smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Damn, this is great news, actually unbelievable and he is just President-Elect.

Trump Announces Sprint Agreement to Invest $50 Billion in US and Create 50,000 Jobs

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday that the Tokyo-based parent company of Sprint Corp. has agreed to invest $50 billion and create 50,000 jobs in the United States.

Trump made the remarks standing beside Masayoshi Son, who is chairman of Sprint and CEO of SoftBank Group Corp. that owns more than 80 percent of Sprint. The Overland Park-based wireless carrier was not mentioned in a brief video of Trump’s comments that ABC posted on Twitter.

Do you honestly think that before the election they weren't going to do that, and it was only after speaking to Trump for an hour, they just suddenly decided to do it?! Is that how you think businesses are run?!

Same was undoubtedly true with the Carrier deal, which was probably initiated by Pence.

Not sure why anyone would take anything Trump says without a gigantic grain of salt...

Softbank and the Saudis created an investment company in early October.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-softbank-trump-20161206-story.html

Financial details about Son's commitment and its time frame remain unclear. SoftBank and T-Mobile did not answer emailed questions. Sprint spokesman Dave Tovar referred questions to SoftBank. Foxconn, a tech manufacturer that makes iPhones for Apple in China, also did not answer questions. Its logo was next to SoftBank's on a piece of paper Son carried.

Sprint has struggled since SoftBank acquired it in 2013. The carrier's attempt to join with rival T-Mobile failed in 2014 after regulators objected to combining two of the four largest mobile telecom companies in the United States. T-Mobile has surpassed Sprint to become the No. 3 carrier, while Sprint has struggled with cost cuts and layoffs. (AT&T and Verizon are the largest wireless carriers.)

Analysts have predicted, however, that a Trump-led Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission would be more likely to allow telecom mergers, including a deal between Sprint and T-Mobile. T-Mobile has 50,000 employees and a stock market value of $46 billion — but the similarities between those numbers and Son's commitment could just be a coincidence.

In October, SoftBank announced that it would establish a $25-billion fund for technology investments that could grow to $100 billion. SoftBank said it signed an agreement with a fund run by the government of Saudi Arabia and other investors.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-news-survey?utm_term=.gjYmE2QmXM#.abYLqw3LWk

The survey found that those who identify as Republican are more likely to view fake election news stories as very or somewhat accurate. Roughly 84% of the time, Republicans rated fake news headlines as accurate (among those they recognized), compared to a rate of 71% among Democrats. The survey also found that Trump voters are more likely to rate familiar fake news headlines as accurate than Clinton voters.
Top Fake News Headlines

In the survey, respondents were shown a random selection of six headlines — three true and three false — related to the election. Those six were drawn from a list of 11 headlines gathered largely from a BuzzFeed News analysis that compared the top-performing fake election news articles on Facebook to the the top-performing real election news articles on Facebook. Of the 11 headlines tested, five were false and six were true.

Respondents who said they recalled the story in question were then asked to rate the claim in the headline as “very accurate,” “somewhat accurate,” “not very accurate,” or “not at all accurate.”

Real news headlines received a higher overall accuracy rating than fake news. The respondents made 1,516 judgments about fake news headlines they’d recalled seeing or hearing about; 75% of the time, they thought those headlines were “somewhat” or “very” accurate. By comparison, they considered 83% of real news headlines to be accurate, based on 2,619 judgments.

Of the people surveyed, nearly 33% recalled seeing at least one of a selection of fake news headlines from the election. That compared to 57% of respondents who recalled seeing at least one of the real news headlines tested in the survey.

The fake news headline recalled by the largest number of respondents is the story from hoax website the Denver Guardian, “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide.” Twenty-two percent of respondents people said they recalled seeing it.

The real news headline with the highest recall is a post-election CBS News story about Donald Trump saying he will not accept a presidential salary, “Donald Trump on Refusing Presidential Salary: ‘I’m Not Taking It.’” It was recalled by 57% of the 1,507 people shown the headline in the survey.

