holfresh wrote:Reuters said Trump settles his Trump University fraud case for 25 million..

when it comes to business...this guy is as good as it gets.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:So the proof that Clinton rigged the polls is that she lost, and that she hasn't asked for a recount.

I've heard it all now.

No, more this regarding the fraud:

Expert of voter fraud in Bev Harris says Hillary tried to steal election but lost. Start at 3:30 mark:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is5GrQwevhg
Votes were held back in Detroit, Wisconson, Michigan and Milwaukee, PE, and a bit more.
13% of illegals admit they vote, and quite a few were caught this election. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/poll-13-of-illegal-aliens-admit-they-vote/
Soros connected to voting machine in 16 States.
5 or so States are still not releasing the scanned images of the ballots as required by law. (Indiana, Virginia, Washington st., Utah, Kansas)
There is evidence Hillary Stole 5 States but still lost (and yeah, MSM is dying now -The NY Times have issued and apology for their coverage)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqZvzGZuCo

I asked you if you were illegal on a sports site hidden behind anonymity and you basically accused me of being reckless and asked me why would you incriminate yourself like that and if I was a cop?

So I don't understand this 13% of illegals vote stat. What does it have to do with the 2016 presidential election? The figure assumes you first of all know the number of illegals to begin with, and then these illegals are admitting to pollsters that they not only are here illegally but voted illegally on top of that? I don't get why they would even do that.

The URL you posted refers to this article from the Daily Signal where he asserts this 13% figure: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/poll-shows-noncitizens-can-shape-elections/

In that article there is a link to the poll: http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Hispanic_Presentation_06-21-13_-_FOR_RELEASE.pdf The methodology of this poll says: "This bi-lingual national survey of 800 Hispanics was conducted from June 5th through June 16th, 2013."

As I've said before, I'm not a stats guy. But I don't understand how the Daily Signal writer is getting this 13% figure. Can you look through that poll data and show me how he's getting that?

So to recap: I'm not sure how an article from 2015 about a poll from 2013 of 800 people can lead you to say with confidence "13% of illegals admit they vote". Because of what 800 Hispanics said on the phone to someone in 2013?

You know that "illegal immigrants" isn't synonymous with "Hispanics".

I'm honestly confused. Help me out earthmansurfer.

I've had too many people in this thread suddenly get friendly and then try to corner me, lol. It started getting old and then you ask me if I'm here legally? lol, seriously?
Hidden behind anonymity? They have my email. I'm not on TOR. Childs play easy; I think you know that...

The point with that article was that if they voted in the past (and since some were caught this last election - Was a video feed on the news online though I don't know which one now, it was live.) that it is likely to continue. There are many many articles out there on illegals voting. I'm not going to do stats now as it is bedtime.

Another quote, but different article and also from the past(but there are many many more.) If it is a concern to you, really, just do a search, the result list is long.

In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

The big deal is Bev Harris and the voting machines. Even though it is Alex Jones interviewing her, as I told Martin, listen to her words. Don't let the Alex part stop the message. This is a bit of a problem with Mainstream, they have certain boundries due to their deep ties with the establishment. Some things they won't touch till they have to.

So you didn't answer my questions about that 13% stat. I can't figure how a poll of 800 Hispanics in 2013 gives you any insight on the illegal immigrant population as a whole. Do you still want to stand behind it? I'm not going to waste my time following your links until you answer what I think are fair queries about that 13% stat. Did you even take the time to glance at the poll data like I did?

You want me to go through a 63 page study and answer a question for you? I'm not a stats guy either. That stuff burns me out. The original article makes sense and is not anything really shocking. They extrapolated out, is all it looks like, regarding polling 800 hispanics in 2013 and applying it to a larger sample. If you want answers on stats, really, ask a stats guy.

If you want your standard of judging me and my posts, to be based on that one article, that is fine. No offense taken.

The original article didn't make that much sense to me. It made sense to you because of confirmation bias.

