given us by the regular sources, and consider those sources that are discredited by the 'mainstream' as potentially more credible.

"Truth is the first casualty of war" - Viscount Snowden

Re:Bidirectional problem

[Namarrgon]

Chemtrails, aliens, truthers, reptilians in the White House, the list goes on and they're all bullshit, even the last one. Just because the government really was spying on you does not suddenly mean the others were true all along, but too many people believe what they want to believe regardless of lack of evidence, or even evidence against it.

While the rest of us will stick to Occam's Razor, and keep assuming that wildly-unlikely stuff is almost certainly just more bullshit - unless and until someone produces extraordinary evidence - highlighting fact-checker sites can only help to stem the spread of the bullshit in the first place. So long as the fact-checkers highlighted always clearly show their own sources.

Checking sources can be fatiguing, but it's necessary for the important stuff, even for outlets you otherwise trust - and particularly for non-mainstream or contraversial sources. When you stop doing that, and start blindly accepting stories from *any* source - you'll quickly drown in the bullshit.

Re:Bidirectional problem

[ArmoredDragon]

"Conspiracy theorist" is a bit dated, but that was the line pushed from the 60s or so.

Current conspiracy theories include things like "jet contrails are actually mind control chemtrails", with proof of this often being i.e. pictures of barrels inside of passenger jets, and some contrails being colored in appearance. Of course, if you look deeper you'll find that these have nothing to do with mind control or any other secretive plot, but they use the fact that water barels used to simulate rapid passenger movement on a jumbo jet actually exist, and the fact that contrails can and do appear different colors (surprise, just like regular clouds, owing to the same effect that makes rainbows a thing) somehow means it's actually true that the secret plot really exists.

My favorite ongoing conspiracy theory (because it happens to be about the field I work in) is that IPv6 is a plot by Cisco and the NWO to take over the world. Yes, I'm serious, this is what conspiracy theory people actually think:

As I said in an earlier post, I like how hardcore and bold the NWO is. A teeny fraction of the world's internet users use IPv6, and Cisco and the other globalist cyber false-flagger corporations believe all of the world's sheeple will just ease into the new global cattle pen with no resistance.

IPv6 must be resisted.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/...

So yeah, the term conspiracy theory is still quite valid.

Re:Bidirectional problem

[s.petry]

Even more current conspiracies are Hillary's emails, the Trump leaks which we recently found were unmasked (possibly illegal) and possibly leaked by Susan Rice. Both of those were called right wing conspiracies. Both of those were found to have a good amount of truth to them, with Comey taking over as prosecutor and claiming he could not prosecute Hilary and the latter still under investigation.

Conspiracy theories and "Fake News" have turned out to be "things people don't want you to know" quite often.

Re: Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Credulous fool.

We told you about mass surveillance a decade before Snowden. It was an open secret to everyone working in the computer security business. Yet when we warned you, you called us "conspiracy theoristsâ" and other facile insults.

Don't be an unthinking Clover. The state is not your friend. It exists to hold plebians in subjugation to the elite. Trust the state and it's semi-official apologists at your own peril.

Re: Bidirectional problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Namarrgon how's the weather at the C.I.A.? Is the pay still good?

Next: Ministry of Truth

[pipingguy]

Will there be a truth detection algorithm? Who will be in charge of it? Will it be co-opted? By whom? Can't be just ban BadThink and make it punishable by banishment or death or something?

Re:Next: Ministry of Truth

[AmiMoJo]

If you look at TFA, unfashionable as that may be, you can see that they set out some requirements for claims and for debunkings. For example, Trump's "34 million unregistered immigrants" claim, gets links to Politifact and their "pants on fire" rating added. You can then click the link to see their analysis.

What if

[OrangeTide]

What if the fact checking is fake? Look at urbandictionary, I'd argue that less than half of the entries are accurate. It's a fake dictionary.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for the corrupt DNC. Twitter was full of Hitlery hating Americans! Not Russians. Go look at the election results.

Their home state of AK only voted for that hag like 34%. No one likes her. She derailed Bernie. The DNC swears she had it in the bag.

Let us not forget, Hillary's Twitter feed was full of Hillary shills. Pumping propaganda to her brain dead followers. She never had any real support. Her rallies were small. No people. Rigged camera photos. In high school gyms while Trump was packing stadiums!

The DNC is fake news. Corrupt to the core...STILL!

Job openings

[Oligonicella]

Does Sarkeesian have an exclusive contract with Twitter?

Easy to Make

[Anonymous Coward]

At least some of the algorithm should be easy to make. Did Trump say it? 99% chance it is false.

What do you do with fake facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that the "facts" are facts in the first place?

E.g. for some people existence of a god is fact, for some more enlightened people it is not. For some people IQ differences proven by studies in different groups is a fact, for some it is not. For some people (e.g. developers) 1+1 is a fact, for others (lawyer, sales folks, marketing drones) 1+1 is anywhere between -1 and 9 and 11 and 10000.

So no, google can't prove facts.

Re:What do you do with fake facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

1+1 is 10 in Binary, you insensitive Clod!

Re:What do you do with fake facts?

[Blig]

How do you know that the "facts" are facts in the first place?

Indeed. "Fact checking" groups/sites are always going to be biased towards someone/some group. There is no such thing as an unbiased independent "fact checking" anything. Might as watch the horrid unashamedly biased news sites like CNN and Fox News who are two different sides of the same coin.

Can't wait boys!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to search for stuff along the lines of whistleblowers, hacking, uncomfortable truths, info on those who rule us and the such.

"Google, was wikileaks correct in declaring that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to and funded ISUS?"
"Google, did Obama kill thousands of children using drone strikes?"
"Google, did the MSM collude with Hillary to first nominate Trump then defeat him after the nomination?"

Hell lets go a little deeper.

"Google, is there any truth to the pizzagate scandal?"
"Google, did the amount of rapes and the viciousness of the attacks by refugees go up significantly in countries that welcomed them?"
"Google, is there a really a 'shadow government' that was alluded to by wikileaks?"

I seriously can't wait to try these.

Facting checking the fact checker

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's going to fact check the fact checkers?

Great!

[ooloorie]

They should start with fact-checking fake news like: "Women make 80% of what men do." or "Climate change threatens the future of humanity." or "Gun control reduces homicides." or "The welfare state helps people become productive members of society." or "Paying more for education than we do improves educational outcomes."

I suspect it isn't that kind of fake news that they are going to fact check.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you mistyped foxnews.com.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the US thirty years. Your kind will die out, you ignorant obese white man.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words "Anything that doesn't confirm my preconceived notions is fake news."

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for any of those to be "news", someone would have to do a study.

Then you can review their findings, and see if their results really do support their conclusion. If so, then it's news; if not, it's fake. This algorithm is independent of whether the study happens to agree with your political prejudices or not. It's not that hard.