The fake news headline with the highest overall accuracy rating from respondents is “FBI Director Comey Just Put a Trump Sign on His Front Lawn.” Of the 186 people who recalled seeing it, 81% said it was very or somewhat accurate. (Go here to read a debunking of that claim.)

A false headline claiming a man was paid $3,500 to protest at a Trump rally also received a high accuracy rating, with 79% of the 348 respondents who recalled seeing it saying it was very or somewhat accurate.

One contributing factor to its spread is that the story was tweeted by Eric Trump, by former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and even by Kellyanne Conway, the Trump campaign manager who led him to victory. (Conway later deleted her tweet.)

The two real headlines with the highest accuracy ratings from those who recalled seeing them were the the New York Times op-ed “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” with a 90% accuracy rating (among the 157 respondents who recognized the headline). A CBS News story about Donald Trump saying he will not accept a salary as president was also rated as very or somewhat accurate by 90% of the 860 respondents who recognized it.

Clinton Versus Trump Voters

People who say they voted for Hillary Clinton were less likely than Trump voters to view the claims made in these fake headlines as accurate, according to the survey. This may be partly due to the fact that the majority of top-performing fake news stories about the election on Facebook had a decidedly pro-Trump or anti-Clinton bent. However, it’s notable that a majority of Clinton voters still believed the fake news stories to be very or somewhat accurate.

On average, Clinton voters judged 58% of familiar fake news headlines as accurate, versus 86% for Trump voters. (These percentages are based on 434 judgments by Clinton voters and 634 judgments by Trump voters.)

A fake story about the pope endorsing Trump was seen as accurate by 46% of Clinton voters compared to 75% of Trump voters. The hoax about an FBI agent connected to a Clinton investigation being found dead was seen as accurate by 52% of Clinton voters and 85% of Trump voters.

Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth college who conducts research into political misinformation, reviewed the data and said he is surprised by the high percentage of Democrats who rated the pro-Trump stories as very or somewhat accurate.

“It’s especially striking that both Democrats and Republicans think the stories are accurate in many cases,” said Nyhan. “Even partisan-motivated reasoning — which we might expect to make people question fake news that is harmful to their candidate — does not appear to protect people from believing in it.”

Trump voters in particular gave a high accuracy rating to a story that falsely claimed he had sent his own plane to fly 200 US Marines home. That claim, which was debunked by the Washington Post, was given a boost in awareness when the website of Fox News host Sean Hannity reported it and Trump’s campaign said it was true.

Scrambling for an explanation for Donald Trump’s victory, many in the media and on the left have settled on the idea that his supporters were consumers of “fake news” — gullible rubes living in an alternate reality made Trump president.

To be sure, there is such a thing as actual fake news: made-up stories built to get Facebook traction before they can be debunked. But that’s not what’s really going on here.

What the left is trying to do is designate anything outside its ideological bubble as suspect on its face.

In October, President Obama complained that we need a “curating function” to deal with the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Who would be doing this “curating” is unclear — but we can guess: “Obviously,” Noah Feldman writes at Bloomberg View, “it would be better if the market would fix the problem on its own . . . But if they can’t reliably do it — and that seems possible, since algorithms aren’t (yet) fact-checkers — there might be a need for the state to step in.”

In other words, censorship. And whom might the government look to target in this crackdown? In an interview with Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone last week, Obama said again that “The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources.” Uh-oh.

Seemingly with a straight face, Obama then told Wenner: “Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone.” Rolling Stone, of course, ran a sensational, and false, story last year about a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity that was thoroughly discredited. The magazine was forced to pay a university administrator it defamed $3 million in damages, and there may be more lawsuits in store. “Good journalism” and Rolling Stone do not go hand in hand.

And then Obama removed all doubt. He blamed Trump’s win in part on “Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

But of course, the fake-news problem goes both ways — and illustrates what’s really on the left’s mind.

Last week, the Guardian ran a column ostensibly written by a liberal man who had fallen down the online rabbit hole of the alt-right and, just like that, found himself becoming a racist.

