Slashdot Mirror
Fake News Sharing In US Is a Rightwing Thing, Says Oxford Study (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Low-quality, extremist, sensationalist and conspiratorial news published in the U.S. was overwhelmingly consumed and shared by rightwing social network users, according to a new study from the University of Oxford. The study, from the university's "computational propaganda project", looked at the most significant sources of "junk news" shared in the three months leading up to Donald Trump's first State of the Union address this January, and tried to find out who was sharing them and why. "On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share," the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, "extreme hard right pages -- distinct from Republican pages -- share more junk news than all the other audiences put together." The research involved monitoring a core group of around 13,500 politically-active U.S. Twitter users, and a separate group of 48,000 public Facebook pages, to find the external websites that they were sharing.
Tomayto, tomahto though.
A leftist institution publishes a study that only the rightists news is fake? Naaaaaah... no possible way for bias in that!
If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist.
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated while the conservatives focused on the blue collar workers, at least over the past 10-20 years.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
QED, fake news gets picked up by the blue collar workers, and certain conservative politicians have decided to appeal to this demographic, so they don't publicly fight against the fake news.
The liberals on the other hand are led by college educated people that disbelieve and fight against the fake news.
It's not that the liberals are immune nor that the conservatives are susceptible. It's just a result of demographics.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Do they all visit junk news aggregators as their primary news sources? What are they?
Nailed it!
zosxavius photography
So in other words, Trump's base is responsible for all the fake news?
News at 11..
Says the Anonymous Coward :-D
CNN was SO afraid of the Comment section... They removed it ENTIRELY.
Isn't that Funny?
LOL!
Junk news != Fake news
Although there are significant overlaps.
Sig ?
It's just art, don't worry about it. Stop judging others by their personal tastes.
the 91 sites the researchers had manually coded as “junk news” I want this list; I could then put them into the corporate firewall to see which users are the most easily manipulated with gossip and rumors!
You of course believe that the guy who racked up $250K in debt for a degree that interferes with getting a job I smarter than the guy who earned a union card and close to a six figure salary.
Find a (news) String in peoples browsers, and replace the div content with an adjusted version of your own. :) Opps
[($)]
Steve Jackson is going to cry like a bitch when Donald dies in prison lol.
n/t
Have gnu, will travel.
This is Slashdot. Expect most commenters to react to this story with "leftist" bashing, completely irrelevant mentions of antifas and somehow linking this to CNN. Also BeauHD bashing, because that's how it has to be.
So accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent isn't extremist leftist globalist fake news? Nothing that they try to throw at this guy can stick, and even Wikileaks has come up dry on him.
It's funny that you say that, because the so-called "blue collar workers" that you're ridiculing are often the most independent and honest thinkers out there.
They haven't spent 80% or more of their lives sitting in safe space classrooms being told exactly what to think by some professor or other academic "expert".
They don't waste their time with quizzes and tests and papers and exams where they mindlessly regurgitate whatever their professors told them.
These "blue collar workers" have been out practicing a trade or a craft, and spend their days neck-deep in the realities of the world at large.
They know more about reality than any college student, or especially an academic, likely ever will.
They see things as they really are.
Having seen the world with their own eyes, they know when academics or the media are full of shit.
And it turns out that academics and the media are full of shit a lot!
Here you are trying to paint "blue collar workers" as being "dumb", yet they're often the people with the highest degree of real-world intelligence.
You wouldn't be aware of that, of course, because you're probably never left the confines of whatever sorry campus you're trapped within.
The liberals on the other hand are led by college educated people that disbelieve and fight against the fake news.
Keep living in that echo chamber.
I've been paying attention to the news since the late 70's, when the Iran Hostage Situation was going on, and I was a teenager with a 4 to midnight job that let me listen to the radio at work. I listened to TV news instead of the "music" on the FM band. (others got to smoke at their desks at the time, and for coffee/lunch breaks we went into Charlie's van and smoked some of the best weed you could buy at the time). I had this job when Ted Koppel started his Nightline show, and I listened to him every night.
Even stoned me at 11 PM, after having been up since 6 AM for that 7 AM class, knew the news was heavily biased towards the left wing/liberal/progressive/whatever.
Don't believe me? Watch an abortion story, it's clear the network wants abortion to be legal. Watch a gun story, it's clear that not only does the network want to outlaw guns, they can't be bothered to learn the difference between a Ruger 10/22 and an AK-47. Watch a tax/budget cut story, it's clear they want the government to have more money.
Now the right has figured out how to get their message to more of their peeps (albeit a much smaller pond to fish in), and the lefties are going nuts.
Note I did not mention my party preference, abortion position, gun control position, nor tax/spending position. The mainstream media has been biased towards "progressive" causes for at least 40 years, now folks on the pointy end are squealing like stuck pigs.
This whole fake news thing is new and I don't know how to deal with it. Except I don't have a single social media account, I devote at least 12 brain cells to every story I read, and I assume Trump and his sycophants are lying through their teeth when they open their mouths.
What a stunning load of horseshit that is.
Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense. There are stunningly smart people in all walks of life that didn't go to college or other.
I'll bet its no harder to trick a college person than any other person. Maybe its even easier to put one over on some so called schooled peoples because of built in prejudices like you demonstrate.
What arrogance.
Sure, cnn is a terrible source of information some of the time.. not sure how that's different than breitb and Fox. They're equally bad, if not worse..
Says the Anonymous coward who is Crying like a bitch right now! :-D
Since when have good ole rock-ribbed true-blooded conservative right-wing Americans ever not been the God-fearing honest folk that they swear up and down on a stack of burning bibles that they truly are.
I mean really, they said it three and a half times before Satan rose up out of the bowels of Hell and dragged them off screaming into the good night.
Thank you friend, for the best humorous comment I've read all day.
Liberals believe different horseshit, but it’s still horseshit.
College educated have their own set of superstition and unsubstantiated taboos, but it’s there all the same.
Few people of any stripe investigate what they’re told from a source they like.
Is it?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hey! Someone here gets it!
> If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist.
If I may say, no. Violently enforcing your opinion would be extremist. Mere disagreement is hardly extremist.
> It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
It is certainly possible to do so.
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
Like this false statement? "You're going to be able to pay off that student loan!" Suckers!
Facts get in the way of a good story.
If you post it, they will read.
I think this story (and the research it reports) is fundamentally misleading. In terms of psychological warfare, of course you need to target your victims carefully. Some targets like (or are suckers for) fake news, others not so much. Time for a bit of anecdotal evidence:
In general there are few so-called Republicans in my neck of the woods, but when I did meet a couple of them for beers before the election, I noticed that they had also been drinking the strange Kool-Aid, and hard. In particular, each of them thought Hillary was a demonic monster, but they were completely orthogonal about what was wrong with her. At the time I was mostly amused that they could believe such silly things. Looking back, I think that each of them had been successfully targeted with different flavors of fake news and the most interesting aspect is how they could be so unified in their hatred while being so divided in their peculiar reasoning.
Now in my own case, I think I was successfully targeted by a different kind of divide and conquer strategy. I was encouraged to get overly enthusiastic about Bernie to the point of firing my wallet at the wrong target. I can't prove it was done by the Russians, but I think I was quite probably targeted by pro-Bernie news and propaganda that helped divide the Democratic Party quite effectively. I never swallowed the anti-Hillary bait (beyond my basic dislike of lawyers), but I should have shot my wallet at a more useful target, perhaps the Democratic Party in Michigan?
The much more serious question is how much Putin's goons learned from the prior elections and how well they will apply those lessons going forward. Right now it looks like the Bolshevik Republicans are much more concerned with defending PARTY discipline than with defending the nation. (Kind of laughable if you know the history of the original Bolsheviks.)
Still anecdotal, but I miss the rational Republicans. Long time since I've spoken to one.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated while the conservatives focused on the blue collar workers, at least over the past 10-20 years.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
It is a little more complex than that. Many college educated people simply vote for their own best interest or the best interest of their cause.
For instance, if you believe or are susceptible to the propaganda you might vote republican just because you believe you will get a bigger return on your 401k. They may even know that we can't afford additional debt and all the rest, but simply not care.
Similarly if you promise to put in the "right people" to force elimination of roe v wade, well they will hold their nose and forgive _everything_ else. Seriously, Trump got caught with a porn star and the religious right didn't even blink.
Can you imagine what they would have done to Hillary if they found out she had an affair with a porn star? I can't. Though I'm sure they'd be beating the family values Drum and demanding her resignation or impeachment, sooner or later.
Of course once people have their side they will make excuses for pretty much anything, particularly republicans. How many times have we been told Trump was just joking? The latest was he wanted those that failed to praise him accused of treason, but its alight, he was only kidding. The time before I believe he said that representative Schiff must be stopped with an exclamation point. I just hope Schiff has enough security to be safe from unstable people his tweet might set off.
Sexist!
Has been busted fabricating news ON VIDEO, no less than 2 DOZEN times in the past decade alone...
So like nothing compared to the record of Fox News?
- Conspirationists
- Preppers
- Creationists
- Flat-earthers
- Anti-vaxxers
- Climate change deniers
- "Electric universe" believers
- Social Darwinists
- Trump worshipers
ALL the above are overwhelmingly composed of conservatives/right-wingers.
Hardly a sign of high-IQ/education/Critical thinking.
There is a reason for the right wing nut jobs being right wing nut jobs.
We are talking about inherently paranoid people who will go with what they "trust" every time, as long as it jives with their beliefs. Being of lower IQ, they tend to rely on "trusted" authoritarian figures to do their thinking for them and they are ruled by a fear of the unknown which frequently takes them into conspiracy fantasy land or resort to broken logic when reality clashes with their beliefs.
Who would have thought people like that would be susceptible to junk "news" with a extremely high confirmation bias and usually disseminated via their "trusted" channels?
As the old adage goes: SISO.
Blue collar workers aren't less smart. They are less trained to think critically.
If you post it, they will read.
If I ever got a mod point to give, you'd get one for that. I think you made the main points better than my anecdotes below (which I was apparently composing at the same time).
Right now I'm reading What's the Matter with Kansas? , which covers much of the same territory. A bit dated, but I actually think most of these problems are actually based on the destruction of public education, which started decades ago, back when the rich real estate speculators realized they could cut their own property taxes by reducing the need for school budgets by first of all destroying the public schools.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Who accused him of anything he didn't do? Obstructing justice is a felony. By any account he's more guilty of that than Nixon.
It's important to attend college. It's the only place that you'll learn about the 53 different genders, and how some women were born with a penis.
I think it is more than a liberal/conservative phenomena.
There is more wacky media than you can possibly shake a stick at today. Facts don't matter as much as feelings. News is more about how the news anchor or corporation 'feels' about the news than it is just delivering what happened today.
Trump isn't a Russian spy... He is a dupe, a sucker, a useful idiot for Putin. He's gone from mere dupe to a willful participant though.
Trump's a chump. How are those coal mining jobs? Pennsylvania hiring tens of thousands of coal miners yet? Guess Trump isn't the sucker. He got his.
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
Is that why all those "college educated people" kept saying "Hillary Clinton will make a good President"?
The only way I can see that comment being true is that your idea of a "good" President is that they are even more corrupt than the last one.
There was a nice video of college students criticizing Trumpâ(TM)s comments in the State of the Union, two days before he actually gave the speech. College students are some of the most uninformed opinionated idiots out there. How else do so many of them end up communist?
That may be true. Perhaps in th United States the media is so biased that the only alternative to leftist propaganda is found in social network posts, talk radio, conversations over the back fence, and the underground news sites. That is why the populist blue collar majority elected Trump.The main stream media is an echo chamber for the left so those who lan to the right are forced out of th main stream for their media.
You are proof that a low ID more than likely equals a low IQ. I am sure you think that Hitler was right and Stalin is a role model. Go and suck on Trump's cock some more.
When you have them on camera with 2 reporters FAKING a Split Screen dual-location Shot, not once, but at least 2 different times. THEN you come talk. Till then. You all make us laugh :-P
-Steven Colbert, 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner
CNN has been busted faking multi-location split screens in the same parking lot... like 3 times :-) Those asshats are like the Lie report. The ONLY reason to visit that site, is to see what lie they are trying to spin that day. You don't REMOVE your comment section, unless what is being said FRIGHTENS you or your Shareholders.
"If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist."
Tautologically true maybe, and I note that you are at least implying that only "stupid conservatives" can hold extremist views when actively supporting say... allowing criminals who kill innocent black people into the country with impunity is pretty damn "extremist" since it's only supported by a small minority of people, many of whom claim to be college "educated."
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
Oooh look I spotted the factually unsupported conclusion in the pseudo-logic!
Where's my prize?
And yet WAPO still, to this day, has a twitter post up that says "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid." Despite the fact that it's been admitted, even by them, that they were wrong. In light of the fact that we see MSM outlets give up their integrity and journalistic principals in pursuit of bringing down Trump to the point they've decided the end justifies ANY means at all, you can't blame people for not trusting proven liars.
How did Trump obstruct justice?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CNN+caugh... There ya go!
Has been busted fabricating news ON VIDEO, no less than 2 DOZEN times in the past decade alone... This "Study" is likely just more leftist BS.
I'm just going through the paper right now, but there's a ton of sketchy and indefensible assumptions.
For example, the study relies on a list of sites known to have fake news, with a "representative article" for each site.
Taking one at random, apparently this news article was enough to get Breitbart listed as a "fake news" site.
The problem is that the article in question is completely and totally accurate, but was probably branded "fake news" because it went against the narrative of many Hillary supporters.
Another entry shows hannity.com, and the link (no longer working at Hannity) was about an undercover journalist who managed to impersonate Huma Abedin at the polling station; effectively, able to vote as someone else.
A quick search shows that this actually happened, it's a Project Veritas sting, and there's a youtube.com video of the incident.
It is immediately apparent that neither of these "representative" articles is fake in any way. I couldn't even find inaccuracies or bad framing in the articles - there's no sound reason to say that these are examples of fakery.
This paper does not at all rise to the level of quality and fact-checking that a published paper should have!
It's nothing more than a leftist hit piece.
Note: Check out the people who post one-line insults as a response to an organized argument with links. To mis-quote Chris Farley: "They're awesome"! :-)
We're not debating horseshit though, we're now debating the KNOWN FACTS of provable things we can all see and measure. One side has chosen nihilism essentially. It's not a bullshit vs bullshit comparison, it's bullshit vs provable record.
FBI people investigating Trump for high crimes are not "liberals" anyway, so the inference that because Liberals stand for accountability that accountability is a questionable virtue... it's madness. Trump has pushed politics into a culture war.
Unfortunately, the GOP will very soon become cognizant of the fact that they've picked an already defeated horse, nazi fascism. Their death knells will truly be spectacular terrorism in the coming decades. Popcorn?
Only an ivory tower academic who has never held a real job would make a statement as stupid as the one you've just made. Trades like plumbing, electrical, construction and manufacturing all require excellent analysis and reasoning skills. These practitioners are often dealing with real world problems and situations that are several magnitudes more complex than anything ivory tower academics deal with.
They would make perfect Republicans!
I think Trump is a complete moron but also the greatest Russian spy the world has ever known! I am not a total fake news right wing idiot! I only believe true things! Putin now completely runs our country and is deploying more American troops on the Russian boarder just for show! I only know true things!! I'm a typical Slashdot reader!
Hillary totally didn't surround herself with sexual predators! That's fake news. She also didn't have perfectly normal conversations wherein her staff emails her about "sacrificing a chicken in their backyard to Moloch". That's really quite regular for most Americans to have such regular normal discussions. To think otherwise makes you a Nazi Russian spybot troll who is brainwashed by Fox News.
Alright... that was fun... but in all seriousness...
It's going to be a long ride for you fuckos as we put your heroes in jail... one at a time.
> It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
Evidence? No, of course not. It's true because somebody said it, and you mindlessly believe it.
I am guessing you went to went to college.
College educated people? Like those with PhDs in gender studies and queer studies? Yep. They really are paragons of knowledge who must be listened to. A electrician who can wire a building is a fucking idiot compared to a PhD who knows there are 56 genders.
No. You'll be judged, son. Soon.
Most computer programmers out of college can't really code. Most engineers out of college can't do much of practical use. They need those blue collar workers to actually make progress on ANY project.
If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist.
That's a terrible way of defining extremist. The rest of society once disagreed that the earth rotated around the sun and that slavery was wrong.
There are always going to be fringe beliefs and some of those fringe believes can become mainstream and change the world.
One of the problems with society today is the rampant thought police that try to suppress opinions they disagree with.
Extremists should be defined not on their opinions but on their actions. If someone peacefully wants to say that we should bring back slavery or stop eating meat or that the earth is flat then we should allow them to say it.
Are you pretending to be college educated? Most people who blather on about fascism tend to know nothing about it or the Nazis that they label everyone as.
It is quite funny... you'll find almost every single left-wing "mainstream" news site has removed theirs or never had one. Where as you will find almost every single right wing site has a comments section enabled.
It speaks volumes of the mentality.
Is that it? Really? That's even more pathetic that I thought it would be.
> FBI people investigating Trump for high crimes are not "liberals" anyway
No? They are certainly democrats, and not moderate democrats by any stretch. They absolutely hate Trump, they are extremely biased.
And the FBI has been extremely corrupt and dishonest in this so-called "investigation."
The FBI got a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, by using fabricated evidence paid for by Hillary. The FBI withheld this material evidence from the FISA court, and pretending the "evidence" in the dossier was corroborated by a news article, when actually the news article was planted by Christopher Steele.
> so the inference that because Liberals stand for accountability
I hope you are trolling. I would hate to think that anybody is *that* stupid. Where is the accountability for Hillary's crimes?
There is zero evidence against Trump. Nothing what-so-ever.
Hillary? Where to begin? She stole the nomination. She conspired with CNN to rig the debate. She paid for the BS dossier which was used to illegally get a FISA warrant to illegally spy on the republicans. She eradicated 30K emails that under subpoena. And I could go on.
You better bite if they're circumcised.
If I may? I studied at Harvard and MIT. I've *published* with both of them on hardware I designed. And I've worked in the physical trades, construction, security, and ambulance. Brother, college was *not* cheap for me. I am personally as tough as hell to fool or lie to because I've been on both sides o the town/gown wall, and I've heard what the expert bullshit artists on both sides say. And yes, I can still be fooled. It takes different techniques for the townies than the gownies. But yeah, they (or we, I try to stay in touch with both groups!!) can still be fooled.
And frankly, which is more easily fooled depends on their experience with consequences. If they never suffer consequences because they're got too much money, or because the jails are too full to bother with the piddly stuff they do as kids, well, they don't learn.
"Fake News Sharing"
"Rightwing"
"theguardian.com" (dingdingding)
"extremist"
What does this have to do with Slashdot in any way? /moderators / owners who continue to approve this endless political stuff here.
I never thought I would advocate the members having the ability to up or downvote submissions but would someone PLEASE
_*_*_*PLEASE*_*_*_ get rid of the editors
If I wanted to be tugged to the left or the right, I'd have continued posting on twitter or facebook, or some parts of Reddit.
I come here for the lack of that idiocy, for tech news, for comments from seasoned old IT workers with great tales, for futuristic cool stuff.
I AM TIRED OF RUSSIAN STORIES
I AM TIRED OF "ALT-RIGHT!!" stories
Stop.
STOP.
one of the chief purveyors of the stuff during the last pres election lamented the fact that he couldn't use the same tactics with the left because the stories got debunked too fast. He wasn't interested in politics, just the ad revenue from all the sharing on Facebook & the like. He tried it with the left and it'd get debunked & shut down before he made any real money off the adverts.
The real question is how do you get the right wing folks to stop voting for stuff like trickle down economics so they'll stop thinking of themselves as a bunch of temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Bottom line, the right is unified. They want low taxes, no regulations and religion in government. The left is just a mess. It's a lose group of Unionists, socialists, Feminists, Gun Control advocates and a hundred other things the right oppose. Folks like Bernie Sanders needs to crack the right's strong coalition if they want to get anywhere with policy. They need to get folks to start voting with their wallet instead of their gut.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Seems like anti-vaxxers are mostly on the left
CBC in Canada did this as well once they started hard down the leftist agenda peddling path. People were pointing out the bullshit in their articles and *poof*, comments gone for all but irrelevant articles.
Can't have people questioning the propaganda. Might give others bad ideas.
Somehow blue collar workers are just less smart than college educated people. Pure nonsense.
It depends. If one means that blue collar workers are "less smart" in the sense that they have less academic potential than college educated people, then I would disagree. Most people, college educated or not, have a lot of untapped intellectual potential. Inherent intelligence has less to do with our intellectual accomplishments than hard work and opportunity. The college educated usually tap into more of their intellectual potential because that's the whole point of college.
Therefore, it wouldn't be incorrect to say that blue collar workers tend to be "less smart" in the sense that they don't tend to be well educated.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
for example, the Russia collusion story... fake or real? Some will say real... some will say fake. Which is it? There's no evidence but it could be real... it could also be fake.
The problem here is that you have dueling narratives and what is real or not is often not relevant to anyone. We've found this with all the political factions.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That comment should be modded up! It obviously shouldn't be at -1.
Every time that Slashdot discusses whether computer programmers (who are basically blue collar workers at this point) need a college education, the answer is a resounding "No!", and then we see a bunch of 5, Insightful comments from self-taught programmers.
Yet change the subject away from programming and the Slashdot mods go stupid and downmod a comment promoting the exact same thing that they'd mod up to 5 if it were referring to self-taught programmers instead of blue-collar workers!
True intelligence is the ability to make.
Understanding religious iconography in Renaissance Art and being able to quote Shakespeare doesn't teach you how to make anything.
Oh, they got that.
And a fake analyst too. Not to mention sexual harassment, and a fake colonel, and a fake riot.
There are comment sections in: The NY Times, the Washington Post, Slate, Salon, Huffington Post. Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head - I'm sure there are more.
Your research skills leave a bit to be desired.
How about the interview they had with a "random person on the street" that turned out to be one of the CNN camera men?
Wanting the FBI Director to go easy on investigating his crony, and firing him when he refused to pledge loyalty.
Bragging to a foreign power (***Russians***) that firing the FBI director lifted a weight off his shoulders
Wanting to fire the NEXT FBI Director when it became clear the investigations were reaching closer to his inner circle.
And I won't go into the sordid details about Sessions.
And the kicker is, its not even just about obstruction. Follow the Russian money, through Deutsche Bank, to various Trump Organization entities. Ok, you dont have to, Mueller is.
All this idiotic "there is no proof of collusion/crime" is either willful ignorance or desperate pleading. Do you think a smart prosecutor/investigator reveals his/her intentions or evidence before an indictment is ready? Not everyone has the self-discipline or neediness of a 4 year old boy.
Faking a production detail. That's pretty fucking minor. When they are wrong on news, they retract it publically and apologize.
When Fox News fakes or gets something wrong, they just delete the story and pretend it never happened.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
We spend more than any other OECD country on K-12 education - and our students typically end up near the middle, or in the bottom half. Spending != performance, at least in the US.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Your a closted hippy liberal. Just read your words.
Um, if we're talking about the Trump crowd and the 'fake news' folks, they do seem to trust a proven liar (as in 'on tape saying he didn't say all sorts of thing he actually did say and was recorded saying').
Even if I conceded your point about the 'main stream media' (another sort of judgmental grouping which inherently has some issues), going from not trusting one source to accepting propaganda as news from others (so called news that is not factual) is not exactly a winning strategy.
At best, your comment could be taken as 'people disappointed with the ideological slant of the mainstream media and what they perceive as inaccuracies there have then chosen to get their inaccuracies somewhere else'.
It is quite possible to go from bad to worse. Even given I might believe Hillary was as crooked as the day is long and had a history of bad decisions, it was still possible to make a worse choice. And it happened.
Everything you posted is fake news.
(That's a neat trick I just learned to win any political argument).
before anyone gets his panties in a bunch, he wanted to fire Mueller himself, not Wray. that doesnt change any of the other things he did or tried to do.
Yet you're making yourself look very, very stupid - Congratulations. Let me guess, you're on the side of "no college makes me smart becuz hard work is hard" right?
Please, fool lol. College would have been a wise investment for you, even if you end up still a moron but with a degree and unforgivable debt as so many do. Even then you would have gotten laid more, lol? Sad!
Go on Cletus, defend ignorance for us again. Tell us about how you changing your own tire makes you Ozymandias. Mind if I play banjo music in my mind while you yammer on? Cool.
Conservatives focus on blue collar workers? Maybe, maybe, but for whose benefit?
obviously that's true, right?
This one's my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY1iBuKmktM
There are others regarding DHMO in our food and contaminating our pipes, and any number of other idiotic things college students believe. Attempting to conflate "right leaning" with "stupid" is what got you the cheeto in the first place.
Keep it up, and see where that gets you next election.
So lifelong Republican party members are "Democrats" and on Hillary's payroll if they dare to disagree with the Dear Leader? Do you even realize how fucking stupid you sound?
None of this is obstruction of justice. You either don't understand the concept, or more likely are purposefully ignorant.
There continues to be no evidence of "Russian Collusion". You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime. It requires malicious intent, which does not exist without the crime in the first place.
Once you have proof of a "crime of collision" then we can talk. Until then, you're just another fucking moron who got tricked by the biggest fake news story in history.
That's not what he's saying, really.
The point is that people with higher education usually gets far more training in critical thinking, rhetoric and generally gets a wider view on things. It's like standing on an elevated platform, looking at the world as opposed to looking through a periscope. Being on a mental submarine doesn't mean you're stupid, it means your view on the world outside is limited.
