djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

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

coming together, stronger than ever.

Many blacks, hispanics and women voted for Trump.

You know why?

Cos its all about the economy and the end of corruption.

Not the garbage propaganda you guys are into

meloshouldgo wrote:My predictions of what is to come:

Best Case Scenario (30%) - Hard right, ultra conservative bigoted judeo-christian dominated society, massive deregulation and protectionism - (What people voted for)
Medium Case Scenario (60%) - Authoritarian regime, bitter dysfunctional society, high inflation, job losses, 3-ring media circus and multiple wars - (What they'll likely get)
Worst Case Scenario (10%) - Complete degradation into outright Fascism, KKK-Neo Nazi takeover, Muslim witch-hunt, exodus of intellectual class - (Unless the Alt-right can pull this off)

You need to flee to Iran man... they will protect you from judeo-christians and other scary Americans.

gunsnewing wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

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

coming together, stronger than ever.

Many blacks, hispanics and women voted for Trump.

You know why?

Cos its all about the economy and the end of corruption.

Not the garbage propaganda you guys are into

And how does paying out a $25 million court settlement in the Trump University scam signal an "end of corruption." Let's see what happens now with the rape civil suit.

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

Don't quote Orwell, he was very left wing- he would be disgusted at who you support

meloshouldgo wrote:

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.

Some 5 or 6 Clinton supporters have continually attacked anything I say. The stuff that has lots of evidence gets the "But did she break the law?" answer or is skipped over. It is whatever suits you best. I don't remember you talking much or deeply about those Wikileaks, and yet so much was right there.

Polls do influence people, don't give me a "may". You want everything we talk about to be put in a box but it is hard to put a lifetime of corruption in a box. If you accept that, then that is on you. I won't accept it and millions of others won't either. And here we are.

Just a correction, it is Hillary's record that makes me know she will wage war on Russia, not Breitbart or any other sites:
Voting yes on Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump even said it would destabilize the region and give Iran greater power there.
Pushing Obama into Libya, when he didn't want to go in. That KILLED 10's of THOUSANDS of people. Maybe that is a statistic to you.
Her saying Russia was behind the leaked emails with having no evidence and adding that the US will react accordingly to cyber attacks, be that diplomacy or war.
Let me guess, but did she break the law?
look in the mirror bro.

So, is what I said above that you just replied to fake news, you didn't answer the question.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

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.

Nice post full of, valid suggestions. And I will for sure look at some of them (already started actually), always nice to make our circle bigger. I too watch some news that I generally don't like their leaning views, for the same reasons you stated. I get it and agree, we need to take things into our hands, and I think that is a bit of where we are going. (process)

But my point is who decides what is Fake News? I would hope that can be us, but it looks like Google, Facebook, etc, are deciding. More of the same and now the President is suddenly speaking out on it? He should be speaking about why MSM is dying, instead of alt media that is taking over. But if he did that, he would be exposing their demise. Sort of a vicious circle.

And so, you didn't answer my question (no one did), are those things I listed Fake News? Where does CTR fall in all of this?

Appreciated,
EMS

gunsnewing wrote:Can't possibly be more corrupt than your candidate Hillary

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Can't possibly be more corrupt than your candidate Hillary

Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Trump is paying off his accusers. I can't imagine what you guys would be saying if it were the reverse. Probably something about powerful people not having to face justice and the system being rigged and Hillary being a crook.

Do you really want to play the semantic game continually? Remember how you often would say to me "But what law did she break?" Well, I'm not going to make that a part of my repertoire but what Law did Trump break? See where that gets us? It removes morals and being a human being from things.

But more importantly, let's not compare settling a lawsuit regarding tuitions at a "school" with Benghazzi, Libya, those Wiki-Leaks emails, etc.
Remember, the FBI spent 18 months "going through" 30,000 emails, then 8 days going through 650,000 (minus how ever many duplicates were there). Now, people have said "But they knew what to search for." and I would counter, no, you have to go through and search, those things change and even when you involve computers your have to eventually bring in people. I just don't think it was humanly possible to go through even 100,000 emails (giving you the benefit of the doubt that 1/2 million were duplicates, which I doubt). I think her getting cleared has more to do with the clear Quid Pro Quo, collusion, etc. that those Wikileaks emails showed us (between Podesta, Comey and Clinton.)

This is Trumps new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, grilling Hillary on Benghazzi.
You know, I don't care if she wasn't charged with certain crimes at this point as she just didn't adequately answer some basic questions. At some point you have to start adding things up and just say the woman is corrupt.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Can't possibly be more corrupt than your candidate Hillary

Hillary was cleared by the FBI. Trump is paying off his accusers. I can't imagine what you guys would be saying if it were the reverse. Probably something about powerful people not having to face justice and the system being rigged and Hillary being a crook.

Do you really want to play the semantic game continually? Remember how you often would say to me "But what law did she break?" Well, I'm not going to make that a part of my repertoire but what Law did Trump break? See where that gets us? It removes morals and being a human being from things.

But more importantly, let's not compare settling a lawsuit regarding tuitions at a "school" with Benghazzi, Libya, those Wiki-Leaks emails, etc.
Remember, the FBI spent 18 months "going through" 30,000 emails, then 8 days going through 650,000 (minus how ever many duplicates were there). Now, people have said "But they knew what to search for." and I would counter, no, you have to go through and search, those things change and even when you involve computers your have to eventually bring in people. I just don't think it was humanly possible to go through even 100,000 emails (giving you the benefit of the doubt that 1/2 million were duplicates, which I doubt). I think her getting cleared has more to do with the clear Quid Pro Quo, collusion, etc. that those Wikileaks emails showed us (between Podesta, Comey and Clinton.)

This is Trumps new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, grilling Hillary on Benghazzi.
You know, I don't care if she wasn't charged with certain crimes at this point as she just didn't adequately answer some basic questions. At some point you have to start adding things up and just say the woman is corrupt.