“I just passively consumed it, because, deep down, I knew I was ashamed of what I was doing,” the author writes. “I’d started to roll my eyes when my friends talked about liberal, progressive things. What was wrong with them? Did they not understand what being a real liberal was? All my friends were just SJWs. They didn’t know that free speech was under threat and that politically correct culture and censorship were the true problem.”

It was the subject, naturally, of praise across the online left. It confirmed their deepest suspicions. It was almost too good to be true.

And it probably was. Godfrey Elwick, a Twitter personality whose bio describes him as a “Genderqueer Muslim atheist who prefers to be called ‘Xir, Xirs Xirself,’” has claimed credit for the hoax. He has been posting what he says is evidence that he wrote it, including time-stamped drafts.

Whether the piece is real or not, it exposes a bigger problem. The point of the column is that if you consume information with which you disagree, you will become brainwashed and eventually someone you don’t recognize. Better not to take that chance! We joke about safe spaces, but the Guardian took seriously the idea that we need to create a safe space for ourselves where no alternative opinions can enter, lest we find that we are unable to digest unapproved thoughts without becoming a monster.

And that’s what the push against “fake news” is really all about. It’s a way to marginalize all nonliberal voices and blur the lines between viral sites pushing questionable content and reliable outlets with which we may just disagree. Obama wants you to think the one major cable network consistently critical of him is brainwashing the population by beaming its talking points into bargoers’ pints.

An echo chamber like the one pushed in the anonymous Guardian piece is much more of a problem in news consumption than inaccurate information. The more “curated” the media becomes, the less likely we are to hear opposing viewpoints and to have ours challenged. That’s a bug, not a feature.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-war-on-fake-news-is-all-about-censoring-real-news/

WaltLongmire wrote:This is one of the most significant little studies to come from this election. (I did not put a large part of the article into this post)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/fake-news-survey?utm_term=.gjYmE2QmXM#.abYLqw3LWk

The survey found that those who identify as Republican are more likely to view fake election news stories as very or somewhat accurate. Roughly 84% of the time, Republicans rated fake news headlines as accurate (among those they recognized), compared to a rate of 71% among Democrats. The survey also found that Trump voters are more likely to rate familiar fake news headlines as accurate than Clinton voters.
Top Fake News Headlines

In the survey, respondents were shown a random selection of six headlines — three true and three false — related to the election. Those six were drawn from a list of 11 headlines gathered largely from a BuzzFeed News analysis that compared the top-performing fake election news articles on Facebook to the the top-performing real election news articles on Facebook. Of the 11 headlines tested, five were false and six were true.

Respondents who said they recalled the story in question were then asked to rate the claim in the headline as “very accurate,” “somewhat accurate,” “not very accurate,” or “not at all accurate.”

Real news headlines received a higher overall accuracy rating than fake news. The respondents made 1,516 judgments about fake news headlines they’d recalled seeing or hearing about; 75% of the time, they thought those headlines were “somewhat” or “very” accurate. By comparison, they considered 83% of real news headlines to be accurate, based on 2,619 judgments.

Of the people surveyed, nearly 33% recalled seeing at least one of a selection of fake news headlines from the election. That compared to 57% of respondents who recalled seeing at least one of the real news headlines tested in the survey.

The fake news headline recalled by the largest number of respondents is the story from hoax website the Denver Guardian, “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide.” Twenty-two percent of respondents people said they recalled seeing it.

The real news headline with the highest recall is a post-election CBS News story about Donald Trump saying he will not accept a presidential salary, “Donald Trump on Refusing Presidential Salary: ‘I’m Not Taking It.’” It was recalled by 57% of the 1,507 people shown the headline in the survey.

The fake news headline with the highest overall accuracy rating from respondents is “FBI Director Comey Just Put a Trump Sign on His Front Lawn.” Of the 186 people who recalled seeing it, 81% said it was very or somewhat accurate. (Go here to read a debunking of that claim.)