There's also a second point to be made, which is that people with higher educations probably generally are more manipulative and dishonest than people without, have better understanding of the weaknesses of human reasoning and better tools to exploit them. As such they tend to be more cynical about the motives of other people. I remember from my own education actually being encouraged to deliberately use fallacies, half truths etc to "win" the debates, something I found thoroughly disgusting. Again, this doesn't mean people with higher educations are all liars, it means they have been educated in a different world. Some found the thought repulsive and don't argue that way. Others revelled in it, and the worst of them seem to work for oil and coal companies and right wing politicians these days.
Speaking of that; Have you thought about how none of the people heralded as "the heroes of the average Joe", the people who supposedly will make "America great again" all have higher education, and in fact usually all have been borne with a silver spoon in their mouth, while the reviled "leftists" usually have some sort of connection to the common people? How can that be?
Food for thought.
So, you have some relatively young kids living in a bubble, yet sheltered from life's realities by their parents' incomes, making judgements about how the world looks far outside their shell.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
That doesn't explain the willful ignorance of Trump's college-educated administration. Trump himself somehow went from a democrat who got news from reliable sources to a Fox News bubble viewer.
Only an ivory tower academic who has never held a real job would make a statement as stupid as the one you've just made.
The hyperbole is probably unnecessary. At the very least, it just weakens your argument.
Trades like plumbing, electrical, construction and manufacturing all require excellent analysis and reasoning skills. These practitioners are often dealing with real world problems and situations that are several magnitudes more complex than anything ivory tower academics deal with.
This is true, actually. And that kind of skill is to be commended. But it's not the same as critical thinking.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Evenly distributed between left leaning and right leaning sites ? or is there a distinct bias to one side or the other. being someone that follows both. both sides are more than guilty of pushing news that is easily debunked and the number of people being led by the nose by this news is about equal.
The anti Trump cabal has a laundry list of crimes well documented on PUBLIC RECORD (you don't even need a special investigator just someone who cares). How can you compare Trump 'financial speculation' (guilty until proven innocent it seems) -- to using bleachbit and hammers to destroy evidence/unencrypted server with classified materials/IRS targeting/pay for play/Benghazi/Haiti crimes/Uranium One/FISA abuse to name a few.. And now including collusion with Russia!!! Using DOJ/FBI/Fusion GPS/Steele-discredited-dossier to overturn an election. If and when proven may actually constitute treason; yet the LEFT wing MSM drones on with mindless propaganda which only the most feeble/lazy/hateful minds consume.
No? They are certainly democrats, and not moderate democrats by any stretch.
This is completely unsupported by the actual facts. The FBI is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican, both the rank & file and the leadership. This has been true for many years. To claim otherwise is probably a side effect of the cognitive dissonance you are currently experiencing.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
School underfunding is a myth pushed by the teacher's unions. Here's a spreadsheet from the National Center for Education Statistics showing per pupil spending from 1919 to 2011, in inflation-adjusted numbers. Compared to the early 60s, we have QUADRUPLED per pupil spending. Are we getting four times the results? Hell fucking no.
Stop demanding more money, and start looking at where the money is going. Because it sure isn't going into the classroom.
I can see the Slashdot echo chamber is working particularly well today.
Watch Fox News and moderate /.
LOSERS!
Says the Anonymous Coward :-D
Okay, I'll bite. I'm not an anonymous coward, and I think you're a fucktard too. Also, you're incredibly gullible. The sooner you admit that to yourself, the better off you'll be.
CNN was SO afraid of the Comment section... They removed it ENTIRELY.
Lots of websites have removed their comment section. Mostly because of the fucktards.
Isn't that Funny?
It's more of a statement about how persistent fucktards can be.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
So a high salary from collective bargaining has something to do with intelligence? Anything at all?
It is amusing to watch, isn't it? First you define anything Republicans like as fake. Then you check to see if Republicans or Democrats absorb more fake news. Of course, your results confirm your selection process. Fake news is that which does not bruise your nose when you bump into the wall it says is in front of you. It's fake news when you blame the whole world for the results of your own failings, such as losing an election because you were a thoroughly arrogant and rotten candidate for political office.
Besides it is college students who declaimed at length how rotten Trump's SoTU address "last night" when it had not taken place yet. Blue collar people probably had a better notion of reality. It would be interesting to find out.
{^_-}
I have a PhD in physics and you’re a fucking stupid dumbass.
Here's a study from Oct 2016 showing relative percentages of donations from federal workers, broken down by candidate and department.
97% of donations from the Department of Justice went to Hillary.
84% from the Department of Defense went to Hillary.
Every other department was around 90% Hillary.
Conclusion: The actual facts show that you're full of shit.
First of all, what makes you an extremist -- left or right -- is being unable to see any validity in points of view that differ even modestly from yours. This means extremists have trouble perceiving any middle ground... or even middle-shading ground. Either you agree with them completely, or you are not a true liberal or conservative in their eyes.
Extremists subscribe to sets of ideas rather than think for themselves. If you want to know whether you truly think for yourself, ask yourself, "do I really fit in with the people who usually agree with me?" If the answer is "yes", you probably don't.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage. I see no evidence that college educated people as a body think more critically about news sources than blue collar people. Someone who is inclined to genuine skepticism will that hone mindset with more education, but someone inclined to be credulous will go through whatever motions he needs to graduate, and come out as intellectually defenseless as he went in.
People are not demographic robots. There are sharp-witted janitors and fools with PhDs (morosophs). Had their opportunities in life been switched the world might be a better place.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, I don't know about that, but I'm a liberal who finds the WaPo unsatisfying, because it's too predictable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It is harder to trick people with experience in a topic into believing false statements about that topic. Come up with seductive false statements about blue collar jobs, and college educated people will believe it just as easily as blue collar workers will believe seductive false statements about white collar jobs. Likewise, after having managed and run businesses for 10 years, I've found many college graduates and academics with no real-world business experience to be astonishingly naive in their beliefs about how business works.
The problem isn't primarily lack of education as you've concluded. The problem is once people want to believe something (like believing education is the primary distinguishing factor), they stop being objective. Once they want to believe something, they've already decided a certain conclusion is desirable. Any evidence they see will be filtered through that desire. Conforming data will be accepted with little to no skepticism. Contradictory data will be sifted with a fine-toothed comb and the tiniest flaw will be seen as permission to disbelieve the whole thing even if that flaw has minimal impact on its veracity. You're supposed to review the data, and use it to reach a conclusion. But it's human nature to jump to a conclusion, then pick out the data which supports that conclusion.
Very few people I've met are honest enough with themselves to accept contradictory data at face value. Real world experience is one of the few things that can force people to accept contradictory data, and usually they still need to be kicked in the pants by it several times before they'll start to accept that it might actually be correct. Education based on that experience can be useful, but outside of STEM I've found a lot of education is just selecting and presenting the subset of data which supports the viewpoint the instructor believes.
Who modded up the crazy guy?
(Sorry - I should have included random capitalization):
Who MODded up The Crazy guy?
There is no real left or right in US politics, at least not anymore in recent memory. They are both in bed with the corporation and deep state. I think it was CIA that reported the last real left-leaning US president was Jimmy Carter.
They got it down pat. You tell the students that federal law requires them to believe the false statements and force them to take an online quiz that requires they make the same false statements themselves, under threat of expulsion if they refuse. Then you have the university itself host celebrations of the same disinformation and instruct professors to enthusiastically endorse the disinformation under threat of losing their jobs. Four years later students come out believing in transparently nonsensical and dishonest bullshit like personal pronouns or Palestinian suffering.
You might want to watch a few videos of college students signing petitions against dihydrogen monoxide, disagreeing with Obama SOTU statements when they believe they're from Trump, and other choice bits showing college students are anything but "harder to trick" into believing false statements.
EXACTLY,
Simply wanting something does NOT constitute a crime!
Yes, the poster is a moron.
Lots of websites have removed their comment section. Mostly because of the fucktards.
Really? It seems that most sites have removed comment sections because the comment sections would point out contradictory or incorrect information that the site was presenting. Want a couple of good examples? NPR. They even pushed the narrative that removing the comment section would *increase* the quality of the news. During the brexit campaign, the telegraph.co.uk went out of their way with heavy-handed moderation against anyone who corrected their narrative on UKIP and brexit in general then shut theirs down too. The CBC pulled something similar, now they only allow comments on articles that push very specific agendas and will shut down comments in 30 mins to 1hr sometimes especially when people point out that it's either a lie, or them pushing an ideological agenda.
Om, nomnomnom...
You have nothing, absolutely nothing. Go away.
This is true, actually. And that kind of skill is to be commended. But it's not the same as critical thinking.
Surely you are not suggesting that only so called educated people engage in critical thinking every day just doing their jobs day in day out? Let alone just navigating life in general.
I think that would be a silly thing to say.
Fucktard = anyone I don't agree with
wasn't real?
It seems to me that the promotion of conspiracy theories and fake news will play a larger part in future elections. I can easily see it being used to drive a wedge between the hard right and the primary candidate of the right. By driving a portion of their voters to someone with no chance of winning (e.g. a Libertarian candidate), Democrats could make it far easier to win elections due in part to the first-past-the-post voting.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Stop judging others by their personal tastes.
Yeah, but how can anyone not like pepperoni?
Reason that right wing fake news works so much better, is that the Left Wing players are so bottomless corrupt, that any conspiracy theory is very believable. Do I think that the Hillary Crime Cartell
1. Enriched themselfes with Russian money? Of course
2. Used aid funds for Haity to enrich themselfes? Of course
3. Used their own private server to hide their corrupt business deals from the public? Absolutely
4. Paid for a fake dossier from a shady opperative and used that fake dossier to spy on their opposition? Absolutely
5. Have a "Clinton Body Count" and killed Seth Rich? Based on 1 to 4 seems absolutely plausible to me
Do I believe that Trump colluded with the Russians? I thing even brainwashed liberals dont believe that anymore.
Impeding an investigation is by itself a crime, irrespective of whether or not the investigation is into a crime that is later proved to be prosecutable, or the prosecution wins. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... notes, "If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect." Key word here is "suspect". So when Flynn was being investigated -- by definition, a suspect -- Trump attempting to take the heat off of him was "willfully and knowingly" trying to "protect a suspect."
Does it routinely issue corrections and retractions? If so it may be biased, but arguably that's unavoidable. It might even be a lousy news source. But at least it's trying to be real news, to get things factually right.
We live in an age when many people have in effect given up on objective reality. That is dangerous. Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, notes that totalitarian regimes strive to make their subjects gullible and cynical at the same time. Purely cynical people don't go along when you need them to. Gullible people are hard to manage when they realize the truth. But someone who is gullible and cynical at the same time is perfectly tractable and docile.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wow. Elitist much? You just nailed the liberal stereotype in a single post!
If only the facts didn't prove you wrong. The article is based on information, not speculation.
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I know it's heretical to even suggest it, but if you read the (peer-reviewed) article, you will learn that your characterization of this research is completely wrong.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I am not a Trump supporter but his election really upset the apple cart. People invested billions in the Presidential election and ended up not getting a ROI on their investments. That tend to piss off the back room power brokers. Clinton understood she was 100% obligated to reward those who paid to get her voted President. 8 years as co-President, serving in the US Senate, and heading up the US State Department taught her how the game is played. Trump's election has reeked havoc by playing a new game. A game where he can say things that a lot of people have wanted to say for some time. Letting US allies across the world know that outsourcing their military protection comes with a price. Making NK understand they are one button push away from having their country totally annihilated. Ridiculing the little "Rocket Man" has also been a novel approach instead of genuflecting to the little fucker and succumbing to NK extortion over the past 50 years. Throwing the annihilation threat on the negotiating table should have happened 50 years ago. At least it finally got China to take their thumbs out and actually enforce the international sanctions. The Chinese are smart enough to know that unlike the US they are well within range of the nuclear fallout. NK today is the result of over 50 years of failed diplomacy that Trump had nothing to do with. A US President publically attaching conditions to US monetary handouts has also been refreshing turn of events. Trumps election also outed the media bias and politically targeted "editorial lines" and removed all doubt about there ability to publish unbiased and fact based news. Trump will be gone in a couple of years but the all the attacks on the Presidential Office will be visited upon Trumps successors. The people who are accusing the President of all types of crimes represent the scariest artifacts of the era we are living in. Their accusations and attacks have abandoned the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have shit canned the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea. The ones normally railing about the FISA court are now embracing that courts actions. There will be no winner when all is said and done.
This is just bullshit! An compilation of memes and common sense.
The overconfidence of uneducated is due to inability to see or grasp the real complexities of everything. They think in crude memes and common sense rules of thumb.
I remember Fox News comments section before they shut it down, that place was a magnet for all kinds of vile idiots.
Another way to read that study is to suggest that one group is looking for the truth more than the other group.
Rather than being told what to think, you may want to sift through more sources and decide for yourself. And then on top of that the inherent assumption that people fully accept everything they are told is false.
The overly PC sentiment among college students and lack of respect for others that disagree with their views is a fairly recent phenomenon.
You can't get much more fake than having a host of debate feed one side the questions beforehand.
And that is not a "production detail", just ask Bernie Sanders fans.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Having seen the world??!
You're shittin' me, right? They'd be damn lucky to see Des Moines! Most spend their lives at the paper/steel mill, diner, bar, home with the old lady watching Carson, in that order. Shit, Motel 6 is high livin'. You feel secure sleepin' in a place that's anchored to the ground.
An educated person would have a healthy aversion to that kind of utter bullshit which uneducated far-right and conservatives consume on daily basis. Education, among other things, gives one ability to correctly classify, mark and filter out large amounts of bullshit, significantly reducing the burden of being bombarded by lowest quality emotionally charged visual and linguistic bullshit (memes). Simpleminded lower half of a population does not even know that what they take seriously is an utter, primitive bulshit memes, crafted especially for them by those who are a bit smarter.
Except that it wasn't the D.C. years that taught Hillary how to play the game, she and Slick Willie had been playing the game since their Arkansas days, and likely before that. D.C. simply made it an international game.
This notion of "real"-ness is really fucking irritating. The shits that blue-collar workers shite are no more or less real than the shits that college-educated workers shite. They stink the same. The same is true of the rest of people's lives. Intelligence is by no means the preserve of the college-educated, but neither is it the preserve of blue-collar workers. Stop spouting cliches and accept the world for what it is: a complex place.
Fake studies. One another leftwing lie we need to take care of.
I have four Doctorates and tenured Professorship in punting lying faggots like you off a cliff, never to be seen again.*
*(see "Lying faggots punted + Cliffs, Oxford University Regent Press publications, you actual retarded nazi bitch lol)
wew, true if big
As we all know, it's completely impossible for a registered Republican to donate to or otherwise support a Democratic candidate, or vice versa.
Written by Left-Wing liberal acedemics with a strong left wing bias making the results utter none-sense. Until they make a AI that "Truely" has no bias , these studies are subjective bullshit.
It's not about education. It's about political orientation. This peer-reviewed article from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project, would seem to indicate, very specifically, that when it comes to fake news, people on the Right are less likely to engage in critical thinking and more likely to "listen and believe". That's not me saying that, it's the study (which you can read here and also learn about their methodology). And that's just the most charitable interpretation. It's also possible that they know the fake news they are sharing is fake, but just don't care.
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
"For this study, a seed of known propaganda websites across the political spectrum was used"
Start with a bias end with a bias.
This oxford "study" never bothers to define in any objective way what they mean by "junk news", so what they are "measuring" is completely subjective.
Even worse, their 2 primary references about what constitute "junk news" are papers by some of the same authors, which in turn do not clearly define what "junk news" is.
So we have incestuous junk science trying to lecture us about fake news.
I never thought I'd see 'research' sink this low. And from Oxford... shameful.
I have four Doctorates and tenured Professorship in punting lying faggots like you off a cliff, never to be seen again.*
*(see "Lying faggots punted + Cliffs, Oxford University Regent Press publications, you actual retarded nazi bitch lol)
It is amazing you have achieved all that while lacking a firm grasp of how the English language works.
Oxford University is hardly a bastion of liberal thinking.
Some of the famous arch-conservatives who have come out of Oxford include, Theresa May, David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Heath, Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Louise Mensch and Dan Hannan., to name a few from the past and present.
You are welcome on my lawn.
General Flynn was an honorable man. I don't know what he did to make the dark state so angry - but clearly he did *something* to precipitate his purge. I believe he was trying to protect the Republic from its many enemies within.
Us progressives gotta up our bullshit game. Trump's hair is really a covered satellite dish streaming to Russian satellites. And it's orange due to deregulation at the hair-dye factory. Hannity made Haitian babies eat Tide Pods. Ted Cruz was caught screwing goats behind Olive Garden. The goats gave him an 8. Sarah Palin's re-translation of the Bible is really Mein Kampf in reverse if you replace every 3rd "r" with "z".
Table-ized A.I.
Yes, yes, we're sure your gender-studies degree along with those minors in white privilege and male patriarchy will have you rolling in dough.
At least, up until they automate all the pizza delivery shops.
That is addressed in the methodology. Pardon this lengthy quote from the article:
You are welcome on my lawn.
Iâ(TM)m not sure that means what you think it means.
Ukrainian trolls sure are gay.
Basically, these leftists at Oxford labelled everything "right wing"/"conservative" as "junk" (which it arguable IS from the perspective of a snarky post-modernist leftist troll) and then they conclude that right wingers and conservatives consume junk news.
They Ranked sitesd like William F Buckley's "National Review" (one of the most respected conservative publications and sites in the USA) and "American Thinker" as "junk".
From the perspectives of most conservatives, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, WaPo and BYT are all "junk" and therefore liberals/leftists consume the most "junk news"...how do ya think they'd like them apples?
This "study" is not a study at all... it's an illustration of propaganda masquerading as an academic study.
Statistically, as of just a couple of years ago, federal government employees were only somewhere in the neighborhood of 44% Democrat, about 40% Republican, and the rest independent. (Source: Government Executive) And in the FBI, I'm pretty sure the percentage of Democrats is significantly lower than average. So what this tells is us not that most people in government are Democrats (far from it), but rather that Republicans within our federal government found Trump so absolutely terrifying that they either did not contribute money or actively contributed to the opposing party rather than support him.
That decision had nothing to do with their political affiliation, but rather their recognition of risk. Workers in those parts of our government have seen Trump's brand of political rhetoric coming from the lips of far too many dictators and autocrats over the years, some of whom have been quite brutal. When they hear it coming from the mouth of someone running for President, they get scared sh*tless, and rightly so. Words have power, and when a president (or candidate) uses words like "treason", attacks the free press, attacks the independent judiciary, attacks the independence of Congress, etc., he is basically swinging a wrecking ball at the very foundations of our democracy. These are the actions of an autocrat—of a despot—and the ability of our country to survive with such a person as its president is the true test of our constitutional democratic system. And most people in the government were hoping that they wouldn't have to see if it can survive that test.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Hey Ivan! Protip: learn English grammar before trolling Slashdot.
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
You lack a reference for this assertion.
Here are some academics who oppose what you have stated.
https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart
Fake-progressive Hillaryists sure do hate organized labor.
Their methodology is complete and total bullshit.
There's so much wrong with this study that it could be a study itself in how bad research is done. The most glaring is that the author of this tripe laid out an arbitrary categories of what the author believes to be what is and is not a legitimate news site. Many of which have little to do with what the information reports actually is, but the style in which it is presented. One of the most glaring examples of which is that The Drudge Reported is considered fake news. Drudge is little more than a basic news aggregator. It's also very questionable that while there is a list of sites that are considered 'junk' it does not say why exactly each site is considered 'junk'.
the old establishment style republicans who stand for nothing but their own careers? The Mitch McConnel sort who love being called "Mr Senator" and having the perks, but who are terrified of responsibility and accountability and therefore have perfected the art of always agreeing with and surrendering to Democrats except during their re-election campaigns. That's the sort who actually prefer to be in the minority where they can pretend to be very-earnest-but-powerless to their base voters and then aretreated well in DC by the press and the Democrats whio feed them enough table scraps of political pork and good press to help them get endlessly re-elected.
Sorry, but those "rational" Republicans you miss were detested by their base voters. If somebody is honestly in disagreement with you and you believe yourself sane, then you presume yourself "correct" and your political opponents seem a tad unbalanced/irrational. If your opponents do not seem so wrong , then they are not truly your opponents - they are scammers who actually belong within your camp.
The important thing is not to surround yourself with people who all seem sane to you (because they all agree with you) but rather to be adult enough to accept that others have different views from yours (sometimes VERY different views) and to still enjoy interacting with them and learning from them (GENUINELY enjoy, NOT enjoy tweaking and insulting them).
Yup my brother, we programmers have been proletarianized. We're blue collar factory workers now. It's time we got over our bourgeois pretensions and started facing reality.
Join the Software Workers Union. One big union for the whole industry. When we strike we'll shut down the Internet. Solidarity forever.
How have you managed to travel the world, and yet remain so ignorant?
IDs were sock puppet bots. The study is statistical garbage and they knew it and tried to cover it up. Guess who just got denied tenure...
Left-wing fake news does indeed have higher production values.
So basically in their methodology, the effluence of semi-official propaganda organs is described as "real news"; and dissenting views are labeled "fake news".
No surprise that "real news" propaganda is popular mainly with apologists for and beneficiaries of the Financialist regime.
Hillary is establishment, they were almost certainly going with the devil they know. That's very different from being liberals themselves.
Stalin's Red Army literally killed a couple million real live fascists.
Oxford University sounds plausibly reliable, but I don't know British groups, so I don't really know whether this comes from a reliable source. I'm guessing it probably does...
OTOH,
People who think of themselves as outsiders are more likely to trust sources that they think of as by outsiders ("in our group"). I remember during the 1960's I'd trust news from the Berkeley Barb before I'd trust news from the San Francisco Chronicle. Partially this is because in my mind they lied about different things, and the things I was interested in were the ones the Chronicle lied about "to support the man".
So I don't think they've analyzed the matter properly, even though I'd guess that their data, as organized, show what they say it shows. But it's not a matter of left or right, it's a matter of whether or not you trust those in the spokesman seat to fairly present your data.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Their own. Blue collar workers are relatively easy to get to fall in line and can be reliably duped into voting for the best interests of the rich.
But MUH FACTS!!!!1!!2!!
So accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent isn't extremist leftist globalist fake news? Nothing that they try to throw at this guy can stick, and even Wikileaks has come up dry on him.
No, it's not "fake news". In fact, it's so compelling a case that his own deputy attorney general saw fit to assemble an special counsel to investigate. Further, his attorney general had to recuse himself from the investigation into Trump's ties with Russia because of, uh, ties to Russia.
There is 100X more meat to this than Benghazi, Hillary's emails, Obama's birth certificate, or whatever else the GOP conspiracy theory du jour is.
If you don't like Izvestia, maybe try Pravda instead?
Saying it is one thing. Crafting legislation and running government based on fear and non-facts is a completely different situation.
Opinions or positions on issues are not facts, but should be based on facts.
The semi-official news institutions you mention do still have comment sections. However they are heavily censored. Dissident comments are quickly and silently purged.
How to divide 101.
CNN amongst others would fall into 3 of those categories easily. The point of my post was to show that they started with a 'known' list of sites, and not ALL sites with an objective standard.
Its garbage.
I know a LOT of people who recognize that CNN is all lies all the time. But I know NO ONE who thinks Fox News is a reliable information source.
Maybe you could try a different sophism next time? This particular false dichotomy doesn't seem to be fooling anyone.
Got a link to a site or story that accused Trump of being a Russian agent?
If not, then your post is the exact sort of "fake news" that the story is about - putting words in other people's mouths.
Maybe so, but walterbyrd is still dumb.
Our schools actually are chronically underfunded, because the actual cost of materials and facilities has skyrocketed. The cost of textbooks is way more than 4x what it was in the 1960s. It's probably closer to 20x. And in the 1960s, we didn't need computers for students, nor network infrastructure. You can't compare education now to the 1960s by just comparing dollars, because if you educated someone today in the way that you educated kids in the 1960s, they would not be hirable. Too much has changed in those fifty years, and jobs that pay well tend to also require skills that do, in fact, cost way more to teach.
Also, infrastructure costs can be significant in some districts. If buildings don't get torn down and rebuilt often enough, the repair costs creep up and up, until suddenly you're using your entire facilities budget just to keep the roof from leaking. And during this time, efficiency standards have improved, everybody else is using less power and gas, and you've slowly become one of the outliers in that "top usage" bracket that get hit with the highest utility rates.
That said, one big cost that can be improved upon is administrative bloat. The districts with the worst test scores are typically the ones that have the highest administrative overhead, i.e. above a certain threshold, the administrator-to-student ratio is negatively correlated with graduation rates. That overhead generally reduces the quality of instruction by reducing the number of teachers you can hire, thus increasing classroom size and reducing the ability to give special attention to kids who actually need it. Now to be fair, sometimes that administrative cost is in part because of external factors (such as having to hire extra security people because of gun problems), so you can't necessarily say that there's causation there, but it seems pretty likely, IMO.
Either way, the ratio of teachers to students is strongly correlated with graduation rates. It stands to reason that once the non-teacher staff size increases past a baseline level, every additional administrator, counselor, or other staff person who isn't part of the teaching process is effectively reducing the number of teachers you can hire, which means increased class sizes. Because larger class sizes are correlated strongly with a lower graduation rate (independent of other factors), it seems very likely that excess staff and administration, then, would be a major contributing factor to reduced quality of education in some school districts.