You don't know what a fact is

[fyngyrz]

Remember how Hitlery had the election in the bag! Trump had no way of winning.

She did; he didn't. She won the vote. Handily. The majority voted for Clinton. Even after Comey got in there and spewed his bullshit all over the news. Even after it got out that she had the questions to be asked in one of the debates. Even after all the absurd agitprop from Fox "News." She still beat Trump by millions of votes.

Furthermore, Trump only achieved the presidency on a technical basis which was created by a bunch of red-state electors acting well outside their intended charter, which was explicitly to protect the country from an unqualified person reaching the seat of the presidency.

If it makes you happy to pretend that Trump "won" in any sense that is meaningful, by all means, carry on. But the majority knows differently. Because we didn't vote for your narcissistic, misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright pussy-grabber.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Khyber]

" The majority voted for Clinton"

Not according to the Electoral College, despite numbers.

Perhaps you should get rid of that bullshit, since obviously the popular side lost (Guess what happened when Hitler, the popular choice, got power?)

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[fyngyrz]

So, you suffer a severe deficit in reading comprehension. Interesting.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sometimes heard leftism described as a "mental disorder". I never really gave that claim much credence until I read your comment.

After seeing the amount of delusion in your comment, I can now see how leftism could be considered a type of mental disorder. It's like you've gone out of your way to ignore all aspects of reality, and you've substituted in your own perverted, twisted sense of what's "real".

Pretty much every single sentence you wrote is wrong. If you haven't denied reality outright, then you've twisted reality so badly that it no longer resembles reality at all.

Normal people don't twist reality like you have done. What you've done comes off as really, really abnormal.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try letting go. Go to step seven. you are at 3 and might need to get your script reupped.

http://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[AutodidactLabrat]

What grief?
A fraud took the office thanks to Electors refusing to obey the Constitution.
That isn't a grief, that's a grievance.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[rickb928]

No one suffers any deficit in reading comprehension when they dismiss your assertion that Hillary won the 2016 Presidential election by any meaningful measure. The election was not decided by popular vote, but by states votes and representation in the Electoral College.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Persisting in doing so marks you as either a sore loser, which is excusable, or dismissive of the law and Constitution, which marks you as perhaps a revolutionary, more likely intolerant of your political failure, which is also excusable, if you are only ranting. If you intend to refuse to accept the elected President, it marks you differently.

The 'popular' vote was not used to decide the election, If that's your sole complaint, get the constitution changed. Or have the fight so many seem ready to have.

Molon Labe.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he is correct. The majority did not vote for Clinton. She received less than 50% of the vote.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

She did; he didn't. She won the vote. Handily. The majority voted for Clinton. Even after Comey got in there and spewed his bullshit all over the news. Even after it got out that she had the questions to be asked in one of the debates. Even after all the absurd agitprop from Fox "News." She still beat Trump by millions of votes.

No, he did; she didn't. He won the electoral college vote. Handily. The majority voted for Trump. Even after Comey got in there and spewed his bullshit all over the news [in the summer and October]. Even after a trove of women magically appeared in October to accuse Trump of rape (and, huh, they all disappeared after the election; not one chose to sue a billionaire for a payday). Even after every debate attacked Trump, with practically no hard questions for Hillary (and, now, we all know why: she probably had many of them). Even after all the absurd agitprop from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, Comedy Central (The Daily Show), et al. He still beat Hillary by 77 electoral college votes (giving him 57% of the electoral college vote).

Hillary won the popular vote by a total of 2,868,691 votes. That's a pretty solid number. Kudos to her for winning the overall popular vote.

However, she won the popular vote because of a single, highly partisan state: California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016). Hillary carried the state with over 61.73% of the vote, while Trump only carried 31.62%. This equated to her getting 8,753,788 votes versus Trump's 4,483,810 votes. In other words she won California by a dramatically greater amount than she won the overall popular vote: 4,269,978 votes (almost as many as Trump had in California altogether!).

For those wondering, the same comparison cannot be attributed to Trump via Texas: Trump won Texas by 52.23% versus 43.24%, the difference being less than 1 million votes.

So, Trump won in the only way that is meaningful. And that is the only reason why he is sitting in the Oval Office rather than Hillary Clinton; his campaign realized that he needed to win the electoral college vote, while her campaign thought it had it in the bag once it illegitimately got rid of its competition. It's also why the media is in a frenzy to try to get him impeached: because it too was in the bag the whole time (just as Fox News, on the other side, was in it for Trump).

Now, I don't honestly see this as a problem because the US is a Republic for exactly this reason. Voter suppression is a natural occurrence when you know your locality is against you. Trump was never going to win California, and Hillary was always going to win it, so voters from both sides did not go out to vote (CA has a difference of 2,706,698 registered voters in Democratic favor, which is just 160K votes shy of the total accounting for Hillary's overall popular vote win). Truth be told, everyone is better off when such voters don't vote, regardless of side, because that means they don't vote on local issues where their individual vote carries more weight and they obviously are not educated enough to vote properly.

But what's most interesting is that the talk of the popular vote ignores some pretty devastating issues that are in Trump's favor. Trump won areas that Democrats have held for many elections, outside of California's safe harbor, and -- most importantly -- Trump did so against very clear voter fraud that Democrat's have notably ignored. The Green party-forced recount in Michigan revealed large voter fraud in Detroit (more people voted than actually showed up to vote, in a Democratic stronghold for the state), and Trump barely won the state. Something that was interestingly unreported, was that Virginia wen

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Um no. The process worked as intended. Maybe all you Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers can help yourself get the right electoral votes the next time? Good luck you are going to need it.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[fyngyrz]

Clinton received more votes than Trump. About 3 million or so. The obvious, relevant point I was making.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see a reference to explicitly in their charter.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Electors refusing to obey the Constitution.

Article, Section, and Clause please.

In that the Electors all voted as their States assigned, you have no legitimate grievance.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this fucking idiot here.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[ArmoredDragon]

You're just plain delusional about this (and that's putting it nicely.)

She did; he didn't. She won the vote. Handily.

No, she didn't. The Constitution is very specific that the only vote that matters for POTUS is that of the electoral college. Trump won, handily, by the rules of the constitution. Whether or not you agree with the constitution is your own opinion that you are welcome to, but Trump did play by the rules, and under said rules, he won by a landslide.

Furthermore, Trump only achieved the presidency on a technical basis which was created by a bunch of red-state electors acting well outside their intended charter

First of all, you're deciding whether they were red or blue based entirely on the popular vote in their particular state on that particular day. In fact, if you look at the map on a per-county basis, most of the states look quite purple to me, including the ones you'd plainly label as blue:

http://www.awildpoliticalnerd....