A false headline claiming a man was paid $3,500 to protest at a Trump rally also received a high accuracy rating, with 79% of the 348 respondents who recalled seeing it saying it was very or somewhat accurate.

One contributing factor to its spread is that the story was tweeted by Eric Trump, by former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, and even by Kellyanne Conway, the Trump campaign manager who led him to victory. (Conway later deleted her tweet.)

The two real headlines with the highest accuracy ratings from those who recalled seeing them were the the New York Times op-ed “I Ran the CIA. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” with a 90% accuracy rating (among the 157 respondents who recognized the headline). A CBS News story about Donald Trump saying he will not accept a salary as president was also rated as very or somewhat accurate by 90% of the 860 respondents who recognized it.

Clinton Versus Trump Voters

People who say they voted for Hillary Clinton were less likely than Trump voters to view the claims made in these fake headlines as accurate, according to the survey. This may be partly due to the fact that the majority of top-performing fake news stories about the election on Facebook had a decidedly pro-Trump or anti-Clinton bent. However, it’s notable that a majority of Clinton voters still believed the fake news stories to be very or somewhat accurate.

On average, Clinton voters judged 58% of familiar fake news headlines as accurate, versus 86% for Trump voters. (These percentages are based on 434 judgments by Clinton voters and 634 judgments by Trump voters.)

A fake story about the pope endorsing Trump was seen as accurate by 46% of Clinton voters compared to 75% of Trump voters. The hoax about an FBI agent connected to a Clinton investigation being found dead was seen as accurate by 52% of Clinton voters and 85% of Trump voters.

Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth college who conducts research into political misinformation, reviewed the data and said he is surprised by the high percentage of Democrats who rated the pro-Trump stories as very or somewhat accurate.

“It’s especially striking that both Democrats and Republicans think the stories are accurate in many cases,” said Nyhan. “Even partisan-motivated reasoning — which we might expect to make people question fake news that is harmful to their candidate — does not appear to protect people from believing in it.”

Trump voters in particular gave a high accuracy rating to a story that falsely claimed he had sent his own plane to fly 200 US Marines home. That claim, which was debunked by the Washington Post, was given a boost in awareness when the website of Fox News host Sean Hannity reported it and Trump’s campaign said it was true.

Come on Walt--every single day you turn on the head of Yahoo and there were 10 negatives Trump ads on the hour. It was embarrassing how bad the media was. Again there is a lot more to this country than wealthy people from New England and California. I'm sorry but Robert Dinero Madonna Lebron James Miley Cyrus and the whole darn posse dont give a rattttts arse about the middle class. And worse theyre ALL disrespectful crybabies. I know this is taken out of context but it was the most prescient and intelligent comments from all of the pre election BS

BRIGGS wrote:The people who wanted free speech 250 years ago certainly did mean for it to be interpreted that you can burn a flag.

let's not go down the "interpretation" road b/c nothing good can come from it.

in terms of flag burning - i am opposed to it BUT with that said, what is it really? the flag is just an object - just like a lebron jersey. burning it, while it might be a fire hazard, is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that doesn't hurt anybody. imho, there's no difference between burning the flag and holding up a sign saying "DRAIN THE SWAMP" - they are just forms of expression from people that don't like how the government of the country is behaving. love it or leave it - great slogan - just 100% unrealistic.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I honestly can't talk about this anymore. I'm not allowed.

EMS, you are acting like a child on this. If you don't understand or can't act like an adult, I'll ask you to not post in this thread any more.

I'd like to keep this to real political conversion, not hearsay and innuendo as you have been spamming this thread with.

Thanks.

Martin, can you state your point without name calling? What you said isn't a big deal, but I'm attacked again and again and you do nothing. You are a mod too right?
I mean you mod me, but I haven't seen you mod Hillary supporters. And comparatively, I'm friendly compared to the people attacking me, name calling, etc.

Basically, if MSM didn't say it, it can't go in this thread. And that basically means, this is a pro Hillary thread, as the media is mostly behind her and mostly against Trump. Yet the vote was basically 50 50.