A 2013 poll of 800 Hispanics can't tell you about illegal alien population patterns as a whole because not all undocumented aliens are Hispanics. You don't need to be a stats guy to figure that out.

You should spend more time reading studies and original research. Why cite something if you aren't going to stand behind it when questioned?

You are just on to the next tweets in your timeline to feed your confirmation bias.

+1 on both points. EMS, you seem to just post anything good your hear about Trump and anything bad you hear about Clinton or Obama. You don't seem to care if it's accurate or not. The problem is that anyone can write anything on Twitter or other internet sites. You will find a virtually infinite number of negative tweets about any national political figure. Don't you want your beliefs to be shaped by *accurate* information?

Wow, the Clergy agreeing with the preacher, should I be offended?

I tried talking about Trumps policies but no one wanted to actually discuss going forward, most people just posted negative stuff against Trump.
Some things might be true, some false. Just like MSM and I can't fact check every little thing but I do read the articles I post. Other things are tongue in cheek.
You reap what you sow.

I think "preaching to the choir" is the idiom you are grasping for.

We reap what we sow...

So you are punishing U.K. posters for the sins of the mainstream media by posting crappy articles that reference Heritage Foundation funded hit jobs that reference polls funded by wineries in 2013 to help explain how illegal aliens (i.e. Hispanics) and George Soros are corrupting the vote in 2016? But regardless of this widespread corruption, we should all accept the result and marvel in the prowess of the President-Elect.

The MSM traffics in BS to your mind, and you are gonna give as good as you got it. But when I challenge one of your claims to fact, I've missed the bigger point based on the aforementioned "fact", or need to do my own research and find some other click farm article based on the same shoddy assumptions... and failing that, you can't actually be bothered to answer the question, and can't ever say "wow I didn't notice that, you are right" so you'll say it was a joke or bombard us with cute memes from Reddit that made you chuckle in your other browser tab. Because mainstream media!

Anyway... have fun with all that. Say hi to Clint Eastwood for us.

To BRIGGS' original observation of Where (was) Hillary... a critique from the far left:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/799654875109949440

LOL, I know "Preaching to the choir" but I was being creative. Give another credit.

LOL, Really, you got me laughing out loud. Man, I don't want to punish UK posters! Really, I wanted to look deeper into things and for a time I felt like a Hillary antagonist (in part because of the Trump bashing) and then I thought to start looking at what Trump was saying. Was actually implied by someone here to me and I took that advice to heart, so to speak. When I looked into a lot of Trump, I felt hope, like there was a chance. We need a big change, we are in a rough situation in many peoples minds.

IT is like the Collective conscience (or the like) is doing something. The Brexit, the problems in the EU, banking crisis all over, Trump victory and all the intense things happening in the world lately. I can't chalk this Trump thing up to chance. We "had this coming". The corruption was just getting too heavy. I have no evidence of it, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear that the CIA leaked those emails to Wikileaks to save the country from what they saw as a danger. I mean those weeks up to the election were like Watergate. That was intense for everyone, like a soap opera.

But no, I honestly was not trying to give bull****. No way. I may have my moments like any human of not being... at the top of my game, but I don't intentionally lie. To find an article, read it and get something useful from it is nice. Then to read what people are saying and look at the different opinions. I did that on Reddit and got to experience Hillaries "Correct the Record" take place on the r/politics sub forum. (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/) Correct the Record literally changes things to their narrative if need be and targets Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.

That was when it hit me, how much of an influence the political system can have on information. If you care to there are tons of stories on this, but I experienced it, more blatantly than one can imagine. New moderators were deleting anything anti-Hillary or pro-Trump. I mean to the point where the front page was ALL pro Hillary and Anti trump. The stats showed that forum had more deleted posts than any other on reddit subforum. That was/is a well funded social campaign and it is admitted to. It is a Super Pac driven thing. That experience was a turning point. They literally closed down politics forum (Reddit is the #3 largest social site behind Facebook and Youtube).

