Slashdot Mirror


FBI Tracked 'Fake News' Believed To Be From Russia On Election Day (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The FBI monitored social media on Election Day last year in an effort to track a suspected Russian disinformation campaign utilizing "fake news," CNN has learned. In the months leading up to Election Day, Twitter and Facebook were the feeding grounds for viral "news" stories floating conspiracies and hoaxes, many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton. On Election Day, dozens of agents and analysts huddled at a command center arrayed with large monitoring screens at the FBI headquarters in Washington watching for security threats, according to multiple sources. That included analysts monitoring cyber threats, after months of mounting Russian intrusions targeting every part of the US political system, from political parties to policy think-tanks to state election systems. On this day, there was also a group of FBI cyber and counterintelligence analysts and investigators watching social media. FBI analysts had identified social media user accounts behind stories, some based overseas, and the suspicion was that at least some were part of a Russian disinformation campaign, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

167 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. They looked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK. What did they find? Or is the answer to that question (maybe even the question itself!) "fake news"?

    1. Re:They looked for it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So there was a lot of fake news coming out, and some was from Russia. Thanks for this information, I would never have guessed.

    2. Re: They looked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???

    3. Re: They looked for it by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      ....and Russia is a FAKE STATE!

    4. Re:They looked for it by unixisc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Democrats & neocons act like Fake News is something that requires a state actor. Despite the fact that anybody on a laptop can put together something on a website, broadcast it on FaceBook & Twitter, get enough retweets and soon, the thing has a life of its own.

      During the Cold War, US diplomats could tell their Soviet counterparts, when confronting them w/ photographic or video evidence, that pictures don't lie. That changed since computers became popular, along w/ Photoshop and video editing tools. Today's reality is that a 200lb 14 year old in mom's basement can do this stuff.

    5. Re:They looked for it by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      " . . . many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton."

      What was fake about those negative claims? I'd believe almost anything negative about Hillary. Well, maybe not the one about her drinking the blood of young children, but nearly everything else.

    6. Re: They looked for it by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???

      Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it! If you don't use the right terms, people might start thinking the Democrats fucked up really, really badly, and we can't let that happen or the people who spent decades getting all that political power might find themselves out in the cold, unable to pay for their third summer home in the Caribbean!

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:They looked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " . . . many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton." What was fake about those negative claims? I'd believe almost anything negative about Hillary. Well, maybe not the one about her drinking the blood of young children, but nearly everything else.

      Just because you believe these claims doesn't mean they're true; it rather means that people are telling you what you want to hear.

    8. Re: They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's called "Contributions in kind" and you obviously know that if Trump had a Citizen, or a Corporation, donating to him thus, it would be a FELONY!

    9. Re:They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      YOU believe, well, that's a real yardstick for truth....not

    10. Re:They looked for it by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Easy to make fake news, much harder to create a coordinated system and message to shape opinion. Think "news cycle" rather than "story."

    11. Re: They looked for it by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I find hilarious is thanks to Wikileaks we have more than enough evidence to prove there was major collusion between the DNC and several large news outlets to ignore crimes and influence the election but the thing we are supposed to care about is Russia MIGHT have acted like Internet trolls and went "psst psst"....really? Do they REALLY expect us to be Russia having some Internet trolls makes them more powerful than a dozen billion dollar news outlets and the DNC when it comes to affecting our election process? Really?

      The DNC and HRC rigged the primary to insure Bernie couldn't win, the MSM in cahoots with the DNC went out of their way to ignore evidence of crimes committed by HRC including but not limited to lying under oath to congress, lying to the FBI, and destroying evidence that was under subpoena, we even had a former president having a secret meeting with the person in charge of investigating his wife who in turn ordered the head of the FBI to change his language to cover up the fact HRC was under investigation, but we should care about Russian trolls...really?

      I think we can all see who the REAL threat to democracy is, its the fake news outlets like CNN who are in the pocket of the DNC and whom have a vested interest NOT in reporting facts but pushing a political narrative. Between Wikileaks and Project Veritas I'd say we have more than enough evidence for arrests to be made...so why aren't we making them? Who is covering for those that were helping the DNC to shove HRC down our throats? This is what we really should be investigating because if we do not? Its never gonna matter what the people do on a grass roots level because the corporate masters can sit in a back room and choose who is gonna win the primaries no matter what.

      Oh and for those that think Shillary and the DNC could do no wrong? You have them to thank for Donald Trump, look up "pied piper candidate" and see for yourself how Shillary and her pet MSM pushed Trump because they figured with her identity politics would play well against him compared to more mainstream candidates like Bush or Cruz.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re: They looked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???

      We did it to ourselves, though the republican party seems to be the biggest culprit. The weak point was the people. They were easily mislead by this crap. The initial reason was Donald Trump's hyping everyone up with a bunch of shit how they were after him and crap. The morons eat it up, making it that much harder for Obama to announce the actual attack, without playing into Trump's narrative.

      In that way Trump was and is a traitor to our democracy. His win and all costs strategy is a mockery to all standards of decency. He is unfit to the position the Russian's helped him to win, but as I said, I blame the republican party as well. They have been pushing the populist crap, always finding some scapegoat to blame everything on.

      It is demonstrated so very well by the health care "debate."

      Obamacare is the end of the world, worst thing since blah blah blah, and yet after all this time their only solid plan seems to be not how to fix it, but how to use it to gain power. His solution is basically to start shooting hostages till the people that care agree to a plan that shoots less of the hostages. I'm sorry, but if that is not true evil, then I'm not sure what is. He talks about Obamacare imploding, but is it really an implosion if he is out back actively pushing?

      Listen not to what a politicians bitches about. That don't mean jack shit. Listen to what their solutions are, and then look back at their track record to see if they have been consistent.

      Trump's solutions were something like:

      wall to fix immigration -> Won't work, See prior art of ladder. At best an expensive slowdown. The transcript even shows beyond any doubt that he is a lying sack of shit and never even gave a damn about it.

      50% cut in legal immigration -> might keep the tech sector marginally okay, since it seems focused there, but likely no significant increase. The decrease in other forms of immigration will hurt a bunch of other businesses. Construction costs and similar will jump up even more, which will raise home prices.

      muslim ban -> did we ever get that review they blabbed about? At any rate, I see no results there other than chaos.

      election voting problems -> This one is great. They compile a database. It should be of extreme use when it comes to manipulating the nodes (people) in the next election. Some careful work may even allow one to selectively purge more questionable people from the roles who might support their opponent. It doesn't prevent the actual problem, but I hear a bunch of people are giving up their right to vote for it.

      judges -> yah he is kicking arse there. The damage will be incalculable. Thanks deplorables.

      anything that doesn't go its way -> Fake news. Destroy the credibility of all honest news sources. It should make the Russians and everyone else's attempts to influence our elections so much easier. The man is damaging us in ways that are incalculable, and whats worse is it seems we let him.

      Tax Returns -> What he is still under audit? Nah we all know that is another case where he is a lying sack of shit. He has said so many contradictory things.

      Fixing obamacare is easy -> yah he said that
      I alone can fix it -> don't recall if that was obamacare, but yah, more shit\
      I'm smarter than the generals -> No donald, you most certainly are not. You have been a very worthwhile investment for Mr. Putin though.

      Hell he even lies about basic things like the weather, and we have the video tape. Foreign leaders better make sure to record every call you get from him, because you can be damned sure he will lie his ass off about the call, as we have already seen.

      I still think that they were seeking access to russian's com gear so they can do their duty to their blackmailers. I can't prove that, but realistically, what other explanation makes sense? Are we expected to believe that there is someone in the world that Donald Trump cares about offending? Seriously?

    13. Re: They looked for it by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, not what they are doing is demonstrating fake news by producing fake news, you see, the FBI working in partnership with corporate media demonstrating exactly how fake news works. The real story is about click bait ie fake news presenting itself as fake news with only one purpose, generating advertising clicks. So the fake news story Russia, real story, how fake news is used as click bait in order to generate advertising revenue. Fake news of more specifically click bait news comes from all over the world, they will make up all sorts of crap, to generate clicks.

      Best example is the YouTube home page. Log out of google search invading your privacy where ever you go, then go to youtube check that you have logged out and the clear your watch history and then go to the now generic home page of YouTube. The majority of the videos presented are click bait. Not stuff that is popular but stuff they are paid to promote as popular. Even biased politically their favourite corporate comedic political stooges.

      So the FBI proved click bait exists, most people kind of know that and are becoming accustomed to ignoring it, which is why US main stream media is doing worse and worse and the only reason I go to the generic YouTube home page is to scope out what goggle is pushing onto mug punters in order to scam them economically and politically.

      Fucking, Bloody, Idiots, what they fuck are you doing letting yourselves be caught up in a political scam, you should be ashamed.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:They looked for it by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      I'd believe almost anything negative about Hillary.