Second of all, the electors did exactly what they were "chartered" (as you put it) to do, with only four exceptions, and three of those were lawfully intended to vote for Hillary but instead voted for Colin Powell.

If it makes you happy to pretend that Trump "won" in any sense that is meaningful

Are you dumb or something? He won in the one and ONLY sense that is meaningful by law.

Honestly with as delusional as you are being about this, I wouldn't be surprised if you're the kind of jackoff who blocked public streets and wanted to raise hell simply because the election, which went exactly as legally prescribed, didn't go your way. And by the way, this country was built from the ground up as a republic, not a democracy. This means that by design, a popular vote typically doesn't necessarily overrule checks and balances, and we have various provisions (such as inalienable rights) that a simple majority vote cannot take away. And in my opinion, direct democracy would in fact be a mistake. If you disagree, then go watch C-SPAN for at least 8 hours a day, for every day of your life, because that's the equivalent of what you'd be asking every person in this country to do.

Not that I wanted Trump to win mind you, but this nonsense about Hillary being the real winner is exactly that.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Second of all, the electors did exactly what they were "chartered" (as you put it) to do, with only four exceptions, and three of those were lawfully intended to vote for Hillary but instead voted for Colin Powell.

More than that, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Seven did, more tried, but were replaced, plus more who resigned rather than vote for Trump.

If it makes you happy to pretend that Trump "won" in any sense that is meaningful

Are you dumb or something? He won in the one and ONLY sense that is meaningful by law.

Are you? A person can decide a law is not meaningful, even repellent.

It happens all the time. Sometimes it rises to the point of revolution.

The Electoral College, contrary to is zealous defenders (many who would immediately reverse course if it went the other way, see Trump's revolution tweets), is not a meaningful law, but an arcane implementation with no real purpose that it fulfills.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Khyber]

No, you obviously suffer the lack of reading comprehension, as well as historical comprehension.

Come back when you can prove you actually took and passed middle school civics, child.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[ArmoredDragon]

Get back to me after you figure out what the preview button does.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

No such option on mobile.

Meanwhile, after you're done being a dipweed, try this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

That's right, there are people so pissed at the Electoral College nonsense, that they'll use its own weakness against it.

People don't like its bullshit. Except when they get elected, of course.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[ArmoredDragon]

That's right, there are people so pissed at the Electoral College nonsense, that they'll use its own weakness against it.

No, they're not. That is not a "weakness", nor are they using anything against it. They're still participating in it EXACTLY as intended. You're kind of dumb and probably won't understand what I'm about to explain (because you've already demonstrated a rather profound ignorance of the whole thing) but I'll explain anyways:

In the original days of the constitution, several states (such as New York for example) had no general election for POTUS. That is, individual citizens did not and were not allowed to vote for the president. Instead, the state government decided through its own processes how it would send electors. Typically the way it worked is the citizens would vote for their state government, and either their state senators or the governor would decide on its own who it would send to vote for the president. Those were, and still are, the only votes that actually count for anything at all.

Now, if a state government decides that it wants to totally disregard what its own population does and instead cast its electoral votes based on what the national polls show, that is fully within the purview of the constitution as it is written, and thus perfectly legal. There is nothing "weak" about this, nor is it in any way working against itself.

People don't like its bullshit. Except when they get elected, of course.

If this was truly the case, then it would have gone away a long time ago through a constitutional amendment.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

No, she didn't. She didn't "win" any form of vote that was contested. The popular vote was not contested. She knew the rules. She played her states, he played his, she lost, he won.

Trump didn't win "on a technical basis". He won by the rules that they both agreed to by entering the contest.

By all means, tell yourself that the loser is somehow the winner. But remember, if the popular vote was how it was going to be counted, from the beginning of the contest, then both Trump and Hillary would have played everything differently. Trump would have poured so much more effort into states he strategically left out in the actual contest.

Suck it up and act like an adult.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's an irrelevant point.

You might as well say she received more high fives.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yip. About 3 million dead people voting, primarily in California. It turns out, dead people typically vote Democrat.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[AutodidactLabrat]

Proof required when you repeat that lie!

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[AutodidactLabrat]

Not if this is a rePUBLIC!
The most relevant possible thing here is from the Declaration of Independence
"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
Trump didn't get that.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, there are people so pissed at the Electoral College nonsense, that they'll use its own weakness against it.

No, they're not. That is not a "weakness", nor are they using anything against it. They're still participating in it EXACTLY as intended.

Nope, sorry, but the lack of specification in terms of elector selection IS a weakness, and the intent of the Electoral College is clearly intended to be something to avoid a single national popular vote, as such a simple process would be easy to implement, but...the NPVIC does it through a backhanded way.

If that was intended by the Founding Fathers, they were crapsack frauds who wanted a fucking coalition of states to do an end-run to determine the Presidency.

Even I can't come up with that much despite for them.

That said, they were stupid-headed enough to effectively allow for it.

You're kind of dumb and probably won't understand what I'm about to explain (because you've already demonstrated a rather profound ignorance of the whole thing) but I'll explain anyways:

You're the one trying to assert your own superiority, while not even realizing that your explanation confirms what I just said.

In the original days of the constitution, several states (such as New York for example) had no general election for POTUS. That is, individual citizens did not and were not allowed to vote for the president. Instead, the state government decided through its own processes how it would send electors. Typically the way it worked is the citizens would vote for their state government, and either their state senators or the governor would decide on its own who it would send to vote for the president. Those were, and still are, the only votes that actually count for anything at all.

Now, if a state government decides that it wants to totally disregard what its own population does and instead cast its electoral votes based on what the national polls show, that is fully within the purview of the constitution as it is written, and thus perfectly legal. There is nothing "weak" about this, nor is it in any way working against itself.

Actually, it is, when you realize that the whole point of state's deciding the Presidency over the people is resoundingly claimed as the intent. Yet by the strict law of the Constitution, it is not illegal for states to decide that a popular vote for President is the way to go, even to the national vote, in a circuitous and roundabout fashion, rather than a straight-up Amendment.

That, ArmoredDragon, is the whole point. Every fact and detail you cited is confirming that it is entirely legal. Yet was it intended? Is it the proper way to do it?

If you think so, I have to say, I resoundingly disagree.

People don't like its bullshit. Except when they get elected, of course.

If this was truly the case, then it would have gone away a long time ago through a constitutional amendment.

I wish. Sadly, there's a lot of intransigence to that, because people are so defensive about the Constitution, and it's not been enough of a problem, so most folks agree they dislike it, but aren't going to get off their posteriors and force it to change. Nothing new there. See the most recent Amendment passed. See how long it took to give the folks of DC a vote, any kind of vote.

