https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1473/71/1473717313068.jpg

Personally, I think it's a mistake to believe that just because most people in the government hate Trump, that means there is some "dep state" plot to discredit him.

It's entirely plausible that many people just think he's an incompetent fool, because, well, he IS an incompetent fool.

I'm also not sure what you mean by mass censorship. Haven't seen any evidence of that myself.

He wouldn't be a successful billionaire and Our President if he were a fool, and the state Reddit, youtube and the MSM are currently in is a prime example of mass censorship.

0.002 sheckles for you sir.

there is actually no evidence to support the fact that he is a billionaire, and since he lies constantly about everything, I see no reason to believe that either.

as for being POTUS, well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

0.002 sheckles for you sir.

Pathetic response.

And the state Reddit, youtube and the MSM are currently in is a prime example of mass censorship.

So what have they censored? And I expect linked sources.

I'm not playing your silly no-substance word games.

Ah yes, as soon as I ask for some citations of your claims, you resort to ad hominem and run away.

Classic.

This isn't my first rodeo, dude.

Yeah not worth. If they wanted they could go google it.

So what have they censored? And I expect linked sources.

YouTube yes, I would link them, but they have been cenzored!

as for being POTUS, well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

LOL

I want links to content that has been removed

I'm going to record that somewhere, that's genius. Thank you for making me smile.

"I want links to content that has been removed"

It's pretty asinine to quote someone, but change the wording around to mean something else. Not a great way to start a discussion.

I didn't realise that using that notation signified a direct quote. I'm sure i've been on imageboards and forums where using that to provide your interpretation of someone elses statement was fine.

I didn't ask for links to removed content. Which by the way, considering the existence of archiving sites, that actually isn't as dumb as you implied it is.

But regardless, that's not what I was asking for. I was asking for sources to back up those claims.

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Russia set up a massive propaganda network in the US to help discredit Clinton. What are you referring to?

I'm interested in hearing more about this Russian propaganda network please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

Wikipedia is not a source. Too much partisan disinformation.

Wikipedia is not a primary source, but the article is well sourced. You can follow any of the 347 source articles if you wish. However, I doubt you're posting in good faith considering your reddit submissions are all crazy right-wing propaganda posts.

crazy right-wing propaganda posts.

....

Posts a document citing the Steele dossier as evidence.

Tell me more about propaganda :)

Here's a few things wrong wth the Russia Wikipedia page you linked (lol @ Wikipedia). First, it uses way too many "opinion" articles. Opinions are not facts, by definition. Second, it actually uses the Steele dossier as evidence.. our IC has said, a bunch of times, that it was not accurate. It was also done by FusionGPS, which is basically an arm of the DNC at this point.

Third, it uses CrowdStrike for a lot of its evidence but also conspicuously ignores that it was CrowdStrike who started the whole investigation into Russia by claiming it was Russia who hacked the DNC. That's likely because much of the CrowdStrike "proof" relied on the fact that Russia apparently hacked the Ukraine using the same tools.. turns out, they likely didn't.

Fourth, which is really just an extension of my last point -- much of this narrative hinges on the DNC/Podesta leaks. If Russia didn't hack the DNC, the whole thing falls apart. Turns out, evidence overwhelmingly shows the DNC "hacks" were actually leaks.

Fifth - The amount of anonymous sources in those "347 sources" is baffling. I can find you 347 sources citing "anonymous sources close to the situation" that say the whole thing is a made up plot by lizard people. Would you believe it?

our IC has said, a bunch of times, that it was not accurate.

Source? When has the IC said that it's inaccurate?

It was also done by FusionGPS, which is basically an arm of the DNC at this point.

That isn't true at all.

Turns out, evidence overwhelmingly shows the DNC "hacks" were actually leaks.

The linked article has been almost universally ridiculed as complete bunk, and discredited by multiple sources.

Source? When has the IC said that it's inaccurate?

...

“Without respect to the veracity of the contents of the dossier, that’s why it was not included as part of our report because much of it could not be corroborated,” said Mr. Clapper, referring to a time President-elect Donald Trump received an intelligence briefing. “And, importantly, some of the sources that Mr. Steele drew on, the second- and third-order assets, we could not validate or corroborate.” - James Clapper

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke but there is no fire, at all,” Mr. Morell said at an event sponsored by Cipher Brief. “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.” - Michael Morell

Source

There's also that pesky detail that the Russian lawyer, the one who met with Trump Jr., is actually tied to FusionGPS. She was also granted a special extension to her visa, after it was original denied, by Obama's DOJ. Curious all that, no?

That isn't true at all.

What's not true about it? They've been hired by the DNC to do all sorts of "opposition research". That makes them, basically, an arm of the DNC.