      And just this moment on a Russian aircraft carrier docked off the Siberian coast, a banner unfurls that reads in Russian, "Mission Accomplished."

    15. Re: They looked for it by apharmdq · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for this post. No matter what side of politics one stands on, you've stated proven facts that have been corroborated for a long time now, and are a real cause for concern.

    16. Re: They looked for it by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet despite the fact that all I have said is backed by solid evidence including incriminating statements, emails, and proof of lying under oath and destruction of evidence the Shillary SJW army will try their best to bury anyone who disagrees with their false political narrative.

      Those of us who actually supported the non shill candidates (I personally supported Sanders) got to see the entire primary process shown to be a sham and as rigged as a game of three card monty by a group of banksters and foreign influence by countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar...yet we are supposed to buy their "ZOMFG its teh Russians!" bullshit? When even the bigwigs at CNN admitted on camera that its bullshit?

      It just shows how many have been turned into bleating sheep by identity politics, because we literally have proof of their crimes in their own words with emails, hidden cameras, and sworn statements before congress but sadly so many here are so fucking brainwashed the MSM can say "Who are ya gonna believe, us or your lying eyes?" and they will ignore mountains of evidence because it doesn't support their warped failed political narrative.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re: They looked for it by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      So this is how Russia "influenced" our election? By spreading fake news and being Internet trolls?! For fuck's sake, that's it???

      Careful, you gotta use the right language here: they didn't just "influence" the election, they "hacked" it!

      Two different things Boris, but thanks for the conflation attempt.

      If you don't understand that your comrades had information that was quite targeted to very specific places, you haven't been paying very close attention.

      But then therre is the very specific term "Hacked" If you don't know that voting machines have been quite effectively hacked, and by us I've been trying ot find the cite from 2005, but it seems to be a little hard to come by these days, but an outfit, http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... Carnegie Mellon, took the actual voting machines that were in use at the time and hacked them.

      And tell me Boris, if you could get into an enemies voting system and change the election results to a person who would do your bidding - answer me why you would not do exactly that.If you wouldn't, it would be stupid, and one thing we know Boris, your people aren't stupid.

      If you don't use the right terms, people might start thinking the Democrats fucked up really, really badly, and we can't let that happen

      Well Boris - yes, the Democrats have been an aboiminable fuckupfest for a long time.

      However, explain how that has fuck-all to do with this election and your people's efforts.

      might find themselves out in the cold, unable to pay for their third summer home in the Caribbean!

      It's Mar-a-Lago Boris, your boy built that with some of your money.

      Be a good winner Boris, we have a man in the White House who will do our bidding. We are discussing whether or not you get your rubles, stand by.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re: They looked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's absurd that you act like collusion between a political entity and a media source is a crime. It's not. It's been going on since the the days of Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al. Are you some kind of political child? Or maybe you've never heard of Fox News.
      But when it's disinformation, spread by a hostile foreign power, designed to do mischief, then it's reasonable to draw a line. And when one side in an election actively solicits this disinformation, that's crossing the line.

    19. Re: They looked for it by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. Well, that, and the leaked Podesta emails.
      Minor stuff, really, which leaves you shaking your head at all the media hysteria. (It's mostly "payback" for the Benghazi hearings).
      Meanwhile, no mention of "Pissgate" fake news which targeted trump.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    20. Re:They looked for it by vernonB · · Score: 1

      The story itself is such bullshit, it borders on fake news.

    21. Re: They looked for it by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Yep. And even more terrifying is that some 40% of the country believe whatever nonsense the propaganda machines churn out, because they have been taught zero critical thinking skills. They can repeat sock puppet talking points to perfection though.

      And don't forget what's in the Podesta emails which is downright terrifying if you take time to read them.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    22. Re:They looked for it by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      " . . . many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton." What was fake about those negative claims? I'd believe almost anything negative about Hillary. Well, maybe not the one about her drinking the blood of young children, but nearly everything else.

      Just because you believe these claims doesn't mean they're true; it rather means that people are telling you what you want to hear.

      I have a bunch of friends who shared fake Hillary Clinton stories on Facebook all the time. The truth though is that none of these guys would have ever voted for her no matter what, so I'd say that all the "fake news" stories did was annoy people who knew the stories were fake. I'm guessing that the guys posting them probably knew they were fake as well, but were hoping that they somehow came true.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    23. Re: They looked for it by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Podesta is a fucking pedo, Breitbart nailed that before he died, its obvious by reading the "hot tub" email that Podesta and his friends are all pedos.

      Which makes me wonder if that isn't why we are seeing so much of the MSM is ignoring Podesta and going after Trump, because Trump has had the FBI going after pedos and Podesta showed there are a LOT of pervs in high levels in DC.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re: They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No,Trump is a FAKE PRESIDENT!

    25. Re: They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Lie
      How can I say that?
      Because 370 million USD wasted investigating her and her husband, going back 24 years, produced NOT ONE CONVICTION OF ANYONE IN THEIR EMPLOY!!

    26. Re: They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Says not one conviction anywhere.
      The proven facts?
      Republican'ts spent 24 years making accusations, not one proved.

    27. Re: They looked for it by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      NOTHING you said is backed by solid evidence.
      Just ask Kenneth Starr, fired from the only job he could get after losing to Clinton.

  2. Would that include fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    targetting the Trump campaign too?

    Y'know the stuff that was played out here on slashdot as well? Or are we only running this as a propaganda campaign that anything and everything attacking Trump was true but everything attacking Hillary was Russian fake news?

    1. Re: Would that include fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some questions answer themselves.

      This story is fake news, obviously enough. But it's rather telling that the author - and Slashdot - believe that it's the FBI's job to actively bias the election outcome in favor of corruption.

    2. Re:Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      2.86 million more votes. Sounds like the PEOPLE were not fooled, just the dirt.

    3. Re: Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No, fake news is "2.6% growth, great, unheard of",
      Well, except for the 14 CONSECUTIVE quarters where Obama had 2.6 or higher!

    4. Re: Would that include fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't forget the ramping up of numbers of homeless and people "no longer seeking work." Obama was freaking brilliant at that. wage stagnation, another Obama victory. Health insurance that insurers keep withdrawing from. Doctors bailing from it too.

    5. Re:Would that include fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      targetting the Trump campaign too?

      Y'know the stuff that was played out here on slashdot as well? Or are we only running this as a propaganda campaign that anything and everything attacking Trump was true but everything attacking Hillary was Russian fake news?

      Please identify the fake news targeting the Trump campaign. The vast majority of fake news stories I was aware of in during the last election cycle targeted Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Trump. The FBI is largely nonpartisan (despite leanings) and would have been interested in monitoring foreign propaganda favoring either candidate.

      In this case, Russia and Russian propaganda favored Mr. Trump, heavily. If you don't believe that, you haven't been paying attention to the facts.

    6. Re: Would that include fake news by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? When were those quarters? Because the data indicates that you are providing fake news yourself...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Would that include fake news by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      False. Provably so. How many electors are there? HINT: It is orders of magnitude lower than 2.86 million.

      President Trump won the election with 56% of the vote for President. SOURCE: US Constitution.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Would that include fake news by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      Take out California, and Hillary lost the popular election too.

      Republican vote is suppressed in California in national elections because there is no point.

      In any event, Trump won the votes that mattered. Funny how, prior to the election - when it was thought that Trump might lose the Electoral College but "win" the popular vote, Democrats were all about respecting the outcome, but when the opposite happened, they think it suddenly de-legitimizes Trump.

      It will be *really* interesting to see what the Voting Commission turns up. A lot of people think there has been a dramatic and intentional under counting of the numbers of foreign nationals illegally voting in Presidential elections.

    9. Re:Would that include fake news by sabbede · · Score: 1
      "many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton"

      If it was 'most', they aren't willing to say so yet.

    10. Re:Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Republican vote is suppressed in California in national elections because there is no point.

      Prove or retract

      It will be *really* interesting to see what the Voting Commission turns up..

      No it won't.
      Your kind have made this very same claim in every election since 1960....and NEVER been able to prove jack.
      If Trey Gowdy is your hope, "abandon hope, ye that enter here"

    11. Re: Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      The reason for the EC was to get the approval by the 8 Slave States for the Constitutio
      Without UNEQUAL representation, they threatened to form their own nation.

    12. Re: Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Obama won by more than 4 million votes. No, the EC was still in the way.

    13. Re:Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Hillary won by the 2.86 million votes unlawfully unequally counted (Amendment 14, your own citation)

    14. Re: Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Actually, I got it from NBER. Smoke that

    15. Re:Would that include fake news by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Sure man, and the Republican Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, Legislators and Elections Clerks have completely missed it.

