Hillary Clinton

"

Raycheetah написал:

Geez, Scrotie. Lighten up. The Left, projecting again, started the current hysteria. =0[.]o=

"Current" makes that difficult to assess. But before the CIA was saying "Russia hacked the election to favor Trump," they were saying "Iraq has WMDs." As I said, I don't think it's fair to paint "fake news" as a Leftist activity; it's bipartisan.

I think grep gets it.

Scrotes, I've explained this to you before. The CIA didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. The Bush Administration lied about them. I've linked other sources about this before, and there are a hell of a lot of them out there if you actually want to correct your false view of reality instead of repeating bullshit over and over again in the face of all evidence.

And what Russia did is fucking obvious. Even the FBI, firmly in Trump's court, agree. Blind reality denial is a hallmark of the right, but it's a goddamn shameful one that you should try to shed. Not accepting reality because the conclusions make you feel bad or disagree with your world view is absurd.

Also, "fake news" is a specific thing. It's the wholly fabricated articles like those that inundated Facebook during the election cycle. It's not an article with a bias toward the left or right. It's not an article with some spin to get you to hate Hillary or Trump. It's not someone being wrong about something because they made a mistake. It's news that's made up. "The Pope Endorses Donald Trump" was fake news passed around online this election cycle. It's fake because it's fiction, not because it's biased.

It's fucking shameful how the morons on the right have taken to calling anything they don't like or that has a liberal bias "fake news." I'd say it's dishonest, but Trumpers are so fucking delusional there's no way they can distinguish between honest or dishonest in the first place. There's "good for my team," which is as true as true can get, and "not good for my team," which is obviously the fakest of fake lies in the world. It's disgusting.

"

Jennik написал:

Scrotes, I've explained this to you before. The CIA didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. The Bush Administration lied about them. I've linked other sources about this before, and there are a hell of a lot of them out there if you actually want to correct your false view of reality instead of repeating bullshit over and over again in the face of all evidence.

I stand corrected. Although you seem to dislike primary sources; better link here.

Still, this is essentially a repeat of Iraq. There's a secret CIA report which the public can't see and which officials are interpreting for us. What if the CIA report on Russia's involvement has the same kind of qualifying language? What if officials are lying about the contents of a secret report again?

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

Although you seem to dislike primary sources; better link here.

I'm sorry, but how exactly is a video interview with a person directly involved not a primary source? This is literally a guy who was giving the Bush administration the information they later misrepresented stating the facts about the situation. What do you believe primary sources are?

As for the rest, I can't control your paranoia. There are mountains of evidence that we can personally view about Russian involvement in the election. I watched interviews with professional, state-sponsored Russian Internet trolls who spread pro-Trump and anti-Hillary bullshit. There's so much more information about Russia's involvement out there, and I'm confident you're personally familiar with much of it.

Why are you so intent to deny reality in this instance? What makes you believe that this situation is remotely analogous to what happened during the Bush administration, when the facts in each case are wholly different? We've actually heard directly from the CIA this time that these are the facts. Other agencies like the FBI agree with their conclusions. We have heard copious amounts of corroborating evidence from other sources. At this point, denialism is utterly irrational. It's not healthy skepticism. It's willful delusion.

In any case, thanks to FOIA we'll know the truth eventually. Maybe ten years from now, but someday. Vindication will be someone's.

Yep - that's it liberals. Nailed it again.

fake news is obviously made up news. tons of fake news pop up every day on facebook and other social media services, and have popped up way before these two clowns (trump and hillary) even battled for presidency.

fake political news, fake entertainment news, fake cracked-style articles, fake clickbait yellow journalism garbage, fake 'YES IM FIRST' twitter feeds with unchecked facts, pure speculation passed off as news. this has been going for years, decades really.

in fact, Id say journalilsm is pretty dead and its corpse is rolling over in its grave.

the question is, why are 'fake news' are only now being censored ? and why only political fake news ? or is non-political fake news also finna be censored ?

they have been a staple of internet for years. conspiracy theories ranging from Illuminati stuff and 'bush deed 911' have been running just fine. fake commercials wtih fake product reviews have been running just fine for years, so have been the fake 'have you seen this trick' clickbait articles.

I mean, whats next, /b and reddit being censored ?

the answer is that media that inherits any kind of bias (either right or left - doesnt matter, theyre both clowns from the same circus) suddenly realized that someone can do their own job as good as them, and they can be as ridiculous as they want.

deep down, it shows the government got SCARED that user-driven, outlets such reddit/4chan can create pieces of propaganda or conspiracy going against the government, that public can believe and get traction.

"

innervation написал:

Yep - that's it liberals. Nailed it again.

theyre trying to do damage control and shift the blame, but I think dem party knows how big of a failure hillary has been historically

she couldnt win a primary against a black candidate in a pretty racist country first,
and then she failed spectacularly losing to a caricature comic book candidate most considered a joke

I mean, the extent of her failure is incredible. she blew a simple jumpshot, and then blew a billion dollar layup. she might be finished in politics.

Nothing is every Hillary's fault, she is never accountable for her mistakes.

I know a few people like this in real life, so annoying, they deflect all blame onto other people but don't know how to be critical of themselves.

"

grepman написал:

the question is, why are 'fake news' are only now being censored ? and why only political fake news ? or is non-political fake news also finna be censored ?

A simple starting point is to follow the money. Never before have the legacy media had their financial bottom lines threatened by new, alternative, and/or fake media.

You can bet that if tabloids didn't fill their own niche, able to co-exist with print media of the past, censorship attempts would have sprouted up targeting those decades ago.

Today you have channels like Secular Talk and Infowars on youtube doing more online traffic than most news sites.

--

"

grepman написал:

and then blew a billion dollar layup.

Speaking of...!