Now obviously there's also a bottom threshold below which things stop working. You have to provide lunch. You have to have enough counselors to meet certain needs (though teachers can and should be encouraged to do some of that, too). You have to have someone to maintain the library. You have to have a functioning network (though multiple small schools sharing an IT admin is not necessarily impossible if you don't cut corners on the equipment). And so on. So it isn't negatively correlated at first, but becomes negatively correlated as the non-teacher-to-student ratios get too big.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Do you expect results in a couple quarters? Or years? At the end can they tell if 22% is less than 26%.
You're starting quite far behind other countries.
When Fox News fakes or gets something wrong, they just delete the story and pretend it never happened.
And then they throw to a high speed chase.
No, that's not even close. They didn't describe "real news" at all, only "fake news" which had to fit a set of very specific criteria, including 1) the lack of transparency in listing the names of the authors, 2) whether they illustrated their stories with lots of capital letters, memes, emotional language, etc., 3) Not listing sources or giving attribution, 4) whether the site has a distinction between news and opinion 5) whether the stories were "counterfeit". For example, several of the sites used linked to web sites that were designed to look like a well-known news source, including using a URL that mimicked the well-known source. Basically, spoofing. The sites had to meet all of these criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
The methodology is entirely laid out in the study's text and in the supplemental documentation provided.. Your characterization isn't even close to the methods that they used. In a way, your willingness to misrepresent what the study said is a pretty good example of what the study showed: The desire to spread mis-information in order to try to advance a right-wing agenda.
Again, here is the link to the full peer-reviewed study:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/re...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Impeding abuse of power (18USC 242 https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... ) is never a crime. The entire Trump Russia investigation was predicated on the 100% false Steele Dossier, bought by the Clinton campaign and created by Russian agents feeding misinformation to Steele (try to keep up CrankyFool)... Stop slurping up the shit being shoved by the MSM and actually read it: https://www.politico.com/story...
The only collusion in the last election was by the Clinton campaign and Obama administration, DOJ and FBI using an un-verified, demonstrably false report created by a foreign agent (Michael Steele) as an excuse to spy on an opposition candidate and then president elect Donald Trump. It was 100% illegal and I guarantee some people are going to jail, but it will be Democrats who do the frog march, regardless of how much bullshit is shoveled out by the Dims and sprayed around by the MSM. You will never get the truth so long as your lips are glued to the ass of MSNBC.
The American people have no faith in the MSM these days because the MSM don't give a shit about the truth, only furthering their ideology, and they are burying the truth in the hopes that nothing comes of it, but without the Obama DOJ covering their asses, the Democrats illegal abuses of power are going to explode in their collective faces.
The wheels of justice grind slowly forward.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
So accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent isn't extremist leftist globalist fake news?
Except I see very few people on the left accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, I won't say no one, but I haven't seen anyone on my FB feed claim it, and I have a lot more FB friends on the left than the right. And I've seen a ton of claims on the right that are at least as conspiratorial as that.
Now there's suspicion it's possible, it was alleged by the Steele Dossier, and people discussed the possibility at the time, but when no evidence of that accusation turned up people generally stopped talking about it.
Nothing that they try to throw at this guy can stick
You mean nothing aside from 4 members of his campaign already being charged (and two pleading guilty), including his campaign manger and National Security advisor.
Not to mention proving multiple instances of members of the Trump campaign contacting or seeking contact with Russian officials and lying about that contact, including Trump's Attorney General and his son.
And we know there are active investigations into money laundering that involve Trump's son in law, obstruction of justice involving Trump, and probably a lot of other things that, like the Papadopoulos plea, we haven't heard about yet because it's being kept secret.
and even Wikileaks has come up dry on him.
What do you think Wikileaks is? They're not an elite investigative body, they post documents that people give them. How is them not having been given dumps on Trump exculpatory in the slightest?
Hell, they haven't posted his tax returns despite those being one of the single most sought after documents out there. Does that mean you think Trump never got tax returns?
I stole this Sig
Well said!
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
So the dehumanization of the left's opposition continues. This is why we see leftists with AR15's killing the conservative leaders on baseball fields. Disgusting propaganda here.
Have you read it? Links "in case" you haven't.
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews.pdf
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Polarization-Partisanship-JunkNews-OnlineSupplement.pdf
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/02/Seed-List-2018-1.xlsx
The final list was chosen by humans. Humans are biased. This will cause issues.
Their typology is interesting to say the least. It includes professionalism and style. So the article could be truthful but presented in a manner contrary to the methodology (and hence make the list). Bias will rear its ugly head.
They include credibility and bias. Problems can occur here since a human needs to assign these values. And humans are biased (even when assigning bias they're biased).
But don't worry, they used "A team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US political and media landscape, labeled sources of news and information based on a rounded typology." Phew, I feel so much better. Oh wait, no I don't.
They should have used coders not familiar with the US political and media landscape. And hopefully coders from a country that doesn't give a shit one way or another about US politics. Then have them evaluate each article from this neutral position. I bet the results would be different.
Or even better, use AI to evaluate the articles (careful though, AFAIK AI sometimes shows bias).
And I don't see an evaluation of the Twitter or FB users. I.e. looking for fake accounts/false flag supporters in their data set (and yes, if I wanted to mess with the opposition, sure as shit I'd make up a thousand false flag supporters to fuck with them).
The group definitions were author driven and failed to identify polar groups. E.g. they declined to identify a "hard progressive" group or "hard left" group. The groupings were also author driven. Your definition of a "hard conservative" may be different than mine.
Lastly, the headline is click bait. Although the greatest percentage of fake news shared was from the author selected "hard conservative group", other groups have very high rates. E.g. "Democrat Group" and "Conspiracy" groups (which have a high heterophily number) have rates of 40%. This is hardly worth ignoring. And the actual right wing political group, i.e. the "Republican Party". The group that the general American public associates with the assertion of "rightwing thing" from the click bait headline is a lowly 15%.
I don't think things are all that rosy in this study.
When they are caught being wrong on news. Ask yourself how often they aren't caught.
I take everything I read on CNN's website with a grain of salt. Their articles are often riddled with minor factual errors, typographical errors, grammatical errors, and other problems that make me want to put my communications double major hat on, climb through the screen, and smack them upside the head with a clue bat. And they've not only taken down the comments sections, but also have made it nearly impossible to send them feedback, so these errors rarely (if ever) get corrected. And if I'm noticing those sorts of problems at a casual glance, with almost no knowledge of the subjects in question, it makes me suspicious that someone more familiar with the subjects might find much more serious problems with their articles—the way I do every time I read almost any article about technology, for example.
Every time you read an article about technology and think to yourself, "This is full of crap. It doesn't work that way," you should also be thinking to yourself, "Are all the news articles out there really just as bad?" and be afraid. Be very afraid.
This is not to say that I consider any of it "fake news" or such B.S.; I merely think that journalistic standards have fallen to an all-time low, and the entire industry needs to up its game.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Probably not. Most people they killed by far were civilians, their own no less, followed by ordinary German soldiers - kids ordered into a uniform an put on a battlefield like everyone else. The total amount of convinced "fascists" were probably no larger in the Axis armies than the number of hard core convinced communists in their own ranks. Which wasn't that large in an army of analphabetics, if you wonder.
Job tvojemadj, Ivan, get better history books. That Soviet propaganda shit was considered obsolete decades ago. Nobody believed in that crap, not even the people who wrote it.
You are mistaking "Pornhub" for college.
Pornhub also does not leave you with enormous debts.
It's more than just a group of "humans" sitting around and picking sites at random.
From the study:
It includes a lot more than professionalism and style. There is a larger set of criteria, and the sites had to fit ALL of the criteria to be included in the seed group.
You are cherry-picking sentence fragments from the study in order to spread misinformation about it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Fake News Sharing In US Is a Rightwing Thing, Says Left wing
Fixed the headline for you
Featuring obscure Slavic slang in you replies does little to enhance your credibility, Sasha. How's the weather in Kiev today?
I actually read the full article since you wrote a halfway reasonable defense, however, there are glaring problems. As I see them, the first and probably key problem with their study is how they defined junk news (not fake news as is asserted in the misleading headline of the article on slashdot).
Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors,
publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on
debunked information.
Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole,
ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations
and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they
often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ
fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news
production lack credibility.
Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise
described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and
commentary essays as news.
Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding
and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone,
with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
The problem here is that these criteria are incredibly subjective, and some of them are just fallacious. All news outlets sensationalize news (I'm looking at you CNN, MSNBC etc.), all news outlets are sometimes wrong (CNN tanking the stock market and sweeping the fake news awards, anyone?), all news outlets use emotional language, and are you telling me that using capitalization and punctuation "excessively" NOW MAKES YOU A FAKE NEWS OUTLET!!! WTF DO CAPS AND PUNCTUATION HAVE TO DO WITH BEING RIGHT!!!
True fake news are news stories that are demonstrably false after the facts come out. True fake news outlets are outlets that are constantly putting out false or misleading stories that use un-named sources, leave out historical facts and context. Everything else on the Oxford study's list is just bullshit so they can try to make themselves look smart and their opposition look dumb. Nice try but I wipe my ass with Oxford's credibility, and this study drives my point home.
To the discerning consumer of news, this is a BS political masturbatory hit job designed to stroke the ego of the alt left who are in the process of going down in flames as their house of cards collapses and the curtain is pulled back to reveal the corruption and criminality of the left in the US.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
While I agree with your premise that educational results are not directly correlated with spending, your link does NOT address the problem I was talking about. I'm going to start on the premise that you are sincere and spend a bit of time clarifying what happened.
The public school system was divided and conquered. There is a small division of excellent public schools, but that is largely like a lottery for the parents who care a lot and who are not rich enough to send their kids to private schools. The bulk of the public schools were converted into obedience schools you wouldn't send your dog to. They also created escape hatches to allow as many students as possible escape from the public schools, sometimes with subsidies from public funds. Some of those students went to religious private schools or to home schooling, and of course the rich people have always had the option of elite private schools.
Your focus on performance is actually misleading. What that measures is how well those students have been indoctrinated to produce the correct answers. The important aspect of that kind of education is to narrow their minds so that they cannot conceive of questioning the "correct" answers. The real goal is to produce docile wage slaves and model prisoners (for the ones that wind up in prison), and the real test is that they obey the advertising for toothpaste or political candidates. This is the crop of mindless mushrooms we ourselves created (for Putin to harvest).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I am willing to bet that you couldn't find a single conservative professor at Oxford in the last 30 years. Even before then, most of the conservatives to come out of any university in the last 60 years did so in spite of the university, not because of it.
University exists in a vacuum of reality, and most people become more conservative as they grow up and mature in the real world. Most college professors never mature unless they also work in the private sector, thus they continue to be flaming liberals and usually don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Hillary and her pay masters in the war and money industries suggest all the time that Trump is "beholden" to Russia.
No again. Nothing in the study describes (or mentions) "real news". There is a set of criteria which are indicative of fake news. If a site meets a certain threshold for those criteria, then it was eligible for inclusion in the seed group.
Please stop mis-characterizing this work. Or if you're going to mis-characterize it, try to find a basis that is not so easily refuted by the actual study, which is freely available and makes its methodology clear.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Trump isn't so much an agent as a gullible victim.
I don't believe he's willingly coluding, he's just too dumb to understand they've co-opted him.
Lefties are full of unreflected ideology shit, which is fed to them by the finance elite, mainly.
Marxism is a product of London, for starters.
Of course there are also crazies in other political circles. I can see much more rationality and independent thought from non Marxist people.
Just look at the commies of Google and how they muzzled James damoore.
There are/were a cabal of 6-10 hard core alt left fascist Democrats at the top of DOJ and the FBI (politically promoted during the Obama administration) that were in on this dumpster fire that is the Trump Russian surveillance farce. They will be ferreted out, arrested and charged with violation of 18USC 242. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... its just a mater of time.
With any luck they will roll on high ranking officials in the Obama administration and Clinton campaign, who it is clear were also involved in the facilitating and encouraging the illegal surveillance of the Trump candidacy and presidency. https://www.politico.com/story...
The wheels of justice are turning, but slowly. Without Obama's corrupt DOJ to protect them, the corruption of the Obama executive branch is coming to light, and you can bet under Trump it will be prosecuted.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
If a junior FBI agent wants to pursue something and the senior agent in charge tells him he prefers he work on something else, that's not obstruction of justice.
Similarly, when the President tells his subordinate the FBI Director what he thinks about an investigation, that's also not obstruction of justice. He literally can't obstruct justice by telling the FBI head to stop investigating someone. The President is the head of the executive branch and as such, he is constitutionally the head law enforcement officer and prosecutor. He has every legal right to make decisions, recommendations or whatever he wants as part of that authority. In fact, the Constitution goes so far as to give him the unilateral power to completely pardon someone for any crime against the Unites States for any reason whatsoever. The only remedy against his decision making is for Congress to impeach him, and even then they can't un-pardon someone he's already pardoned. That's it.
Also, as borne out by your own WIkipedia link, Obstruction of Justice is typically about lying about or hiding information from an investigation. It has nothing to do with expressing your views to the head of the FBI.
So accusing Donald Trump of being a Russian agent isn't extremist leftist globalist fake news?
No-one is accusing him of being an agent, but I am accusing him of being a tool.
Trump has debts. The times he failed in America he could get away from by declaring bankruptcy.
He started borrowing money in Russia and found out that it doesn't work that way over there.
When you borrow money from the mob your debts aren't forgiven until you pay it back, one way or another.
Donnieboy didn't want to win the election, but that wasn't his choice to make.
The Trump Russian collusion farce was not facilitated by the entire FBI, it was facilitated by less than 10 top level alt left FBI officials promoted/placed during the Obama administration. A statistical survey of the political leanings of the entire FBI are irrelevant to the facts above.
Your argument is invalid and irrelevant. Nice try though.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The fact that he told Putin secrets and admitted it and the fact that he is a pussy grabber and plublicly lied about many things (biggest inauguration outcome), the fact that all these lies are well documented means it is nothing for wikileaks.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Somebody want to guess how many articles the Jews pumped out giving Hillary a 90%+ chance to win in the run up to the election?
Comey was a registered Republican for most of his life, and now considers himself an independent—presumably because of Trump. Try again.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
All of Western Europe is a flaming dumpster fire of deranged stupidity that will collapse on it'self in the next 20 years or so and all of Europe will soon be one great Caliphate with the heads of the infidels on steel pikes at every city entrance. And they will have done it to themselves... That or they will all have a mass conversion to hard core conservatism, arm themselves and take back their countries, but I am not holding my breath, too much inbreeding and beta males in Europe. All the alphas moved to he colonies generations ago.
Cool.
I didn't know that, last time I checked we were doing pretty well for ourselves here in Western Europe.
I mean, granted, we do have a vocal minority of fear-mongering racists, but eh, what can you do?
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Both can be dumb and smart. Iften at the same time. The subject does not even matter if it is outside their profession. The blue collor street smart and wise worker does exist. Just as his stupid brother. The stupid scientist does exist, just like his smart sister.
There is also a difference in street smart and world smart.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Based on what I just recently read this is not true.
(emphasis mine)
From what I've gathered so far es a European trying to stay on track on current events, the main issue is this: FISA applications are not public information. It is not possible to know what evidence besides the memo was used in the application and how much (if at all) the memo eventually influenced the decision. Now. to me it seems the republicans are taking full advantage of this fact and trying to portray the memo as the singular piece of evidence on which the whole thing hangs upon, because they know that they cannot be disproven without the releasing of classified material, meaning their backs are covered.
So instead we should believe a memo written by a party that has a vested interest in the investigation and does not (cannot in fact due to the classified nature) release full details on the state of the investigation and seems to be crafted precisely to appear to say something it indeed does not say (that the memo was the primary reason/piece of evidence used for the application) and thus to give a misleading picture of the state of things? Huh? How does that make sense?
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Our problem with school performance has nothing to do with spending. I can push US schools to new highs with the following steps, but it would cripple the funding of the Democrat political party:
- Institute a federal school voucher system. Force the states to kick the cash to the federal government for any parent who wants a voucher. Vouchers are valid at any school that is accredited, no other strings attached. Homeschoolers get 100% coverage of all school supplies, books and any related expenses, including field trips, up to the total annual voucher. There would still be shit schools where parents who didn't care would send their kids, but that happens already, at least this way, the parents who did care (which is hardwired biologically) would make a significant positive difference.
- Eliminate the NEA and all teachers unions.
- Privatize all schools and require them to operate as non-profits with a cap of 3x local average salary for any employee and institute parental oversight on all expenditures each year. Require all finances to be published monthly.
- Require all immigrants to speak English fluently or attend a 6 month immersion course before entering regular school. Require all courses to be taught only in English, except when teaching a foreign language specifically.
I guarantee you that the US would rise dramatically in the scholastic rankings because that is what works phenomenally well when tested. Smart kids will excel, and lower IQ kids will attend trade schools so they actually have a marketable skill when they graduate (not everyone is a rocket scientist, and there is no harm in admitting that or benefit to pretending that they are.)
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
And in the FBI, I'm pretty sure the percentage of Democrats is significantly lower than average.
Citation needed - and no, your asshole doesn't count. You base your entire argument on this, but cannot produce a smidge of evidence to support it.
Here's an interesting fact - the Legal industry is about 75% Democrat. Get down to specific targets like the Civil Rights departments, and yet get almost 100% Democrat - especially after Obama fired almost all the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats.
Here's a story of a Tory who lasted a whole few weeks at Oxford and one of the straws that broke her back was the threatened lynching of her because her father had the temerity to publicly support Thatcher's policies in a newspaper article.
So yeah, not buying the whole Oxford folks are conservatives B.S.
Isn't there a website dedicated to checking this stuff - www.politifact.com - ???
I'm surprised that in this modern age that this so called "fake news" is so difficult to check. But then I guess we also have the likes of flat earthers and such.
Just looks like things get labelled as "fake" when they are not in someones favor. And Trump appears to be the grand master of paint your own reality. I am genuinely intrigued at how this whole thing is working. The psychology behind it all is actually fascinating, Sadly though, I've written the US off for now. But just like a car crash in slow motion, I just can't look away. Best wishes guys.
Who accused him of anything he didn't do?
You mean like taking over and shutting down congress and building concentration camps?
Some of my relatives
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
Its right there in the section you posted:
"For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains:"
But whatever, I expect it would be trivial to put CNN or other media companies in that subjective basket one way or another.
Its nonsense.
Here. Fixed that for you. It is amazing how the concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech have "evolved" these last couple of decades: "What I dislike is fake news, you dimwitted rightwing bastards!"
This is exactly what I was trying to say, include all news sources and objective standards.
This 'study' is pure drivel, and doesn't even suggest alternate interpretations, or reveal what would disprove their assertions, like good studies would.
What if the 'study' suggests that one group looks at more sources in an effort to discern the truth as compared to another group which simply accepts what it is told.
Amongst other possibilities.
Expect it to get worse and more complex in the next few years.
Style, bias and counterfeit, most likely. For those categories there is no need for the news reported to actually be false, so that makes it easier.
Yhea, and because the academics are so good in critical thinking they allow the SJW to rule.
Has anyone here ever read something about the communist revolution? You know who started the dissent? The children of the intelligentsia. Misguided idealistic (what we would call middle class) kids who wanted to fight for the rights of ANOTHER group, in this case the peasants. Russia was a super religious totalitarian hell hole at that time and sure enough the peasant were suffering. The western world was gaining speed because of the various freedoms which the Russians could only dream of. So the kids protested. Things did not change much. Then they started killing people (for those that think that "kill all white men" can never happen in reality). The powers that be only got tougher and more consolidated. Then the revolution came. Guess what happened with the intelligentsia when the oppressed low brow proletariat took power? Raped, tortured, killed. Enjoy!
Until today the Russians can recognize if one is a descendant of the peasants or the intelligentsia. No love lost there...
And so, the academics that are so high and mighty shrink away from the swastika but embrace the hammer and sickle. What critical thinking is involved in the endless stream of fallacious logic, emotion-based reactions, hysteria and fake news in support the division of the western world that would surely lead to disaster? Do you people know how ridiculous this is to anyone from a former communist state who possesses more than two brain cells?
I've been a leftie since forever but in the last 10 years it happened that I was too busy to pay much attention to politics. Every time a claim came from the left about those terrible imperialist businessmen and politicians I bought it and shook my head in disgust how low the world is sinking. Until I got more time on my hands and went and looked into the claims of the left. The horror! These people have abandoned science and reason along the way and had turned into ideologically possessed hysterics. Freedom of speech is bad if you don't say what I like. Biology is wrong (equity, people are identical rather than equal). History, anthropology, biochemistry, genetics, evolution...nothing matters. The politics on campus is dictated not by the science departments but the humanities. What critical thinking?????
The central tenet, the core of this ideology is that every difference in outcome between people is solely due to oppression and privilege. Is there anyone here who is an idiot enough to believe this claim? What critical thinking?????
Fake news from the left do not exists, you say? How about the now infamous interview of JBP on Channel 4? Has anyone of you, nerds, imagined how low the ideologically possessed can sink? See for yourselves - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... I know you will be embarrassed for that woman but bear with it - one day this will enter history books as the most illustrative example of the cognitive dissonance in a hysterical ideologue. It was so obvious that JP switched to clinical approach and was treating her as a patient.
Next day 15 lefty news outlets report that Cathie the lobster needed security experts to evaluate the "death threats" by the "army of alt-right internet trolls of Peterson". Only....there were no death threats and someone counted the ratio between the hate messages JBP and the lobster received and it was 30:1 for JBP. It was the lefties that broke the law on numerous occasions on campus to shut free speech. Triggering fire alarms, wearing masks, blasting with vuvuvzelas....and they receive overwhelming support form those critically thinking academics in the humanities!
Europe is in a fight over a legislation called the Istanbul Convention ATM. It's about encouraging sexual dysfunctions in children among many other nefarious things. Pediatricians are against it. Biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians and engineers are against it (in my country there was te
I've seen InfoWars; you may keep your "alpha" males.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No one is saying you need a university education to be roofer.
The augment is that designing, implementing and analysing studies (particularly those which investigate the veracity of political news, and credibility of various sources) in a way which can be peer reviewed and have their methodology and sources clearly embedded in them - which enables repeatability and denies accusations of bias - is the domain of academics.
The roofer may well have more real world intelligence, and definitely has like domain specific knowledge. But they are not trained and experienced in critical thinking, which forms the basis of academic life. That doesn't make them dumb - and the GP didn't say it did, you mentioned that first.
The Left are perfectly content with drawing wrong conclusions from actual facts and making decisions purely driven by ideology. They don't need no stinkin' fake news to justify their shenanigans.
GP didn't say less smart. You did, because of your inability to think critically.
The thing with academic studies is that they are repeatable.
They strive to eliminate basis by there very nature.
That's something you learn at university.
There's so much wrong with this study that it could be a study itself in how bad research is done. The most glaring is that the author of this tripe laid out an arbitrary categories of what the author believes to be what is and is not a legitimate news site.
Pizzagate - can you provide a left wing example which caused a reaction of similar proportions?
No, that's a thing called reality.
The issue is that you right wing goobers can't handle reality, so you consume "fake news" to stop yourselves from thinking about anything uncomfortable, then as a means of handling the cognitive dissonance you accuse other people of doing it.
It's like when people who are ashamed of being gay or bisexual try to ban gay marriage, or constantly talk about how gross butt sex is
Or when people who get offended by literally anything accuse others of being snowflakes
That's all you conservatives do, cover your own behaviors by claiming your opponent is guilty instead
For instance, the Buzzfeed article about the Macedonian fake news farm said they tried it both ways, but the right wing stuff was shared much more, ergo more profitable. Not to mention if you use social media, you would have noticed.
When your bar for how willing to engage with critics is the comment section of a news website, you have lost all perspective on what journalism is.
Hint: it's not trying to defend yourself against a barrage of trolls with Brietbart links and conspiracy theories. It's not turning your website into a cesspit of unmoderated sewage, or opening yourself up to accusations of bias by deleting troll posts.
Anyway, look at Brietbart. Often the very first comment completely debunks the story, and they just ignore it anyway. Anyone going there for news is already so far down the rabbit hole they aren't going to be convinced by the contradictory comments anyway, so what's the point?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When are you clowns going to stop acting like the actions of a political has been somehow invalidate the actions of your criminal in chief?
Hillary could be a literal serial killer and it wouldn't matter, Trump would still be a Russian stooge who can't read a one page memo if it isn't about himself, who lost the popular vote, has the worst approval ratings in history, doesn't understand a stumble one of the issues, and supports child rapists for office
' "extreme hard right pages -- distinct from Republican pages '.
No such animal they sold their souls and principles to hang on to Trumps coat tails to power!
This has been known for a long (forever) time. Fox news was directly created to create news which was as inflamitory as possible for ratings and truth was certainly not in their interest (reality is boring).
Also a lot of people want to tap into and monitize our lower IQ population. Fox created a sort of trend that caught on. Like a spreading wild fire of stupid.
P.s. to put an extra bee in your bonnet, javascript is the best scripting language
Being a European, I think I know that someone being a so called 'leftist' or anything similar, would be considered the opposite of the rich and the powerful, that traditionally has run businesses, with quite a run through history with the advent of the industrial revolution with the use of steam and machines/machines tools, viciously exploiting working people.
Hearing today about the 'left' in USA, as if leftists are simply being those that aren't right wing people, seems like such a pointless polemical ploy, as if the usage of the term 'right wing' for labeling national extremism (traditionally being supporters of the powerful things, like state bureaucracy, state organizations and ruling political parties) somehow ended up being partly a derogatory label and partly a identification label about the people and organizations who are in opposition to powerful things, like state bureaucracy, state organizations and ruling political parties.
