Reply to: Fake news

[WTFH]

Since most sources are opinion, not news, it’s a question of “how much opinion?” And “how balanced is the story?”

Getting news stories via Facebook, where their algorithms will show you what you want to see is one of the ways that people think they are escaping main stream media biases, but it’s quite the opposite, it’s just reinforcing personal biases.

If your only source for US stories is Fox, then you’re missing the news. (E.g. CNN host calls out Sean Hannity for ‘deceptive’ video editing Fox News host Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen'''s mystery client )
If someone tells you that a particular source is extremely biased, ask them for specific evidence. If they can’t provide you with any, then chances are that said person is extremely biased and doesn’t like things that challenge them.

[xoggoth]

I don't categorise news as fake or real. I categorise it as boring or... Well that covers it really.

[Mordac]

Interesting question.

Is news nowadays fact or someones opinion?

It used to be fact - but now ever paper has someones opinion on the fact peddled as news.

All joking aside it is really quite worrying that the mainstream press no longer need to tell the truth.

Surely that should be "Inneresting question"?

[Jog On]

He’s good at self publicity and manipulation.
Was his North Korea publicity successful or not?
Any swamp-draining he did, he replaced with his unqualified family, or his friends.
He runs the US on twitter, because that way he can ignore difficult questions.
His favourite tactic with difficult problems is distraction and blaming. (Sound familiar?)

If he's the best they can do then the US has no business 'leading the world' in anything. Ironically the fact that he's isolating America and the way EU nations are now forming new alliances and not taking orders from Washington any more can only be good for the rest of the world IMO.

He's a terrible bully and ego maniac and an utter embarrassment to his country. The fact that the American voters chose him over 'BAU' say's quite a lot. When I was out there (Florida) during the primaries the ones I spoke to (mostly oldies - boomers) were so sick of 'the swamp' they didn't care about much else.

Interesting times we live in!

*Edit* - on the NK thing, if it can still be resolved it would be a big success for those who want a more stable world. His approach to foreign policy -if genuine is the only thing he has going for him AFAIC. I will vote/support whoever is genuinely interested in developing stable and peaceful international relations - especially between nuclear superpowers. That is all I care about.

[Bean]

He’s good at self publicity and manipulation.
Was his North Korea publicity successful or not?
Any swamp-draining he did, he replaced with his unqualified family, or his friends.
He runs the US on twitter, because that way he can ignore difficult questions.
His favourite tactic with difficult problems is distraction and blaming. (Sound familiar?)

He only needs public perception to believe it was successful.

At least the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't block them due to the 1st Am

[Bean]

I think he's done OK on the jobs thing, the trade war with China is a bit of a gamble, wonder what that will produce if anything before 2020. Luckily for him the yanks are so isolated and indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks of them they'll just see him 'getting tough' and chant 'YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!'

OC's numbers are bad, really really bad... If she doesn't get some credible figures and solid ideas to back them up she'll get ripped to shreds. Another two possibilities are Michelle Obama and Oprah.

Rep wise I'm not sure who could go up against the orange one who isn't from 'the swamp'

Very true, 'USA USA USA' works as a distraction to some, but not others.

Yep, Dianne Abbott bad.

Oooooh hadn't considered them, although neither have political office experience do they? Similar 'outsider' vibe to take on Trump maybe.

There's still some time to find one, but maybe unlikely, so Trump it is.

[WTFH]

I think he's done OK on the jobs thing, the trade war with China is a bit of a gamble, wonder what that will produce if anything before 2020. Luckily for him the yanks are so isolated and indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks of them they'll just see him 'getting tough' and chant 'YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!'

OC's numbers are bad, really really bad... If she doesn't get some credible figures and solid ideas to back them up she'll get ripped to shreds. Another two possibilities are Michelle Obama and Oprah.

Rep wise I'm not sure who could go up against the orange one who isn't from 'the swamp'

He’s good at self publicity and manipulation.
Was his North Korea publicity successful or not?
Any swamp-draining he did, he replaced with his unqualified family, or his friends.
He runs the US on twitter, because that way he can ignore difficult questions.
His favourite tactic with difficult problems is distraction and blaming. (Sound familiar?)

[Jog On]

For him to be successful, he needs to fulfil a few of his election pledges and then just point them out during rallies.

The major problem OC has is funding for the activities she wants to implement - e.g. Healthcare to all will apparently cost ~$40 TRILLION

So the media and Trump will just ask, who, when & where will pay for that, given their total debt is ~$19 Trillion NOW and that one act would triple the entire debt!

So really, I think it'll be HC (vote for the 1st woman pres.) again, versus either Trump or some other rep. newcomer

I think he's done OK on the jobs thing, the trade war with China is a bit of a gamble, wonder what that will produce if anything before 2020. Luckily for him the yanks are so isolated and indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks of them they'll just see him 'getting tough' and chant 'YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!, YooEs-A!'

OC's numbers are bad, really really bad... If she doesn't get some credible figures and solid ideas to back them up she'll get ripped to shreds. Another two possibilities are Michelle Obama and Oprah.