The linked article has been almost universally ridiculed as complete bunk, and discredited by multiple sources.

Oh yeah, can you source that? I can tell you this - as someone who's "in the know" in terms of technology, and networking, the conclusion drawn in the linked article are not inaccurate.

In fact, they are far more believable than the Russians hacking a political party and leaving a footprint that literally says "RUSSIA WAS HERE" (which is the evidence CrowdStrike claims exist, fucking lol).

'Could not be corroborated' doesn't mean inaccurate. It means they lacked the ability one way or another to verify the information.

She was also granted a special extension to her visa, after it was original denied, by Obama's DOJ. Curious all that, no?

No, that's not curious at all, as you'd know if you actually looked up the reason why her Visa was extended. Also, it's highly unlikely Lynch knew anything about that Visa, as that's not the type of thing she'd oversee personally. You're grasping at straws here.

Oh yeah, can you source that? I can tell you this - as someone who's "in the know" in terms of technology, and networking, the conclusion drawn in the linked article are not inaccurate.

The original article of interest is from TheNation, not Salon, so I'm not sure why you linked that one. Just search for 'thenation dnc hack' and you'll find tons of responses debunking the claims.

No, that's not curious at all, as you'd know if you actually looked up the reason why her Visa was extended.

So you know why it was extended by, you know, have decided to share that information with me? Why should you, you know why and it totally wasn't Lynch.. which is also curious because I never blamed her, only her DOJ :)

Just search for 'thenation dnc hack' and you'll find tons of responses debunking the claims.

Oh, it goes much farther back than thenation's article. The information presented by thenation is just a rehash of information that's been getting passed around reddit and *chan for a couple months.

As for "debunks", DuckDuckGo doesn't give a single debunked story in the first page or two of results. Maybe Google is biased? (Hint: They are, and have proven as much lately).

The only article I can find debunking it is this one. It offers no evidence for why it's wrong, only that the conclusion drawn is one of many. So it doesn't actually debunk the claim at all :)

Let's also address one of the biggest reasons they say this hack was the Russians. It was because a Russian left a footprint in the file's metadata. This article covers it, some what.

The fact they left a flashing "RUSSIA WAS HERE" sign should be red flag number 1 for you, but it probably isn't because we apparently believe Russian hackers are stupid. Red flag number 2 should be that the metadata was actually fabricated.

So no, "multiple sources" have not discredited the claim that the DNC was not hacked by the Russians. In fact, all evidence suggests it was a leak.

And, btw, I linked to Salon because I have a sneaking suspicion you'd believe them over me linking to Fox, RedState, etc.

You're Gish galloping.

Seriously. You make a number of bogus claims, I respond to them, you ignore the ones where you were busted for lying, and introduce 10 more points in an attempt to overwhelm the discussion.

Example: You made completely false complains about the Steele Dossier, I replied, and now you're pretending like you never said anything. Now you're also attempting to introduce 'Google is biased' into the discussion, and throwing in another 10 bogus claims at once.

Sorry, I've done this a million times. I'd be happy to talk about any of these individual topics, but what's the point if you're engaging so dishonestly?

I think it's funny you're attacking my claims when I've provided evidence. You've provided none ;)

Re: Steele Dossier. You think "something that can't be verified" should be believed. I do not. There's nothing to discuss there anymore. We apparently have fundamentally different ideas about what something needs to be considered truthful.

Nope, you called it 'inaccurate'. I asked for evidence that it was inaccurate. You provided none. That's called a lie.

First off, you accuse me of "gish galloping", or whatever the fuck you said... and then you accused me of ignoring your "counter points".. yet, here you are, completely ignoring my evidence that all but proves the DNC wasn't hacked and the "evidence" showing it was was faked.

Funny how that works.

Nope, you called it 'inaccurate'

The idea that the Steele dossier is evidence of anything tying Trump to Russia is absolutely 'inaccurate'. The information within the document cannot be verified, per our IC, and therefore cannot be used as supporting evidence for anything.

And the fact that Wikipedia cites it as evidence calls into question the accuracy of the Wikipedia article.

I didn't ignore your "evidence", I refuse to engage with a bad faith poster.

> Posts only single line "rebuttals" and provides absolutely no counter evidence or sources even after being asked multiple times
> Accuses me of posting in "bad faith", even though I've provided thoughtful responses and have sourced my claims

Maybe you should rethink who's posting in bad faith here :)

When you lie about something and refuse to retract it or apologize, that's bad faith.

I didn't lie? I clarified my wording, yes, but I stand by what I said 100%. You can't blame me because you refuse to actually read what I say and acknowledge my position.

Why should you, though, it's just easier to scream "LIAR!" at someone than it is to actually counter their arguments.

our IC has said, a bunch of times, that it was not accurate.