Besides, as I said, when they get elected, they're fine with it. It'd take several such results in a row. That hasn't happen, though the Bush-Trump connection is short enough that a third time soon MIGHT do it well enough.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[ArmoredDragon]

Nope, sorry, but the lack of specification in terms of elector selection IS a weakness

It seems pretty clear to me:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In other words, how the electors are sent is entirely up to the state legislature.

If the state legislator wants to send electors that it chooses arbitrarily, it may do so.
If the state legislator wants to send electors based on the popular vote within its jurisdiction, it may do so.
If the state legislator wants to send electors based on the popular vote of the entire nation, it may do so.

It's flexible, which is quite a strength. Otherwise, you may as well argue that skyscrapers in Japan are weak because they bend and flex instead of being rigid. The rigid buildings don't survive earthquakes.

Actually, it is, when you realize that the whole point of state's deciding the Presidency over the people is resoundingly claimed as the intent.

That's not the intent. The intent is that it's up to the state legislature how exactly they want to do it. It's quite simple. If they want to do it over the people, that's up to them. If they want to do it based on referendum (which is how it currently works in all 50 states) that is up to them.

Sadly, there's a lot of intransigence to that, because people are so defensive about the Constitution

That's actually the way the constitution was designed: Simple, deliberately vague in some cases to allow wiggle room, and difficult to change. And as it turns out, the US constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use today. And there's a reason for that: Things that don't bend break. In other words: In a large population, you're invariably going to get people who think and behave differently from one another as co-cultures form, and over time people's attitudes change. Our current system is highly flexible to that end due to its simplicity, and if you make it overly complex and/or inflexible, then it will break, which is also why it is resistant to change by design.

Re:You don't know what a fact is

[ebvwfbw]

Clinton received more votes than Trump. About 3 million or so. The obvious, relevant point I was making.

Which is also wrong. Notice that Jill Stein started a recount, Trump gained a lot of votes. That stopped them cold because the truth was about to come out. If they did a national recount I'm sure Hillary lost by at least a million, probably many million as people are not as stupid as she thinks. Certainly the women that she bashed recently and maligned. She knows she lost big time too. I think you know it too. I want to remind you about the election. How many Obama signs were out there both elections? How many McCain and Romney? What were the results?

Now about this election. I didn't even know what a Hillary sign looked like (and I drive though many states, counties) because I couldn't even find one. If I were to offer you a million bucks the last week of the campaign to photograph 100 Hillary signs in 3 hours, I bet you'd lose. On actual lawns put there by the people living there. Almost nobody was even attending her campaign stops. No problem with Trump signs. You'd be back in 10 minutes. I came across one guy that I bet had 100 on just his property. Not until the last week of the election and then I was surprised to find the logo was the twin towers with a plane going through them. Can't make this up. I mean, WTF? Really? Trump signs were plastered everywhere. Republican areas, Democrat strong holds, didn't matter. So by campaign sign alone, he clobbered her. Wasn't even close.

The aftermath has been very revealing as well. 50 years ago we had racist and bigots that were all verified Democrats walking around in white outfits with a cone top. The KKKK (Why the 4th K? It's Knights of the Klu Klux Klan and that fits into their little symbol if you look at it. There are four Ks in it). Nothing has changed. We have people running around in now black outfits, hidden faces again this time without the funny hat. Same racists, same fascists (those that still believe in God, otherwise same communists), same democrats terrorizing the country. Just like in the past we had kids that didn't even know better wearing the KKKK outfits, I have a feeling the kids today are useful idiots as well.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just do what I do and simply say "go look it up". Alas, your life is defined by Microsoft, so you're a walking talking Microsoft ad, and likewise I doubt you understand much outside of anything Microsoft tells you, including the legislative history of the US.

Sure, sure, Mr "Google the Incorporation Doctrine" though if you're going for humor, you kinda fell flat on it.

Which is fine, except for the part that individual states had their own rules contrary to the bill of rights up until they were incorporated. And in fact, they still do for the ones that haven't been fully incorporated. If you don't believe me, look up McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Yes, yes, I already mentioned above that states got up to a lot of crap, and even when a state lost in court, Jackson ignored it. Not to mention Adams who shat over the First Amendment.

As for the rest of your post, I'm somewhat done with this topic as it has gone stale, so idc anymore.

Just remember, people did what they wanted, and took what was written in the way that was convenient to them. Even if the simple and earnest language says otherwise.

Re: You don't know what a fact is

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems pretty clear to me:

Yes, it is clearly written that it is not specified, which is why the NPVIC is legal.

 

It's flexible, which is quite a strength. Otherwise, you may as well argue that skyscrapers in Japan are weak because they bend and flex instead of being rigid. The rigid buildings don't survive earthquakes.

Other way around actually. Buildings are designed to remain intact and possess resilience. Except those that collapse. Happened in Poland recently.

Also somewhere in Tornado country.

Actually, it is, when you realize that the whole point of state's deciding the Presidency over the people is resoundingly claimed as the intent.

That's not the intent.

Try telling that to the anti-popular vote brigade. Probably half a dozen around in this thread.

That's actually the way the constitution was designed: Simple, deliberately vague in some cases to allow wiggle room, and difficult to change.

Nope. Common myth though. They designed it because the Articles weren't working, so they go together, agreed on most things, slapped it together and hoped it would work.

 

And as it turns out, the US constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use today. And there's a reason for that:

Not really, no. Unless your reason is that the US managed to throw off the overseas empire responsible for taking over much of the world'sâ countries and it still resists the concept of a single written Constitution.

Things that don't bend break.

The grass bends, the oak towers into the sky.

Ask Terry Pratchett about wise old sayings

 

In other words: In a large population, you're invariably going to get people who think and behave differently from one another as co-cultures form, and over time people's attitudes change.

That happens with two people. And you don't even have to believe the Bible. Go visit divorce court.

Our current system is highly flexible to that end due to its simplicity, and if you make it overly complex and/or inflexible, then it will break, which is also why it is resistant to change by design.

Our current system is flawed, and often it's principles are ignored, or contradicted, and due to a lack of comprehensive change, a lot of conflict remains unresolved.

And personally, some of the subunits are even worse. See Alabama.

Google deciding what I see and read?

[stickyboot]

This has a very fishy smell of censorship to it.

Re:Google deciding what I see and read?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just now realizing Google is a cia asset? better late than never.

Re:Google deciding what I see and read?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. Use Bing.

At Last: The Ministry of Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we have a two minute hate next?

Correlation

[coinreturn]

There is a pretty high correlation to trump supporters and people who argue against fact-checking. Just saying.

Re:Correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation is not causation.

Trump DID win

[s.petry]

Hillary lost the Electoral College, which is how _EVERY_SINGLE_PRESIDENT in US History has been elected. We do not elect Presidents by popular vote, and never have. The reason for this is solid, and I can only recommend you do your homework instead of repeating bullshit talking points handed down by people who LOST the election. (Not unique to this batch, but this is certainly the worst I can recall).