I think this time right now will go down big in American History, perhaps beautifully or not. Whomever came in right now has to take over a huge debt and a broken economy and a kind of or almost insolvent banking system (lol). Just seems like we are in a special time, I don't lost sight of that. Through the arguing/talks, it seems like something much much bigger is going on and we all are in the middle of it. I honestly feel, as do many others, relieved that we avoided war, a big one.

I get that you are excited about the possibilities of Trump. I understand your issues with Reddit moderation and don't doubt Clinton supporters would do some heavy-handed nonsense like that. Remember, I supported Sanders.

By the way, you know Reddit is owned by Advance Publications, the same company that owns the Staten Island Advance and Conde Nast — Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, etc. I reckon Reddit is itself part of the mainstream media.

The Daily Signal was created in 2014 by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing DC think tank. Its bias was evident in that 13% article. That Daily Signal article seems legit — like your MSM tactic — linking to that poll while referencing "13%" — but he doesn't show how he got that data, and does he have to? Is any average Joe or Jill Reader really going to go through 60-something pages of charts to figure out how this guy came up with it? Then that article gets referred to by another article, and that article gets tweeted or put on Facebook and Reddit with a headline that doesn't have anything to do with the poll it is now 4 degrees away from.

UK however is a passion project by average citizens. You don't have to be the Trump version of Correct the Record with us.

You really don't seem to be taking my critique to heart. It's not about you not being "at the top of [your] game". It's obvious you have a serious confirmation bias. Sure, most everyone suffers from it, I have one as well. But we should all struggle against it and try to have a critical eye to all sorts of information, especially when using it in arguments and discussions. That 13% I keep harping about I'm sure you see as just one cracked brick, and you want me to look at the whole house — the "big picture". I'm saying maybe your house is built with a bunch of cracked bricks and has a faulty foundation.

Equating "Hispanics" with "immigrants" and extrapolating 800 people into representing a population no one even knows the real number of reveals some very poor thinking and bad assumptions. An occasional occurrence or the very foundation of your beliefs? That's for you to examine.

I get your point and appreciate it. And points taken on the survey.

What you said about Reddit is really interesting. Right in the heartland of NY/Clinton. Nice separation between CTR and Reddit, but they obviously have the same goal, just throw in a little Super Pac. I knew a company owned them but oddly enough, with all the criticism about CTR and what not there, they NEVER talk about the parent companies. Really, I never came across it. I imagine you know Aaron Schwarz was a co-owner? Talk about ironic, he never would have let this happen, not from the sale (imo) to this takeover by CTR (only on certain forums that I've seen). Guess he got pushed to suicide and conveniently enough now they are owned by a company and are being used as a powerful too. I wonder what is going to happen regarding the legality of CTR and projects like it. I'm amazed they actually said they were doing it, it is like an open thing. But clearly bordering on the illegal when one considers Super Pack rules, quite a few say illegal.

Yeah, Reddit is mainstream I guess, through a Borg like process of assimilation. But even "Mainstream" changes, right? I can't imagine MSM in general being the same from here on out. Regardless of how Trump does as president, we are going to witness them changing, for a variety of changes. e.g. fallout from this election, the people putting pressure on them (ratings are continually falling), Trump putting pressure on them and such. I'm not saying this in favor of anyone either, I just mean we are in the middle of the change and I wonder if people can really see it? This isn't just "politics" anymore. I would not be shocked to see civil unrest on the one hand nor would I not be shocked to see the economy turn around and up and shock most. There is so much energy here and which way it goes, oh boy...

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799660246788612100

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/799350731065044992

The problem is, who is going to help us decide what is fake? Oh, wait, I know, the government? Corporations? Isn't that what got us into our current mess?

To be honest, the purest source of information by far this election, which is what brought up all this fake news talk, are the Wiki Leaks emails, right from the Horses mouth.
And many of the emails can be verified with DKIM headers. (Don't ask me to explain that!)