...

The idea that the Steele dossier is evidence of anything tying Trump to Russia is absolutely 'inaccurate'.

That's not 'clarifying'. That's you trying to cover up for being caught in a blatant lie.

That's not 'clarifying'. That's you trying to cover up for being caught in a blatant lie.

What I said is correct - they've said it's not accurate. To me, in order for something to be accurate it has to be verifiable. If you cannot verify the accuracy, it's inaccurate.

But I mean, if I have to stroke your ego so you can get your internet point: "Let me clarify -- what I meant was that our IC has said they've been unable to verify the claims in the document. Since the information cannot be verified, it's not anything that can be used as proof of collusion between Russia and Trump. Using it as such is inaccurate because, again, our IC said the information cannot be/has not been verified."

Is that good enough for you? Is that enough to unstick you from this stupid fucking nitpick in order to address every other piece of evidence I've given you?

Evidence you clearly hasn't read because you've been responding rather quickly.. not giving yourself enough time to read and parse the data presented.

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation. At no point did I argue there's sufficient evidence for proof of collusion. You realize Russian interference doesn't require any collusion on Trump's part, right?

You're just completely all over the place.

At no point did I argue there's sufficient evidence for proof of collusion.

No, but the "evidence" you provided, Wikipedia, absolutely tries to make that claim. I was refuting your source of "Russian interference" because it's biased, and uses faulty "things" as evidence to support their claim.

And this, ultimately, is the problem with the whole Russian narrative. So much bullshit has been peddled, there's literally nothing believable left. It's become, quite literally, the boy who cried wolf. And it's too bad, because there may be something there. We'll never know, though, since people continue to bush biased, unverified claims as if they accurately represent reality.

Spoken mere hours after Mueller issues yet another subpoena. It's really quite draining arguing with ideologues.

Spoken mere hours after Mueller issues yet another subpoena.

Seeing as subpoenas are super important to you, apparently, how do you feel about Skippy's group being issued a subpoena? Do you think that makes him defacto-guilty as well?

ideologues

You use that word an awful fucking lot. It's like your cudgel to shut people up, huh? I'm not even sure you know what it means, though, because my questioning Russia has absolutely nothing to do with ideology :)

But hey, you also apparently believe Jorden Peterson and C.H Sommers are ideologues, so I guess I'm in fantastic fucking company.

I mean, you're a prolific t_d poster so it kinda goes without saying, right?

it kinda goes without saying, right?

What, that I'm in fantastic company? Absolutely goes without saying. I fucking love it though, because you clearly haven't read anything I've posted about Trump. You just see I post there so therefore I must be a rabid "ideologue" because that's easier for you than face an actual discussion. I see it with you in KiA as well :P

And it's funny you use my T_D posting as evidence of anything, as that's number 3 on my list of top commented on subs. It's completely eclipsed by KiA and Conspiracy.

What's even funnier? You and I actually share 2 out of 3 of our top 3 commented in subreddits. If my posting habits say something about me, what do they say about you?

Difference is there's no way to post in T_D as an outside voice without getting banned; I posted there precisely once, innocently, and got banned. The fact that you have lots of submissions there says quite a bit about you.

KiA is different, I'm able to voice a contrary opinion there without being banned.

Difference is there's no way to post in T_D as an outside voice without getting banned

Incorrect. I've stated there, numerous times, that I don't agree with everything Trump has said or done. I'm still not banned, though I can't say I'd care if I was.

Not sure why it fucking matters where I post, though. As I've said, it's just you using an ad hominem because you apparently can't address someone without trying to discredit them as a person rather than their argument.

The fact that you have lots of submissions there says quite a bit about you.

"lots of submissions" ... less than 100. I have 8 times as many in KiA and Conspiracy. But sure, let's go with "lots" :)

When the analysis is "is it worth talking to this person?", then yes, it's relevant that you frequently post on a far-right wing sub that's notorious for pushing completely fake stories and propaganda. It's a pretty decent indicator the person isn't really interested in any real discussion.

it's relevant that you frequently post on a far-right wing sub that's notorious for pushing completely fake stories and propaganda.

You frequently post here, and there's a lot of that here. You also frequently post in politics, which also has that problem.

So I guess you're not someone that anyone should be interested in talking to. Whoops!

You frequently post here, and there's a lot of that here. You also frequently post in politics, which also has that problem.

Find one fake story on /r/politics from the last week.