Following the law is not a "technicality", it's called LAW. Your ignorance of the law demonstrates a big problem with the left.

Re:Trump DID win

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong
Both Rutherford B. Hayes and G.W. Bush did not get the popular votes necessary to get the electoral votes.
Both were failures
Trump did get the electoral votes, but only if you disregard the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal rights, privileges and immunities.
Bluntly, the electoral college has been unconstitutional since 1873

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief, you are mentally retarded. BACK TO YOUR RUBBER ROOM!

Re: Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Popular vote has nothing to do with the electoral college. Please read the Constitution before trying to say something is unconstitutional. Kthxbai

Re:Trump DID win

[fredrated]

Do our homework? May I suggest the same to you? The point of the Electoral College was to see that the people couldn't elect a monster, if they did so it would be voided by the College. In this case the College elected the monster, in direct violation of their reason to be.

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost the Electoral College, which is how _EVERY_SINGLE_PRESIDENT in US History has been elected.

We do not elect Presidents by popular vote, and never have. The reason for this is solid, and I can only recommend you do your homework instead of repeating bullshit talking points handed down by people who LOST the election.

Actually, the reasoning for that is spurious, flawed, and I recommend you do some analysis instead of repeating bullshit talking points handed down by people who only won because of a technicality in the process, not by the popular vote, despite LYING to claim they did win in such a landslide.

(Not unique to this batch, but this is certainly the worst I can recall).

Yes, well, you've forgotten about the elections of 1876, and 1824, so exactly how good is your memory?

Following the law is not a "technicality", it's called LAW. Your ignorance of the law demonstrates a big problem with the left.

A law that is based on an arcane process is indeed properly described, as it was by " fyngyrz" who pointed out that electors were compelled by law to vote for Trump, rather than make their decisions as they were intended to do. You did read what was said, right?

Furthermore, anybody with a shred of integrity would note that the electoral college system itself is a technical process, and not especially meritorious. To give it the "unchallengable sanctity" of law" is a big problem with the right. You are fuming in rage that somebody dares protest and object to a flaw, because the law, the law cannot be questioned. That is a serious issue, and one I suspect you do not wish to consider as your own problem.

Re: Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus are you serious? You are a crazy person.

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

But the reason people got bent out of shape and compared it to the popular vote is because MOST elections the popular vote & electoral vote mirror each other. And when they do not, (as a few other times in history), people get flustered because they are the populous & consider the electoral college a bunch of gatekeepers.

This angry result is predictable, (from an average citizen's point of view), because they're the ones who go to the booths. This frustration happens EVERY time the popular vote & college vote to not match. Nothing to do with Hillary or Trump in particular...

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost the Electoral College, which is how _EVERY_SINGLE_PRESIDENT in US History has been elected.

I think you need to proof-read a bit more, since you just said something rather perplexing.

But actually, you need to look up John Quincy Adams (who got 84 Electoral Votes to Jackson's 99 in 1824, but since neither was enough, lead to the House making a corrupt bargain), and Rutherford B. Hayes (who won only 165 electoral votes to Samuel J. Tilden's 184, but was awarded 20 votes from 3 states due to Congressional malfeasance in 1876), and Thomas Jefferson (who tied with Aaron Burr, nominally running for Vice president in 1800, also pushing it to the House), so you don't look so dumb when I point out you are factually wrong.

We do not elect Presidents by popular vote, and never have. The reason for this is solid, and I can only recommend you do your homework instead of repeating bullshit talking points handed down by people who LOST the election. (Not unique to this batch, but this is certainly the worst I can recall).

Actually, the Electoral College is a FLAWED system, as it didn't even last a half-dozen elections before its flaws became apparent (hence the 12th Amendment), and there have been no less than 5 times it has come across as less than convincing. Possibly as many as 8. One of those flawed elections even lead to a Civil War.

There is plenty of solid evidence to this, but you prefer to believe the talking points handed down by people who need to conceal their lack of morality and integrity by purporting to claim the support of the long dead founding fathers.

But heck, this shouldn't be a surprise, just today, Mitch McConnell demonstrated his wayward hypocrisy by killing the filibuster just to force through a Supreme Court justice when he had spent the past YEAR denying a nominee by the president at the time, which McConnell ALSO blamed on someone else.

Not an uncommon pattern, you know what you're doing is wrong, but you need to believe somebody else is making you right.

Following the law is not a "technicality", it's called LAW. Your ignorance of the law demonstrates a big problem with the left.

Your ignorance of the facts demonstrates a big problem with yourself. More importantly, the law is not always right, and in this country, everyone, even the left, who you despise, has a right to challenge the law in a variety of forms. This too, is the law.

Don't like it, do you? That people can speak against you. It's a terrible thing.

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your 14th Amendment argument? The only possible argument I could see is if you proved that some states that Trump won engaged in some election malfeasance that prevented some large percentage of the voters from voting. In that case the electoral votes of that state would be reduced that same percent. But I see no evidence of such malfeasance.

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he said (or someone did above) that if they disagree with the law as it stands, then they need to try to get it changed.

It doesn't matter how much you dislike it, how much merit it has, how much of a "technical process" it is or isn't. It is the current state of the system and it is lawful. And Hillary lawfully lost. If you don't like it (and it's obvious you don't), then attempt to change it.

I personally think the American EC system is not the best. A first over the line popular vote system (which is what Hillary's supporters suggest she would have won by) is also not the best. The way to do it is two party preferential voting (look at Australia's voting system for an example).

Re: Trump DID win

[AutodidactLabrat]

I did.
And then I read the 14th Amendment.
Can't have both.
4 California Democrats are greater than 1 Republican Minnasotan.
If the votes are equally PRIVILEGED (read the 14th) then the electoral college is granting a preference for one citizen over another
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Re:Trump DID win

[AutodidactLabrat]

Nope
The mere fact that voters in one state have a higher electoral votes / voters ratio is proof of violation of "EQUAL rights, privileges and immunities".
Therefore, I contend that the 14th Amendment has vitiated the EC and it must be struck down (later amendments change the existing law)

Re:Trump DID win

[Anonymous Coward]

Their rights are entirely equal, you idiot. The fact that one state has a greater population than another doesn't have a single damned thing to do with anything.

Re: Trump DID win

[ebvwfbw]

No you didn't. Otherwise you'd know about the electoral college and wouldn't be making such a foolish statement. Go back to 8th grade civics. You obviously were asleep at the time.