I think this left-right polemic is fairly pointless as it makes for meaningless generalizations specifically by relying on stupid people remaining ignorant (not so much about making use of generalizations, nor hatred as such), that probably only really exists on the merit of being this type of hateful and emotional rhetoric, making it all too easy for anyone, out of nothing, to create a scaremongering and a hysteria of sorts, that just have people remain dumb and ignorant, when not having arguments and facts discussed in a way that merit the value of truthful argumentation, and a decent approach to history and historical events.
I have no idea what ordinary people in USA thinks, about who or what are the 'left' and the 'right', but it seems so obvious to me that the mass media (owned by big wealthy corporations) are the ones that keep perpetuating this lingo in which fictitious hatred against somebody become the lowest common denominator in a news segment, instead of what would be acceptable, signs of ignorance, as if lacking knowledge one way or another, by either being clearly stupid, clearly clueless, or clearly ignorant, but instead of having people react to news on the merit of journalism, it seem to me that mass media willfully, predictively, and oddly enough, in a beautiful way (something clear to your senses) expose their bias by favoring typical right wing interests (more police, more violent police, more military, more violent military, less regulations).
My impression anyway. I would never want to live in USA myself. My latest notion about USA (as 'America' doesn't exists as an ideal and an identity more than a nation state as such, though plenty probably think of it that way as a 'picture postcard' as something just beautiful) is something of a banana republic, only there to exploit its people and surroundings.
As for the notion of left vs right being a cruel joke, it would be so insofar as being all worked up by these damning labels are something tragic, as if unknowingly believing in things that aren't true.
It is not possible to know what evidence besides the memo was used in the application
Well, another piece of evidence used in the application was the infamous Yahoo News article, which was based on a controlled leak by Steele himself. So there are at least two pieces of evidence which were invalid. Not only that, it is clear that someone tried to inflate the available evidence for the application with a classical propaganda tactic, that is the controlled leak (the same tactic used by Dick Cheney as a pretext to start the Iraq War).
Now. to me it seems the republicans are taking full advantage of this fact and trying to portray the memo as the singular piece of evidence on which the whole thing hangs upon, because they know that they cannot be disproven without the releasing of classified material, meaning their backs are covered.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can say that the Democrats are taking full advantage of that fact to downplay the undisputed fact that (some of) the evidence given in the FISA application was fabricated, by them and the Clinton Campaign (which was the same thing given what Donna Brazile and Wikileaks said).
And this, kids, is how it's possible today that science is shunned and charlatans of all trades can get a foot on the ground at all. "I feel that way" trumps reality or facts.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
More accurately, they are less trained to apply rigorous testing to a presented hypothesis. Because for their job, doing so would probably lead to a catastrophe.
When you're in a blue collar job, you don't have the time to second guess everything you're told. Your foreman says "do that, and do it this way", and you do it. Why? Because he's foreman for a reason, he's responsible for what's going on here and he's in charge. Do it or you'll find yourself on the street again with someone else doing it. This is how you're trained and this is how you work. Not because you're dumb and wouldn't understand why you should do it that way, but because the foreman doesn't have time to explain to every single worker why something should be done this way and not another. There's work to be done, and talking about it doesn't build a house.
In a scientific environment, such a behaviour would be fundamentally wrong. There, questioning and testing someone else's hypothesis is basically your job. There is no foreman who knows best, even if Stephen Hawking said that there's a little blue man at the center of every black hole you cannot take it at face value because the smartest and best astrophysicist said it, he still has to defend this position and present a conclusive proof for it.
Expecting from either to radically change his behaviour in a private environment is asking a bit much, don't you think?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
General Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his Russian contacts. Drop the conspiracy theories already.
Low-quality, extremist, sensationalist and conspiratorial news published in the U.S. was overwhelmingly consumed and shared by rightwing social network users, according to a new study from the University of Oxford.
The study was done by the "No-SHIT Department," lead by Prof. Sherlock, assisted by Doctor WTF-SON, and a team of graduate students.
I am willing to bet that you couldn't find a single conservative professor at Oxford in the last 30 years.
How about Roger Scruton?
Let's hope President Trump sends them where they can get the help they need.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
And yet WAPO still, to this day, has a twitter post up that says "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid." Despite the fact that it's been admitted, even by them, that they were wrong.
This is usually referred to as "issuing a correction," and it doesn't generally involve changing history. I don't know about this instance, though the track record of accusations against the Washington Post is such that I'm skeptical of your claim, but assuming that it's true as you say then erasing the record of their mistake doesn't seem like the right move.
Why would wikileaks go after him? Their agenda has always been anti hillary.
It's more than just a group of "humans" sitting around and picking sites at random.
I already quoted the first sentence of what you quoted. I specifically addressed what they were and gave reasoning on its flaws. The Krippendorf alpha value has some applicability here but the following two sentences have no bearing on anything.
There is a larger set of criteria, and the sites had to fit ALL of the criteria to be included in the seed group.
Oh really. Because the study says: "For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains". The supplemental document says the same thing a different way "For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must apply". There is no larger set of criteria mentioned anywhere.
3/5 is not "ALL". The "domains" or "characteristics" are Professionalism, Style, Credibility, Bias, and Counterfeit that I previously mentioned.
You are cherry-picking sentence fragments from the study in order to spread misinformation about it.
Lol, you're not cherry picking, instead you wrote an outright falsity. I can't say whether it was "in order to spread misinformation about it", but I can say you are incorrect. Did you notice how I didn't attribute a motive to your actions like you attempted to attribute a false motive mine?
The closest thing to "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid" that the WAPO appears to have ever tweeted is this: https://twitter.com/washington...
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
Which is true. Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I'm not interested in supporting WAPO here, I'm just suspicious when people frequently claim that tweets and articles exist but don't bother linking to them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Reference?
Do you have a link to an article that makes the claim that Donald Trump is a Russian agent?
I hadn't heard this claim yet. I have heard a great deal of claims that Trump tried to use Russia as a means to his own ends, but I haven't yet seen any accusations of Donald being in the employ of the Russians or acting as an agent of the Russian government.
I do believe it has been very much in the interest of the Russian government to have Trump in the office as it has been a terrible disruption to the American government and has greatly strengthened Russia. Thanks to the current state of the relationship between the U.S. and Russia, both countries can produce massive numbers of jobs in the interest of national security and defense. Political instability between the U.S. and Russia is a proven method of being able to produce millions of jobs with no real accountability so long as people believe it's in their best interest to be prepared to fight their enemy.
Thanks to Trump, Putin's grip on Russia is far greater than it's been in a long time. His approval ratings are sky rocketing and both the U.S. and Russian governments can increase their deficits with worldwide blessings to do so. We're even talking about a new nuclear arms race which will produce insane numbers of jobs for both countries. Peace has been a disaster for the U.S. and Russia. Russia has been far more successful recovering their national independence and economy by playing the American threat. The U.S. has been screwed for jobs because outsourcing and automation have decimated the market. The Taliban just isn't scary enough anymore, ISIS is boring... Russia vs. America and England is worth 50 years of big military spending and millions of fake jobs for both countries.
The real problem is that we don't have an iron curtain. Thanks to open communication between Russia and everyone else, people are talking with each other and openly being friends, associates or colleagues with each other. I work almost daily with people from around the world and I love working with the Russians. The only really bad thing I can say about them is that their pop music is a curse on society and if we ever go to war with them, it should be to destroy all copies of all songs ever recorded by Dress Code... but by that right, we should wage war on Sweden to take out ABBA as well.
It's easy to become that educated without being able to spell at Trump University.
Except I see very few people on the left accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, I won't say no one, but I haven't seen anyone on my FB feed claim it, and I have a lot more FB friends on the left than the right
This comment was posted directly above yours. You have unusual friends tbh. You're lucky, I get tons of "Russia Trump" spam in my feed.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I call bullshit.
The left wing has all of CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR, Newsweek, TIme and countless mainstream papers including NYT, WaPo, Village Voice, La Times and really local papers in every large town which spew left wing fake news regularly. CNN is nearly 100% fake; they are left wing reactionary.
The right wing has only Fox News for a network, plus some websites including Drudge, National Review and Breitbart, and very few periodicals.
(I'm not counting Alex Jones, he is off the charts reactionary and I think few right wingers take him seriously; but sometimes he scoops the others on a legit story so he can't be completely ignored.)
As one example, MSNBC actually edited the 911 recording of George Zimmerman to manufacture racism where there was none, and they likely did this to whip up the black vote during the election year of 2012. And then it was repeated by every other liberal news outlet (which means maybe 90% of news outlets.)
All of the gun control related stuff that the liberal media spewed was extremely misleading, bad enough to be considered fake. You know the old adage, "Figures lie and liars figure?" There were so many misleading stats I don't evenknow where to begin. Take the number of "gun deaths" which has been shown to positively correlate with the availbility of firearms in a home. What they don't tell you is that 60% of "gun deaths" are suicides, and that with these removed the correllation vanishes. What they really don't tell you is that the availbility of a firearm does not correlate with suicide rates overall. It only correlates with the decision to select the method of suicide to be a firearm. When firearms aren't available people choose other, better methods such as carbon monoxide to end their lives. Harvard will tell you the truth on that, but the mainstream media never have and never will. They are FAKE NEWS.
The White House and the State Department were lying about the Benghazi narrative for more than a week. An impromptu protest over a videotape? That was state sponsored fake news, from the left. And they even arrested the videographer, talk about taking your fakery to an extreme.
Things got really bad in 2016 with the presidential election, there was no vetting whatsoever to the dirt all the networks were desperately throwing at Trump. There was plenty of dirt, but a relatively small fraction of it was legit. Endless claims of racism, rape, sexual assault etc were all shown to be false. By contrast, the anti-Clinton stuff was nearly all legit. The right wing didn't have to fabricate it. Because this woman had decades of history in the public sector, there was plenty of well documented material to draw from.
People HAD to share it, because it wouldn't circulate otherwise. The mainstream media weren't covering it at all. But that doesn't mean the anti-Clinton stuff was fake. Only a small fraction of it was fake.
And unfortunately, things have stayed bad.
This is right out of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals - Clearly the left has the lions share of fake news with the main stream media - including subbies article. 11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don't. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we're scoring major points -- but, except in rare cases, it's not true. If you're spending all of your time refuting the charges that you're extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor -- you're losing. That's because some people will assume where there's smoke, there's fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you're busy defending yourself, you can't go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.
I remember Fox News comments section before they shut it down, that place was a magnet for all kinds of vile idiots.
Fox News still has comments just a FYI.
Om, nomnomnom...
From the study it's using, it describes 1. JUNK News, and 2. that junk news includes wrong, or misleading headlines and articles. The Guardian is literally junk news by their own admission.
"Low-quality, extremist, sensationalist and conspiratorial news"
Except nothing of that is fake.
"Fake" clearly is new-speak for "stuff we don't agree with", just as their definition of democracy isn't freedom of thought, speak, information, raising opinion and voting but rather what they consider the best for the collective/society and their "freedom" is what they grant you and their "equality" is "discrimination for the sake of enabling equal outcome."
I've kinda wondered whatever the first "alternative facts" were actually straight up lies of what Trump thought was also facts / equally valuable beliefs but for an alternative conclusion / pointing in the other direction.
The sad part is of course that so many will believe that fake actually mean fake and that fake news are lies just as they believe immigrants, children and people of their nationality actually mean refugees, children and people of their nationality rather than whatever immigrant / person on their soil, human claiming to be a child and (at-least this one is less of a lie) people whom actually have some "been living in that country" connection at-least.
The only fake here is calling those things fake because the ideologists at Oxford doesn't like the opinions expressed of those people.
Low quality - Possible. But it exist because the other media doesn't cover it. It's alternative additional information not necessarily a replacement. Also shouldn't you consider main-stream media low quality too when it also doesn't cover everything and leave this gap in the information and coverage it provides?
Extremist - Things which they consider far from their own ideas. Boho ... Meaningless shaming of other people and their ideas.
Sensationalist - All media are guilty. And it become a big deal I guess because it's new information not found in their stupid lying press.
Conspiratorial - This one I actually do consider a problem. Just because it's not the widely believed story though doesn't necessarily make it false. Though it may definitely be.
That's funny, because Northern Europe is doing really goddamn well currently, despite the doom-and-gloom spewed by mostly right-wing tabloids.
You can keep your "alpha male" bullshit. We don't need it.
Eat the rich.
It's way easier to lie without statistics than it is with statistics, though. As I'm sure you know.
Here is one for you...
Clinton PAID for Russian propaganda to affect the election, this is now proven.
FBI and DOJ used this propaganda to illegal get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, lying 4 times to get it, and allowing them to wiretap most of Trump's staff because of how FISA warrants work, this is now proven.
So we have ACTUAL EVIDENCE of Clinton, FBI, DOJ, and State Department colluding with Russia to affect an election, yet no investigation.
So claiming an investigation means nothing. EVIDENCE means something and we have a LOT of it, just pointing the wrong way.
Please note WaPo and NYT printed tons of articles that colluding with Russia is NOT ILLEGAL once it was found out Clinton was colluding with them. You SHOULD be asking, what are they investigating then?
I would believe that if i didnt see "occupy democrats" "nowthis" and "mtvdecoded" and "salon" pop up all over my facebook feed I might believe it. I would bet that if they ran the test with accounts who had different groups being followed, different results would populate
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I know it's heretical to even suggest it, but if you read the (peer-reviewed) article, you will learn that your characterization of this research is completely wrong.
Funny. This comment from someone who actually did read the article suggests that the GP's analysis is spot on.
Basically, the fundamental problem with research of this type is that you need some objective classification of articles as real or fake. You can do this either by (a) classifying them manually, which allows your biases to creep in, or (b) coming up with some clever automated or blinded scheme to classify them. The authors of this piece did (a).
If anyone did (b), their results could be reliable - but I haven't seen any research that has done this yet. The cynic in me suspects that no one's doing it because the results might contradict the researchers' ideology. Much safer to do (a).
Nice one, comrade
Sorry, your russian accent is hard to understand.
If a senior fbi official Bob tells a junior officer Joe to stop investigating one of Bobâ(TM)s friends, that is certainly obstruction of justice. Motivation, and not just actions, matter in the law.
and soon after getting elected into office the "poor" lefty suddenly has a windfall of 100s of millions of dollars while serving public office .... me thinks the plebs are slow
The Left gets MSM to share fakes news for themselves.
The title says it all. It's sad how brainwashed people
are to really believe the BS about Trump/Russia.
There's NOTHING there folks. Total nothingburger.
And yet y'all keep bringing it up like a rancid McDonald's
UnHappyMeal.
Give it break Pathetic People. Get a life. Pray to God
for forgiveness.
Wikileaks is funded by Russia. Russia won't allow Wikileaks to release anything bad on Trump.
Perhaps if you spent more on teachers and less on metal detectors and security you would have a chance. But living in a third world shithole, you don't really have that option do you.
So, what will the esteemed Oxford people say about this piece of news?
EXCLUSIVE: Adam Schiff sent his staff to try and collect 'classified materials for the FBI' after Russian pranksters told him Putin has NAKED blackmail pictures of Trump.
The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was the victim of a prank phone call by Russian comedians who offered to give him 'compromising' dirt on Donald Trump – including nude photos of the president and a Russian reality show star.
DailyMail.com can disclose that after the prank, his staff engaged in correspondence with what they thought was a Ukrainian politician to try to obtain the 'classified' material promised on the call.
On an audio recording of the prank call posted online, Adam Schiff can be heard discussing the committee's Russia investigation and increasingly bizarre allegations about Trump with a man who claimed to be Andriy Parubiy, the chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament.
The call, made a year ago, was actually from two Russian comedians nicknamed 'Vovan' and 'Lexus' who have become notorious for their phony calls to high-ranking American officials and celebrities, including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Elton John.
Schiff told Vovan and Lexus, two radio pranksters who have also hit Nikki Haley, that he would pass their claims to the FBI in a call made last year.
The duo posed as a fake Ukrainian politician to say Trump had sex with Russian glamour model Olga Buzova after a Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
In the call they said Putin had been passed naked pictures of Trump and now-president had used secret codes for talks with Russians.
Duo gave emails to DailyMail.com which showed Schiff's staff trying to arrange to collect 'classified' documents from Ukraine's embassy in D.C.
Schiff's office said the congressman suspected the call was 'bogus' from the beginning and reported it to authorities afterward.
But in a recording of the eight minute conversation, Schiff appeared to take the call seriously – or at least played along convincingly - and emails from the Democrat's staff to the fake politician afterwards said he had found it 'productive'.
These days when you hear people complaining about progressives or leftists or liberals saying something, you usually find that actually no-one is really saying that thing and it's just people whining about the imaginary whining.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Even if what you say is true that Steele was the primary source of information (it doesn't appear to be the case but I'll go with it), it doesn't necessarily follow that a court will automatically reject a biased source of information. A biased source may still be telling the truth. The court was supposedly aware of the origin of the dossier and presumably considered it in weighing up whether to place a wiretap.
To think that the FBI was biased for Clinton defies belief when one looks at what happened a week before the election. If anything, the bias was pro-Republican.
Here's your proof of leftist fake news. +5 informative to statements like:
"Except I see very few people on the left accusing Trump of being a Russian agent"
Y'know, except for Mueller's entire investigation being that Trump colluded with Putin to swing the election.
And then you have the audacity to immediately follow it up with "And I've seen a ton [more] claims on the right that are at least as conspiratorial as that."
Then you continue auguring in
"Not to mention proving multiple instances of members of the Trump campaign contacting or seeking contact with Russian officials and lying about that contact, including Trump's Attorney General and his son."
"Hell, they haven't posted his tax returns despite those being one of the single most sought after documents out there. Does that mean you think Trump never got tax returns?"
He doesn't have to. Bill Clinton never released his health records in all 8 years of his presidency either.
The fact of the matter is that the Oxford University "study" (so-called) is propaganda on its face. They followed, self-selected, 15000 twitter accounts and 45000 Facebook accounts (out of MILLIONS) then self-selected websites they concluded as biased based upon organizations that are themselves self-selected as "fact checkers" (whose accuracy as such is proven dubious and biased) and then conclude their preconceived notions.
Or have you forgotten the oft quoted "reality has a liberal bias" line?
So how is Hillaryâ(TM)s husband meeting with Lynch, on a private plane, during her investigation, not obstruction of justice?
You do know the president can declassify info whenever he wants?
Fox did shut down their comment section for several months. That was a while ago, however.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does...
Lets be real here. He is not going to be impeached, much less convicted by a 2/3 majority anytime soon. In fact, the Republicans have so much popular support, next election, they likely will have a supermajority in both sides of Congress, allowing them to impeach/convict others who really have broken the law to face justice. Thanks to the tax cuts, and full employment where anyone who wants can get a job, there is a landslide coming, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1980 election that got Reagan and anyone with an (R) beside their name into office.
"Notably, the Republican memo does not assert that Mr. Steele’s information was the fountainhead of the broader Russia investigation as many Republicans and conservative media commentators have insinuated."
The Republican memo does not - The LEAD INVESTIGATOR of Mueller's team SAID it was last November when interviewed by congress.
As a European you might not understand it - But the evidence is all pointing to the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign colluding to overthrow the election and possibly a coup. After the Washington Times stopped paying for the report. Hillary's campaign paid and increased funds for the dossier and it's PROVEN that that dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrants to investigate the Trump campaign. Those investigations, in turn, were used to demand a special investigation after Trump was elected (not even before he had taken office) and Mueller has now spent over a year cajoling and threatening Trump's team members (what do you call a 5am no knock raid on a guys house with a full on SWAT team just days after he gave testimony to congress and was working with the investigation?) with nothing more than some collateral damage non-pursuant to the ACTUAL CHARGES BEING INVESTIGATED?!
This is not about "justice", this was NEVER about "justice". Hillary hasn't gone away - she FULLY intends to run for election in 2020 and is running her campaign now. If Trump gets impeached, all the better for her. If not, she's keeping the rubes stoked with red meat so they'll happily fall in line and emotionally vote for her in 2020.
Or have you forgotten that the Clinton Foundation took money from Russia and, in turn, Hillary offered up the uranium deal to Russia while secretary of state?
Oh please... You are constantly saying retarded shit literally all the time. It's difficult to find a post of yours that isn't full of conspiracy, or racism, or regressive social justice stupidity.
These days, objective reality has a strong liberal bias.
Sorry, kid.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements
I'd like to see some evidence to support this statement. You're talking about a group of people who take on a lifetime of high-intereste debt, which uniquely of all debt products can't be discharged through bankruptcy, in many cases to obtain zero income-enhancing knowledge or credentials.
Religions?
Intel CPUs?
Driverless vehicles?
What are the biggest lies in the world?
Thank you for demonstrating fake news in a nutshell. Even in the Nunes memo acknowledges that the Steele dossier wasn't the only input in question. Moreover, Carter Page was under US law enforcement surveillance before the Steele dossier even reached the attention of the FBI. Facts matters. The idea that the FBI and DOJ were somehow biased in favor of Clinton is simply silly when James Comey, a Republican appointee, was the one who announced a few days before the election that he was reoppening the Clinton email investigation when he has no legal requirement to make such an announcement.
And I like the generalization of "college educated". There is a big difference in the critical thinking taught to math majors vs engineering majors vs psychology majors vs political science majors vs art majors.
In my experience, the most level headed people are those with the most diverse background. Find me a math/science major from a liberal arts school (so they had to take some of those "other" classes) who either worked blue collar jobs or had parents who did and I'd bet they would come up with reasonable conclusions from all the headlines (fake, biased, or true).
Sometimes I wish I would have went someplace and gotten a BA instead of a BS....I've learned a lot in the soft sciences in the last couple decades that I wish I was exposed to earlier.
The, so-called, research is a load of tripe.
"professionalism" = not a funded media conglomerate. Bloggers and individual journalists fall under this banner. "They do not publish retractions to debunked information" = "When the media conglomerate mouthpiece claimed it was wrong they stood by their assertion"
This "Counterfeit" methodology is equally dubious. "These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies"
OMG - they used a WEB TEMPLATE and a common news print FONT! FAAKKKKEEE.
As for the remaining three - ALL MEDIA sources, today and unfortunately, fall under those "conditions". When CNN and MSNBC and FOX all hire high placed political employees and then take paid campaign ads it makes the organizations defacto political organizations.
Look at some of the headlines from the past year from CNN and MSNBC and ABC - "sources say they heard Trump say some inflammatory statement". Then Trump denies along with several other eye-witnesses from the same discussion. That's debunked. Do you see a retraction? No - huh, strike 1. Do you see them cite their sources? No? Huh, strike 2. Inflammatory style? Yup, Strike 3. Credibility - fact checking their sources? Nope - Strike 4. Oh and they use news print font. Strike 5
Smells like a source of junk news and information to me.
You mean like Anthony Weiner!
It is NOT true, that's my point. They found malware on a laptop that was in an office at a power plant. How in the hell do you equate that with "penetrating the power grid?"
That is a thing he can do. But to do it for political points, biased point of view at best (50% + 1 and all, actual vote 4-3) and self aggrandizement is where many find it distasteful.
Mueller has fallen into his Hatfill rabbit hole again and assumes Trump is guilty without significant evidence. So, in order to 'turn' Flynn he charged him with a procedural crime, which since FBI interviews are not recorded is Flynn's word against the FBI, and offered to drop the charges against Flynn's kid that he was in trouble for. Unfortunately for Mueller, he got jack and shit from Flynn.
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
Is it. This certainly explains a lot, but not in the way you present it. For starters, the false statements are inculcated in those people before they are educated. And those statements form the foundation of their education.
You can dis blue-collar workers, but no amount of fake news will deny the leaky faucet you call them to fix, and so the blue-collar type knows truth in a visceral, necessary way that no amount of philosophy studies can replace. They know the smell that comes from failure, and the inevitable results of that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Which is true.
Which is not true, as the Washington Post themselves acknowledged:
Editorâ(TM)s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Was it even the Russian government doing anything at all anyway?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I do believe you fucking linked it in your comment.
"Just because he makes that much doesn't make him smart."
Ah, then earning a more than adequate salary isn't smart. Sure.
Without a doubt every single over paid, uneducated union worker I know is living paycheck to paycheck and in debt above his eyeballs.
I cannot corroborate that. Most of the union workers I know are in fact educated in union-sponsored trade schools. One was in class last night at a community college, on his nickel, to ensure his career advances and his salary increases. He has a mortgage, but no student loans.
"...in debt above his eyeballs. The college educated are not, for the most part. You can easily go to 4 years of college and exit with a degree with no debt. This is something the lazy union workers who have a difficult time putting in a single full day of work in a single month can't fathom.""
Where is this reality you seem to refer to, where even many of the 'college educated' are not in fact saddled with student loan debt, subsidized by the federal government, for college educations that have increased in cost due to that subsidized student loan system? The complaints about college expenses are ubiquitous. And while you can go to 4 years of college and exit with a degree and no debt, that is not the norm by most accounts. This statement, more than your others, is pure BS. Why would you bother to make such a claim?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Best I can tell, Flynn's problem was he was too focused on one problem. He was a good example, unfortunately, of a large part of the US military from 2001-2014. Totally and completely focused on international terrorism to the exclusion of all else. He thought the only existential threat to the US was "radical Islamic terrorism" (you can conjure demons with those words, be careful) and that anything in the pursuit of stopping that was good for the country. So he cooperated with the Russians - and probably Turkey - in pursuit of that goal to a degree that crossed legal lines and got himself (and probably his son) into trouble. Then he lied about it. Then (the real problem that made Trump fire him) he admitted to lying about it.