I've been told not to post Pics and sometimes Twitters, but Walt can do that and not a word is said. I get called a racist because I want a stronger border policy
and nothing was said to that person by you. (And I cleared things up by saying my Grandfather was from Syria, not a peep after that.)

This thread reflects what I see in the news. There is all this name calling by Hillary supporters against Trump supporters (e.g. being racist, prejudiced, etc.)and yet that is what is being done to us.

BTW - I will stop posting about PizzaGate (until MSM picks it up and it becomes political).

No, he's saying that only substantiated sources should be posted here. If you have a source that fails basic fact-checking or a source that you're not willing to defend, it shouldn't be here. It just drags the forum down. I think it would be a better forum and better thread if people were careful with what they posted and at least did a decent investigation into the accuracy of their claims before posting, especially when the source is making a serious charge against a political figure. It is a worse forum if anything negative that's found on the internet gets posted here. The same standard should apply for CNN, MSNBC, or any other Fox Sources and should apply for anything critical of Trump.

The war on ‘fake news’ is all about censoring real news
http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/the-war-on-fake-news-is-all-about-censoring-real-news/

Plenty of things that aren't MSM have been posted here without difficulty. I've put a ton of 538 articles on this forum, and they're definitely not mainstream. (They challenge the MSM's lack of statistical sophistication and have non-conventional views of sports, politics, and many other topics.)

It is probably best to let Martin answer Martin's ? And have you seen some of the stuff Walt posted? Talk about substantiated, lol. Seriously. There are two standards here, probably due to the numbers.

Since my last post there were 12 news posts, give or take. I think they are all either anti Trump or "correcting the record" (mine). Look further into this thread and the last thread, like 80% pro Hillary / Anti-Trump. Without my posts there would be about 2 other people pro Trump.

I realize the occasional non MSM can be linked. But this thread is basically against Trump (outside of the occasional political story), with special attention paid to anything positive for him and primarily what the MSM mouthpiece says.

And apparently you all feel good about confirming your opinions with each other and it is backed up by a corrupt MSM. e.g. Bezos owns Wash Post, Trump bad for Amazon, Wash Post against Trump. Same is true for the other MSM orgs.( Amazon will lose money under Trump and Trump has mentioned anti-trust issues with Amazon.) We can't have businesses owning MSM. We can't have a neutral MSM when they are for profit corps.

I went with MSM posts for a bit and those were attacked as well. I'm not talking alt news here or even anything sensational. Your normal run of the mill MSM, though it was difficult to find anything
positive on Trump, much easier to find things against Hillary. But they were factual, just didn't match the consensus narrative here. It is just about opinion but you make
it out to be about "fact" as you have the numbers. So, fact is not fact, it is numbers as there are many perspectives here but the group mentality sets the rules.

Enjoy the sanctuary of this thread, but Hillary lost, and Trump is our new President. I'm gonna give him a chance.

I haven't had time to respond to your original but I lean very heavily towards what Bonny is saying.

Also, in regards to your skepticism of MSM, Bezos owning the Washington post, why do you keep citing NYPost or Fox? They are MSM entities that are own by a media mogul? Have for longer than Washington Post.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/806347001147244544

lol

The election of Donald Trump emboldened majority Republicans in the Ohio General Assembly to pass the strictest abortion law in the nation Tuesday.

In a surprise move in the final days of the lame-duck session, the Senate and House adopted the Heartbeat Bill — long sought by some abortion opponents — to outlaw abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, generally about six weeks into pregnancy.

Previous attempts to pass the bill failed over concerns that it would be ruled unconstitutional in the federal courts, as have similar laws in two other states.

"A new president, new Supreme Court appointees change the dynamic, and there was consensus in our caucus to move forward," said Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, when asked why the measure suddenly surfaced to the shock of objecting Democrats.

"I think it has a better chance than it did before," Faber said of the bill's chances of surviving a constitutional review by the courts.