Re: Trump DID win

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yes I did. I also read the 14th Amendment
Clearly you did not

Re: Trump DID win

[ebvwfbw]

Yes I did. I also read the 14th Amendment
Clearly you did not

Clearly I did. Grow up a little. If you read the Constitution you know that we are a Republic. With me so far? You seem to be (which is a wonder). Ok, the 14 Amendment has 5 sections. Since you didn't specify which section, I'll presume you meant section 2. Feel free to correct me because I don't want to stuff words into your mouth, though it will be entertaining if you chose one of the other sections. Section 2 (google 14 Amendment, all the sites have the same words):

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

    Please explain because all of us that have bothered to read it, including very seasoned scholars as well as the people that wrote and passed this section missed it. Where does it say popular vote and not representatives, especially since it starts with the word - representatives? You didn't read it. Admit it. Representatives are apportioned based on the decennial Census. None of that stuff is even in dispute. Just BS the left tells you to believe.

    Besides, it really doesn't matter. If the measure that counted was the popular vote Trump would have focused on that instead and still would have kicked her butt because she's a two time loser. She may try for 3 times, if she lives that long. She really belongs in a nursing home. When she came out of the woods recently she still uses the scooby van and had to be helped almost up to the stage.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

If she was so hated why did she win the popular vote by several million?

"OBJECTIVE REALITY? NOT ON MY INTERNETS!"

[GameboyRMH]

...screams every right-winger simultaneously.

Re: "OBJECTIVE REALITY? NOT ON MY INTERNETS!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. CNN, Politifact are both shown to be corrupt and nothing but an extension of the DNC.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead people typically dont vote republican.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[ryanmetcalf]

AK? Their home state of Alaska? You'd think they'd have a better copy/paste script for you to work from for your baseless rants.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not allowed to ask that question.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[AutodidactLabrat]

Then why did Comey admit that RUSSIANS sourced the hacks?
More lies by the rightards

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing republicans make up for it by voting early and voting often.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[AutodidactLabrat]

Proof of dead voters REQUIRED when you say those lies chump!

The Ministry of Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, Google fact-checked it, it HAS to be truthful."

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

She did best in states with hackable voting machines and no paper trail.

Endless vituperation without facts

[AutodidactLabrat]

Notice how the right trolls are out in force claiming fact checking is biased therefore must not be done?
Knew this was coming
Can't win the argument, lie about the evidence.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, you disingenuous shit-post. Right wingers are out in force because the "fact-checker" that Google has chosen displays blatantly obvious bias. For example, they actually rated Obama's "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" as mostly true, until doing a 180 and calling it the Lie of the Year.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Raenex]

Don't worry, guys. The left has fact-checked itself and determined that they have no bias.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone is objecting to fact checking in general. At least not seriously, trollers be trollin', after all. I think we can all agree that snopes, for example, is good for the world.

But when a mega corporation gets involved...one who's business model is completely based on invasive spying...one who's in bed with the NSA...

There's clearly potential for abuse. The could become the gatekeepers of truth, spread their reality distortion field far and wide. Heck, if it's popular and low quality, they might even "damage the brand" of fact checking itself. Plus, they advertise! That's synonymous with lying.

"Axe Body Spray, now 10% more awesome. Trust us, it check out."

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[AutodidactLabrat]

FAIR has bias.
Vanity Fair has bias
Snopes? not a chance
Poltifact? Proof offered has been, to be generous, lacking.
The right, however, drools, as Conservapedia proves so very well

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Raenex]

Snopes? not a chance

You mean the site whose owner hired prostitutes to do their fact checking for them? Top notch. Oh, that's just "fake news". Or maybe not.

Poltifact? Proof offered has been, to be generous, lacking.

The site owned by a liberal-leaning newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times, that endorsed Clinton and consistently endorsed other Democrats running for office? The site that consistently finds Republicans lie more and more severely? Well, of course! I mean it can't be that they are injecting their own bias into the mix, right?

The right, however, drools, as Conservapedia proves so very well

The right has Conservapedia, and the left has "Rational" Wiki, a cesspit of feminism and other progressive causes.

See, I can smell the bullshit coming from both sides. It's just the mainstream media, as a matter of fact, leans to the left but likes to pretend they are non-partisan.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Because prostitutes can't check facts? How does that work?

And has it occurred to you that maybe, if you look at any kind of objective facts, the Republicans really are lying more than the Democrats? Of course both sides lie (although be very careful how you use that word - there's a difference between "spin" and "lying", a difference between "stating" and "reporting", and a difference between "facts" and "conclusions", and people confuse all of these things all the time).

But the Republicans in recent years, and Trump in particular, have taken it to a whole new level. They're just better at it. Why do you think Trump chose to run as a Republican? He could have picked either party, but he saw which one was ripe for a hostile takeover and he took it. Bernie tried to do the same thing to the Democrats, but they still had enough coherence to fight him off.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Raenex]

Because prostitutes can't check facts? How does that work?

It's not a sign of professionalism when the owner hires prostitutes that he's probably been visiting. Read the Forbes article. Snopes is lacking in qualities that you'd expect from a fact checker.

there's a difference between "spin" and "lying"

Yes, and most of the judgments tend to be about spin, with a wide room for interpretation -- which makes it easy for the bias of the so-called fact checkers to shine through.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[AutodidactLabrat]

Once more, show me the proof that the PRODUCT IS FALSE.
So far, Finding the republicans lie more and more severely is simply true.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[AutodidactLabrat]

Forbes.
Now THERE is an objective source.
Not.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Raenex]

And I can trivially reject any source you claim as "objective" as biased without looking at the evidence. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Re:Endless vituperation without facts

[Raenex]

Once more, show me the proof that the PRODUCT IS FALSE.

Any "proof" I show you will be dismissed, because you'll just agree with whatever spin fits your chosen side.

So far, Finding the republicans lie more and more severely is simply true.

No, that's just your own dogmatic assumption.

Lib-left wants news censorship

[knorthern knight]

> There is a pretty high correlation to trump supporters and people who argue against fact-checking. Just saying.

There's a pretty high correlation between lib-left (Clintons and Dems) and people who argue for internet gatekeeping... just saying.

The lib-left loves their lapdog MSM...
* The same lapdog MSM that kept quiet despite knowing that JFK was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of.
* The same lapdog MSM that suppressed the story of Bill Clinton's sexcapades.

Actually, if the MSM had broken the Clinton/Lewinsky story, Matt Drudge would've remained a nobody. Instead, the Clinton/Lewinsky story proved that the MSM couldn't be trusted, and that "alternate media" (e.g. Drudge Report) was more reliable at times. The MSM have only themselves to blame for people trusting alternate media more than MSM.

Just as they love their lapdog MSM, the lib-left hate/fear "alternate media". http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that
> had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Like husband, like wife; fast-forward to 2016... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a
> fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

Re:Lib-left wants news censorship

[coinreturn]

Just as they love their lapdog MSM, the lib-left hate/fear "alternate media". http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]

...because "alternate media" present "alternate facts", aka lies. Brietbart is the PRIME example.