I firmly believe General Flynn is a patriot who loves his country, and he was so focused on one problem facing his country that he ignored the real damage he was doing to his country. If he actually accepts what he did, he probably feels awful about his actions and the damage he has caused.
Of course, if you read the reports about people who worked with him in his 2-3 jobs before he retired from the military, he's also an egotistical ass. The two are not mutually exclusive.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Well considering the amount of censorship and propaganda going in the mainstream media, it is not surprising that the opposition resorts to using grassroots channels like these.
Just like back in Soviet Union, no one believes the Pravda paper and everyone is spreading the Samidat letters.
The Reality is what the Soviet Pravda newspaper says, oh yes. They have experts there, the Party knows better.
It's good to see the fear and despair the mainstream media have , faced with the so called fake news. Their monopoly in propaganda is broken, and their censorship is no more efficient. It gives humans a chance. Yes, some fake news are sincere nut job, some are deliberate noise; but all in all, between RT and Al Jazeera and alt right sites a human can get some thruth.
While with mainstream media there is no chance now, given that they turned into shameless propaganda machines , at the scale unseen since World War Two ended.
You either don't understand the concept, or more likely are purposefully ignorant.
There continues to be no evidence of "Russian Collusion". You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime.
U are the ignorant one. Try looking up the definition.
Here, here's Wikipedia's summary for you : "Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is the crime of obstructing prosecutors or other (usually government) officials." You most certainly can obstruct justice even if you haven't committed another crime.
The biggest bit of fake news is this study.
The "paper" is literally a restating of the initial assumptions, seeing as they redefined and hardcoded anything they thought was conservative as fake news.
General Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his Russian contacts. Drop the conspiracy theories already.
Lying about something which wasn't a crime anyway. This is just the FBI leaning on him by indicting him on a process crime and threatening his son.
"According to court filings, Flynn, while he was national security adviser, lied to FBI agents when he told them that he did not tell Kislyak in December 2016 to “refrain from escalating the situation” in response to sanctions that the Obama administration had levied on Moscow the same day. He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations Security Council resolution, the documents say."
"In addition to protecting himself from further charges, Flynn is said to be cooperating with the investigation to guard his son from potential criminal prosecution.
“My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and our country,” Flynn said in a statement."
"It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements."
What a completely prick and stupid thing to say. Apparently you've never watched any of the campus reform videos.
I'll make my own prick and stupid statement for you...
I find a lot of today's "College Educated" people to be some of the most incompetent and narcissistic people I've ever met. They don't give a shit about facts, they only care about what Facebook/Pinterest/Twitter/... tells them to care about. They think they're entitled to everything instead of having to work for it.
See... the pendulum can swing both ways.
Okay, fair enough. But they also published a correction, which is the done thing. Journalists don't normally go back and burn every copy of the inaccurate edition they accidentally printed and sold, they leave it there for posterity and publish a correction.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm college educated and I was tricked into believing that Slashdot was "News for Nerds"....
At least from the most top moderated comments. The study is a biased hack job, and anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see it.
Essentially, they picked 91 sites that they deemed "junk", through 5 criteria (3 of which had to be met). The problem is that they picks do not normalize for traffic and breadth, and they didn't study the actual content being shared. You might not like Breitbart, but it's not much worse than Vox/Mic/Buzzfeed and heck, even CNN, which also met at least 3 of the criteria on their list of "junk". Breitbart is also not all fake and junk. Without bias, it's hard to say they don't get some things correct. And they do offer corrections when they are wrong.
Look at the actual list of sites, it's funny Breitbart is picked (a popular right wing biased site), but not the aforementionned "popular" left sites :
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp...
DailyCaller, Breitbart, Hannity (you can not like the guy and his "tick tocks, it annoys everyone)... where are the big left sites ?
So a popular right site gets shared more than a bunch of unknown left sites ? Color me shocked. The study is about how a website with a larger audience gets more interaction on social media. It has nothing to do with their premise.
IE : they set out to prove something, and picked their sample to confirm their own bias. Next time include Vox and Mic and buzzfeed and let's see how balanced this truly is.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Confirmation Bias! They don't recognize their own fake news. If their news wasn't fake, they'd have had an idea that Hillary wasn't going to be the runaway victor in the election. Then they all bought the fake Trump/Russia story (which CNN admitted was totally false and ran with for ratings). Lets not forget the "Golden Showers" dossier which was used to obtain and renew a FISA warrant. THAT is worse than Nixon.
It is weird when you get through some philosophy electives and when at some campus party can begin to recognize who is having an honest conversation and who is playing rhetorical games to 'win' a discussion. They look surprised when you 'skip a few moves ahead' as it were. Contrast that in the workplace where someone trying to be difficult just responds with "so what you're trying to say is..." until you give up and are left to decide if whatever is worth going over their head for.
He's not smart enough to be a Russian agent. He's a Russian stooge.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
Cite?
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
Aside from the indoctrination they've already received in college.
The liberals on the other hand are led by college educated people that disbelieve and fight against the fake news.
Unless it comes from the mainstream media. There are bountiful examples.
I don't like Trump, and I didn't vote for Trump but the way the mainstream media is covering him shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity. If what is being done to Trump with the whole Russia investigation was initiated under a Republican administration to support a Republican presidential candidate and the Democrat won, the mainstream media would be calling for heads to roll. Instead, they're calling the whole thing a "nothingburger".
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Being on a mental submarine doesn't mean you're stupid, it means your view on the world outside is limited.
Everyone's view on the outside world is limited. Don't be so fast to pat yourself on the back, we have tens of millions of people out there (many college educated), who's only rebuttal to questioning the validity of Obama's plan was to scream "Racism!!!" as loud as they could. These same people were quiet when you asked them if it was racism when you opposed the same ideas when it was Clinton in office.
The left has just as many cheerleaders as the right.
If you believe Oxford would publish an unbiased study on such a matter, you are susceptible to fake news.
seems that Oxford is extremist, by your definition.
Heâ(TM)s just an anwitting stooge for Russia because they treated him so well while everyone else kicked him to the curb. At some point though unwitting becomes willful ignorance.
John Pilger:
You get complaints from people saying, 'What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?'
Julian Assange:
My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Which in this case is those trying to discredit the investigation. They not only need to prove that there was something improper about the warrant, they also need to prove that the alleged impropriety of the warrant is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Neither of those things has been even substantiated, much less proved.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It is not possible to know what evidence besides the memo was used in the application
Well, another piece of evidence used in the application was the infamous Yahoo News article, which was
Let me point out you haven't seen the warrant and thus what you think was used in it is speculation. Nobody has. FISA proceedings are secret. This is the real problem: the FISA court is secret and unaccountable.
But if you're looking for who is responsible: it's the congress. The same ones who are now complaining are the ones who authorized and reauthorized this kind of surveillance.
There have been 34,000 warrants approved since the FISA process was started. 12 applications were rejected. If the Republicans are now saying "the FISA court is approving warrants for surveillance with inadequate evidence"... well, perhaps they should also look at some of those other 34,000 warrants issued by the process that they approved.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/fisa-court-explainer-trnd/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy
The burden of proof is on the accuser. You can say that the Democrats are taking full advantage
Indeed. The burden of proof indeed should be on the accuser. Right now, without having the warrant released, the Nunes memo lacks any sort of evidence.
I mean, granted, we do have a vocal minority of fear-mongering racists, but eh, what can you do?
Yeah, you should come to the USA where we don't have... oh, wait. Never mind.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"You are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts" The problem here is simply put, the science is in, a particular group has once again been scientifically shown to have their opinions detached from reality.
The above is a perfect proof that fake news are not right wing thing.
That is, honestly, unimpressive. Their "12 trained coders" made subjective judgements as to which news sources were more professional, used emotive language, purveyed false information, etc. Those 12 coders were familiar with the US political and media landscape; do you believe they had no positions on it that might influence their judgement?
To do a reliable study on this subject, you need a blinding procedure. One team takes articles, and carefully scrubs them of any identifying information: you're left with the emotive language, but no identification of the subject of that language, or of the source of the article. The second team then takes those censored articles, and classifies them according to your criteria.
These are the people who believe in 'alternative facts', and who deem science and objective news to be some kind of bias against their views.
They are far more likely to think that their religious beliefs trump (ahem) facts ... you know, like evolution.
The mental gymnastics some people go through to justify their completely irrational and anti-scientific views is mind boggling, and best described as self brain-washing; they believe in irrational things, and anything which doesn't match with that is the enemy.
And once you accept 'alternative' facts, insist the world is 6000 years old, deny basic science, believe that everything is some form of conspiracy to undermine your belief system ... you're going to double down on this.
In fact, you have to, or the cognitive dissonance of believing irrational things would become too much. And if all of this is predicated on the belief in god, then accepting that evolution is true means you have to question your entire belief system, even if it simply means god works on longer timelines than you are capable of grasping.
Pretty much one you're making plans to go to the museums which shows Creation, you have chosen to be irrational, and fundamentally reject the parts of reality which make you uncomfortable. Because you're incapable of integrating anything which doesn't mesh with your invented reality.
And once you've done that, you're going to pick and choose a truthiness which supports your own reality.
There is a degree of self-induced delusion which the hard right has given themselves, because they have to jump through mental hoops to support completely irrational world views.
For many of us, we didn't need a study to know that fake news appeals to a certain kind of person, and that person has already integrated a lot of things which are demonstratably false into their belief system.
They don't so much provide counter-arguments as foam at the mouth and use code phrases which they've collectively decided make sense but which are just bat-shit crazy to anybody else.
Right. Responsible, non-fake news organizations publish retractions when they make a mistake. Whether or not a given site does that is actually one of the criteria the researchers applied to distinguish fake news.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The "researchers" / writers of the paper are uniquely unqualified. Not a single "expert" among them. Silly.
Social science is a fuzzy field to begin with. However, like designing bridges is done by engineers, designing rockets by aerospace engineers, and designing microprocessors by electrical engineers, this "study" did not employee sociologists or anthropologists.
James Comey, a Republican appointee, was the one who announced a few days before the election that he was reoppening the Clinton email investigation when he has no legal requirement to make such an announcement.
He had no legal requirement, but one of the interesting things that came up in his testimony is that it was because of Bill Clinton's highly irregular boarding of Attorney General Lynch's plane that Comey felt there was a duty to be as clear as possible that that event hadn't impeded the investigation. In other words, if Bill Clinton hadn't pulled that stunt, then Comey wouldn't have announced the re-opening of the investigation (since if he hadn't announced it promptly, and that later came to light, it might have appeared to be because of Bill Clinton's influence).
I'm not saying his decision was the right one, but I can appreciate that he was between a rock and a hard place there.
(I originally up-modded your post, which I generally agree with, but then decided a comment was preferable)
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated while the conservatives focused on the blue collar workers, at least over the past 10-20 years.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
I don't except that College Educated are harder to trick than Blue Collar Workers as a broad statement. People can graduate college without ever taking a college level Math, Laboratory Science or Philosophy course. Taking 4 years of fluff courses only serves to give a person an over-inflated estimate of their critical thinking skills. Whereas the Blue Collar Worker is used to elitists trying to pull shit on him.
Additionally that attitude is a big reason why the Democrats got their asses handed to them in the last election.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Maybe explain why article 1 states Nixon obstructed justice because you make it sound like a sitting president is not capable of obstructing justice. Secondly the pardoning powers were never intended to self pardon so that you may continue your crime spree in office while congress tries to act fast (fast is months to years), there is absolutely no precedent for that. The real danger is the creep we are seeing in political openness to stating they are openly corrupt - this is getting worse on both D and D sides as they get more and more comfortable being above the law.
D and R goddamn you auto errect.
That memos shows the FBI lying on a probable cause affidavit, to a secret court, to get a warrant for nearly godlike power to spy on a member of an anti-establishment political campaign.
This undermines the credibility of any other evidence that may have been presented in the affidavit, and it's exactly the kind of behavior liberals were rightly screaming about during the Bush era, when conservatives were saying "you can't prove that the court's a rubber-stamp."
But now that it's Trump who's in the FBI's sights, suddenly this horrendous abuse of power is ok? Get the fuck outta here.
None of this is obstruction of justice. You either don't understand the concept, or more likely are purposefully ignorant.
There continues to be no evidence of "Russian Collusion". You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime. It requires malicious intent, which does not exist without the crime in the first place.
Once you have proof of a "crime of collision" then we can talk. Until then, you're just another fucking moron who got tricked by the biggest fake news story in history.
I always find it amusing when someone exposes their own ignorance while accusing others of being ignorant.
Obstruction of justice can be committed by interfering with an investigation into a crime. You know, the investigation to find out if a crime has been committed. We then have trials to determine if a person accused of a crime is guilty. That has not happened yet. The investigation is not finished. While Trump is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, it is quite premature to say that he has committed no crime. That's what the investigation is working to determine.
So, let's recap, shall we? There is no evidence of Russian collusion because the investigation into that has not yet completed. Once it has, we will see what evidence they present. Of course, Trump, Jr. has admitted to meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss how she could help them against the Clinton campaign, in return for revisiting the Magnitsky Act if they are elected. Why that doesn't look to you like collusion to you, I'm not quite sure. Regardless, moving on, trying to interfere with the investigation could rise to the level of obstruction, regardless of the eventual findings of the investigation. The whole point of obstruction is to try to prevent the discovery of wrongdoing, after all.
Is that a bit clearer now?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Which in this case is those trying to discredit the investigation. They not only need to prove that there was something improper about the warrant
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant. Those who filed the application used fabricated evidence and they knew it. Maybe the application would have been successful even without the forged evidence (the Steele dossier, the Yahoo News article etc.), but that does not change the fact that someone willingly tried to deceive the FISA judge. I repeat it, because it seems that many here do not get it: someone used fabricated evidence knowingly to get a FISA warrant. That is a very serious, concerning fact by itself.
The validity of the warrant is a further step that must be addressed, but it is a different problem.
they also need to prove that the alleged impropriety of the warrant is relevant to the Mueller investigation
Don't go too far. Right now the situation is: someone conspired to fabricate evidence to get a FISA warrant (proved fact). Then there could be an invalid FISA warrant (unproved fact) and even a bogus investigation (unproved fact). But those are further steps.
Keep telling yourself that slugger.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Which three? Remember, the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group.
From the article:
For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in at least three of the following five domains
In any case, for an article on such a contentious subject to be trusted it would need a far more comprehensive definition of the criteria. Take "bias". A left-wing reader will take a left-wing article as unbiased; likewise a right-wing reader with a right-wing article. What do you think was the political inclination of the people who classified articles for this study?
So what do you call it when Hillary responds almost exclusively, "I don't recall"?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Haha, this so much.
So you think the Russian run wiki leaks, not having anything incriminating on Trump, is proof he is innocent of colluding with Russia?
I guess it's like Putin keeps telling Trump, he had nothing to do with hacking US elections. He wouldn't say that if it weren't true, right?
Lemme guess... You were in a coma during the Obama years?
I cannot tell you how delicious the tears are of those screaming about perceived abuses of power, who also casually called plenty of us racists for pointing out Obama kept moving the Overton window.
Just wait until you see what years 2-8 look like.
Being their agent and owing them favors are different things sluggo.
Blue collar workers aren't less smart. They are less trained to think critically.
I'm pretty sure you've never seen a millwright tweeking a worn $100,000.00 die to squeeze out another 3 months of life out of it while keeping the parts within 0.005 inches tolerances or a Pipefitter build a 100 feet of 6 inch steel pipe welded from parts that has 5 bends and have the flanges land within an 1/8 of a inch and the bolt holes line up perfectly; and still think blue collar workers don't have developed critical thinking skills.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Based on the categories in the article, it seems that they selectively removed anything they ideologically agreed with from the junk news categories. If they included sources that continuously publish known bad interpretations of data (e.g. there is a 20% wage gap for equivalent work/experience or 97% of scientists agree on global warming...two cherry picked statistics from papers that do not actually reach those conclusions), I suspect they would find a lot more "junk" news on the left.
Before the trolls jump in:
A: I'm not saying there is not a wage gap. I'm just saying that the report says that when corrected for equivalent work and experience the gap drops from 20+% to 4%.
B: I'm not saying that climate change is not real. I'm just saying that the 97% figure comes from a single survey of a carefully selected group of scientists...namely those who had published papers on climate change. When you jump from that small group of researchers (where the result was 97%) to *all* scientists, you moved sensationally into junk news.
Secondly, a college education is only an opportunity to learn critical thinking, one that relatively few people take advantage.
I think that there's more to a college education that's relevant to this discussion than just critical thinking. I do agree that a lot of people do make it through college without learning how to do that.
One really important part of college is exposure to cultures, ideas, concepts, religions, etc. that you just don't get if you remain in a small town all your life. That wider world-view gives one an edge when considering whether or not something is true. Being required to take courses outside of your major tends to force college kids to at least get a taste of some things that they never knew existed. Once you realize how big the universe really is, I think most people are more conscious of potentially looking at it through a periscope. And while college isn't required for this shift in perspective, it definitely can help facilitate it.
Secondly, if you're getting passing grades in college at any respectable place, you've most likely got some bare-bones skills in searching for info and writing a coherent paper about it. A lot of the crap that gets shared between crackpots is really not in any way coherent or logical. If you know that what you're reading would be an obvious 'F' if you turned it in, I think that it immediately raises red flags. If your only point of comparison is stuff you wrote in high school 20 years ago, I think it's got to be a little harder to spot the obvious lack of quality that a lot of these articles have. Again, college isn't required for this, but being forced to do that level of personal scrutiny for a few years of your life must help, I would think.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Is boasting really now evidence of unlawful involvement? If so... When do say... Pelosi and Obama get charged? I seem to recall both of them guarentrring us that Trump would not be president, yet he is.
Or, does that mean their boasting should not be believed? Because they were *obviously* talking in jest? Or because they failed at their mission?
I'm sorry you went to such a poor school.
And yeah, there are far too many arrogant "I'm the professor, my way of thinking is the one and only correct one" twats out there. But that's not a problem related to "higher education", it's related to there being too many bad schools with too many bad teachers.
Personally I have to say this is one of the reasons I like teaching; nobody is perfect or knows everything there is to know. Shit's complicated, yo. So, every time some student shows me something from a new angle, I rejoice, because that day I too learned something. Which hopefully was why most got into academia to begin with, not to become some old fogey droning about stuff he was taught to be true 30 years ago.
The VERY socialist Guardian explains to us that fake news is ONLY a right wing thing! From the "group think" "globalist socialist"!!! :)
I think the Guardian Propaganda Staffel approves, herren Goebbels & Molotov especially
How does one judge qualities like professionalism, bias and reliability without being vulnerable to bias themselves? I remember when sites parroting trump's claim of being wiretapped was labelled fake news, now we are trying to determine how the FBI got the FISA warrant to wiretap Trump.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yes, I'm in complete agreement that his announcements (both the first and the second one) were reasonable given the irregularity surrounding the situation. My point wasn't that his behavior wasn't reasonable, just that it makes it very hard to argue that there was some sort of pro-Clinton conspiracy in the FBI given his decision.
This comes as absolutely no surprise. Why is it that the right-wing extremists always seem to have a lack of education and intelligence? They goble up this shit like its gospel and never bother to use the space between their ears that god gave them to critically think about any of this. Case in point; the flat-earthers are astoundingly stupid. In the case of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I cannot fathom how they can continue to believe that drivel.
The closest thing to "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid" that the WAPO appears to have ever tweeted is this: https://twitter.com/washington...
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
Which is true. Where is this inaccurate tweet you speak of?
I'm not interested in supporting WAPO here, I'm just suspicious when people frequently claim that tweets and articles exist but don't bother linking to them.
This is a FALSE statement that should be deleted by WaPo. Come on, do some research at least. Snopes says Mostly False and an article here http://fortune.com/2017/01/06/vermont-utility-burlington-electric-manager/ which says the electric grid was not penetrated and WaPo posted the story without even contacting the utility first.
False news is not limited to the right.
The thing is that the twitter post is still up. "Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont" and that is getting retweeted ever since. WAPO knows full well that most twitter users never read past the headline. That's the effect they get. The number of retractions that WAPO and many other MSM outlets have been forced to make have grown astronomically since Trump arrived on the scene. The most charitable reason I can think of for this is that they've decided that they must get everything out to the public as fast as possible and that their normal vetting of info must be suspended. I suspect they know though, that if they're wrong and forced to retract, the damage will still be done to their target. Almost all media in this country have ceased to be journalists with honor and integrity and are instead advocates. I include FOX in this before you start on that, they clearly share in this game.
Cool.
I didn't know that, last time I checked we were doing pretty well for ourselves here in Western Europe.
I mean, granted, we do have a vocal minority of fear-mongering racists, but eh, what can you do?
Sorry, you're actually doing very badly. Any reports that you're doing well are fake news, and your lived experience has no bearing on the FACTS. You should just accept that you're a beta cuck and lay down in the street and wait for the ISIS to take over.
So you didn't bother to read the paper, but the summary made you angry enough to rant about what you think they did?
Friend, you really, really need to read it. It was pretty much written for you personally.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Truly responsible check their facts at least nominally before rushing to publish. When it comes to any information about Trump this is not being done. They publish first and check later. The incredible number of retractions they've had to make is evidence of this.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's "highly irregular" meeting with the AG. It was the fact that people outside of the AG, Bill, and their staff learned about it.
The meeting itself was intended to be secret. The misfire on that attempt is what led to the announcement, not the meeting itself.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Of course the Russians would say that.
Academia is the biggest fake news of all, so no I don't trust an Oxford leftist's conclusions about who produces more fake news between the left and the right. Seriously, go to hell.
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant.
Not until you prove it.
Those who filed the application used fabricated evidence and they knew it.
No one has yet proven that any substantial amount of the material in the Steele dossier is actually false. It is unverified and the FISA courts deal with unverified information all the time. Warrants are frequently granted on the word of known drug addicts and petty criminals, they're not the most trustworthy people, but if the evidence seems credible enough, then further investigation is warranted.
I repeat it, because it seems that many here do not get it: someone used fabricated evidence knowingly to get a FISA warrant. That is a very serious, concerning fact by itself.
First of all, it's not "fabricated evidence" because the FBI didn't make it up. It's questionable evidence because Steele or Steele's Russian sources might have lied. Secondly, that's only a problem if the FBI concealed those facts from the judge and the judge was incompetent enough to not ask about the providence of the Steele document. There is no claim that the FBI lied to the judge in the memo. However, Nunes' memo may have cleverly led you to believe that the judge was misled by stating something that may be true (that the FBI evidence submission didn't indicate that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid Fusion GPS for the dossier) but irrelevant (for example because the FBI evidence submission indicated it was opposition research paid for by a political campaign). Since neither your nor I will likely be allowed to see the warrant evidence until it long past having any meaning except to historians, I'm sceptical of the claims in the Nunes' memo. Which unlike the FBI warrant application, has no legal duty to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I believe that is called "Reagoning" your testimony.
For clarity, "Clintoning" your testimony is when you question the meaning of every word in every question.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I knew when I first heard the term "fake news" and that those ranting about it (even though they do it themselves) were the left that the end goal was a ministry of truth.
So you took statements about problematic study methodology and try to deflect away with an example of an isolated example of a nut that bought into some actual fake news.
Well actually there is an example that's somewhat like that. The 2017 shooting in Alexandria, Virginia, of Republican politicians by a far left partisan at a congressional baseball game.
It's a bad take on Trump being too desperate, stupid, or careless not to launder Russian pelf when no bank would touch him with a ten foot interest rate.
The FISA warrant was to wiretap Carter Page, not Donald Trump. And since Donald Trump and his spokespeople have said on numerous occasions that Carter Page was a "nobody", I don't see how Trump could have been caught in such a warrant.
The story that "Trump was wiretapped" is fake news.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Workers in those parts of our government have seen Trump's brand of political rhetoric coming from the lips of far too many dictators and autocrats over the years, some of whom have been quite brutal. When they hear it coming from the mouth of someone running for President, they get scared sh*tless, and rightly so.
So basically unelected bureaucrats used to running amuck are frightened of a President who promised to drain the swamp. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Fake News creation is a Left Wing thing.
Or is it circlejerk?
NPR was right. News websites that allow comments are typically flooded with trolls and dickheads posting a lot of garbage.
It's totally possible to get a degree with no debt if that is your educational priority. It is totally possible to go to school and not work at all and exit with just a little debt. I wish instead of listening to popular opinion I'd done the research myself and went to college 5 years sooner.
> If I may say, no. Violently enforcing your opinion would be extremist. Mere disagreement is hardly extremist.
If this is true, then most people are extremists, as they believe in violently enforcing their opinions, albeit indirectly through government. I think the dictionary definition of "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action" is more accurate.
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
How about demanding Fealty (to My Team) over impartiality, and that Constition thing - ya know, for the good of the nation. Fealty is for Kings (and some Kims apparently) so that absolute power is above all other imperatives.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Truthiness - the more you say something, the truer it is!
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Agreed
Telling a subordinate to stop pursuit of injustice is indeed a crime. Its depriving that subordinates mandate to uphold the constitution.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
In 2013, the US Department of Justice announced an indictment against Evgeny Buryakov.
During the course of the investigation, the FBI recorded Sporyshev and Podobnyy speaking inside the SVR’s offices in New York, known as the “Residentura.” The FBI obtained the recordings after Sporyshev attempted to recruit an FBI undercover employee (“UCE-1”), who was posing as an analyst from a New York-based energy company.
That undercover employee ("UCE-1") was Carter Page. He was the primary witness and worked for the FBI up to May of 2016.