      There has never been any serious investigation into the degree of fraud and illegal voting occurring. And winners seldom have an incentive to analyze the incidence of fraud in recent elections.

      However, Democrats have opposed, at every turn, any real attempt to investigate, or put in voting requirements that would in any way limit the occurrence of fraud (e.g.,killing off Voter ID acts in court), and have pushed forward bills that would facilitate it (e.g., Motor Voter Act). The reality is we don't know how bad it is. But it's almost certainly way higher than the Democratic estimates of near zero.

      That's the great thing about an investigation - it will actually shine some light on the problem - or lack of a problem, as the case may be.

    16. Re:Would that include fake news by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Your kind have made this very same claim in every election since 1960....and NEVER been able to prove jack.

      We've never been able to "prove jack" because there has never been a credible fucking investigation. Democrats kill in the cradle any attempt to shine any sort of light or put any limits on potential vote and election fraud.

    17. Re:Would that include fake news by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      So all 208 AG investigations, FOUR in Fla. 2000, were not credibile....because they didn't get the answer you wanted, IN REPUBLICAN STATES.
      BWAHAHAHAAHAH!
      ROFLMAO!
      1 D 10 T!

  3. Which disinformation? Which motive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly which points of disinformation were being spread that are provably false? (No, obvious lunacy like being a satanic blood drinking whatever don't count.)

    What makes them say it was a campaign of influence rather than clickbait for ads?

    1. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well, it must be said that the pedophile in the pizza shop story just about got the owner of the place killed.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Whereas the actual FAKE NEWS got Gabby Giffords a bullet in the head and 5 others dead
      Proving that VRWC lies are more deadly

    3. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

      specifically which parts of this story are false?

    4. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >Well, it must be said that the pedophile in the pizza shop story just about got the owner of the place killed. You mean the stunt where the guy that was an actor (as in really, his "profession was actor) supposedly fired a shot into the air? Where no one was actually shot *at* or injured?

    5. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      No, I don't mean that at all. Were charges laid, or has the right wing echo chamber forgotten that part, too?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:Which disinformation? Which motive? by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

      >No, I don't mean that at all. Were charges laid, or has the right wing echo chamber forgotten that part, too?

      Charges were laid, and the suspect plead guilty.

      Remind me again though, how many people were injured? If James Alefantis was "almost killed", surely he must have been shot, right? Shots fired in his general direction?

  4. Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by El+Cubano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton.

    Trump and Clinton were arguably the two most hated presidential candidates to run in US presidential election history. They didn't need the "help" of fake news to have material on which to attack each other as there was no shortage of negative true information about them.

    The key difference was that every little thing Trump did was held up by the media (and the Republican establishment) as a harbinger of the end of modern civilization if Trump were to get elected.

    On the other hand, every thing that Hillary did (and there was lots: evading federal records laws, flipping on "don't ask don't tell", flipping on gay marriage, colluding with the DNC on debate prep, colluding with the DNC on subverting Sanders' campaign, the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation, etc.) was largely treated as non-news by the same media.

    So, in summary, there was absolutely no shortage of negative news on Clinton, it was just getting ignored by the news media.

    1. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " was largely treated as non-news by the same media."

      It was being reported, but the media kept saying "oh, this isn't a big deal" while anything Trump did was reported as the end of days.

      Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.

      What's funny is when Democrats say that Hillary was treated unfairly by the media. Are you kidding me? Her downfall was that she was treated too well that it was obvious the whole system is corrupt...and that she was so confident throughout, as if she was daring voters to try and stop her pre-ordained presidency.

    2. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Had the news been impartial, Clinton easily wins, but the media couldn't help themselves and made the whole system look corrupt and pre-planned.

      The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.
      The DNC on the other hand....

      The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...many aimed at spreading negative false claims about Hillary Clinton.

      Trump and Clinton were arguably the two most hated presidential candidates to run in US presidential election history. They didn't need the "help" of fake news to have material on which to attack each other as there was no shortage of negative true information about them.

      And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.

      The key difference was that every little thing Trump did was held up by the media (and the Republican establishment) as a harbinger of the end of modern civilization if Trump were to get elected.

      Actually, pretty much everything Trump did was completely ignored by his base, serious questions weren't answered, and he's fulfilled a lot of low expectations of him. But then, so has his base, who is still championing his successes, declaring his Christian morality, and insisting that the rest of us give him a chance even as he denounces all his opponents for standing in his way.

      On the other hand, every thing that Hillary did (and there was lots: evading federal records laws, flipping on "don't ask don't tell", flipping on gay marriage, colluding with the DNC on debate prep, colluding with the DNC on subverting Sanders' campaign, the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation, etc.) was largely treated as non-news by the same media.

      Is that why they reported on it incessantly?

      So, in summary, there was absolutely no shortage of negative news on Clinton, it was just getting ignored by the news media.

      Except for all the stories.

      The copious amounts of them. Taken seriously.

      Meanwhile, so is the clown.

    4. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.

      Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.

      The DNC on the other hand....

      The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!

      Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.

    5. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.

      Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids? Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story. Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. You can read the summarized version including the emails here if you don't want to read the ACLJ's stuff. Enjoy the part about the Washington Post wanting to bury the story.

      That isn't even touching on the stuff uncovered by Judicial Watch.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't even understand your own history (assuming you're an american)

      Let's review my post:

      The RNC couldnt even keep Trump from getting the nomination, so its not the whole system thats corrupt and pre-planned.

      Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.

      The DNC on the other hand....

      The Democrats are better because some of their delegates are SUPER!!!

      Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.

      I am reviewing it, and I am seeing zero commentary on the history of the electoral process in the United States.

      So exactly how are you able to ascertain my level of understanding of that subject? Please do tell me the basis for your assertion.

      The primary system is a recent innovation in America

      Define recent.

      and came about as a way to make the process of nominating candidates more regulated and "fair" as part of civil liberties.

      It failed. Next?

      The GOP adopted a more open standard here.

      What does "open standard" mean?

      The GOP leadership did not and still does not want Trump in power but Trump won the primaries fair and square by a majority of primary voters

      You seem to bemistaken.

      Even though Bernie Sanders repeatedly won most of the primaries,

      Also untrue.

      You may want to review your facts before asserting them in the future.

      Now which one is more corrupt and unrepresentative?

      I said both are flawed. Do you think it matters to me if one is less corrupt or unrepresentative? That seems a pointless argument.

      I reject both of their systems, thank you for not noticing.

      I notice you unironically toe the official DNC line here too

      It's a legal standard. See Republican Party v. Tashijan. California Democratic Party v. Jones.

      Do you want to change that? Then your path to do so is...very difficult to navigate.

      The DNC said, in court, that they have the right to set their own standards - regardless of how Democratic it is.

      Yes, as a political party, they are allowed to set their own rules. You can see the same arguments made by the GOP in Montana, where they wanted to change from an open primary.

      Of course, that they have the right to do so, means nothing about the rightness of how they do so. You should know this.

      (and they're right but then they turn around and say that the electoral college is flawed (which is not unlike the electoral college system) and Hillary should've won)

      The electoral college system is indeed flawed, and that is entirely unrelated to the right of a political party to determine its own members. The one is not the other. And no matter how many apologists for the Electoral College swarm up to defend it, it'll still be flawed and broken.

    7. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      the highly questionable financial arrangements of the Clinton foundation

      Citation needed.

      Oh wait, there is no shortage of fake citations about that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Including the New York Times, that bastion of Conservative Attack Media, right?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so because your preferred leftist site disagrees with another leftist media outlet - you must be correct. Da comrade, I understand how the political party of Hillary! must function for you!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re: Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids?

      You mean the hysterical screaming by the right-wing media, RNC and Trump that there was a secret conspiracy on the airport tarmac? You went on for weeks about it. Weeks on end.

      Then you ended up attacking an innocent pizza parlor.

       

      Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story.

      You mean the story that you were screaming over for weeks, if not months, that you, and the GOP and House Republicans kept trying to fan into a fire, desperate that we believe all their smoke?

      But blow as hard as you could, it never happened. Never will either, and you know it.

      That's what burns you the most.

      Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. You can read the summarized version including the emails here if you don't want to read the ACLJ's stuff. Enjoy the part about the Washington Post wanting to bury the story.

      Enjoy how Republicans admitted they faked a scandal. Go read their actual report nterview notes - ... where they desperately tried to claim something bad, but ended up with nothing.. Except in their own minds, where they proclaimed triumph over doing nothing.

      Or we can look at Michael Flynn, Paul Manaforte, or Donald Jr. Himself. Now there is some meat. Or Trump's un-independent business dealings.

      That isn't even touching on the stuff uncovered by Judicial Watch.