Politifact said Syria had no chemical weapons

[schwit1]

No bias there.

And who fact checks the fact checkers?

[qchan]

Seems rather nefarious to have a single entity that determines its own sources as being true, and then use those same sources to determine whether or not other sources are true. What would stop Google from false-flagging (no pun intended) accurate content? What about the other way around? Who's to say Google would neglect to flag something that's deemed totally false (for the likes of CNN or Fox News)?

I guess what I'm getting at here, is how do we know we can trust this? By simply taking their word for it? Seems like somebody is trying to hide something or label alternative news sites as false to essentially pass down a narrative. Just my opinion...

The same Google allowed Santorum "Google-Bomb"?

[knorthern knight]

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/25/...

> In 2003, Savage had enlisted a digital army to tie Santorum's name with
> an...unpleasant sexual definition...and then "Google bomb" the Republican
> until the new term became the top search result for "Rick Santorum."

And we're supposed to trust their "fact checking"? NOT!

just in time for the syrian war!

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't want people thinking for themselves and questioning the next war for israel!

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

She was the popular vote because she paid for it with impossible promises and absurd campaign spending.

Sanders was crushing her on no budget which is why the DNC scuttled the Sanders campaign.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof isn't required if your a Republican, just the lack of Sanity, at least that what I have noticed with friends and family.

Pure Rubbish, Troll

[s.petry]

The point of the Electoral College is so that ALL States, even the smallest, have a voice in the Government. The founders knew that Democracy suffered numerous failures because simple people are persuaded by rhetoric, not facts. You demonstrate their position quite well, and are a perfect example of what they were trying to protect against.

I am happy to criticize President Trump for things he does wrong. For example, I believe it was a mistake to bomb Syria for numerous reasons (You appear to be too simple to understand, so I won't extrapolate). Wanting to reduce taxes and fix our broken tax code is something every single politician has said since I was a kid. I'm waiting for that bill, and will criticize if necessary. Trying to resolve immigration in the US is again, something politicians have been claimed they would address ever since I was a kid. President Trump is taking steps to do so, and the outcome is yet to be measured. Wanting to fix trade is yet again something we have been promised by every politician since I was a kid, President Trump is actively taking steps to address trade issues. As with the previous, results are yet to be measured. Neither of those last two have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans as Bernie likes to claim, and so far the US economy has been improving almost purely on optimism.

Save your ad hominem for the other simpletons who will believe it. I measure facts and results.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of the Electoral College is so that ALL States, even the smallest, have a voice in the Government.

Nope, it does nothing to achieve that. Here's a hint: Only 11 States would be necessary to win the Electoral College. That would eliminate 39 of them.

You'll have to find some other excuse for the Founding Fathers's Electoral College. Or recognize that they were HIGHLY mistaken. That their broken idea was never serving the role you think it did, and is only an obstruction in the way of ACTUALLY serving the people.

Not even a state like Georgia or Louisiana has a run-off.

The founders knew that Democracy suffered numerous failures because simple people are persuaded by rhetoric, not facts.
  You demonstrate their position quite well, and are a perfect example of what they were trying to protect against.

Actually, you are, in your consistent and repeated demonstration that you succumb to rhetoric, then repeat it. See above. You are dogmatically indoctrinated into your love of the Electoral College. You are always going to be. It is inescapable for you.

I am happy to criticize President Trump for things he does wrong.

No, you're not. In fact, you resent anybody criticizing Trump AT ALL, for ANYTHING, and defend it even when it's PROVABLY false.

Even stating a known fact, like Trump losing the popular vote, upsets you. It's a trigger for you.

For example, I believe it was a mistake to bomb Syria for numerous reasons (You appear to be too simple to understand, so I won't extrapolate).

Oh my, a tepid criticism and an insult. How enlightened and informed of you.

Wanting to reduce taxes and fix our broken tax code is something every single politician has said since I was a kid. I'm waiting for that bill, and will criticize if necessary.

Oh my, you mean complaining about taxes is a POPULAR rhetorical strategy? Here's a hint: Check out Andrew Jackson's election.

Trying to resolve immigration in the US is again, something politicians have been claimed they would address ever since I was a kid.

Here's another thing to check out: The Know-Nothing party.

President Trump is taking steps to do so, and the outcome is yet to be measured.

Oh my, you claim he's taking steps. Bwawahah. Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's promise keeping. He claimed success by putting forth for consideration.

Wanting to fix trade is yet again something we have been promised by every politician since I was a kid, President Trump is actively taking steps to address trade issues.

Again, another issue you'd be able to bring up if you were as old enough to say you were a kid during Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Or Adams. Or Washington.

As with the previous, results are yet to be measured.

Oh? Then if nothing else, you can criticize Trump for claiming results. Oh wait, crickets.

Neither of those last two have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans as Bernie likes to claim, and so far the US economy has been improving almost purely on optimism.

Go ahead, claim Bernie said something he didn't say. Shoe-horn him into the discussion, because you surely can't examine Trump. Better to repeat your hate-on.

But certainly, the US economy has been improving before Trump got in office, in fact, it's been going up for quite a while, and Trump's claims of some depression or devastation were lies.

Save your ad hominem for the other simpletons who will believe it. I measure facts and results.

No, you believe in shell games and pomposity. You take a load of common beans, and think they're magic, because you want to hear that.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[fredrated]

Someone got their knickers in a twist.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[s.petry]

Is that you admitting you were lying? Hmm, I don't see any type of retraction or correction to your statements. Being caught lying in a story about "fake news" has to be embarrassing.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[fredrated]

"The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power."

http://www.historycentral.com/...

You really are an idiot.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[s.petry]

You are confusing the US Constitution as a whole with the Electoral College. Instead of watching TV shows, how about actually reading what the Founders thought in the Federalist Papers. Outside of being afraid to be wrong and learning history that is.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"The founders knew that Democracy suffered numerous failures because simple people are persuaded by rhetoric, not facts."

"The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency."

It looks like who you were replying to was exactly on point in regards to one of the reasons the electoral college exists.

The second reason was given in his first sentence:
"The point of the Electoral College is so that ALL States, even the smallest, have a voice in the Government."

AFAIK, these are both reasons the electoral college exists.

Has the electoral college failed because you disagree with the outcome? Or do you have an objective measure by which you can prove it failed?

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a trigger for you."

Says the person who is clearly triggered.

Re: Pure Rubbish, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature of the electoral college was fundamentally changed when the number of members of the house was limited to 465. This allowed an electoral vote in Nebraska to represent far fewer people than an electoral vote in California or New York creating a different dynamic for presidential election. Good or bad depends on your viewpoint but definitely different.

Re:Pure Rubbish, Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that there were 615 sorties flown in 2016 that involved at least one weapon drop Obama was presumably ten times as wrong as in this particular action, no?