But then, suddenly, in October of 2016, the FBI applies for a Title 1 FISA application against Carter Page. What is a Title 1 FISA? It says the target "is working on behalf of a foreign government". Why???
Let me tell you why! A Title 1 FISA allows the FBI to retroactively monitor all communications of not just the target, but ANYONE he communicated with as well!
The FISA warrant was an excuse that allowed the Obama WH to spy on Donald Trump's entire team.
Speaking of shit-fucks that didn't read the study
What I just said about Drudge isn't even from the abstract. It's from the Online Supplement that came with it. I did in fact read through this tripe, which is why I understood the very serious flaws in it. Specially about how this study laid out a list arbitrary attributes about what constitutes 'junk news'. Many of which are absolutely pointless in terms of the quality of the reporting itself. It should also be noted in the list of websites that the author of this BS declares as 'junk' seem to be entirely right wing.
Beyond that, to think that there are no left wing junk news sites is laughable. By the standards set in this study sites like Slate, Buzzfeed, Raw Story, and the Huffington Post would all be 'junk news'. Yet not a single one of these websites are labeled as junk news in this study. And if you think these sites are not junk news by the standard set in the study then you yourself are beyond partisan.
I am sure those videos werent cherry picked to show only the dumb kids, right?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
1) If Bill Clinton had just stayed away from the situation, Hillary may have ended up president.
2) If Trump had left Flynn to Comey, there may not have been the same scope of investigation we're currently seeing.
The takeaway is this: leave the shit alone that you're supposed to leave alone, otherwise you risk getting it all over yourself.
Wanting something is not a crime. Taking concrete actions to impede an investigation, such as firing someone when they refuse to shut down an investigation, is by definition obstruction of justice.
The FISA warrant was against Carter Page, and was signed by Assistant AG John P Carlin. The same John P Carlin that a few months ago was prosecuting a case against Evgeny Buryakov in which Carter Page was the undercover FBI employee who gathered the evidence. John P Carlin KNEW Carter Page wasn't a Russian spy. He LIED to the court.
The FISA warrant was against Carter Page, and was signed by Assistant AG John P Carlin. The same John P Carlin that a few months ago was prosecuting a case against Evgeny Buryakov in which Carter Page was the undercover FBI employee who gathered the evidence. John P Carlin KNEW Carter Page wasn't a Russian spy. He LIED to the court.
MSM outlet simply can't compete with the internet in regards to getting breaking stories out to the masses, what they should concentrate on is getting the news out later but have more thoroughly vetted the sources and investigational reporting that internet news simply doesn't have the manpower to do.
The days of "Stop the Presses!" are long over for MSM.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
He does touch on something though. Many people go to college and apply everything they learn incorrectly.
We have all encountered an internet asshole who is wrong and screams ad hominem because people call him an obnoxious asshole and don't bother trying to "debate" him. He struggles to understand that nobody cares if he is correct and the current topic of debate is his character and not what he want to talk about.
Then there is the we're having an internet argument "I have citations" and "show me your citations"... but absolutely not wikipedia. I have encountered LOTS of people who think all citations (except wikipedia) are created equal. It's the kind of thing you'd think a middle school kid could understand but yet somehow many students seem to leave college less capable of critical thought than they arrived.
None of those are critical thinking but they are skills.
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. Carter Page was not under US law enforcement surveillance. That's fake news. He worked for the FBI undercover in the case brought against Evgeny Buryakov. As late as March of 2016 he was in court testifying against him.
Uhh, that's a bit backwards. Normally the burden of proof is on the people applying to spy on people. But it's a secret court with secret evidence, so it's a bit weird to see you guys defending its proceedings.
And yes, I disagree with the Republicans on renewing FISA. However, unlike so many people who seem to be confused, I'm not confused as to why they did this. It gives them power and they want to use it, as the Democrats did before them. I'm surprised there hasn't been more outcry about that, it's pretty absurd overall. I'm quite happy to say that the overall process is more than a bit ridiculous. Also, they should force the FBI to record all interviews, reliance on 302s with their own notes is just plain absurd.
I think people seem to forget that Trump brought up fake news and Russian meddling during the election. We had people on the left coming out in droves saying that this was against our democracy to say this.
Then after he wins, it's now somehow turned against him (like children that don't know how to respond when they are in trouble).
Why are we also not mentioning that many of the Russian bot accounts were posting about anti-trump, BLM, and other leftist protest events (so many liberals also fell for fake news). Intentionally leaving out facts to smear the opposition is fake news. This is why Trump won and will most likely win again in 2020.
I think both the Russians and the Chinese have both been meddling with our elections online since at least the Obama administration. Reddit had many bots posting support for him during both elections and he even spammed Facebook/used a flaw during the 2008 election that helped him win (which was closed conveniently after the election). If Trump did this, there would be blood in the streets and he would probably be sued.
The sick part is that if Hillary won, we would see business as usual. Nobody would care about Russian meddling (especially the media) and anyone that mentioned it would be laughed out of the room...like when Obama tried to say that the Russians weren't are enemy in a debate against Mitt Romney. The mainstream media is clearly biased. During Obama's 2 terms, I don't think I saw even one negative article about him on any of the mainstream news sites (besides Fox).
The leaked DNC emails also clearly showed the media bias during the election (feeding Hillary questions, dinners at her house) and that she colluded with our local press to smear Bernie Sanders and essentially destroy any chance he had at winning. If you don't see something wrong with this, you are the problem.
"I'm not a Trump supporter, but everything Trump has done is great and any criticism of him is an attack on our nation by the worst people of our time."
Yeah, pots already made that point. There's an interesting question whether the original tweet should have been deleted, but that's a tricky ethics question with no obviously right answers.
I don't know what sand pile you have had your head buried in but the Unions have always been a bastion of the Democratic party line. I've never seen a UAW news letter endorse a Republican or Independent.
Democrats always say they are against Evil(tm) Corporations, but that's all blue smoke and mirrors, Democrats need the Unions and the Unions need Evil(tm) Corporations.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Fire Comey! He screwed up Hillary's election! OMG he fired Comey! Traitor!
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
At least with my GOP supporting family members - it seems to be the truthiness that matters more than actual truth.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
... just keep it up ... all of this "we couldn't really lose" stuff didn't work against Reagan, and it isn't working for you now.
It feels like it works, since inside your leftie bubble, it does (but is also not needed there). But you may have noticed, you still lost.
So please, please, keep it up. Keep saying we only voted against you because of "fake news". Keep calling us imbecile racists. Super persuasive, that.
It didn't work in 2016, and it's not going to work in 2020.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
There is error in your methodology here. Who defines "false statements"? Academia? The press? In the real world, true/false is usually more complicated than 2+2=4. If the people defining "correct" are the same people you are being measured, there will be bias.
Personally, I look at the output of the liberal arts education system, and see people many people ending up believing similar things (socialism, radical feminism, climate activism, and a general dislike for anything related to white anglo-saxon protestant males throughout history.) This suggests that "educated" people are just as susceptible to brain washing, but the statements are considered "correct" by the group judging.
Trump's "fake news" awards were a silly farce unbefitting of a president, but it's hard to deny that most of the stories listed were, by any objective means, actually "fake news" too.
> It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
Not necessarily. First of all, I know a lot of college-educated idiots and some really smart people who didn't get degrees for one reason or another. Second, there has been some good research indicating more educated people may be *more* susceptible to false information that confirms prior beliefs due to a higher ability to rationalize and reconcile conflicting information.
When Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool," he was talking to and about smart people.
That's the challenge I have during this. Trump makes it all too easy to slide into ad hominem and party tribalism. It's hard work to filter out the noise and not buy into the propaganda from either side.
Because even the supposed "left" of the US could, at best, be considered to be "center-leaning right." There's been almost zero representation of actual leftist interest in American politics for decades. Both Clinton and Obama were neoliberals that supported free trade and low regulation, and it's really only been since the election of Trump that something vaguely resembling an organized left has started to coalesce.
There's still a long way to go before we've got anything approaching the influence or momentum of the right, though, which should come as no surprise since a powerful contingent of people have spent over half a century turning that into a synonym for "evil."
The longer we put off dismantling capitalism, and the longer we delay the inevitable need for global egalitarianism, the more painful that transition will be for everyone. Do we really need to wait until we're living under direct, unambiguous corporate hegemony before we do something to stop the destruction of human culture and value?
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
You mean like how far-left professors today easily brainwash thousands of young college educated people into believing that anyone who doesn't agree with your far-left stance is a fascist and needs to be silenced, into believing that the face-covered antifa group is a righteous kind, gentle, non-violent, non-terrorist non-hate group, and into believing that communism is all unicorns and rainbows and will fix any and and all social & economic problems, even though a century of modern communism clearly shows otherwise?
Proven false, by DNA evidence inside the police car. That piece of left-wing fake news dominated news cycles and led to riots which led to death and destruction.
Harry Reid is the master of left-wing fake news. Goes on TV and says "Somebody told me that Mitt Romney never paid taxes". Left-leaning MSM run stories that say "Harry Reid said 'Somebody told me that Mitt Romney never paid taxes'". It is true that Harry Reid said that. But the MSM never spends even close to the amount of time pointing out that it was all a lie.
Same stupid shit is going on today. Only now its "Anonymous source says....". Christ, the last 2 weeks of news has spent who knows how much time discussing a book by a known producer of fake news. The guy goes on cable and says 'Nikki Haley is having an affair with Trump' and the MSM goes nuts repeating it. What a fucking crock of shit.
But, but, but Hannity...
Not to mention, there has long been a a gradual ongoing infiltration by communists (and socialists) groups and individuals (Soros) to indoctrinate americans; the communists (USSR, Cuba, China etc) lost the cold war outright, so the the only thing they could do was to be patient, start brainwashing the next generation of young Americans and eventually let us rot from the inside out. The best way to accomplish this is by procuring positions as teachers and professors, which hold authority and influence over youth, and regardless of the subject matter taught, constantly trickle out comments and half truths that sway youth to the Left, and work on converting other teachers if possible as well.
The greatest irony of all of course is the "Russia" accusations flying about today by the Left when Russia is pretty much what many Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers (progressives) actually want to model our country after - an anti-capitalist society where the rich are punished.
The Left doesn't think for itself anymore, it follows the herd and bought and paid for media. Those who dare stray or voice a dissenting opinion are shamed mercilessly with accusatory hate labels until they get back in line, repeating the various chants hypnotically ingrained in them by peer pressure.
The FBI and Obama Justice Department are guilty of obstruction of justice?
Because the people that have discredited the investigation are the high ranking FBI and Justice Department officials that screwed the pooch trying to nail Trump, with Hillary Clinton/DNC propaganda from Russian intelligence. There is way more smoke coming from that fire than anything Trump has actually done.
Mind you, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary, and Trump has his own issues (namely himself).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Oh, do you know them? Or do you routinely dismiss uncomfortable information?
Except there is something bizarre with the current progressive left. They love authority, they love in-group / out-group divisions, and they are obsessed with purity. These are socially conservative values. The parallels between privilege theory and original sin have also been drawn plenty of times before, and it's difficult to miss how the rape culture panic treats women as hapless victims who need to be protected from the corrupting influence of male sexuality.
They act like social conservatives who simply wave a progressive flag to rally under. It seems more like LARPing than real activism, simply replaying the social battles of the last half century again, as if nothing ever changed.
And btw, this is all ignoring the actual anti-intellectual crackpot left that exists today, with its fear of wifi radiation, 'chemicals' and vaccines. Nope, I'm talking about people who ostensibly and nominally intellectual, but act like a decentralized orthodox priesthood.
Because "everything Trump has done.... " was clearly stated in the GP post!
You are clearly hallucinating something that wasn't stated. You can actually DISAGREE with the conclusions the GP posted without hyperbole. You really ought to try it sometime.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Of course Fake News is a right wing obsession, and they promote it.
Just look at the highest profile right wing commentators:
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck
Bill O'Reilly
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Steve Bannon
Andrew Breitbart
These people have consistently pushed fake news to their adoring fans. Birtherism? Check. Climate Change? Check. Christians Under Attack? Check.
Even many of the non-media Right wing people with high profiles are actually pushing nonsense every day:
Sebastian Gorka
Kelly Ann Conway
Sean Spicer
Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Seriously, when any of these people say anything, I have to check it for truth. If they told me "I just ate a tasty sandwich", I'd have to fact check it. Not because that's a political subject, just because their track record at telling the truth is so bad. They might tell the truth once in a while, if they're having a bad day I suppose.
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee both sides are the same u guys!
Take a look at the full story on their website. In particular, look at the Editor's Note they added, which says:
An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid.
[Emphasis mine.] This actually reflects well on the Washington Post: when they found their story to be mistaken, they corrected their story, and added a note that they had done so, following proper journalistic practice. It reflects very poorly, however, on yourself, that you continue to believe the original version of the story, to the extent of "correcting" other people. That's exactly what this Slashdot article is about: the spreading of fake news.
Comey was on thin ice after having to answer to congress about how irregular and downright bizaar the investigation was conducted. The decision was made to CYA after having shielded Clinton, who was projected to win by a landslide anyway.
Well. They set up a bunch of rubber-band criteria and presented a list of sites that met it. There was no explanation of which sites were up for consideration in the first place. Specifically, the criteria are not mentioned to have been applied to sites commonly cited in the tweets they investigated. So, e g Buzzfeed might have been considered but filtered out, or just not considered at all. Doesn't really matter if the final filtering is done according to fair criteria when the preceding steps aren't even presented.
Please, stop mis-characterizing this work as being honest.
The FBI and Obama Justice Department are guilty of obstruction of justice?
That's possible, but would be unrelated to the Mueller investigation.
Mind you, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary, and Trump has his own issues (namely himself).
Same here.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If they deleted the tweet they would be accused of trying to cover up their mistake. They can't win, the best they can do is stick to tradition and publish a correction in the linked article and a follow up tweet.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Comey has himself to blame for a lot of the mess he is in.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Surveillance of Carter Page, which has been going on for multiple years prior to the Trump candidacy without any evidence or legal action is not it'self actionable, regardless of whatever bullshit they have been spinning on MSNBC. The only thing that that reveals is that the FISA court was broken for a long time under the Obama administration. When they can surveil an American citizen for multiple years on suspicion without producing actual evidence, in clear violation of his constitutional rights it is broken as shit, not evidence to justify additional surveillance... idiot.
They have the head of the FBI testifying before congress on the record that without the Steele dossier there would not have been a FISA warrant pursued or approved on the Trump candidacy. Period full stop.
No one is indicting the entire FBI, they are indicting under 10 high ranking and top level FBI and DOJ officials, politically placed and/or promoted who pulled this shit. James Comey is facing perjury charges at minimum because he testified to Congress that the Steel Dossier was salacious and unproven, but 6 weeks before he signed off on the FISA warrant using that same dossier as key evidence, along with a circular second source that was also actually sourced to Steele as well (the Yahoo news article). He further pursued, leaked and eventually achieved an independent council investigation loaded with Trump haters based on that falsely obtained FISA warrant and subsequent investigation.
You might want to try thinking for yourself and listening to multiple sources rather than regurgitating the MSM alt left talking points, you will be better off in the long run. It is a mater of time before these people are arrested and charged, when they do you will be freaking out, believing whatever BULLSHIT the MSM feeds you straight from the shrills of the Dim party.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
All except for the part where he was indeed 'wiretapped', you need to get up to speed on current events.
Has this been confirmed yet?
Nunes released a memo last weekend that looks like it was an attempt to imply that to people who are bad at reading, but we still don't know what all was in the FISA warrant application. About all we know so far, is that Nunes didn't tell the whole story. But we don't know what he left out. It might be other evidence against Carter so there was probable cause anyway. Or it might have been nothing relevant, in which case you'd be right that there wasn't probable cause.
One thing is for sure, though: if you're not a member of Congress who heard McCabe's testimony, and you're also not on the FISA court, then if you say you know then we have definitely 100% caught you in a conscious lie where you knew you were lying and did it because you intended to deceive.
Wanna tell us more about the FISA warrant and how you know Steele's accusation was the sole reason for it? You might be right that's what happened, but if you're confident then you're both an idiot and a dishonest lying sack-of-shit liar.
FWIW, Mueller's smart enough that if you're right then I think he would have bailed by now. That's about the same level of indirect implication as we're getting from Nunes, but from someone more involved and with more reputation on the line. So while we don't know, the probabilities are hinting in a certain direction.
I think it's probable that the president is going to get in real trouble. And I think it's damn near a sure thing, if he's really willing to answer questions under oath. There is no way that personality isn't going to get himself in trouble if he's ever under oath. He'll at least lie about his own name or his favorite color or the airspeed of an unladen swallow, or something.
That would be wonderful and I hope (against all probability) that you're right. But let's get more than just Democrats. Let's get them all.
No problem. Most people here don't even watch TV news, because the automated piracy tools don't do that genre very well (much like sports). The web has lots of info, though, and it's pretty carefully sourced and they're easy to catch when the fuck up.
I think we're going to get Trump (which I think pretty much the entire political spectrum will appreciate, though the Democrats are probably going to hate Pence probably about as much as they hated Bush Jr), and if we can get DNC too, that's going to be icing on the cake. Go Mueller!!
Oh, and the reason that Comey had to re-open the investigation into Hillary Clinton was because Andrew McCabe sat on and concealed the existence of the Wiener laptop for almost a month before he was forced to turn it over for discovery. Had he managed to conceal it for another week, Hillary would probably have been president and swept all of this corruption under the rug never to be heard about... http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Not conspiracy theory, facts my friend.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
This "study" claims that nationalreview.com is a "junk news site." Also, it seems they classify a site as a "junk news site" if they find a single story that is, using their three-factor test, junk news. This list should be a lot, lot, lot longer if they were being honest about their own criteria.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Not if you want to spread your lie effectively, as in this case.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must
apply:
* Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of
professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real
authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do
not publish corrections on debunked information.
* Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions,
hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe
generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
* Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they
often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not
employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their
standards of news production lack credibility.
* Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is
otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present
opinion and commentary essays as news.
* Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts,
branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically
disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and
headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.
So lets take Slate for an example. A quick look shows that they pass the bar for Professionalism, as they identify their authors, and they make corrections. They're not counterfeit, as they don't mimic another news organization. And a quick look (I'm not a normal reader, obviously) shows that they seem to pass the Style and Credibility sniff test. Biased? Potentially. But they'd need to fail all 3 of those to get picked up as fake news.
Lets look at Drudge. Fails the Professional test on a couple accounts. While yes, it's an aggregator, it doesn't have any accountability, authors listed, and doesn't publish corrections. Obviously fails on Style. And I think the Credibility is a fail as well, as they don't seem to be doing a lot of vetting at all - it's a giant unorganized mess of links to both pretty legitimate MSM sites as well as some crackpot ones.
I'm honestly unsure why you feel that these two are on the wrong side of the fake news line. It seems pretty clear-cut to me, based on their metrics. And while I agree that some of these are somewhat unrelated to the quality of the reporting, without doing a deep analysis of the reporting itself, which would be a hurclean effort, I think it's a reasonable proxy for the quality of the stories.
I don't see any real bias in how they laid out their selection method. Given that this is coming out of Oxford in the UK, I have a hard time believing that they would be manipulating this research to favor one US political party over the other. That's a rather serious claim, and I'd expect such a claim to come with some serious evidence to back it up. You being angry that you are fed fake news isn't really that sort of evidence.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
History will tell the tale, and I'm happy to be wrong, but I doubt it.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
No, you totally misunderstood.
He's saying that if you have done a lot of practice at logic games, you'll be better at logic games. But if you haven't been forced to tediously grind them for hours-to-years, then you're not going to be as good at detecting and countering them. You'll be mentally working (and, of course, suspectable to all the usual human error like everyone else) whereas some educated schmuck will automatically/effortlessly recognize the pattern because it was in his fucking homework twenty one times that one week in sophomore year.
That's assuming both people don't play professionally, where detecting and taxonomizing bullshit is your day-to-day routine.
Trump Tweets that Comey better hope there are no tapes.
There were no tapes. That was witness intimidation, I hope.
Lordy, I wish there were tapes.
OMG you found the one conservative professor who is 73 who may still be teaching at Oxford! Impressive research skills, but he is still a little outnumbered by the other 12,999 Oxford staff and only slightly diminishes my hyperbolic but no less accurate point.
I concede that there may be dozens of conservative professors at Oxford. Hell, I am a conservative professor, but I also know for a hard fact that we are a rare breed and only survive in the hard sciences where liberal BS is killed by the antiseptic of objective truth.
My point still stands that this study was a liberal hit piece and that virtually every university on the planet is rife with alt left fascists who can't tolerate the thought of anyone thinking differently than they do.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Then post some links!
https://www.factcheck.org/2017...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah, you're doing real well in western Europe when journalists, film makers and cartoonists all have to fear for their lives if they don't self-censor. Where a state of emergency had to be extended in France five times, with military posted to street corners. Where rape and no-go zones are becoming endemic. That vocal minority of fear-mongering racists really are deluded, aren't they?
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Exactly.
Surveillance of Carter Page, which has been going on for multiple years prior to the Trump candidacy without any evidence or legal action is not it'self actionable...
Either you are lying and have no idea, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
They have the head of the FBI testifying before congress on the record that without the Steele dossier there would not have been a FISA warrant pursued or approved on the Trump candidacy. Period full stop.
Once again, either you are lying and do not know that, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
You might want to try thinking for yourself and listening to multiple sources....
Not sure that's going to help, because look where it got you! You're here ranting about things that you can't possibly know, absolutely certain that you're correct.
Ask yourself this: Why do I believe all these things with no hard evidence of them being true? Then go and read the paper that started this whole discussion.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-person-be-charged-with-obstruction-of-justice-if-no-crime-has-been-committed
obstruction does not require a crime actually have been committed, only to obstruct investigating IF a crime happened.
I love it, someone has modded my comment down. Way to try and bury the truth, you partisan hacks!
No, it is not. That's exactly what the 2nd poster explained, and did so accurately.
If you don't have knowledge of a crime, you cannot, by any legal definition, obstruct justice. Obstruction REQUIRES a crime PLUS malicious intent to obstruct the investigation PLUS foreknowledge that a crime was committed.
Second, asking for leniency or for an investigation to be dropped is also not obstruction... Particularly when you believe that there is no merit to the accusation... Otherwise we need to lock up a shitload of lawyers, mothers, and FBI investigators for all of their obstruction crimes.
The other supporting evidence was a Yahoo news article which was actually leaked to the author by Steele (and thus circular and not an independent second source). Further, we have on record in closed hearing (but which will be used in the criminal trials) that the head of the FBI confirmed to congress that without the Steele dossier, the FISA warrant would not have been pursued or approved. The alt left is further grasping at straws claiming that the unfounded prior surveillance of Carter Page is also somehow supporting evidence for the FISA, which is utter BS and everyone who is paying attention knows it. The bottom line is perjury and abuse of power for sure was committed by top officials at the FBI and DOJ and maybe the Obama administration and Clinton campaign and those people are going to prison and the left is apoplectic that they will be out of power for the next 25 years and at this point are straight up lying (claiming the Nunes Memo contained sources and methods) to try and obstruct the truth from coming out.
FISA warrants are indeed secret, but when they are approved, they must be signed off on under criminal penalty of perjury. This falsely acquired warrant puts every person who signed off on it in jeopardy of perjury as well as the abuse of power act I cited above. There is no hiding from this, the Trump Russian collusion investigation has found no criminal activity, the newly created independent council will be arresting and convicting at least 5 and maybe up to 15 high ranking FBI, DOJ, Clinton campaign and Obama administration officials and employees of perjury, conspiracy and potentially treason (depending if the new reporting that Steele was actually being fed his information by Russian operatives in order to subvert the Trump presidency and foment the current political climate). If I were Trump, as well as a number of other people who have been dragged through the mud, I would bring a multi billion dollar suit against the MSM and the Democrats for slander and libel. The threshold is very high, but from what I have seen, it has clearly been crossed on a myriad of occasions.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You cannot, by definition, obstruct justice when you did not commit a crime.
False.
If some third party commits a crime, and you help to cover it up ... you have obstructed justice without committing the original crime.
And that might be exactly what happened here. If Russia tried to hack, manipulate, or otherwise influence the election, that's a crime. And trump may have been completely innocent of that crime.
But when he fired the guy investigating the crime, and threatened to fire the guy investigating that firing, and asked for people involved with the investigation to swear allegiance to him ... yeah, that's obstruction.
I believe I have finally determined what the constant argument between right and left is over. When the right say "FACT" they do not mean objective reality, but some form of belief-based emotional affirmation.
I don't get it. The linked comment is titled "Trump isnt a Russian spy," are you citing it as evidence supporting him? Because it sounds like you're using it as evidence to prove him wrong, in which case you've done a fine job of demonstrating right-wing fake news...
Err no, you can't just make up lies, then declare it true until proven false. That's literally police state KGB bullshit. It has never worked that way in America, and never should.
You raped my wife in 2002. You're going to prison unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't.
Left leaning ...
CNN = Communist News Network
ABC = Anarchist Broadcasting Concubines
NBC = Nazi Broadcasting Cunts
CBS = Communist Broadcasting System
These have been known since the 80s for some the 90s for others. Long before Any Republican had the balls to call it.
The discourse is fundamentally different between left and right. The left seems has an unending appetite of stories of injustice (perceived and real), while the right has developed a large appetite for conspiratorial stories and get-rich-quick schemes. Previously this was the more innocuous and less well defined arts/science/social vs. crime/financial/sports news appetite split.