      Ah, the famed blind Judicial Watch. Did they ever find Judge Roy Moore? I heard he killed Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Candlestick. Why don't you just stop? But wait, I remember you lying with James O'Keefe videos and about Alberta's power grid. Yes, I remember you falsely claimed one group was responsible for it to one purpose, when it was actually the prior government for another.

      What is it with you, can you just not resist the urge to lie?

      Donald Trump seems to have that illness too. Who lies about the boy scouts? Oh wait, after his speech, he had no choice.

    11. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      What fake news?
      If a candidate cant give a good quality speech in the different parts of the USA?
      That person will not win a US election.
      Staying on the elite east and west coast won't win a US election.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So your next talking point is just an ad hominem. Figures.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, yours was. Snopes was a bunch of handwaving; the NY Times - hardly a conservative institution - laid out the Uranium One deal quite well, including the tens of millions that flowed to the Clinton Global Fund, and that Hillary! was instrumental in approving the deal.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? Her downfall was that she was treated too well

      OK, having seen the way the US media treated Hillary Clinton, I can only conclude you did not watch any of the coverage.

      Trump got a free pass on anything stupid he said, the only thing you heard about Clinton was "Email", "Podesta" and "Lock her up". All charges that were later dropped once the Republicans got in. The media, especially the Murdoch media was so biased against Clinton it was funny, it wasn't even subtle.

      I have no doubt the Russians manipulated the US election, an unstable US with economic problems is in Russia's advantage. Russia no longer has the power to go toe to toe with the other major powers in the world (EU, China and the US), economically, politically or militarily. So they need to weaken other countries through less conventional means to remain a world power (I'd be very unsurprised if the Russians weren't manipulating China, mostly through North Korea, they have to get their missile technology and expertise from somewhere).

      The US elections were manipulated, by Murdoch and by the Russians.

      But if you're looking for someone to blame, don't blame Murdoch or the Russians, to find the blame you need only find the nearest mirror.

      Yes that's right, you were manipulated, but its because you let yourself be manipulated. You swallowed such obvious bullshit. You swallowed so much of it that you cant even tell what actually happened any more, nor how much trouble you're in. There's a reason the GBP is trading near an 11 month high against the dollar... Whilst the GBP is trading at near 11 month lows against most other currencies. You accept carefully prepared soundbites without fact checking, you look to propaganda over reality and this will come back to bite you.

      Like most people who live in the ROTW, we look at your news sources and wonder how you can be so easily manipulated. Semi-legitimate sources like Fox News use the same tricks that we expect from state run news agencies in despotism that produce nothing but government approved propaganda, we see through them in an instant. Its gotten so bad that people are now looking for more extremely biased organisations like Brietbart because Fox News allows the tiniest sliver of fact through and realistically, until this is fixed, the US is on a downward spiral. The most effective defence of a democracy is an informed populace, so the corollary must follow that a wilfully ignorant population is it's destruction.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re: Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Then you ended up attacking an innocent pizza parlor.

      Really? I did?

      You mean the story that you were screaming over for weeks, if not months, that you, and the GOP and House Republicans kept trying to fan into a fire, desperate that we believe all their smoke?

      So wait, you're trying to dispute FOIA documents now?

      Or we can look at Michael Flynn, Paul Manaforte, or Donald Jr. Himself. Now there is some meat. Or Trump's un-independent business dealings.

      Oh, media matters huh? Not one to shoot the messenger, but considering they're an actual political advocacy group...that's in violation of their non-profit status, and has a long history of quote mining in order to create "gotcha moments" which turn out to be nothing, you'll need to do better.

      What is it with you, can you just not resist the urge to lie?

      So, again those FOIA documents aren't real? Want to stick to those. Remember that salon article? Yeah it's not an article either, but an out-of-context opinion piece. No different then something coming from the mouth of Dowd. In other words, if you believe that, why are you lying? They're telling you what to believe. Not leaving the evidence and letting you make the choice.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Look, I don't like Hilary Clinton. But I like you much less. You are a slavering right wing rumor mongering nut who disgraces all technologists, if you even are one.

      The NYT article you linked lays out some interesting and potentially troublesome background, yes, but does not accuse Clinton of wrongdoing. There was an FBI investigation, but apparently based on a book written by a Breitbart editor: some New York agents were feuding with the Justice Department and basing their investigation in part on media accounts[46] and in particular on the book Clinton Cash, written by Peter Schweizer, a senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News. The NYT clarified their position in an editorial that states Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state? Not so far...

      So you can get down from your trump horse now. Unlike Hilary Clinton, who was investigated multiple times and cleared every time, Donald Trump is a notorious scofflaw who stands a good chance of going down in history as the first president to leave office in handcuffs.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Including the New York Times

      Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal

      So move on to your next talking point, Vlad.

      Trump trolls really don't take it well when their little black balloons get pricked, and sometimes they have mod points. Downmodding is so much easier on the brain muscle than actually thinking about a rebuttal. They can easily do it in the time it takes to have a shit, a big selling point.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by sabbede · · Score: 1

      There wasn't anything arguable about it. They were the two least popular candidates in the history of polling.

    19. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hillary! was rightfully pegged as breaking the law regarding mishandling classified information by James Comey. But she was "excused" because of "intent"- something that does NOT appear in the law at all. She and her impeached husband have been handled with kid gloves by the media forever, even though the facts are otherwise.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Hillary! was rightfully pegged as [standard russian shitposter talking points]

      Back to Moscow with you! Sad.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    21. Re:Umm, Hillary didn't need any help by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Which is not a crime. It's not even against party rules. Have you read the parties' bylaws? I have. If you read carefully you'll see that the national committees are not intended to be neutral and fair. They're *power centers*. The way you deal with them is you seize them. The way you seize them is you court the people who put sweat into the party: who worked their way up from precinct captain to state committee, or who stood for office and won. In other words the party establishment.

      For all that we hear from right-wingers about how we're not a direct democracy and how we should shut up about the electoral college and how one man, one vote should not be the order the day, they seem to absolutely demand such thing from a private organization like the Democratic or Republican Party.

  5. Scrapebox by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Another wonderful use for scrapebox. Or did that end with the panda update...

    --
    [($)]
  6. This is from CNN? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CNN is talking about fake news again.

    oh the irony!

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:This is from CNN? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      CNN is talking about fake news again.

      Actually, no. CNN is responsibly and professionally carrying out its journalistic duty to fully inform the public of the details of the sad story of the man who is set to become the first US president ever to leave office in handcuffs.

      Oh my, it seems Vlad the Spinmod paid us a visit.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As consumers of news, how can we be sure that this news story isn't an example of "fake news"?

    The article says

    The FBI declined to comment for this story.

    And it repeatedly includes stuff like

    Sources say

    and

    according to multiple sources

    and

    according to two sources

    and (once again!)

    according to multiple sources

    The lack of concrete details and information leaves me very uneasy. It makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to independently verify what is being claimed.

    Should I play it safe and assume that this article may just be "fake news" until proven otherwise?

    1. Re:How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by sycodon · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Sources Say"

      Probably the biggest Fake news provider in History.

      Any news without attribution of a real person should automatically be classified as "Fake News".

      I bet WaPo ruses the day it first used that term.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re: How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by jzservices · · Score: 1

      I definitely noticed this too while reading the story.

    3. Re:How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So I guess we shouldn't have believed Watergate, either. After all, that all came from "unnamed sources."

    4. Re:How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Just because you find a nickle in the mud doesn't mean you should wallow in the mud hole.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:How do we know this news isn't "fake news"? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      And then, let a few days/weeks go by, and we'll get "The anonymous sources quoted in the article could not be reached for comment"

      Because they are fake people, who fed fake content to a low level blog, that lazy CNN reporters picked up using Google. If you don't think this is how this works, please go to Amazon.com and search the book section for the words "media manipulator" and read every book there.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  8. Need specifics by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Informative

    CNN and the DNC have been claiming that Russia was responsible for John Podesta's falling for a phishing scam, which gave hackers access to his account which contained information that lead to further DNC hacks. How can the Russians be responsible for the foolishness of a single American? It's time for real facts, not the ongoing BS, which is repeated enough that it becomes circular and self sustaining.

    1. Re:Need specifics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CNN and the DNC have been claiming that Russia was responsible for John Podesta's falling for a phishing scam, which gave hackers access to his account which contained information that lead to further DNC hacks. How can the Russians be responsible for the foolishness of a single American? It's time for real facts, not the ongoing BS, which is repeated enough that it becomes circular and self sustaining.

      It's not called a phishing *attack* for nothing.

      If the Russians hadn't of sent the email then nothing untoward would have happened.

      The email was sent to deceive the reader into performing an action that would divulge their password.

      if the email had of sent "Hi, I'm from Russia, please login to your gmail account using this form that will allow me to capture your username and password that I can then use later." then I'm pretty sure John Podesta would not have followed through.