Ohio Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Kathy DiCristofaro said "this bill — which was tacked on as a last-minute amendment to a child abuse prevention bill — makes no exceptions for rape or incest victims. It is cruel and plainly unconstitutional — but it seems like Ohio Republicans don’t care about the Constitution. Trump’s vision for America is already alive and well in the Buckeye State."

Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action who has pushed for passage of the bill for years, sometimes with harsh tactics including protests at members' homes, said, "it’s a brand-new day with a Trump-appointed Supreme Court and we are very hopeful … we will see babies with beating hearts protected again."

In the Senate, Faber engineered passage of the Heartbeat Bill by a 21-10 vote after it was added to an unrelated House-passed bill. House Bill 493 then returned to the House Tuesday night where representatives held an emotional debate and voted 56-39 accept Senate amendments. In past years, the House has twice approved the ban, but it failed to clear the Senate.

With both sides using personal stories and observations, Republicans argued for saving lives, while Democrats argued to protect the sovereignty of a woman’s body.

Sen. Kris Jordan, R-Ostrander, introduced the amendment in the Senate, saying, "This is just flat out the right thing to do. It affords the most important liberty of all – the opportunity to live."

The vote came over the protests of minority Senate Democrats, whose objections were repeatedly turned aside by Faber.

Sen. Minority Leader Joe Schiavoni, D-Boardman, said the amendment violated Senate rules by not being filed in a timely manner prior to session. Schiavoni predicted any such law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected will be found unconstitutional.

The bill would make it a fifth-degree felony, punishable by up to one year in prison, for a physician to perform an abortion without checking for a fetal heartbeat or performing the procedure after it can be detected. The doctor also could face a civil lawsuit from the mother and disciplinary action.

While several states have considered fetal heartbeat abortion bans, only two passed it, Arkansas and North Dakota. The laws in both states were later found to be unconstitutional by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and declared illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals.

Officials of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio were stunned. The group issued a statement saying, "The unconstitutional six-week abortion ban, known as the 'Heartbeat Bill,' would block access to safe and legal abortion before most women even know they’re pregnant. The amendment has no exceptions in the bill for rape, incest, or to protect the health of the woman and would criminalize doctors who perform abortion procedures, regardless of the reason."

Executive Director Kellie Copeland added, "Clearly this bill’s supporters are hoping that President-elect Trump will have the chance to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with justices poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade. We must prevent that from happening to protect women’s lives."

Prior to the House vote, Emmalee Kalmbach, spokeswoman for Gov. John Kasich, declined to comment on the bill. However, Kasich said on several occasions in the past two years he opposed the Heartbeat Bill, primarily because of constitutional concerns. The governor could line-item veto the abortion language since it contains a $100,000 appropriation to create the Joint Legislative Committee on Adoption Promotion.

Ohio Right to Life President Michael Gonidakis said his organization is neutral on the bill and has been pushing for separate legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which was added last-minute to a House committee Tuesday and also could get a vote this week.

"Our ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and we feel the 20-week ban is the best (legal) strategy," he said. "There is a reason no other state has a Heartbeat Bill."

Supporting the bill marks a change in stance for Faber. In February 2015, Faber questioned why, if the Heartbeat Bill is unlikely to be upheld by the courts, lawmakers would pass a bill waiting six weeks to prohibit abortion instead of just banning it outright.

"If life begins at conception, then why are you picking a date where it’s OK to kill babies?" Faber said in 2015.

In the Senate, Republicans Bill Coley of West Chester, Gayle Manning of North Ridgeville and Bill Seitz of Cincinnati joined all Democrats in voting against the amendment. Coley said it will waste millions in taxpayer dollars on legal fees for a bill with no chance of becoming law.

Seven House Republicans voted against the measure, including Reps. Mike Duffey of Worthington, Cheryl Grossman of Grove City and Stephanie Kunze of Hilliard.

About 30 peaceful protestors demonstrated outside the Governor's Residence in Bexley Tuesday night in opposition to the bill.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/06/ohio-senate-passes-heartbeat-bill.html