This has led to the left celebrating those who are easily offended and the right celebrating the conspiratorial talk show host. More concerning, the right has becoming a large preying ground for con artists and those wishing to prey on the gullible.
It is no surprise that the right has the largest market for fake news. Even mainstream right-sided talking points have a tinge of conspiracy about them, for instance the implication that there is a purpose-built left-sided and even government-created bias in education and media. This makes the right more combative.
Similarly, the left has a growing bias that injustices from the right or corporations are purposefully and maliciously creating victims, which makes the left more combative.
The shift on the right has been more drastic and recent though. Both sides like to be told what they want to hear, but for a variety of reasons there is MUCH less concern about vetting stories on the right right now.
The study just confirms its own presuppositions (i.e. which articles they declared as fake news)
Surveillance of Carter Page, which has been going on for multiple years prior to the Trump candidacy without any evidence or legal action is not it'self actionable...
Either you are lying and have no idea, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
The information is already out there, (released by the Dims, I believe) when they tried to use the fact that he was under surveillance as evidence to justify the FISA on Trump (nice try though).
They have the head of the FBI testifying before congress on the record that without the Steele dossier there would not have been a FISA warrant pursued or approved on the Trump candidacy. Period full stop.
Once again, either you are lying and do not know that, or you are publicly releasing classified information. Which is it?
This was revealed by a Republican on the intelligence committee and is not classified as it reveals no sources or methods, only a point of fact which the Dims were trying to obfuscate to cover their criminal asses.
You might want to try thinking for yourself and listening to multiple sources....
Not sure that's going to help, because look where it got you! You're here ranting about things that you can't possibly know, absolutely certain that you're correct.
Ask yourself this: Why do I believe all these things with no hard evidence of them being true? Then go and read the paper that started this whole discussion.
Give it a week and try to watch Fox (Shep Smith doesn't count) news once in a while (I know it burns, disinfectant is often painful).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I'd say that pretty much QED for the paper. Perfect echo.
For not being a Trump supporter, you sure are saying a lot of things in support of Trump.
Trump may be saying things, "that a lot of people have wanted to say for some time," but you failed to specify which people. Those people he's been channeling? White supremacists and xenophobes with absolutely no understanding of how our government works, let alone how other nations work or how to talk to them.
These are "novel approaches" because everybody who had his position before him had ten times his sense, and most were far less racist (at least in the last century).
The problem is that they are right in the abstract.
At least half of what is fake news (that the article doesn't - surprise! - consider) is the _absence_, or non-reporting, of actual news.
There's a reason why, in US court, people are required to tell "The truth, the _whole_ truth, and nothing but the truth." The mainstream media flat out won't report the truth to their listeners, conveniently missing that "whole" bit; leaving their audience with partial, at best, facts.
So, again: study defines criteria that reflects it's target, data confirms definition = win!
His political affiliation is irrelevant, he presided over a dumpster fire at the FBI and did nothing to stop it. It is entirely possible that he is an incompetent PHB who didn't know WTF he was doing, also possible that he was convinced that Hillary was going to get elected and wanted to keep his job and didn't give a shit about breaking the law to make sure that happened. R or D politicians in many cases are just as bad (have you seen the traitor John McCain?)
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
That article was written by a shock-jock journalist in a right wing publication, and is a prime example of fake news (she's also a rape apologist for the page hits, or example). You've kind of proven the original point.
Carter Page was associated with Trump and the FISA warrant allowed surveillance of all contacts. Stop lying.
There is nothing to prove there: there is something improper about the warrant.
Not until you prove it.
Prove what? The fact that they omitted to say that dossier was paid by political adversaries of Trump? The fact that they omitted to say that the corroborating source Yahoo News was in fact the same source? The fact that Steele was a known critic of Trump, per Ohr testimony? They used a libellous source at best.
No one has yet proven that any substantial amount of the material in the Steele dossier is actually false.
Because it is mostly unverifiable and the author knew it when he wrote it. The few verifiable parts are false, like the fact that Trump's lawyer was in Prague to meet Russian officials. The rest is just unverifiable gossip (e.g. who can prove the existence of a Russian dossier on Trump to blackmail him, if not the Russian themselves?) retold by anonymous sources.
Warrants are frequently granted on the word of known drug addicts and petty criminals, they're not the most trustworthy people, but if the evidence seems credible enough, then further investigation is warranted.
If that is not worrisome to you, I do not know what to say. However in this case it is not just unverified information, it is also a matter of unverified sources. A drug addict probably knows a given drug dealer, so he may not be trustworthy, but he is surely an informed source. In this case the source is an anonymous guy, who claims to know everything about the most protected secrets of the Kremlin. It is untrustworthy the information and the source.
If factual evidence is out there, please provide some links. Everything I've seen so far is just heresy, and that includes the Nunes memo.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I doubt that's the main inroad the Russians had.
My bet is it's more a matter of two things: 1) Trump is utterly ignorant of the boundaries of law for the presidency, such that he really doesn't understand that "you scratch my back and I scratch yours" behavior can be severely illegal, and 2) Trump's #1 guiding star is always his ego, and Putin was willing to stroke that ego.
My guess is that there has been a lot of direct collusion with the Russians from some of Trump's subordinates (it's the only explanation for the dismantling of State department I can see), but that Trump's knowledge and understanding of that collusion has been limited. He's probably been fed some oversimplified explanations of what's been going on, and probably supports the effort in the main, but hasn't had much direct interaction. My bet is his subordinates would prefer it that way: it keeps him in power, which keeps them protected (for now).
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out as Mueller's probe comes to a head. I'd honestly be shocked if his subordinates who did the most collusion didn't take the care and effort to retain some evidence that pointed the finger directly at Trump. Trump's protection only matters as long as they themselves aren't targeted, and I doubt they're strong enough ideologues to continue following him once it no longer serves their interests. If Mueller's probe gets to them, they benefit greatly by pointing the finger up the chain, and can only do that effectively if they've retained some evidence. Trump's only hope is that his subordinates are just as incompetent as he is, or that the Republicans try something dramatic to halt the investigation (though that will only buy him until next year, if the midterm elections turn out like the special elections we had last year).
I'll believe Judicial Watch, who have been a vital player in getting information released by the FOIA requests, when they say that the DOJ is stonewalling them. Obama's corrupt DOJ is alive and well.
I believe we called you racists because you kept claiming white people are better than everybody else. Funny, that.
Like I said get up to speed on current events:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings...
And there is more to come.
Sorry thatâ(TM)s just plain wrong. And repeating it twice does not make it right.
Impeding an investigation is by itself a crime, irrespective of whether or not the investigation is into a crime that is later proved to be prosecutable, or the prosecution wins. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... notes, "If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect." Key word here is "suspect". So when Flynn was being investigated -- by definition, a suspect -- Trump attempting to take the heat off of him was "willfully and knowingly" trying to "protect a suspect."
Yes, this! I don't often read the slashdot discussions, but I did here looking for exactly this kind of comment. Finally! How many other posters here have actually RTFA? Here that means the full PDF. I've read some of it, but not enough. (So I don't count yet.) Most everything else, even my own meta-post here, is off-topic, irrelevant, reactionary blather.
So far I'm impressed by the techniques used. I cannot tell yet if there is room for bias in the results but I don't see any yet.
General out for lying about for no reason, saying things prove you did not when they do not I mean save it for the judge and jury not America.
Pretty sure Pornhub only has sections for Male, Female and Transgender, not that I would know [i]anything[/i] about that.
> Trump would still be a Russian stooge
This is all anyone needs to see to know that you are a MORON. You are a reflection of current liberals who have contempt for the idea of personal responsibility. The entire Russian collusion narrative is an attempt to deflect blame for a spectacular failure.
It's not the 80s any more. The Soviet Union is dead. Russia is no longer communist. World wide communist revolution is dead except in the mind of modern liberals (who are the reds now).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Here's a study from Oct 2016 showing relative percentages of donations from federal workers, broken down by candidate and department.
97% of donations from the Department of Justice went to Hillary.
84% from the Department of Defense went to Hillary.
Every other department was around 90% Hillary.
Conclusion: The actual facts show that you're full of shit.
What a fucking liar/Idiot.
Seriously? Use some god damn logic and reasoning. The only thing that shows is that democrats are more likely to donate money, individually, than republicans, who mostly have fewer huge donors.
It's so much easier to look at "number of people who are X" and get both a more verifiable, easier, and more truthful result than "amount of money that went to X from people within X".
The former clearly has only 1 possible truth to it, the latter has at least 3.
Um, you are aware that he pretty much admitted it aren't you? It is nice of you to demonstrate the level of stupidity that is needed to be a trump supporter however.
when there is no substantial right wing in this country, just varying degrees of far-left and further-left????
Nonaggression works!
Even real news Dow falls 1600 nothing to see here buy more.
Wait till the cost of servicing the deficit hits.
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated ...
Milo Yannopolis is college educated, as are a number of conservative pundits who are regularly (and often violently) prevented from speaking their college-educated opinions on college campuses.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
Nah, you just have to play to their egos; it's amazing how quickly most people will fall for any old bullshit, so long as it's something they already believe in. After Sandy Hook, a "study" was published that stated "98% of Americans agree that we need stronger gun control laws." Trouble is, 98% of Americans have never agreed on anything.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
>It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
I don't know where you are from. But it's not earth.
It's vastly easier to fool the 'educated'. They start out believing they're too smart to fall for it.
That's funny, because Northern Europe is doing really goddamn well currently
Is that the part with xenophobic, homogeneous populations and exceedingly strict immigration controls?
I love Scandinavia.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Take this with a grain of salt.
Granted, the paper DOES describe blockchain tracking of source material, demonstrating the preponderance of fake news site ultimate sourcing, BUT without peer review, it's just an opinion
And I AM A LIBERAL!
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
Who the hell keeps modding this idiot up?
One tactic of fake news propaganda - pretending you aren't who you really are.
It's not true, it's false and was retracted.
Left wing compared to the Republican party. By international standards the US has two right wing parties.
Definitions for left and right are vague bullshit.
So what you're saying is that this is a good thing for everyone because it demonstrates the ability and willingness of the United States to show the world that we can go bat-fucking-shit crazy and that they'll have to pick up the slack since we're proving that we can maintain a mature and educated populous.
The people who are accusing the President of all types of crimes represent the scariest artifacts of the era we are living in. Their accusations and attacks have abandoned the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. They have shit canned the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea.
And then you lost it. What accusations? The terrorist fist bump? Tan Suit-gate? Fucking mustard and arugula snob? How long has the right wing media been demonizing anything and fabricating outrage from fiction?
And you idiot Trumpbones should have known that before you got behind a half baked con artist idiot. Sure, I read your rosy lofty opinions about what you see as policy, but that's just you pretending any of that means what you say it does.
You could have chosen an at least half competent actual statesman, but no, you chose full clown circus. You deserve to lose quite truly everything and you owe the rest of the country your extreme suffering and humiliation every second of the rest of your life for supporting it, clown supporter idiot.
I originally __-modded your post....but then decided a comment was preferable)
You should know by now that's never the case.
It is a moderately-scummy thing that journalists sometimes do, to skirt the limits of journalistic ethics, to first publish an untrue story that suits their agenda ... and to later publish a retraction, which will be seen by almost no one.
It worked on you, didn't it, AmiMoJo? Your post clearly demonstrates that you believed the original story to be true, and weren't aware of the retraction.
from the article "coded as “junk news” (based on breaching at least three of five quality standards including “professionalism”, “bias” and “credibility”)."
This is of coarse the real problem. Only organizations with deep pockets can afford 'professionalism'. "credibility' is a matter of opinion and something you can't possible measure objectively. As far as bias goes I have hold CNN, ABC and FOX new all equally bias, they just have differing biases for that matter the AP guidebook is highly biased towards the liberal side of things and nearly all mainstream news draws from that. So again, how do you scientifically measure bias. I bet the results would have been different had the researches categorizing the web pages for credibility and bias been Trump supporters.
If you want to have opinions consistent with reality, your best bet is to read as much original research as you can, look at hard data, and talk to lots of people with an open mind. The hope you are wrong 50% of the time rather the 60% like most people. Problem is anyone who is poor , or uneducated, doesn't have the resources in time and or organizational capital to actually do that. That is why we are polarizing, it is much easier to pick a team and cheer for it then it is to actually play the game.
I disagree. Those criteria, while they do allow for judgement calls, seem like good ones. Requiring 3 out of the 5 is a little arbitrary though.
The fake news awards were pure white house propaganda, as are claims of CNN and the stock market. Not all news outlets use *highly* emotional language, and to do so would be obviously unprofessional. All-caps and bad punctuation also point at lack of professionalism. Junk news outlets use all these techniques a lot because they are trying to persuade, not inform.
Limited use of unnamed sources is understandable, as long as you don't do this all the time. CNN does usually cite its sources. The logical fallacies and other propaganda techniques are obvious to spot with a little training, and junk news sources use these regularly. It's baffling that it isn't more obvious to people.
WikiLeaks has been working with Russia.
And trump will go to prison for violation of Logan's act, or more directly, treason.
Just because this takes time does not mean that he and pence are not traitors. They are just like the rest of the far right wingers in America.
Our schools actually are chronically underfunded, because the actual cost of materials and facilities has skyrocketed. The cost of textbooks is way more than 4x what it was in the 1960s. It's probably closer to 20x. And in the 1960s, we didn't need computers for students, nor network infrastructure. You can't compare education now to the 1960s by just comparing dollars, because if you educated someone today in the way that you educated kids in the 1960s, they would not be hirable. Too much has changed in those fifty years, and jobs that pay well tend to also require skills that do, in fact, cost way more to teach.
When talking about funding in general, you have to talk about funding for a particular thing. Not just "underfunded" or "overfunded." I am underfunded to buy a million dollar house. I am not underfunded to buy a smaller house. Do we need computers for students? I don't think so, at least not to the extent that schools are stuffing into their budgets today. My school had a computer lab in the late 90s. "A" meaning "one." Enough for one class of kids at a time. Did it prepare me for the jobs of today and the future? Yes. Today schools districts are issuing laptops or tablets to each individual student, it's ridiculous.
Schools are just bad with their money, and they get away with it because it's for the kids. People affiliated with education become infected with the inability to save money. You know donorschoose.org I presume? Take a look at the projects and see the expensive garbage teachers want for their classrooms. One in my area wanted chargers for all the tablets that the kids use so they wouldn't die in class. So they put their project on donors choose and specified the most expensive "charging station" they could find. I searched amazon and found many competing models ("charging stations" not just chargers) with the same number of charging ports for half the cost. So I sent the teacher a note and did not donate.
Either way, the ratio of teachers to students is strongly correlated with graduation rates.
I'm sure it is, but you have to consider the size of the effect, not just strength of correlation.
Read through the rest of the +5 posts (assuming it hasn't been mod bombed by the alt left sock puppet accounts like I have), one of those has several of the articles that were cited as the reason mainstream conservative news sites were added to the junk news list, and they are 100% true and accurate, so no, the Oxford study was not being honest or accurate at quantifying fake news. Sorry.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The evidence is unofficial at this point and it has not yet been officially declassified, so we will have to wait a few weeks as the Dems drag their feet and obstruct, but the sources I pay attention to on Fox news and online sources are rarely wrong (I pay attention to that specifically and have been for 30 years) so I have no qualms that the truth will eventually become officially known.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Yes, you are a trump supporter.
>> It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
> It is certainly possible to do so.
He didn't say "you can't" - he said "it's harder"
Trying to be objective (hard, I know), I'm not sure I agree. 1. HRC beat HRC. She ran the worst campaign I've ever seen. Maybe health, who knows, but it appears her arrogance is what killed her shot. PA/WI/MI. 2. After Trump won, the opposition (not just democrats) were out to get him. No matter what he did w Flynn/Comey, we'd still be in this mess. Details may be changed, but objective wouldn't
I actually see this quite often. I tend to inform others when they share fake news, with the information that refutes their article. Most of the time, they don't even care that it's wrong, and openly admit to wanting it to be true even though it's not.
Those people are 100% conservative.
You are not a leftist, a liberal, or a progressive. You are EXACTLY what this article is talking about. The very first sentence in your links says "Trump isn't a Russian spy... " so how does that contradict "I see very few people on the left accusing Trump of being a Russian agent". 5 years ago, I enjoyed reading your comments. They were usually quite well written, had decent points, and almost always lacked completely ridiculous claims. Now, you've turned into a bitter-ass trumptard. You should probably reflect on what's happened between then and now, and correct yourself.
I don't know who mods this dumb shit up.....
I agree that Hillary was a fundamentally weak candidate, but there's evidence to suggest that Comey's announcement was the straw that tipped the camel over in Trump's favor.
And yeah, Trump would still be hounded, but I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been better off this whole time without Mueller's investigation (which directly stemmed from firing Comey).
Again.. And again.. You completely ignored the key word INTENT, repeated 11 times in your own fucking link. It's like you're incapable of absorbing or comprehending basic concepts explained with child-like simplicity.
From your own link... Obstruction of Justice requires intent to disrupt when you have knowledge of, or participation in, a crime. Nobody suggested it required a conviction first, you fucking imbecile, so stop pretending like that's the debate. It isn't.
There is a burden to prove both intent and foreknowledge, which has never been shown; nevermind the dubious assertion that saying, "please go easy on him, he's a good man" constitutes obstruction in the first place, regardless of intent or foreknowledge. It doesn't.
You don't get to use fox news as a source for anything and then claim it's not fake news. They are a direct extension of the most conservative branch of the Republican party, and their coverage is entirely group think. They knowingly lie all the time
It's exactly the kind of thing this Oxford thing is talking about, you self deluded wakaloo
The silence is deafening.
Grow a pair and say "my mistake", apologise for the "spread misinformation" slur, and be done with it.
So what this tells is us not that most people in government are Democrats (far from it), but rather that Republicans within our federal government found Trump so absolutely terrifying that they either did not contribute money or actively contributed to the opposing party rather than support him.
The underlying poll from the link you cited does show that the breakdown among federal government employees is a fairly even split. But that's of all "federal government employees", right? The relevant description of methodology states
From August 7-12, 973 federal employees participated in the survey, including 491 at the GS/GM-13 and above grade levels and 25 members of the Senior Executive Service. Respondents include representatives from at least 30 federal and defense agencies.
So, it's not clear if this is a great sample, or if it's biased in terms of industry (defense? education?) or other factors. After all, the original context was the FBI, which has only 35K employees (of 2.1M total federal employees, a mere 1.7%). Assuming no sampling bias (charitably), we would expect about 16 FBI employees participated in the poll, not enough to make meaningful claims about the other 35K (indeed, any claims you made about the FBI based on a sample size of 16, you'd be looking at a +-25% margin of error at 95% confidence).
On another note, it's really hard to get good data on political affiliation. There's plenty of data on political contributions from the FEC that one can slice any which way (indeed, while writing this post, I found this cool site), though.
Regardless, thanks for the good post. Posting AC because I'm rambling.
That letter from the President's lawyer is not evidence that "Trump was wiretapped".
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're the very definition of a useful idiot.
Can't attack the message? Attack the messenger!
Username checks out.
Even though you are trying to be cute with analogy, you can't even get that right without lying. Blue-collar and white-collar shits do not stink the same. It's all a function of what you eat, and white collar workers tend to be able to afford better and real food. Blue collar people tend to end up with fast food(current prez excluded lol) and Save-a-Lot generic specials. Gut bacteria can also play into the stankiness but all this junk you probably know already, and just don't care.
The world IS complicated, but what you're really attempting is the usual conservative false equivalence bullshit. Looks like you're fitting thie description and don't like it. You're pissed about being called dumb, getting tricked by republicunts because you're dumb, and then having to suffer the consequences of being dumb. How about you stop being dumb?
Prove what? The fact that they omitted to say that dossier was paid by political adversaries of Trump? The fact that they omitted to say that the corroborating source Yahoo News was in fact the same source? The fact that Steele was a known critic of Trump, per Ohr testimony? They used a libellous source at best.
These are claims. You are not able to prove they are true, and I am not able to prove they are false because neither of us is allowed to see the actual warrant applications, hearing transcripts, or any of the related classified materials.
Nunes says there is something improper, but he has all the motivation in the world to find something improper and other people say he's wrong. Furthermore, Nunes' chose to prevent the minority party on the intelligence committee from releasing their opposing viewpoint, which tells me that he is not confident that his criticisms will withstand actual scrutiny. You can't be "for transparency" while only allowing half of the story to be told.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
" I have the worst f**ling lawyers."
Pretty sure that's sarcasm, but either way, your lived life experience actually has ZERO bearing on the facts. You got mugged by some Mexicans? You cannot infer that all Mexicans are muggers. Your out in the woods country town has one black dude who lives there (mine did) and he's a total shitbag? You cannot extrapolate that to every black dude.
Look, their criteria was:
Granted, the criteria seem a bit subjective. For instance, if a web site uses a lot of "hyperbole, misleading headlines, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, emotionally driven language" but very little "ad hominem attacks, excessive capitalization, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes", does it count as "bad style" or not?
But it's interesting that none of the top-voted comments here responded by saying "I'm conservative but I prefer conservative sources that don't meet these criteria, and I'm concerned about the prevalence of conservative sources that do." Instead I'm seeing responses like "they should have counted CNN as junk news!" (really, CNN should be on the list when Fox News is not?) or "these criteria are unfair because they single out conservative hyperpartisan media! so the criteria should have been changed!"
Perhaps "they didn't study the actual content being shared" as RedK suggests, but in order to evaluate the 5 criteria they must of course have evaluated samples of each site's content.
Interesting. So you admit there's no evidence to be had by anyone except those involved at the highest levels of the FISA court, yet are happy to believe people telling you what's going on, despite knowing that they don't have access to that evidence either. I definitely do not have that level of faith in any news organization, and I'm a little amazed you do.
And your claim that Fox is rarely wrong really contradicts your claim to be paying attention to their accuracy for 30 years. For one, it's only been around for 20 years. For another, Fox is definitely wrong pretty often, and rarely retracts stories or offers corrections.
How, exactly, have you come to the conclusion that Fox is rarely wrong? What was your methodology?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Fake research....
What do they say ?
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Don't know about modman but I don't care that you don't care. This is what you get. This is what you wanted. The country is now US vs THEM whether you fucking like it or not.
You don't like any of this because you're on the hated team. You're a conservatard. You're tired of everyone bringing up how fucking stupid you were by voting for those shitbags because you know they were right. You got duped. You can't handle it. Now you cry. You're just gonna have to come to terms that TRUMP WON GET OVER IT and lie down in that shit covered bed. You got what you asked for. I WILL NOT let you forget.
Cry MOAR.
This Oxford study is 100% BOLOGNA.
living in texas it sure feels that way but given the scope if the internet that data set is both nothing and suspect.
Are your purposefully ignorant?
Its from the House Committee on Intelligence, put forward by the chairman after months of investigation.
https://intelligence.house.gov...
Backed up by real objective (objective means anyone can see them and agree, not mysterious anonymous sources, see the difference there? no of course you dont) facts unlike the trump.russia narrative, which has morphed into the obstruction narrative, and will probably morph next into the hates america narrative or some other nonsense like the previous things.
1) That's the Nunes Memo you've linked to. 2) It doesn't say Trump was wiretapped.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Right-wing in the USA has a far longer "tail" of "quite insane" fringers who are basically "the base" of the main right-wing party.
Not because left-wing fringers are less insane per capita, but because many fringe lefties weer off into apolitical interests (until you harm their photosynthetic soulmates)...
AND because there was never a comparable level of pandering to the left-wing fringe groups from the main party.
E.g. No one is insane enough to embrace communists - and they are nowhere near to the far end of fringe on the left.
I.e. Once you call loons over for tea, then let them take over the whole tea party...
That's just the tip of the iceberg of fringe insanity floating out there, now aligning itself not with you (the RINO establishment deep state commies) - but with all those loons you allowed in.
And that's AFTER you condition the party for decades to expect secret code words everywhere while basing the party itself on the idealization of some past which never was and rejection of reality when it doesn't fit the ideological narrative.
Pretty soon, no one can tell the difference between own propaganda and reality.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
(a) General Micheal Flynn is NOT a "crony"; he served under Obama but fell out of popularity because he opposed the Iran deal. Indcidentally, I suspect you do not even know what Flynn is guilty of. Let me help you: he fell into a perjury trap - he spoke to the FBI without a lawyer present and while not under oath did not tell them he had had a perfectly legal phone conversation; a stupid lie, but not about anything illegal nor any "Russian Collusion" which would not even be a crime had it happened.
(b) Comey admitted under oath to congress that the President had a perfect right to fire him, and that Trump did not require him to pledge loayalty.
(c) Trump did not "brag to Russians" that firing the FBI director lifted a weight, though he certainly did tell lots of people (not just Russians) that he (like nearly everybody else in Washington DC including most Democrats up to the moment of the firing) thought comey had to go.
(d) all Presidents are, like everybody else, allowed to "want to fire" somebody - it's no crime, not even a "thoguht crime". Where do you get that nonesense that Trump wants to fire the current FBI director because the Meuller investigation (NOT even being done by the FBI) is "reaching closer to his inner circle" ????
(e) You have no "sordid details" about Sessions (who does not matter anyway since , like a stupid scared little mousey, he recused himself a year ago and should not even be getting a pay check since he's not actually doing his damned job). Sessions is so inert, he's not even capable of doing anything related to Russia or the probe. If the man had any testicles at all, he might have simply interefered in the investigation to completely stymie it even to the point of being held in contempt of congress like Eric Holder did for Obama on the "Fast & Furious" scandal that supplied thousands of guns to Mexican drug gangs.