Rep wise I'm not sure who could go up against the orange one who isn't from 'the swamp'

[Jog On]

I am fully aware she lied. I don't think she did it with corrupt intent.

Guess that works well for you then.

People aren't that bothered about misuse of an email server when nothing major came from it when compared to a corrupt administration that is partnering with banking execs and using the false embodiment of racial hatred to stir up tensions, because it can't just point to any major successes. Doing that, as head of a country, will cause repercussion for generations to come.

Trump won because he made a big deal out of HRC's corruption - partnering with all sorts of execs. As far as major successes go domestically they think he's doing a bang up job

As you're a bit thick: it's like you changing topic every time your client asks how your project is going and complaining about the lack of stationary when the reality is you aren't up to the job

Really?

It's not that 'we' don't see this truth you point out, it's that we don't really think it matters too much on the severity scale. Stirring up tensions as a president is 8/10 on the scale. Using a non-government email server (not 'personal', if you actually investigate the story fully) which doesn't contain too much sensitive information and is relatively minor, now corrected and no longer in use, is a 2/10.

No amount of talking down HRC's incompetence, corruptness and dishonesty will change the American public's view of her - she lost against Donald Trump - let that sink in...

If you're not gay, trans, poor and can live in isolation with a few people then it may not affect you

Really? OK - you keep banging that drum, please continue, seriously...

I've looked at your posts and...

Aah the old route through the trash campaign, how classy.

The main issue here is that there is no right answer to prove this to you.

So it's your opinion then. And anything else is 'fake news', which is the whole point of this thread. Glad we can agree on one thing

[Bean]

This will be an interesting election for sure then. Although I'm not sure any 'establishment' rep would fare well against Trump seeing as most of his voter base support him for being an outsider 'shaking things up'

If Ocasio-Cortez can polish up and get serious on issues it could get interesting...

For him to be successful, he needs to fulfil a few of his election pledges and then just point them out during rallies.

The major problem OC has is funding for the activities she wants to implement - e.g. Healthcare to all will apparently cost ~$40 TRILLION

So the media and Trump will just ask, who, when & where will pay for that, given their total debt is ~$19 Trillion NOW and that one act would triple the entire debt!

So really, I think it'll be HC (vote for the 1st woman pres.) again, versus either Trump or some other rep. newcomer

[Jog On]

Primaries again.

When Obama ran for a 2nd term, he was mostly unopposed in the primaries, which basically handed him the nomination on a platter.

This will be an interesting election for sure then. Although I'm not sure any 'establishment' rep would fare well against Trump seeing as most of his voter base support him for being an outsider 'shaking things up'

If Ocasio-Cortez can polish up and get serious on issues it could get interesting...

[Bean]

Your facile impotency knows no bounds.

I am fully aware she lied. I don't think she did it with corrupt intent. Most people don't work in IT and don't have any formation of idea how the hell messages get from one phone to another.

Your whataboutism is truly frightening. These matters are minor and worthy of a slap on the hand versus suggesting a known liar and narcissist is now the President. I dislike the Clintons, but the notion that they are roughly the same as the Trumps is ridiculous. The new administration is correctly viewed as joke internationally. How does placing fabricating amateurs into office cause the situation to be resolved?

People aren't that bothered about misuse of an email server when nothing major came from it when compared to a corrupt administration that is partnering with banking execs and using the false embodiment of racial hatred to stir up tensions, because it can't just point to any major successes. Doing that, as head of a country, will cause repercussion for generations to come.

As you're a bit thick: it's like you changing topic every time your client asks how your project is going and complaining about the lack of stationary when the reality is you aren't up to the job of doing the task in hand to a reasonable degree and therefore have to create distractions for the client to get angry about whilst you work out what the hell you are going to do.

It's not that 'we' don't see this truth you point out, it's that we don't really think it matters too much on the severity scale. Stirring up tensions as a president is 8/10 on the scale. Using a non-government email server (not 'personal', if you actually investigate the story fully) which doesn't contain too much sensitive information and is relatively minor, now corrected and no longer in use, is a 2/10.

Whilst you're shouting about all these minor matters there are major issues going on with the USA that could affect the country negatively for years to come.

If you're not gay, trans, poor and can live in isolation with a few people then it may not affect you; but it's good to recognise grievances and help to act on them with benevolence. That makes us human. I disagree with discrimination even though I've rarely experienced it.

I've looked at your posts and you seem to promote the idea that some random website has finally got the truth for you and all us plebs here are missing out on true facts. I'm afraid sometimes it's a duck because it looks like a duck - it's obvious from your change of tone over the years that you have been negatively affected by these fake news outlets.

The main issue here is that there is no right answer to prove this to you. You can easily do what the Trumps rely on: obfuscate and say 'what about this though?!' and distract from the question in hand. Don't sweat the small things. Focus on the big queries. Where is the USA heading? Where is the UK heading?