      The facts are that John Podesta was sent an email from Russia that deceived him into doing something he would not have done if he had of fully known what he was doing.

    2. Re: Need specifics by dunnomattic · · Score: 2

      This! I was just trying yesterday to recall...wasn't this a case of a poorly worded email from an IT staffer saying the phishing email was "legitimate " instead of illegitimate "? Basically a poor choice of words where an improper prefix changed the entire meaning of his advice? Serves as a great lesson to us in the field to REALLY spell things out 2 or 3 ways, like "DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK. IF YOU DID ALREADY, COME SEE I.T. IMMEDIATELY. THAT IS ALL"

      --
      ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
    3. Re: Need specifics by Entrope · · Score: 2

      Some IT staffer did apparently tell Podesta that it was a legitimate email, and that he should immediately change his password, when the advice should have been that it was NOT a legitimate email, and change his password using (link goes here).

    4. Re:Need specifics by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      It's time for real facts, not the ongoing BS, which is repeated enough that it becomes circular and self sustaining.

      That's a good point. This "expanding the circle jerk" phenomenon happens quite a bit in policy circles. Someone puts out a paper at the end of a project, with dubious conclusions, and it's picked up by scores of others who want it to be true, and it grows exponentially. Yet the original source is deeply flawed. And yet, there are scores of sources restating the flawed conclusions, including MSM outlets, and then those secondary sources become the purported authoritative source.

      This happens in:
      * Nutrition
      * Finance
      * Medicine
      * Justice
      * Education

      Fake news indeed.

    5. Re:Need specifics by Maltheus · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure every slashdotter here knows how to send you an e-mail from "Russia." Just as I'm sure the Russian's know how to send an e-mail from America.

    6. Re:Need specifics by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      How can the Russians be responsible for the foolishness of a single American?

      Russians can be found responsible both for perpetrating cybercrimes and interfering with the election, an act of war.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    7. Re:Need specifics by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      and the DNC have been claiming that Russia was responsible for John Podesta's falling for a phishing scam,

      When someone is hacked, the primary fault is with the hacker. There is some secondary fault for those who fell for the scam, didn't protect themselves enough, etc. But it is always the hacker who chooses to hack. So yes, if Russia hacked by using a phishing scam, then the primary fault lies with Russia.

  9. distractions by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    `Russia` is a distraction.
    The real evils are not even indicted.
    Where is Hillary? Loretta? Dick? Herbert? George? The list goes on!
    If they're less bad than we know they will not be jailed.
    The real problems are way closer to home.
    The real problems get no policy.
    And the empire declines even further.
    At some point the arabs will stop using JUST dollars for oil.
    At some point the many, MANY military bases around the world will have to be evacuated.
    Those are the signs that the rest of the world recognises the TRUE situation.
    Why else is the goldprice so manipulated? To make the dollar look good.
    Same for the inflation, jobless claims, etc.

  10. I wish Slashdot would quit perpetuating fake news. by pecosdave · · Score: 1, Troll

    I still read it for the tech stuff, but the obvious shilling for globalist with well selected climate change propaganda and continuing the completely proven as bullshit Russian narrative is not only spreading fake news, it's not even technology fake news.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  11. "At least some of them" ?? by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

    That sums up this whole witch hunt.

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  12. Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What you're describing really boils down to average Americans in general getting sick and tired of the leftism that has been forced on them recently, especially over the last decade or so.

    These average Americans are tired of the hypocrisy and contradiction that leftists continually exhibit.

    Average Americans are tired of seeing huge numbers of illegal aliens flow over America's borders uninhibited, and they're especially tired of the economic distortions these illegal aliens bring. Average Americans are tired of the crime these illegal aliens commit, beyond their original crime of entering the USA illegally. Average Americans are disgusted by how leftists think all of this is acceptable, if not to be encouraged.

    Average Americans are tired of constantly hearing about transsexuals from the media and from leftists, despite transsexuals making up far less than 1% of the population.

    Average Americans are tired of being mislabeled as some kind of "-ist" or "-phobic" by leftists just because they don't want to constantly parrot the tenets of leftist ideologies.

    Average Americans are tired of seeing armed and violent criminals portrayed as "innocent" by leftists when these criminals physically attack police officers, and the police need to respond with reasonable deadly force in self defense.

    Average Americans are tired of seeing classic movies being remade by leftists just so that the cast can be more "inclusive" or "diverse", even when doing so makes absolutely no sense given the story being told. It isn't just limited to movies, as well. Many other aspects of American culture and history are being revised by leftists.

    Average Americans are tired of being told by leftists that these average Americans need to be more "inclusive" and "tolerant", yet leftists rabidly attack anyone who doesn't agree with leftist ideology.

    Average Americans are tired of the censorship they fall victim to on various social media sites, perpetrated by leftists.

    Average Americans are tired of seeing academia become less about real education and real research, and more about leftist indoctrination. Average Americans are tired of seeing the STEM subjects and the classics forced to becoming a tier below questionable leftist subjects like "Women's Studies", "Indigenous Studies", and "Sociology".

    Average Americans are tired of being threatened with carbon taxes or other environmentalism-driven restrictions by leftist "environmentalists" who generate massive amounts of greenhouse gases by living in large mansions, driving SUVs, and flying their private jets around the world to give speeches about how generating greenhouse gas emissions is bad!

    Average Americans are tired of the crocodile tears so often exhibited by leftists. Today's "cause" is forgotten by tomorrow afternoon. Sometimes tomorrow afternoon's cause actually contradicts with today's cause!

    All of this hypocrisy, contradiction and outright disrespect results in these average Americans voting for the political right. This is happening at the local level. This is happening at the state level. This is happening at the federal level. There is a widespread rejection of leftism by a huge portion of the American population.

    And instead of recognizing that leftism is being rejected because it's so ideologically hypocritical and toxic to most average Americans, we see the leftists going on and on about "Russians". It's absurd.

    1. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yet more Americans voted for Hilary.

    2. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. And since then Trump has become one of the most unpopular presidents since presidential polls began.

      So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP addressed this.

      This is happening at the local level. This is happening at the state level. This is happening at the federal level. There is a widespread rejection of leftism by a huge portion of the American population.

      304 electoral college votes went to the Republican candidate in the 2016 election. Only 227 went to the Democratic candidate. (The popular vote is irrelevant. It's the electoral votes that matter.)

      34 of the state governors are Republican. Only 15 are Democrats.

      32 of the state legislatures are Republican-controlled. Only 12 are Democratic-controlled.

      26 states have Republican-controlled governments. Only 6 are Democratic-controlled.

      52 seats of the US Senate are held by Republicans. Only 46 are held by Democrats.

      240 seats in the US House of Representatives are held by Republicans. Only 194 are held by Democrats.

      1 current President of the United States of America is Republican. 0 are Democrats.

      It's clear that the Democratic candidates are being rejected at many levels of government in the United States, especially at the most important levels.

    4. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More americans voted for Clinton than Obama in 2008, too. She didn't win that one either.

      Trump's polls aren't great, but they've been basically constant for almost 2 years. An approval rating of around 40 in november didn't stop him from getting 46% and the electoral college. The public hates *everyone* right now. Congress, republicans, democrats, the media... They all poll much worse than Trump. Treading water is arguably a positive thing.

      In any case, poll numbers won't matter again for 3.5 years. Arguably it has implications with congress, but let's face it, congress is fucking useless and were never going to get anything important done in the foreseeable future anyway. If you could kick out a president for bad poll numbers Dick Cheney would've been president for a while there.

    5. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The GP addressed this.

      Not really, no. In fact, the GGP's statement is false. Rather obviously so, and in fact, you offered no evidence in support of it. Rather the opposite, your defense serves to discredit it.

      304 electoral college votes went to the Republican candidate in the 2016 election. Only 227 went to the Democratic candidate. (The popular vote is irrelevant. It's the electoral votes that matter.)

      Not when we're talking about the American people. Do stop trying to ignore the point. That you're trying to distract from the actual claim by this misleading one, is a fault in your approach.

      34 of the state governors are Republican. Only 15 are Democrats.

      And what's the voter breakdown?

      32 of the state legislatures are Republican-controlled. Only 12 are Democratic-controlled.

      And what's the voter breakdown?

      26 states have Republican-controlled governments. Only 6 are Democratic-controlled.

      You know, it's kinda distressing that you think a political party should control the government anyway.

      Shouldn't the people be in control anyway?

      52 seats of the US Senate are held by Republicans. Only 46 are held by Democrats.

      And what's the voter breakdown? This is easy in comparison to the above.

      240 seats in the US House of Representatives are held by Republicans. Only 194 are held by Democrats.

      Oh, we have this one too.

      1 current President of the United States of America is Republican. 0 are Democrats.

      and this.