(f) You seem mighty sure of some sort of Russian money via Deutsche Bank... I'll see you and raise... Ho about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are proven to have flowed from Putin into the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was SecState and had the job of halting the Uranium One sale to Putin Cronies? How about the speech Bill Clinton gave in Moscow at that time for Millions of dollars?
There's plenty of proven collusion already: Hillary's campaign funneled millions of dollars through a law firm to oppo research firm "Fusion GPS" who hired ex-British spy Steele who bought a bunch of lies from Russian spies and put that junk into a "dossier" that was then fed into the FBI and used to obtain a warrant that allowed the Obama administration to spy on Trump for the past year+. This is all documented FACT at this point, unlike that crap salad you posted.
To be fair, you probably get your news from late night comics and Rachel Maddow, so you probably imagine all those rumors you have heard, often breathlessly reported as from "reliable" but "anonymous" sources, are true and have not heard the actual FACTS that have come out in officiel government documents.
legal precedent. If authorities obtain evidence with an illegal warrantless search, or if they illegally obtain a warrant (by misleading the court, for example) then all evidence thus obtained and any evidence obtained as a derivative of the illegal evidence is thrown out. the doctrine is called "fruit of the poisoned tree"
In this case, all the spying on Trump, which lead to the Flynn case and the Manafort case (NEITHER of which involve "Russian collusion) were descended from the spying on Trump - and the spying on Trump was all based on the FISA warrant obtained by anti-Trumpers lying to the FISA court, using a Clinton campaign dirty tricks docs as "evidence" to justify spying. Comey, as head of the FBI, testified under oath to congress and also personally told the President that the "dossier" was unsubstantiated yet certified to the FISA court that it was reliable and justified a warrant. Both cannot be true. Comey either purjured himself to congress or to the courts.
An awful lot of garbage has been flung about for the past year-and-a-half. Big media outlets like the New York Times and CNN breathlessly reported a year ago on all sorts of leaks by anonymous national security sources of information gathered (THEY said at the time) from wire taps on Trump, but then when Trump complained he'd been wire tapped, those same media outlets ridiculed him and claimed he was a bit nutty and had no evidence. We've been treated to about 18 months of wild accusations against Trump - so much so that many American believe the man has committed some sort of serious crime involving Russia - all with NO PROOF. It's very interesting therefore to see that Trump opponents demand PROOF of impropriety by Meuller. Demanding a prosecutor/investigator be believed (in this case Meuller) and the accused person being investigated (in this case Trump) be presumed guilty and demanding that the accused must prove himself innocent and the prosecutor guilty is a TOTAL INVERSION OF AMERICAN JUSTICE where the accused is presumed innocent and the prosecutor must prove his case.
Think long and hard before you embrace this inversion of our most-basic notion of justice - someday somebody might accuse YOU of something and you might not like the idea of having to prove yourself innocent.
It's the place that has historically been very welcoming of "guest workers", as we called them in the old days, and of anyone interested and willing to make the trip here and integrate. There are so many descendants of immigrants here that you don't even take special notice of them. Or did you think Scandinavians originally had olive skin, brown eyes and dark hair?
Hell, both sides of my family are filthy dirty gypsy immigrants from who-knows-where, and I'm as Scandinavian as they come, you'd think I was a direct descendant of Gorm the Old.
Things started turning to shit when various right-winger forces in government insisted on concentrating immigrants into ghettos.
Eat the rich.
You obviously don't know Northern Europeans very well at all. Or Europe. Or people in general, actually.
We will right this ship. And we will stand tall and look down upon the shattered remnants of xenophobia and racism.
Eat the rich.
Well. Having said that about your ancestors, you sort of lost any right to speak for the xenophobic Scandinavians or any Europeans for that matter, because you are simply not one of them.
Yeah, you're doing real well in western Europe when journalists, film makers and cartoonists all have to fear for their lives if they don't self-censor. Where a state of emergency had to be extended in France five times, with military posted to street corners. Where rape and no-go zones are becoming endemic. That vocal minority of fear-mongering racists really are deluded, aren't they?
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Exactly.
Cool. Learn something new every day, pretty cool how you guys know more than people actually living here.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
OMG you found the one conservative professor who is 73 who may still be teaching at Oxford!
It only took me a second or two to think of a very high profile conservative thinker who has recently been a professor in Oxford - enough for you to lose the bet you were prepared to make (that there had been none in 30 years).
liberal BS is killed by the antiseptic of objective truth
and sweeping, unsupported statements can be disproved by one data point. Can you point me to your evidence that less than 1% of Oxford academics are conservatives?
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/media/right-wing-media-fbi-text-message-clinton-investigation/index.html
Good luck picking me out in a lineup, I'm tall, blond and blue-eyed, text-book Scandinavian looks :-)
Eat the rich.
Nothing in the study describes (or mentions) "real news".
Because there's no such thing!
It takes a special kind of stupid to read my comment and think it represented a *conservative* point of view, but congratulations, you just achieved it. I was, seeing as you were too stupid to notice, responding to a ridiculous authoritarian will-of-the-people nobility-of-the-working-man screed, not a left-of-centre argument. But never mind, you carry on being angry with the wrong people about the wrong things.
I don't think it has to do with education, but it likely is a contributor. Similarly some have mentioned IQ, but perhaps more aptly generically stated "intelligence" (to which education itself could be called a factor), is also likely a contributor. That said neither of those things explain it thoroughly. I've seen people who've I'd thought were educated and/or pretty smart parrot a lot of pretty far right bs.
I think it has more to do with personality. I also notice the same (causal or not) folks are usually religious, perhaps for the same reasons. They seem to have the ability to hear what they want to hear, and to be able to discount anything that might threaten that no matter what it is. This may also be attributed to perhaps (and I don't know for sure), understanding, but just not caring as it doesn't match your world view. As to why they share it so often, it is almost certainly propaganda. Repetition is key. It is hard to say if this is done intentionally because they are looking to further their cause, or unintentionally in that it reinforces their own beliefs so gives a kind of credence to their own world view. Kind of like proving to someone something by citing 8 papers, all of which you wrote yourself... Though in this case it is more like being able to site papers written by other people simply parroting the same thing.
I mean I have a couple people I know from high school, that post so much right wing stuff that I find myself actually wondering if they are seriously considering running for public office sometime in the near future.... That said I rarely post any retorts to this kind of stuff though I occasionally get galled into something. I know as soon as I do, all I am doing is adding more people that are able to see it because posted on it, and so on and so forth until it snowballs into something viral which is the ultimate end game of these stupid posts in the first place to get the widest audience as possible for their soapbox. They don't necessarily care if all people agree, because some of them will, and will start the whole insidious process all over again. It is very self perpetuating. In fact, the more ludicrous and crazy it is, the more left wing folks will also comment, which will only further help propel it into prominence. Which is funny in a depressing way, as those leftists are the same ones calling into question the right wing IQ, and then by their own actions helping them to perpetuate their propaganda. I've had the conversion with people about not engaging them, that I agree with your arguments, but by feeling your need to speak your mind, you are only helping them further.
> They stink the same.
Not true, blue collar workers are more likely to eat at Taco Bell.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
We spend more than any other OECD country on K-12 education - and our students typically end up near the middle, or in the bottom half. Spending != performance, at least in the US.
"We" meaning the average of the country. Kansas is at the bottom of the barrel in education spending. There are some states (generally blue ones), that spend far, far more, which pulls the average way up. Exorbitant spending isn't required to have effective education, but there is such a thing as funding so low that it becomes impossible to run a school properly. Kansas has been in that situation for quite a while.
You are using the definition of Terrorist as the definition of extremist.
There are people that sit at home and do no violence what so ever, yet believe that women should a) not work, b) not vote, c) wear clothing that covers their whole body.
This view is an extremist view. These people are not violent.
Also, I said it is harder to trick college educated people, not impossible. Anyone can be tricked, that's how professional magicians make their money.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I disagree tremendously with you. I find your viewpoint to be disgusting and evil.
First, you think being an extremist is wrong and evil. That is NOT true. Extremists hold extreme views. that is the definition.
Extremists does not and SHOULD not be defined by actions. We have a word for that, it is TERRORIST. Terrorists take violent actions on their extreme views.
LOTS of people held extreme views and were extremists. People like Martin Luther King Jr. People like George Washington. People like Mahatma Gandi.
All these people were extremists. The people that held power before them hated and despised them for holding views different than the general society.
They happened to take action that convinced the rest of the world to take up their extreme views, but that does not make them bad or evil.
Stop defending the status quo. Accept the fact that extremist is not a bad word or a criminal word. If you have extremist views, you are an extremist. That does not make you evil.
You only become evil based on your ACTIONS. That might make you a revolutionary, a terrorist, or merely a famous writer.
There is nothing wrong with being an extremist, stop trying to change the definition of the word to be someone that takes evil actions on their extreme views.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that your conspiracy theory is wrong? If you don't have a specific standard in mind, that suggests that your theory is not falsifiable, and therefore not really evidence-based. You hate "hard core alt left fascists" because it feels good.
I think there's a third category. People who see something, know it to be incorrect and forward it anyway in the hope it will boost their standing with their friends or maybe in the hope it will catch on. eg. I've seen printed handbills stating that the election day was different for a certain class of voters, and I get endless amounts of claptrap from some of my friends.
I'm pretty sure they see the bias and falsehoods in it (or at least would acknowledge them when they are pointed out), they see it as either harmless fun or perhaps helping to sharpen their tribal definition.
Nullius in verba
how liberals keep spreading the fake news even about this.
The Guardian is owned and funded by the same Marxists/Globalists who are constantly fed fake news by intelligence agencies which focus on propaganda and mind control...
You have reformulated the actual claim to make it more like the news you prefer, but lefty. The actual claim is more like, if they get him elected, he'll make their lives easier however he can, which he has already done.
So, you message is death to the middle and working class? Do you really wonder why people voted for The Donald?
You think you are sailing to a victory in the mid-terms. I think your defeat will be just as stunning in 2018 as it was in 2016. You are just too arrogant and self-absorbed to see it.
Hope you really like looking at your fancy new clothes in the mirror, emperor. 'Cause after the mid-terms, that's all the Democrats are going to have -- their puffed up egos.
It's the place that has historically been very welcoming of "guest workers", as we called them in the old days, and of anyone interested and willing to make the trip here and integrate.
Look up "Danish Expulsion Law." I've found articles as recent as last year.
Like I said, I love Scandinavian countries - American Liberals are constantly pointing to them as examples of perfected socialist utopias, and I thoroughly enjoy pointing out that those countries are able to achieve such success mainly due to the fact they they have small populations and extremely strict immigration controls - something American liberals don't think would work in our own nation.
I think it's great that you're not a xenophobe. I don't think it's great that you believe you can speak for all Scandinavians.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Case in point.
You have to be smarter than the machine you're working with.
Of course, their definition of what constitutes a "junk political propaganda site" is entirely subjective, so this is a completely meaningless study. I consider CNN to be junk political propaganda, how do the statistics vary when you include THAT? If they really wanted to make a meaningful study, they would publish statistics for several definitions of "junk lists", collected from varying perspectives. I suspect that would just be another way to show the stark polarized digital corners we've all painted ourselves into. As is, this is, ironically, more political propaganda....
That higher education makes people more critical is at least plausible. That it makes them more manipulative, more exploitative, and less honest is less plausible. I'm finding this a lot less plausible, and would like some sort of cite to confirm this.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Blue-collar workers are very familiar with the reality that they typically live in. There is no a priori reason to think them more aware of reality where they don't typically go.
Blue-collar workers are, by definition, at the lowest levels of larger companies (since management is white-collar). If anything, they have less ability to see the bigger realities than white-collar workers.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
left-wing conspiracy theories do not need to be reported via social media as they are already widely reported by the mainstream news outlets
Their list of junk news sites seems reasonable to me when I spot-check it. Come on, people are actually defending Breitbart, InfoWars, hannity.com, and others like these? Really?
If I need to prove objectively that 100% of their list is indeed junk, I cannot. But a strong majority of them are obviously so. Browsing through their sample articles, the problems are unmistakeable.
But I do see a conspicuous lack of hard-left hyper-partisan news sites, which is a real problem. They most certainly exist. It's hard to imagine that there isn't a strong selection bias going in, before their criteria is applied. I don't see how they came up with an original list, though I suppose it could be derived from twitter and facebook posts. Regardless, the lack of alt-left sites is conspicuous.
Ack I hit submit too soon. Forgot to add a criteria that they don't use but that's pernicious, which is a filtering bias. What stories do you publish? If you only publish stories that put your favorite political party in a good light or all others in a bad light, you're being manipulative and dishonest even if the stories themselves are accurate. I think most moderate news outlets have some filtering bias but they will still publish stories both for and against any and all political parties. I could not find any examples of unfiltered/counterspin articles in any of the "junk" sites listed in this study.
Bullshit. That is a totally fabricated excuse. How do I know? Because it is *clearly* designed to create animosity between Bill and Hillary. Such an idea could only come from a Right winger. Bill is a former president of the United States. He can get on whatever plane he chooses, whenever he chooses, however he chooses, with whatever guests he chooses, in the manner he chooses. I'm getting really sick of BOTH Republicans and Democrats fabricating excuses. It is time reporters do their goddamn jobs and we get to the truth.
I am content to give it time. There is a new special prosecutor investigating this entire corrupt Obama group. If in 2 years (the current duration of the fraudulent Trump-Russian collusion investigation) there are no indictments or convictions, and the allegations about still classified evidence turn out to be inaccurate, then clearly there was no there there.
Unlike the rabid alt left, conservatives are not losing our collective shit and putting on black masks to go beat up those we disagree with (Antifa anyone?) We believe in the rule of law and the integrity of the rank and file at the FBI and DOJ to do their job to faithfully uphold the law.
It will be interesting to see how things develop.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
This study is just utter garbage. As you indicate, they have rampant selection bias and that is part of the problem, but the stories that they cite to classify Breitbart and Hannity.com (as just a random sampling) are 100% true and accurate https://politics.slashdot.org/... revealing that this study it'self is fake news, which is highly ironic considering every alt leftie on the planet likely believes adamantly it is accurate.
The study is just a fake news alt left hit piece to try to portray their opposition as stupid and themselves as intelligent.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I mean, you are going to base a monumental election changing announcement based on somebody getting on a plane??? And it happened to be right at the most critical time in the election??? Give me a goddamn break. When is this goddamn political insanity going to end??? This thing is about to culminate into WW3 and round 2 with the goddamn Nazis. It is fucking insanity. Get a goddamn hold of yourselves people this is the fucking future of humanity you are flushing down the toilet over your childish behavior.
Look, let's just sit down and be reasonable people. This is about religion and whether or not it is good or bad. Look, the answer is clearly NEITHER. There are no black and white answers here. Some aspects of religion work. The lying, the dishonesty, the arrogance, the ignorance, those aspects of religion don't work. Now, if we need scientific tests of these facts then let's do controlled experiments and prove them. Let's make carefully reasoned argument. Leaving this just open gaping wound in our society is just not working any more. Let's sit down and be reasonable people and fix shit and stop acting like 2 year olds with temper tantrums.
Yes, I'm going to say it. We all know this goes back to pussy. Men fucking love pussy. Men fucking kill over pussy. Men fucking die for pussy. Okay. We fucking get it. But it is time we rise above our goddamn animal nature. Use the fucking brains you were born with and SOLVE THE GOD-DAMNED PROBLEM. IT IS FUCKING TEARING OUR COUNTRY APART. SOLVE THE PROBLEM PEOPLE.
Get off your pedantic high horse, you are either completely ignorant or trying to get my goat, neither of which will fly.
I am a yank and not terribly familiar with Oxford, other than respecting it's historical role and many of it's graduates of the last century. However, I am intimately familiar with the university system and environment. Aggressive alt left liberals outnumber conservatives on virtually every university campus in Western Civilization by a huge margin.
From the selection bias of this study to it's classifying legitimate news stories that were 100% true as "junk news" https://politics.slashdot.org/... they have lost a lot of credibility for putting out what is clearly a fake news story themselves. It is unfortunate for the reputation of Oxford.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Paying attention for 30 years, and enjoying Fox news since it was started in 1996. Before that I was referring to talk radio, assuming you were genuinely confused and not just being pedantic.
Fox is actually extremely accurate, but they have for many years had two sides, their hard news (which is very rarely wrong) and their news commentators (something that is always conflated by the alt left fact checkers). The news commentators very often engage guests who are willing to come on and debate the issue of the day, one on each side of the issue. This can lead to one side or the other getting a fact wrong in the heat of the discussion, which is often corrected after the segment, if not by the opposing debater but has no bearing on the hard news. These segments are not news, they are discussion, and to conflate them with news is dishonest and deceptive, you shouldn't fall for it.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
This person never went to college....
So they will have to ban themselves. As much 'Fake News' from the mainstream media.
Take NBC for instance:
Ken Dilanian former front man for the CIA who would just pass on CIA hysteria as 'fact' and it would make the news.
Now they are doing one better:
John Brennan former CIA director is now senior national intelligence analyst for NBC news and MSNBC...
Brennan defends use of torture. Lied saying that torture produces intelligence that 'saves lives', US senates investigates and comes to
the opposite conclusion.
So being disgraced and consistently wrong about things gets its due rewards so long as it props up the establishment. He's the 'news guy' who is supposed to give impartial and balanced insight and might even have to critique his own championed opinions about war.
Meanwhile whatch out RT is fake news.
Lets take it from an empirically correct standpoint.
Phil Donahue = was anti iraq war, everything he predicted was largely correct eg: the concequences of the invasion and US actions in the middle east. MSNBC fires him.
Ashley Banfield, Ed Schultz etc
I see equal amounts of BS. If there really is more rightwing fake news, I sure donâ(TM)t see it from my higher-numbered conservative friends on social media. I see TONS of it from my leftwing friends. Shoot, I saw more posts of the Philadelphia Eagles QB being in the Napoleon dynamite cast than right wing fake news (or just news shared from right wing people). And we all know he Really wasnâ(TM)t in Napoleon dynamite. Just check IMDb
This original post is entirely FAKE NEWS.
It's "Deep" state, not dark. If you're going to play the conspiracy game, at least get the meme right.
Southerners are too blinded by their racism and social blindness to realize tge truth that Trump is exactly what southerners have hated for generations, spoiled rich silver spoon sissy carpet-bagging predatory liars from northern cities who hate unions and have never lifted a finger to work one day of work ever! But southerners have fooled themselves into loving a loathsome wretch like Trump because they believe he shares their ignorant racist beliefs snd backwards uneducated unqualified views.
Kansas spends about $10K per student which is above average for the OECD (which is around $9300 per student, per my link from CBS News). So Kansas is low for the US, but above average for the OECD. And Kansas ranks 14th overall, even though it's spending is near the bottom.
Using the sources I've provided, Utah is at the absolute bottom in spending per student (over $3000 less per student than Kansas), but ranks 9th nationally. Perhaps it's not how much is spent - but HOW it is spent, and what the State and school districts see as the the goal of the educational system.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Kansas spends about $10K per student which is above average for the OECD (which is around $9300 per student, per my link from CBS News).
Again, you are committing the logical error of considering that because the average is acceptable, that general funding is acceptable. Kansas has some very well funded schools in affluent areas, but recently the Kansas supreme court ruled that the funding was "unconstitutionally low" for many districts.
Perhaps it's not how much is spent - but HOW it is spent
I'll raise you one more - WHERE it is spent matters a great deal. On aggregate, it can look like we spend plenty on education. But due to the fact that schools are generally funded by local property taxes, we've got a combo of schools that have enough money that they've reached the point of diminishing returns in spending, alongside schools that are struggling to provide basic services and just stay fully staffed. Which is a great way to get an education system where there's a lot of spending, and also a lot of students that aren't doing well.
An excellent, a times brilliant post by its sheer sincerity and flow.
I was about to say "ADD SOME F*****G
FOR CLARITY'S SAKE !", but I take it back : you put it better than I ever could.
Anyone who remembers the early days of the internet(pre-social media takeover) can recall the bizarre chain letters and other bullshit that your(usually older, more gullible, less educated, less clever) relatives or friends would send you.
I used to get this kind of thing on a weekly basis, and I would take my time to explain to the sender how their link or claim they forwarded was incorrect. Back then it was easier to show them that their bizarre claims were incorrect. It is harder now because people don't care to look at things like citations and to try to get to the bottom of things, where the story started, etc;
Yes, that is usually a right wing thing.
That undercover employee ("UCE-1") was Carter Page.
How does the NYT article you linked to show that UCE-1 and Carter Page are the same person?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I guess you missed the move to add fees to university courses, meaning that unless you belong to one of the moneyed classes, your chances of completing a uni course are very low indeed.
How do you determine which is which? Does Fox keep a list somewhere?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
It is explicitly stated frequently on the air. Furthermore grown ass adults can fairly easily differentiate between straight news reporting and commentating (with multiple guests debating issues, talking all around an issue including historical background, context and expected results and effects.
Can you tell the difference between the 10 o'clock news and 60 minutes?
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
That's the elephant walking around in the extreme right-wing-ers living room.
You've moved the goalposts significantly here. First it was "Fox is rarely wrong", then it was "Fox's Hard News is rarely wrong", now it's "The stuff on Fox News that I call straight news is rarely wrong".
Regardless of your goalpost moving, and the much, much smaller subset of Fox you're now ok with calling mostly correct, you still haven't identified how you determine if it's true or not.
And I'm still somewhat confused about how you can cleanly parse Fox's "straight news" from all the rest of their programming. Are there particular segments that you consider that? Particular anchors? Given their very large amount of programming, and not being a normal viewer, I'm not sure I'd even know where to start.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Please stop. You're so wrong it hurts.
Intent matters. Intent is everything. If the senior FBI agent tells the junior agent to stop investigating his family and associates, that absolutely IS obstruction of justice. Moreover, it's a clear conflict of interest that would never be tolerated under Dept of Justice rules - you don't allow an agent to work on a case involving family or close associates. The President is no different. The ethical conflicts that make this wildly inappropriate don't magically disappear.
Under your flawed logic the President is above the laws. He can commit any crime he wants and just tell the Justice Dept to stop investigating it. He could shoot someone on the street and tell the FBI to ignore it. That's madness.
Take your crackpot theories elsewhere. They're no good here. Yes IAAL.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
Another bellicose moron without a clue. Your "street bully" mentality leads to devastating wars that kill millions. There's a reason we don't use wars to resolve disputes unless absolutely unavoidable. A little thing called World War II taught us that's a really bad idea. Belligerent asshats can't seem to remember that.
Oh and just so you know... Here's what war with North Korea would look like
The leftists are just far more sophisticated in how they dress up their fraudulent information... so it's not so readily apparent. The right, unfortunately, has all these boors like you know who .. can't recall the names of the top three offenders due to a memory issue, but I'm sure y'all know who they are! They're pretty vrude so it's easy to see their agenda.
The very strict immigration rules are a very recent development.
Eat the rich.
You have to connect the dots...
From the NY Times article: "The businessman, Carter Page, met with one of the three Russians who were eventually charged...The court documents say that Mr. Page, who founded an investment company in New York called Global Energy Capital, provided documents about the energy business to one of the Russians....To record their conversations, the F.B.I. inserted a listening device into binders that were passed to the Russian intelligence operatives during an energy conference".
From the Reuters article: "According to prosecutors, in April 2012, Sporyshev met an undercover FBI employee posing as an analyst at a New York energy firm...In 2013, the FBI employee began providing Sporyshev with the binders containing purported industry analysis he wrote, supporting documents, and “covertly placed recording devices,” ".
It wasn't true actually. That story was retracted. If you had clicked the link in the tweet you would see that:
...Wanting...Bragging...Wanting...
Right. Those things are not a crime in this country. Please try again.
Hope that you come back and issue an apology to President Trump when Mueller releases his report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
But they are not trained and experienced in critical thinking, which forms the basis of academic life.
Not to be pretentious, but do you have a source for these two claims?
I've seen The Young Turks; you may keep your "cucks".
the sites had to meet ALL of the criteria in order to qualify for the seed group
No, as per the study the list derivation was broken down into two stages.
First, they used "a seed of known propaganda websites across the political spectrum was used, drawing from a sample of 22,117,221 tweets collected during the US election, between November 1-11, 2016". They do not give the method they used to determine "known propaganda websites".
Secondly, using this seed list they looked at articles and chose ones that fell in 3 out of 5 of their chosen domains to determine which are "junk news".
Except that's not what they did at all. Your still arguing from what you want the study say rather than what the study says. You are a good example of the study's findings.
Bwahahahaha. It sucks when you say shit like this, get it wrong, and then fall foul of your own accusations.
Z^-1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Sounds like the only fake news is coming from Oxford!
Z^-2
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Z^-3
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But I guess that as long as you make the claim and post a link without qualm of conscience, it is fine and fake news is good and proper for you.
Haha, very good.
This is not an academic paper of course, just my opinion. But since you asked.... Yes, do. Just a couple of links I found pretty easily while in the train:
http://roofindustryalliance.co...
https://info.lse.ac.uk/current... :p
You should check out "agitprop" sometime.
Not sure why people shouldn't be stating the obvious about "the russian asset in the white house" as he gets referred to by a man who was at the head of multiple US intel agencies since 1991...
"Trump of being a Russian agent isn't extremist leftist globalist fake news?"
It's the publicly stated opinion of a former intelligence agency director since '91. It's a pretty mundane observation by now really.
"Nothing that they try to throw at this guy can stick"
Right, remember how Mueller found nothing and went back home.
"even Wikileaks has come up dry on him"
Ah, that explains it.
RIP, another victim in the information war. Let our thoughts be with this person.