You remind me of being in a middle eastern country and having clerics telling me that they had found information about the Americans on the internet. It concretely showed the US is entirely run by FreeMasons. This is now you. Where can someone even begin to explain what's wrong with your analytical process when it's so deeply entrenched?

Bless....in your haste to hate, you've conflated JogOn & myself.

Newsflash: We are not the same person or poster

Also, part of the job is reading all those rules and regulations that regard your job and abiding by them, as terms of your continued employment. Therefore, by having classified email on a 'non-governmental' server and then lying about it (I believe with ill intent - oh look, a dissenting view from your own) - disciplinary action should have been taken, as Gowdy suggests it's inconceivable none was taken.

People voted for Trump and the EC gave him the keys and no amount of crying will change that. He has a team behind him and as others have said in other threads, quite often 'the other side' (e.g. Labour voters in England) have to just lap up the results that they don't like. Same in the USA.

PS. I don't think (happy to be corrected by screengrab or link) I have posted links from ZeroHedge (which I assume your verbal diarrhea was directed at) - that's JogOn.

PPS. The senate seemed bothered enough to have a hearing about all this.

#YouAreStillTriggered
#KeepTheAdHomsComing

[contractorinatractor]

I bet you didn't even watch the two youtube videos posted did you?

S1: Clinton said NO classified emails stored on personal servers - FALSE (This alone is enough for disciplinary action btw, which you'd know if you watched the vids)
S2: Clinton said all emails were handed over - FALSE
S3: Clinton said personal server was 'signed-off'(authorised) - FALSE
and therefore she lied under oath

...and those are just some of problems with her 'sworn testimony'

So just to be clear, you're ignoring the fact that multiple senators (inc. Gowdy) found there were serious issues with her testimony and 'facts' (see above), and instead focus on posting some ad-hominems directed to JogOn & myself?
(Well, THAT certainly is a 'worthy endeavour' of some 'smart folk' ain't it? )

Clearly, you are very triggered.

Add me to your ignore list, but it won't stop you from being wrong.

Your facile impotency knows no bounds.

I am fully aware she lied. I don't think she did it with corrupt intent. Most people don't work in IT and don't have any formation of idea how the hell messages get from one phone to another.

Your whataboutism is truly frightening. These matters are minor and worthy of a slap on the hand versus suggesting a known liar and narcissist is now the President. I dislike the Clintons, but the notion that they are roughly the same as the Trumps is ridiculous. The new administration is correctly viewed as joke internationally. How does placing fabricating amateurs into office cause the situation to be resolved?

People aren't that bothered about misuse of an email server when nothing major came from it when compared to a corrupt administration that is partnering with banking execs and using the false embodiment of racial hatred to stir up tensions, because it can't just point to any major successes. Doing that, as head of a country, will cause repercussion for generations to come.

As you're a bit thick: it's like you changing topic every time your client asks how your project is going and complaining about the lack of stationary when the reality is you aren't up to the job of doing the task in hand to a reasonable degree and therefore have to create distractions for the client to get angry about whilst you work out what the hell you are going to do.

It's not that 'we' don't see this truth you point out, it's that we don't really think it matters too much on the severity scale. Stirring up tensions as a president is 8/10 on the scale. Using a non-government email server (not 'personal', if you actually investigate the story fully) which doesn't contain too much sensitive information and is relatively minor, now corrected and no longer in use, is a 2/10.

Whilst you're shouting about all these minor matters there are major issues going on with the USA that could affect the country negatively for years to come.

If you're not gay, trans, poor and can live in isolation with a few people then it may not affect you; but it's good to recognise grievances and help to act on them with benevolence. That makes us human. I disagree with discrimination even though I've rarely experienced it.

I've looked at your posts and you seem to promote the idea that some random website has finally got the truth for you and all us plebs here are missing out on true facts. I'm afraid sometimes it's a duck because it looks like a duck - it's obvious from your change of tone over the years that you have been negatively affected by these fake news outlets.

The main issue here is that there is no right answer to prove this to you. You can easily do what the Trumps rely on: obfuscate and say 'what about this though?!' and distract from the question in hand. Don't sweat the small things. Focus on the big queries. Where is the USA heading? Where is the UK heading?

You remind me of being in a middle eastern country and having clerics telling me that they had found information about the Americans on the internet. It concretely showed the US is entirely run by FreeMasons. This is now you. Where can someone even begin to explain what's wrong with your analytical process when it's so deeply entrenched?

[Bean]

Will be an interesting one. Also does Trump automatically get the rep nomination or does he have to go through primaries again opening up the possibility of a better rep nominee?

Primaries again.

When Obama ran for a 2nd term, he was mostly unopposed in the primaries, which basically handed him the nomination on a platter.

[Jog On]

Exactly......

if the choice is between 2 women, then she will have no real advantage over her, other than prior State Department experience.

If she goes up against a man, she may win purely based on the whole 'first woman president' mantra she was initiating last time around.

I think they will stick with identity politics, as Trump will be in the office until then, so BAU for snowflakes.

Will be an interesting one. Also does Trump automatically get the rep nomination or does he have to go through primaries again opening up the possibility of a better rep nominee?