      It's clear that the Democratic candidates are being rejected at many levels of government in the United States, especially at the most important levels.

      Not when you factor in gerrymandering, voter discrimination, and other shenanigans. You can see the number of voters often favors Democratic candidates, in fact, of the three federal contests for which I have easy data, well, Republicans only took one...by a small margin.

      In fact, what's clear is that you are presenting a false claim, in order to advance your narrative, but another review paints a very different picture. And you didn't even pay attention to the actual original claim, but sought to ignore it.

      Funny that.

    6. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Trump is slumping in some of the states he'd need to win, presuming he's even in the race in 2020. So it isn't the same situation it was nine or ten months ago.

      And Congress is doing an admiral job of restraining Trump.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So tell me again how exactly you have a window on the "average American".

      I've got a window on their voting habits; they stayed home.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Nate Silver gave Trump about a 1 in 4 chance, so your claim is factually wrong

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      did the same polls that tol you he was gonna lose the election tell you that? see that's the problem with critical thinking....

    10. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Why would you like about something so trivial to disprove?

      https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

      He gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I spent my time at fivethirtyeight, where it was made clear that while Clinton held the advantage, Trump's pathway in the last weeks was not insurmountable. A 20-30% chance of victory is a fairly significant chance of victory. Yes, some other aggregators put Clinton's chances well in excess of 90%, but Silver and his team were far more cautious, and in several articles made clear some of the flaws in the ground-level data, particularly in some states (I believe he went into some detail about states like Michigan).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at the ACA repeal failure and I'm seeing an extremely divided Conservative movement. And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.

      Most Republican lawmakers and strategists know very well that while lots of conservative and libertarian voters demand smaller government, few would ever accept the consequences of what that meant. As the ACA repeal failure shows, there is absolutely no will to roll back any entitlement program. Quite the opposite, in fact. I suspect in the back rooms, even as we speak, the murmurs of a single payer system are beginning to be whispered in hushed tones. The sheer unpopularity of both the House and Senate repeal efforts with the voters means there is no going back, and that ultimately, as some Conservative commentators have put it, the "Europeanization" of American health care is already beginning.

      Here's the hard reality of democracy. Voters often have no idea what they need, or have often contradictory views on problems and solutions. Lawmakers, being elected to their offices, have to play to voters' fears and prejudices, but once they're in a position to deliver on those promises, the harsh reality sets in that keeping some of those promises would be disastrous, and worst of all, for any elected official, could cost them the next election. With the ACA repeal, there really was very little appetite for a repeal among most Republican lawmakers. They had never imagined they'd be in a position to actually do it, and once there, many realized that to actually repeal Obamacare, and replace it with legislation that would probably see many lose insurance, and for others (particularly older voters, the most reliable voters of them all) would see drastic premium hikes, could have severe ramifications for their electoral prospects.

      I imagine there were a good many Republicans very pleased when McCain and two other GOP senators scuttled the deal.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And really, when have the Republicans since the post-war period ever actually delivered on smaller government when they've had the chance.

      Well, that's pretty much my point. Democrats sometimes mean what they say. Republicans? Not so much. I'm pretty well fed up with both parties, but they're not the same. They're just two parts of the same machine.

      Here's the hard reality of democracy. Voters often have no idea what they need, or have often contradictory views on problems and solutions.

      Actually, voters usually do know what they need. They just don't tend to give a shit about anyone else's needs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes AC thats how a good person wins a US election.
      Talk the voters. Give good speeches that good people want to attend.
      Jobs, health care, security, less wars, making the USA great again.
      Talking and listening to people all over the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by bongey · · Score: 1

      11 counties have more voters registered than people. LA alone is at 144% of people register vs actual population but they haven't cleaned the lists. This alone doesn't mean there was voter fraud but increases the chances there actually is significant amount of voter fraud in CA, but CA doesn't want anyone to check. http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

    16. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Because of the more dense population of the coastal cities, which tend to be democrat, and California, in general.
      But none of the choices were remotely ideal.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    17. Re:Average Americans are just fed up with leftism. by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      All spot on but you left out a few:

      Average Americans are tired of leftists who refuse to listen to facts, refuse to engage in any meaningful dialogue, refuse to consume any news sources not controlled by the DNC, and refuse to admit that there is a possibility that some of their ideas simply don't work in practice despite how great they sound.

      Average Americans are tired of a philosophy where you are either "All In" or an "Enemy of the State"

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  13. Wait, wait, wait. People LIE on the internet?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WHEN DID THIS FUCKING START??

    I'm still getting my $5 million from Nigeria, right?

  14. Re:Agreed, 110%... apk by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a politician. I am an elected member of the State Level Executive Committee of the Texas Libertarian Party. I don't come to Slashdot for politics.

    I absolutely hate all the fake news about Donald Trump.

    Trump isn't a Libertarian - he's far from supporting my views, but I find myself defending and supporting him constantly. Why? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FAKE CRAP ATTACKING HIM.

    I'm a crusader against bullshit. I really, really disliked Obama, but there were occasions when rumors circulated on the right about him that weren't true. I defended him in those instances. With Trump it's nearly a full time job.

    The whole Russian thing is completely made up. There is some justifiable Russian narrative, but only when applied to the Hilary camp and uranium dealings - which the news isn't talking about. The Don Jr. thing was a frame job where nothing really happened. Yes he met with that lawyer who was here without a visa because she was let in specifically for this purpose, but they're not exploring that publicly. Every president in my lifetime has talked to Russian/Soviet leaders. I can remember as far back as Reagan doing it - I was born during the Carter administration.

    I am personally against a wall and am for open borders with a catch - we have to shut off our freebie system first. Fine you can come here, but the rest of us aren't going to support you. Donald Trump is pro imminent domain, I'm very much against that. He hasn't pulled our troops out of foreign conflicts yet, I have a problem with that. The Donald is not my man, please quit making me defend him. By attacking him with bullshit constantly you're drowning out legitimate criticism that needs to be addressed. Notice nobody talks about the imminent domain stuff or the troops where they don't belong part because of Russia, Russia, Russia!

    Russia isn't even our enemy! Once the Soviet Union broke up they've been sort of neutral and someone we've done some dealings with. They're like that guy we've worked with on a couple of projects but he doesn't come to our house for Thanksgiving or anything.

    There needs to be a collective head-ass removal in this nation where reality is concerned.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  15. Re:Who won the last US Presidential Election? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And please don't forget that this whole thing revolves around proving russia attacked the democrats by exposing DNC corruption. The DNC is responsible for their demise, and for Trump, all wikileaks did was expose their corruption to the public.

  16. Re: Average Americans are just fed up with leftism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Both Clinton and the DNC are even less popular than Trump.

  17. Re:I wish Slashdot would quit perpetuating fake ne by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and continuing the completely proven as bullshit Russian narrative..

    I'm not American so maybe I've missed something despite my best attempts at following the events in the US closely but I am under the impression that there are several investigations underway into the Russia thing. So how come it's possible for people to claim anything to be proven, one way or the other, when the guys looking into it (Muller, the senate committee, etc) have not come out with anything yet as they're still gathering data?

    I've always considered /. to be a place of (mostly) rational, science-oriented people who understand the importance and value of due process and following the evidence, but yet people from both the left and the right alike are proclaiming that they know the end result of the investigation(s) before it's even remotely completed. What the fuck is up with this shit?

    The presence of this kind of rhetoric to me is worrisome because it reeks of 3rd world pseudo-Orwellian BS. People in their own little bubbles with insane amounts of confirmation bias absorbing blog posts masquerading as news and becoming convinced that they know the truth ahead of time, so that when the investigation(s) finally conclude, no matter the result, half of the people will be up and arms and shouting 'Conspiracy, conspiracy, I know the result is false, I read so at [insert news/blog outlet of choice] several months ago, clearly the establishment/'deep state' is [out to frame the innocent president/corrupt and in the back pocket of a corrupt president and lying to protect him]".

    Democratic systems require an informed voter base to function. Once that is gone, once the public can be spoon fed tailor made propaganda and manipulated with relative ease into believing nearly anything without hard evidence, then the entire concept of accountability goes out the window, and truth stops mattering, by which point you might just as well elect a king and be done with it.

    Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.

    -1984

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  18. Why is this interesting to anyone? by bradley13 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't get it: why does anyone care. Foreign government has an opinion, published propaganda pieces supporting it. Opinion happens to be about another government's elections.

    Tell me the US government doesn't do this. Tell me just about any country on earth doesn't do this. This isn't news, it isn't even interesting. It's just the continuing progressive drumbeat, as they try to not let their "fake news" Russia stories die.

    tl;dr: Hillary didn't need any help losing the election.