If a pre-election poll showed Trump to have a 1% chance of winning, is that Fake?
When there is an interview about Clinton and an interviewee gets cut off right when they bring up Wikileaks, is that Fake?
If the NY Times makes an apology regarding wanting to be less biased, does that mean some of what they shared was Fake news? http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/
If you were told reading Wikileaks was illegal, is that Fake news?
All of those things and many more, happened on mainstream. Basically, they are bleeding and need to try to bring their programming audience back, so we better get the president involved and make up a law.

The Standard will never go both ways, Fake news is a word like Terrorism, it is the enemy who gets the label, even if you do the same thing as them.

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Remember, Obama is the guy who Trump said wasn't a natural born citizen and therefore unqualified for the office. The percentages of Americans who thought Obama was a Muslim were surprisingly high throughout his presidency. Trump's political ascendency was built on fake news.

I think these BuzzFeed reports are what got a lot of the recent discussions about fake news going:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook

This isn't a new problem though... other countries like Indonesia have complained about this for years:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/technology/fake-news-on-facebook-in-foreign-elections-thats-not-new.html

It would have been nice if Wikileaks had the Trump camp's emails as well, and we could have compared dirty laundry.

The answer — or a part of it — is for us to get better with our critical thinking, researching, understanding statistics and civics, and making sure we expose ourselves to multiple points of view.

I'm a lefty black Bernie supporting Democrat so of course I read the NY Times, the Guardian (UK), listen to NPR and watch PBS NewsHour — RIP Gwen Ifill... gone too soon! I will also watch C-SPAN, look up the actual texts of bill when mentioned in articles, and always combing through Wikipedia, knowing that at any point I could be reading garbage so I check revision history and cross check things there.

But I also read the NY Post, WSJ, National Review, will watch Fox News and listen to Fox News Radio to keep tabs on their perspectives.

I have my favorite viewer-supporter YouTube news and commentary channels... used to watch a lot more Young Turks than I do... they got stale for me. Prefer the Majority Report with Sam Seder these days.

Also have to look internationally: I listen to BBC World Service, watch France 24 or DW or any of the English-language 24-hour news channels, particularly when something is happening in that region of the world. I will watch anything from SkyTV (News Corp) to RT (Russia) to PressTV (Iran). Actually the only 24-hour news channel you can access on a TV with rabbit ears in NYC is CCTV from China.

Also I read the local NYC Black American and Caribbean American and foreign Caribbean press from time to time. Hell, I'll even look at a Final Call every now and then.

But I will even check in on Stormfront, and white nationalist/anti-immigrant sites. Sometimes it's just not healthy to do for me... but I do try to stare some of that hate in the eye and try to understand their points of view. Actually not too different from the black nationalist perspective at times.

I know I should watch WNYC and see what the city council is doing but man... watching a zoning board meeting is so boring! But it probably would be the most relevant stuff I could watch, to NumberTwoPencil's point.

Also: BOOKS! Though Wikpedia has taken a lot of the space non-fiction books used to. I should correct that. It's important that we don't exist on a 100% Internet diet. Too much junk food in there.

I wish I knew another language, because that would just open the door for more perspectives and points of view.

So look... I can fall down YouTube rabbit holes with the best of them. Sometimes it's comforting to put your favorite song on repeat. But I always hated that old cliche "I love all kinds of music... except country" -- a real music lover is going to find that dope country music. You have to challenge yourself.

If we don't decide we are the ones who are going to figure it out, someone will figure it out for us.

earthmansurfer wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

markvmc wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

markvmc wrote:In case anyone is still inclined to take the Soros voting machine nonsense seriously, see here. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

EMS, why don't you apply any of your media skepticism towards the sources you cite?

Your argument is one of semantics. I stand corrected, he doesn't outright own them, he just has influence over the owner, lol.