You are fake news

[s.petry]

Pure rubbish. Cherry picking is a common tactic for fake news. Look up CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and even ABC removing content to portray a narrative. To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you. Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Re:You are fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Oh my, you can go back further than that. Like with OJ Simpson, and at least you'll have an older example. Or even further.

Besides, Zimmerman? He is a racist. There's a reason he lost his suit. Seriously, that idiot could have avoided being a killer of another human being if all he'd done was gone to the pharmacy instead.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you.

You forgot law enforcement. And other forms of Planting evidence and corruption.

I'm sure you meant nothing by the oversight.

Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Oh, you should learn about Fox.. So bad, the White House had to apologize to a foreign country for believing Fox News. Editing video since 1984.

You know, a company that hired a PR firm to slut shame people critical of one of their hosts. Looks like that is getting out.

So are you happy yet?

   

Re:You are fake news

[s.petry]

As I said above, I never exonerated Fox. I simply said that they at least portray the left and allow them on shows making them not as bad as the two shows which are pure leftist propaganda. CNN and MSNBC will not have a Conservative on their show. They may cherry pick some video but there is never a debate, it's always leftist talk.

Fair point about OJ, but it's a bit harder to demonstrate as Youtube was not around back then.

Re: You are fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said above, I never exonerated Fox. I simply said that they at least portray the left and allow them on shows making them not as bad as the two shows which are pure leftist propaganda. CNN and MSNBC will not have a Conservative on their show. They may cherry pick some video but there is never a debate, it's always leftist talk.

Seems to me that you are praising Fox News, when actually, they are criticized for the opposite while adding a gratuitously false claim about CNN and MSNBC

The obvious bias you have for Fox News is a problem. You would be more convincing if you made an effort to denounce them as well.

Remember, they are the channel that thought Palm Trees grew in Wisconsin.

Fair point about OJ, but it's a bit harder to demonstrate as Youtube was not around back then.

YouTube isn't necessary, just a sense of history. You could go back even further. Try watching Citizen Kane, then examine the history behind it.

However the Maine sunk, the war was started by the papers.

Even older, the War of Jenkins Ear. Or the Crusades. Which even if you ignore the propaganda against the Turks, managed to slaughter Jews in Germany and overthrow a Byzantine emperor.

Also I'm pretty sure Paris never abducted Helen.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Mexicans in California liked her...but if she had so much "popular support" how did she manage to lose Pennsylvania, a solid blue state? For a Democrat to lose Pennsylvania they have to really suck!

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama implored illegal aliens to get out and vote. Democrats like to repeal voter ID laws.

Nice Straw-man

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about fact-checking, dickwad, not conclusion-checking.

Who the fuck modded this straw-man up?

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you say she had impossible promises and then go to praise comrade Sanders like he isn't the king of impossible promises. You were duped by a dirty old man.

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Rent seeking minorites

an "Also"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I don't honestly see this as a problem because the US is a Republic for exactly this reason. Voter suppression is a natural occurrence when you know your locality is against you. Trump was never going to win California, and Hillary was always going to win it, so voters from both sides did not go out to vote (CA has a difference of 2,706,698 registered voters in Democratic favor, which is just 160K votes shy of the total accounting for Hillary's overall popular vote win [wikipedia.org]). Truth be told, everyone is better off when such voters don't vote, regardless of side, because that means they don't vote on local issues where their individual vote carries more weight and they obviously are not educated enough to vote properly.

Living in California it's not only voter suppression, but outright intimidation. People were threatened with termination for talking about any candidate other than the one with the D in front of their name.

Re: an "Also"

[Anonymous Coward]

You want voter intimidation, try being a member of the US military and disagree with a position the NRA espouses or take a slightly liberal position on any issue. I speak from experience.

TRUTH Joogle HEROIN JUNKIES can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

How come you have cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos, you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit? You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/> ... apk

Re: TRUTH Joogle HEROIN JUNKIES can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

APK

Re: TRUTH Joogle HEROIN JUNKIES can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to think there's a little APK in all of us. We are all APK, inside.

Re:Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

I took your advice and added start64.com to your hosts file. I was worried that you might be making some ad revenue.

Re:Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Poppin skin with Rabbi Brin! Stick it in again and again. Take another hit with Eric SHIT! Load next stage with Mr. Page! Hahahaha (losers).

TRUTH Joogle HEROIN JUNKIES can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

How come you have cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos, you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit? You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

TRUTH Joogle HEROIN JUNKIES can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

How come you have cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars if you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies? Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

For leftist definitions of "fact"

[sethstorm]

Given the lack of credibility of existing media and Google's Silicon Valley alignment, this is a narrative checker more than it is a "fact checker".

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies? Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES)... apk

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

The hacks wouldn't have mattered if the DNC wasn't corrupt to the core. Putin did the American people a favor.

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies? Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES)... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies? Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES)... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies? Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys?

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit?

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit???

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

FUCKING FASCSISTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony that the left are everything they accuse others of being. FUCK GOOGLE, they and people that support this fake-news-censoring are the real fascists of our day and age!

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit???

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit???

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

Truth JOOgle Heroin junkies can't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut off Infowars & you're caught admoney sponsoring violent jihadist videos https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22Google%22+and+%22HEROIN%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ you lying dirty motherfucking HEROIN junkies?

Not enough GOLD for more heroin boys??

* "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit???

You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

APK

P.S.=> Yes: It makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES))... apk

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"... saying "Who shall I send & who will go for us": & I said 'Here am I - Send me...'" - IIRC, Book of Isaiah 6:13.

APK

P.S.=> & "If a man loves the world, the love of the father's not in him..." ... apk

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=dead+voters+uncovered&rlz=1C9BKJA_enSA680SA680&oq=dead+voters+uncovered+&aqs=chrome..69i57.13029j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

I just used this tool to check this story...

[Anonymous Coward]

and it said it was false (0). Please move along to less paradoxical comments.

Impersonating me is WEAK... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See my subject: Is THAT the "best ya got" Google? Apparently so. That & being the biggest hypocrite liars there is!

APK

P.S.=> No joke - you're ridiculous Google... apk

Re: DNC is whining about Twitter

[AutodidactLabrat]

Selective leaks, SELECTIVE. Hacks mattered because the hackers refused to divulge Trump's entangled Russian affiliations

Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox protrays the left however they feel like putting words in their mouths. Whenever they have a "liberal" guest they either shout them down or the guest holds an opinion on a single subject the agrees with "FoxThink".

If you want an supposedly liberal outlet that actually strives to give both sides the ability to state and defend their positions try listening to the NPR programs "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered". These two programs have political guests from both sides of the aisle and allows them to talk. Granted many other NPR programs have a decidedly political viewpoint but these two are well-balanced.