    Also: For anyone who hasn't figured out why Trump won, and why those of us from flyover country have decided to stop humoring the progressives, read this rant. If you're from flyover country, you will nod knowingly. If you're not, maybe it will give you some insight into the foundations of the alt-right.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Why is this interesting to anyone? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, by that token, why doesn't Russia simply come out and say "this message was brought to you by the Russian Federation"?

      I'll answer my own question: because nobody would believe the message. And they'd be right.

      Yes, everyone does this; it's called "information warfare". This doesn't make it good for the target country.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Why is this interesting to anyone? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I actually find RT usefhttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10953959&cid=54946717#ul. I just keep in mind that it's Russian propaganda.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Why is this interesting to anyone? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Trump talking with the Russians is normal and expected behavior. How can we expect him to influence them if he never talks with them? The Issue is his lying about it, as that makes it looks like he's doing something underhanded and dirty.

  19. Clinton News Network CNN by jzservices · · Score: 2

    How did political biased news get on slashdot. This is a complete waste. I'm so sick of reading this type of news and it infiltrated the technology news source I use. Whoever submitted this pulled a biased news source of CNN for an anti Trump article. What a great job publishing an article. The posts are getting worse. There was an article just the other day about a billboard hacked that was just a conspiracy and it seemed the writer of the summary didn't even read the article as the edit time of the article was prior to the publishing time of the slashdot story and it listed as it was just an ad campaign if you continued reading. These articles should be flagged or removed.

  20. No, it's corrupt by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nope, just corrupt and unrepresentative.

    Political parties have a right to set their own standards. But both parties have a flawed primary system, and so does the presidential election itself. Not to mention the various legislative seats, which are grossly imbalanced.

    I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

    I was reading about the DOJ slush fund(**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

    This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny, 11 California counties have more registered voters than adults, all the leaks and outright disobeying of executive orders from the WH.

    And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless, then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results, then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?), leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander, and rioted for weeks. They thought all this was OK, if it somehow got them to their goals. For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots, and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

    All this *in addition* to the Sanders thing, and getting special treatment in the press and for the debates, blocking reasonable voter registration, and suppressing the military vote.

    There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out. The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

    I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

    (*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.

    (**) DOJ plea-bargains where the offending company pays its fine to charity, but the DOJ only chooses charities that promote left-wing causes.

    1. Re:No, it's corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm coming to the realization that the Democrats are actually corrupt(*).

      I was reading about the DOJ slush fund [breitbart.com](**) and it struck me just how deep and insidious the corruption has been in this country.

      Why not Teapot Dome, Credit Mobiler, Iran-Contra, Enron, and Bernie Madoff?

      This is paired with the IRS selecting conservative charities for intense scrutiny

      And liberal ones. Who both needed to file proper reports to meet their non-profit status.

      Even Congress had to admit it was all proper in the end.

      11 California counties have more registered voters than adults

      You can't blame California for Steve Mnuchin, Tiffany Trump, Jared Kushner, and Steven Bannon, who nonetheless, remind us, it's not a crime. Despite false claims otherwise.

      And let us not forget after the election, leftists pleaded with the EC delegates to be faithless,

      I pleased with the EC delegates to quit myself, it might be the only thing that gets us past that broken system.

      then pleaded with the supreme court to invalidate the results,

      No, the Supreme Court acted in 2000, unlawfully overriding state courts for their own partisan gain.

      then pleaded with the U.S. military to step in and prevent the inauguration (wtf?),

      Like those massive crowds of people that Trump (falsely) claimed were there, huh?

      leaked secret and sensitive information - not to expose crimes, but for political slander,

      Oh wait, you mean when they leaked Trump's fake pictures of Time Magazine covers, right?

      and rioted for weeks

      No, that was Chicago celebrating winning the World Series.

      For example, Hillary made no statements condemning the riots,

      Also she didn't condemn the sugar plum fairy.

      and most of the left blamed the rioting on Trump.

      Trump called for it himself.

      blocking reasonable voter registration,

      No, that was the GOP.

      and suppressing the military vote.

      sure man

      There's a sub-conversation on the net that holds that the Democratic party *won't survive* once all the corruption has been rooted out.

      Sure man, and what else are they discussing? Why they can't find the dead bodies in the Pizza Parlor?

      The Democratic ideals are so far from what people want that they require all the extra boost they get from a tilted playing field.

      Is that why they keep getting more voters?

      I'm not sure I believe that bit about the Democratic party not surviving, but after reading about the DOJ thing, and knowing the level of effort we're putting into the Russia probe while ignoring some seemingly obvious evidence [dailysignal.com] on the Democratic side, it makes me wonder...

      Actually, the Republicans in Congress are still busy chasing their tails over Hillary.

      I gues

  21. Re: CNN is the source of Fake News by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What percentage of CNN stories are fake? Do you have some examples of them consistently publishing fake news? Seems more like you've just bought into Trump's "don't trust anyone" rhetoric.

  22. Re:I wish Slashdot would quit perpetuating fake ne by tsqr · · Score: 1

    Here I sit without mod points. Thank you for posting this.

  23. Re:Agreed, 110%... apk by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump isn't a Libertarian - he's far from supporting my views, but I find myself defending and supporting him constantly. Why? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FAKE CRAP ATTACKING HIM.

    That's not a reason to support Trump. It's a reason to support the truth. You're not inherently defending Trump by attacking fake news.

    On the other hand...

    The whole Russian thing is completely made up.

    That's a stupid thing to say, and you are a stupid person for saying it. Trump and his relatives and his cabinet have lied at every turn about their various ties to and meetings with Russia, and not by accident, either. They couldn't have been accidents. If they have nothing to hide, why are they lying so much?

    Russia isn't even our enemy!

    Russia is not our enemy on paper, which is why what Trump has done is not treason. You have to be aiding the enemy, and Russia is (on paper) our ally. We are the left and right fists of the UNSC. But Russia is not our friend. Russia is a competitor.

    They're like that guy we've worked with on a couple of projects but he doesn't come to our house for Thanksgiving or anything.

    And he's got a penchant for poisoning people who disagree with him, and he's fond of spreading a lot of rhetoric about what assholes we are. You wouldn't actually invite him to dinner, at least, not if your kids were going to be home. And you'd lock up your valuables.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Apply the metric by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (*) Whether the Republicans are also corrupt, or have a different level of corruption, is still an open question.

    Whether the Republicans are also corrupt is only a question an idiot would have to ask at this point. If they have a different level of corruption, it is not apparently significantly different, so that question is not already answered, merely irrelevant.

    Your first response is to name calling.

    It's interesting, because I've always held that the Republicans were cold, selfish Scrooge-like people who don't care about others.

    Coming through the election, I've just now realized how poorly based that opinion is. When I mentally gauge the amount of hate and loathing from the left to come up with a "compensation" metric, and if I apply this metric to some of the widely-held beliefs that I've been told over the years, many of them evaporate.

    Republicans are more charitable than Democrats, for instance.

    Apply your own metric to well-known memes about the Republican party, and what do you come up with?

    And then look up some actual statistics. You may be surprised at the results.

    1. Re:Apply the metric by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Republicans are more charitable than Democrats, for instance.

      Well no. They make more tax-deductible contributions, but so much of that goes to religious organizations that spend the money on actually abusing people that they actually wind up giving less money to actual charity.

      And then look up some actual statistics. You may be surprised at the results.

      You have to look at meaningful statistics. Not just how much money they're giving away, but who they're giving it to, and how it's being spent.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Apply the metric by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is name calling. The head of the EPA is a clear example of a spectacular level of corruption. The depth and breadth of nepotism in the Trump administration is staggeringly bald-faced corruption. The televised oval-office ass-kissing was the work of sycophants who could hardly be expeted to represent their constituents when faced with a challenge which might impact their careers was nothing more than a cavalcade of corruption. Asking the FBI for a pledge of loyalty was deeply corrupt. Undeclared conflicts of interest, lies about meetings, etc, etc.

      To suggest that there's no corruption in the Republican party is profound and staggering idiocy. One of which there seems to be no shortage these days.

      Rare, uncorrupt moments, like McCain's vote against party lines should be the norm if the Republicans weren't playing their supporters as fools. Instead, a lot of self-serving ass-kissing is what these guys are doing to get the rubber stamp of the Republican party and maintain the legitimacy of their office in the eyes of their tribalist supporters.

  25. Fake news? Like HRC was a shoo-in? by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    I remember election night. I knew who was going to win, but I turned on the computer, poured myself a drink, opened the political sites, turned on news radio, and waited for the fait accompli bloodbath to commence. Everyone knew who was going to win. Because we'd been told in poll after poll after poll.

    Similarly with Brexit. We knew it was going to fail, because poll after poll after poll said so.

    Very suspicious. That's the real fake news.