InSmartmatic, the troubled Venezuelan-linked voting company recent partnered up (late 2014) with a firm called SGO. SGO is headed up by one Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Brown, as it turns out, is a rather curious and troubling figure. Brown, you should know, has close ties to George Soros and rents a Soros owned house in New York. Brown gets a sweetheart deal at only $10,000 a month. He also serves as the VP of Soros’ hedge fund the Quantum Fund. In

the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States:
Arizona California Colorado District of Columbia Florida Illinois Louisiana Michigan Missouri New Jersey Nevada Oregon Pennsylvania Virginia Washington Wisconsin

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

So, my question to you is, why didn't you notice this?

Why didn't I notice the story from the webpage with the big picture of Clinton as a puppet on strings?

Why didn't I notice the site that says "here is the proof "(where proof is hyperlinked), and says this:

"Smartmatic, the troubled Venezuelan-linked voting company recent partnered up (late 2014) with a firm called SGO. SGO is headed up by one Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Brown, as it turns out, is a rather curious and troubling figure. Brown, you should know, has close ties to George Soros and rents a Soros owned house in New York. Brown gets a sweetheart deal at only $10,000 a month. He also serves as the VP of Soros’ hedge fund the Quantum Fund. In

the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States:
Arizona California Colorado District of Columbia Florida Illinois Louisiana Michigan Missouri New Jersey Nevada Oregon Pennsylvania Virginia Washington Wisconsin"

But when you click on the link to see the source of this information, you just get sent to other right wing sites running the same story, with no documentation for these claims. Are they true? I have no idea. But you're willing to believe them just because some non-mainstream right wing website says they are.

Why didn't I notice these? Because they present zero actual evidence for their preconceived views, and because they spread claims without checking them for truth, once those claims fit their agenda.

There's a language barrier here. Some people have no appreciation for what "facts" and "evidence" truly mean. You are talking to a person whose single biggest issue was Hillary declaring war on Russia!!!! Facts be damned. I mean once they see something on Fox it must be true. Go back a couple of pages and see him making the case against Hillary where he can't even articulate what she did wrong but he is convinced of her guilt. HILARIOUS. And if you ask for evidence you'll get youtube links and then he'll ask you to do the research.

Is this pic below accurate? I know it is hindsight. Is it fake news? This is the kind of stuff we got to see from Mainstream for months, in one way or another.
You can put out factual stories, but when you bombard people with Hillary is winning for 2 months, it has an effect. Many say Polling doesn't measure public opinion, it helps to create it.

Imagine if MSM was Pro Trump in their polls, that would have motivated more people as it was an expressive movement. Hillary, like her or not, she just came across as more of the same, another politician. Her strongest point was being the first woman president. That isn't anything to rest your laurels on, she needed to show people something special and there were just the Wikileaks. That is her defining moment. Years of politics and you go out as the woman who Wikileaks took down.

Some 5 or 6 different people have called you out and it's obvious you don't get it, since you keep coming back for more. The poll result isn't news it's a poll result, depending on the source it was either conducted rigorously by conscientious people or it was done by a partisan source. Polls are directional estimates of very subjective phenomenon aka mood swings. Your reasoning that polls influence how many people turn out to vote may or may not be realistic. One can argue Clinton supporters would have stayed home since there was no need for them to vote. See this type off BS can be spun both ways.

But as usual you throw out a picture with a bunch of BS about manufactured news, but you buy Breitbart and Fox when they tell you Hillary would wage war on Rusdia. The problem isn't fake news the problem is the people that fall for it.

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/YayImOnline/status/799642011997335552

is it ok if i laugh? b/c i can't stop laughing...

gunsnewing wrote:So can you guys give Trump any credit? Like for diligently putting an excellent staff together? Remember when you guys would laugh at the thought of a Trump presidency and I was trying to tell you he would put together a great staff? A President who gets things done and surrounds himself with do-ers

Again, why is it nobody wants to comment on the Trump University scam?