    1. Re:Fake news? Like HRC was a shoo-in? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, see, you don't understand. Foreign sources trying to influence our election by exposing the truth is fake news. Domestic sources trying to do so by blatant lying is perfectly acceptable and should be commended (as long as they try to influence in the right direction; otherwise you deserve to be targeted with the full force of the Federal Government).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  26. Re:Agreed, 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the Russia story is made up, why did Flynn lie? And why did Sessions lie? And why did Trump Jr. lie? And why did Jared lie? All about meeting with Russians?

    You'd think if it was such a fake story that they wouldn't keep lying about it. They'd just tell the truth.

  27. Re: CNN is the source of Fake News by j0uSt · · Score: 1

    I don't know the percentage but they have been blathering on and on and it's getting tiring.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/...

    Kurt

    --
    -- j0uSt
  28. Difference between countries' fake news by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    US fake news is not a result of solely government action. It's primarily a result of heavily biased private media. The US government does not have an official news organ (PBS is, to some degree). US fake news is primarily a result of private media and business interests aligning with a political party, which are wholly private organizations (which many people often forget and the illusion of being public entities is pushed heavily by the parties).

    Other country's fake news comes straight from the government, as a result of their governments having official and unofficial news organs.

    I think the net result is the same: a successfully misinformed population.

  29. Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The mod you were looking for is "flamebait". When I give my actual opinion, that is not trolling, and if you think it was, you do not know what trolling is.

    This comment is "offtopic", not a troll or flamebait. HTH, HAND!

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want eight years of Trump, keep doing what you are doing. The basket of deplorables will repeat the feat out of spite for a second time.

      They are not going to get the chance to do that. Trump will be out of office before they ever get a chance. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating is so low that I could beat him while standing at the podium saying what I'm saying here now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Le's bet. I will put up $1000 says that Trump completes his first term - you put up $100 that he is out of office. That's 10:1 odds. Want to take the bet?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Le's bet. I will put up $1000 says that Trump completes his first term - you put up $100 that he is out of office. That's 10:1 odds. Want to take the bet?

      No, but I'll give you 1:1 for a dollar. I could always be wrong, and I'm a cheap bastard.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so not too strong in your convictions then... This was easy money for you, if you really think he won't make it through his first 4 years. But 1:1, for $1. You have a deal.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Troll doesn't mean what you think it means by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so not too strong in your convictions then...

      My convictions are stronger than my bank account.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  30. How do we know Russian influence stories are true? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Because that's when right wing trolls flood the comments section of such stories with their drek and moderate all other posts into oblivion.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  31. How about US interference in other countries? by johannesg · · Score: 1

    It seems a fair question: the US has a long history of interference in the democratic processes and/or governments of literally DOZENS of other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change). So why are people so upset if a foreign power plays that game on their own soil?

    1. Re:How about US interference in other countries? by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      It seems a fair question: the US has a long history of interference in the democratic processes and/or governments of literally DOZENS of other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change). So why are people so upset if a foreign power plays that game on their own soil?

      Nobody is really upset. It just suits the military-industrial complex now to have a good enemy. The strategy made the gang rich during the cold war, and they want the old days back.

      I've found that if you can't find a visible reasonable explanation for government action, the unseen explanation will be money.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  32. Re: Average Americans are just fed up with leftism by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's only a 100% chance once the ballots have been counted. Up until election day (or at least a few days before), Clinton still had the better odds, but she did not enjoy perfect odds. You do understand the nature of probability, right?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Re: Average Americans are just fed up with leftism by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    Apparently congress is never popular. Presidents can be, but usually it doesn't last.

  34. Well, there is always the Hillary get out of jail by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    What she did was unwise but in the end not worth prosecuting.

  35. Cry Wolf by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    Someday, when Russia really *does* do something, nobody is going to believe the reports about it.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
    1. Re:Cry Wolf by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Russia did do something. The only people who don't know this have two-figure IQ's and still believe Mexico will pay for Trump's wall.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Cry Wolf by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Russia did do something. The only people who don't know this have two-figure IQ's and still believe Mexico will pay for Trump's wall.

      It's been about a year into this Russian thing, and nobody has even offered WMD-quality evidence. So, the burden is still on you, the promoters of this story, to provide persuasive evidence.
      I recently heard a video of Hillary answer the question regarding (paraphrased) What is the evidence? She replied that the "Evidence is compelling". That's the kind of thing I keep hearing. She, basically, said there IS NO EVIDENCE.
      Moreover, the accusation is that Russia, by a circuitous route, revealed misbehavior of the DNC, and that swayed voters. Even if that is the case, Russia didn't write the emails, and revealing it is a service to America - not a "meddling".

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    3. Re:Cry Wolf by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. There's lots of evidence.

      And then there's this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

      The US has gone to war on less.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    4. Re:Cry Wolf by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      That's just a link to the Wiki article, and it doesn't state anything as real evidence. It just says so-and-so believes so.
      And what difference does it make that the US went to war on some pretext? The US has gone to war numerous times for no good reason at all.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  36. Re:Who won the last US Presidential Election? by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    And please don't forget that this whole thing revolves around proving russia attacked the democrats by exposing DNC corruption. The DNC is responsible for their demise, and for Trump, all wikileaks did was expose their corruption to the public.

    You're right, and you represent the typical view of /. readers. But if you read the comments on YahooNews, (judging by "like" ratio) less than half agree with you. The general public believes what they are told to believe.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  37. Re: CNN is the source of Fake News by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So a big fat 0%. Nice.

    Originally, people talked about fake news like "Clinton has brain tumor and only 6 months to live" or "Birmingham in the UK is a 'no-go zone. Something that's been made up and has no basis in reality.

    That's quite a bit different than being mean to Trump or a false story that was retracted and the people responsible were held accountable.

    Now I won't say they have the highest quality stories, but they're a fare cry from the absolute lies that you'll see from right-wing sources.

  38. Re:Democrats - stop doubling down by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    She'll be too sick, Chelsea is a non-starter.

    I think they nominate Warren and she loses. A sane VP though, for 'balance'. Either way, they pivot left. Exactly wrong.

    That's all predicated on them (Ds and Rs) not being triggered and dumping the dirt on each other. If that happens, we've got a half dozen parties fighting it out.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  39. Re:Is fake news the new super weapon? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The allegation is that Russia colluded with Trump to influence the election.

    Russia has tried to influence every American election since the end of WWI, and vice versa. You might have heard of: Voice of America, Pravda, Communist Party USA etc etc etc.

    Ds like to charge 1, prove 2, then act smug. Like they've proven something in dispute.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  40. 'N word' please, 'Fake News' from Russia by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming
    Trump won, move on!

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    1. Re:'N word' please, 'Fake News' from Russia by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Why would the Russians be coming? They're already getting just about everything from Trump it's in his power to give. Putin's getting a green light to screw the Ukraine, Trump's handing him Syria on a plate, and even while Trump was yapping at China to control North Korea, his buddies in Russia increased trade with Kim's regime by 73% just in the first two months of this year.

      The Russians are having a great time right where they are, thanks to their lap dog in the White House.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  41. Re:I wish Slashdot would quit perpetuating fake ne by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    It's easy to spot Soros funded narrative control, especially on Slashdot when you can just AC instead of creating a bunch of sock-puppets.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  42. the standards on foreign interference by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    .... got really low.

    Every single government uses propaganda against other countries, even friendly countries (BBC publishes sneaky anti French articles on a regular basis)

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  43. Re:How do we know Russian influence stories are tr by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    You're wrong. The Russians are already here. And the guy in the White House is laundering money for them.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  44. Re:Agreed, 110%... apk by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Never implied otherwise. You're just attempting to discredit everything I say based on a perception you're attempting to weave based on a stretched implication. Was your reply funded or a genuine AC?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  45. Re:Is fake news the new super weapon? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    And what the Obama administration did in Isreal, that doesn't count, right?

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  46. Re: CNN is the source of Fake News by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    The big "fake news" event that CNN ablsolutely RAN with when they should have known better was the Trump "pee party with prostitutes" bullshit that they should have attempted to vet. They didn't. They believed what they wanted to believe, even though they ought to have known it was just too awesome to be true.

  47. Re: CNN is the source of Fake News by Ksevio · · Score: 1

    Most news organizations reported on the dossier (though many left out the contents). Much of it has been revealed as true, but I haven't heard anything about it in months

    It's not like they were going on about how Clinton was responsible for a terrorist attack for years, even after she was cleared of wrong doing.

    Sure they have the occasional story that's not well sourced, but it's nothing compared to the right wing "news" organizations that push out lies.

  48. Re:Who won the last US Presidential Election? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Sure. But pretending it's still the cold war or blaming him for literally everything bad that happens in the world or relentlessly isolating him internationally isn't helping anything.

    It's not the Cold War anymore? So certain of that, are you?