These come from "Top > past week" :)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/trump-goes-off-script-in-hour-long-public-meltdown -- Provides absolutely zero evidence that Trump went "off-script". In fact, there is no evidence he went off-script, or that he had a meltdown. Didn't stop politics from having their circle jerk, though.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-wanted-mcconnell-protect-him-russia-scandal-probe -- Another article that offers no evidence. Just the standard "Official with knowledge". Literally no proof of the claim its making.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supporter-phoenix-rally-crowd-size-photos-fake-half-empty-room-us-president-a7907801.html -- Literally an article saying "They cherry picked pictures!" while also cherry picking pictures itself.

http://ijr.com/the-response/2017/08/959902-trump-backs-putin-front-entire-world/ -- Beyond misleading. Given the text quoted in the article, he absolutely did not "back down" to Putin. He said they'd deal with a threat from any country in that region.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michael-black-man-trump-ariz-rally-ex-cult-member-article-1.3436081 -- Literally an article attacking and shaming an innocent man just for supporting the president. Fucking disgusting that that piece of shit article got 7k votes. Says a lot about the people over there.. or so you've said about me :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/29/your-regular-reminder-that-trump-cares-more-about-crowd-size-than-almost-anything-else/?utm_term=.1453a18806ac -- A patently false statement, and of course politics eats it up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-dementia-early-onset-cnn-ana-navarro-commentator-news-phoenix-rally-a7907696.html -- Literally the opinion of a "US political commentator" .. i.e, not someone who'd know. But it fond its way to the top 5 pages of Top this past week.. but sure, no agenda here at all.

You know what sticks out the most, though? Not a single article even remote neutral to Trump. Not a single. fucking. one. Literally zero. They are all open and blatant attacks on Trump using weasel words, feelings, and "this guy's opinion". I get he's had a bad week, but this past week isn't unique for Politics. It's literally all attacks on Trump, all the time.

I also noticed there was not a single link in the top 5 pages from the past week talking about Antifa at Berkley. And I find that really fucking fascinating because 1) the media has largely condemned them and 2) There's a fucking shit ton of articles still talking about Trump saying "both sides are violent".

You clearly put some effort into this, so I'll respond in full when I have more time.

This is a lot of separate points to respond to. I wonder if the conversation would flow better if I just picked the first few. I'm not cherry picking here, if there's certain ones you'd rather me respond to I will.

In fact, there is no evidence he went off-script, or that he had a meltdown.

Clearly 'meltdown' is subjective, so I don't see how you can call this 'fake'. His rally was almost universally criticized as being further polarizing rather than healing, which is what people wanted after Charlottesville. And 'off-script' generally means 'off the teleprompter', and it's completely verifiable. Note that 'off-script' doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, but in this case, it was.

One specific instance that was highly unlikely to be scripted is when he looked at the cameras and claimed that (paraphrasing) 'CNN doesn't want you to see this, look at the red recording lights turning off'. Of course, many people heard this as they were watching the rally on CNN, and CNN didn't turn it off, so how can you interpret this as anything but a blatant lie?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-wanted-mcconnell-protect-him-russia-scandal-probe -- Another article that offers no evidence. Just the standard "Official with knowledge". Literally no proof of the claim its making.

Apparently you have an issue with anonymous sources. I don't know what to say to you on that--anonymous doesn't mean it's fake. There's a very good reason that these sources have to remain anonymous, and it's not because they're made up. I can probably find 100 stories in the last 6 months that all cite anonymous sources from NYT, WaPo, etc. that all turned out to be completely true--remember when people slammed the 'anonymous sources' for talking about Don Jr.'s emails/meeting? In this particular instance, it would be very easy for McConnell to refute the claim and humiliate NBC. He hasn't. It's almost certainly a reliable source.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supporter-phoenix-rally-crowd-size-photos-fake-half-empty-room-us-president-a7907801.html -- Literally an article saying "They cherry picked pictures!" while also cherry picking pictures itself.

What? This is like someone making a claim saying '100% of the in the marbles in this room are blue' with cherry-picked photos of blue marbles, and then a reporter comes in and shows a photograph of red marbles in the room and you call those photos cherry picked. I don't even know what to say if you think this is an example of 'fake news'. Unless the photos themselves are fake, it's completely legit, but I doubt that's what you're arguing.

Clearly 'meltdown' is subjective, so I don't see how you can call this 'fake'.

It's 'fake' because, in this context, 'fake' doesn't mean '100% not true'. I wrote a long post about what "Fake news" means to Trump supporters/anti-media people. I really don't want to rehash it, but it doesn't mean "this is not true". It has everything to do with how the facts are being spun.

The article is being spun as if his speech was bad. That's a subjective thing that's being presented as fact. It's not. In fact, nearly all Trump supporters thought it was one of this best speeches. It's biased propaganda (Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause).

Apparently you have an issue with anonymous sources.

I absolutely do. Maybe you've noticed a pattern with me, maybe you haven't. You should have, though. I do not trust/like anything I cannot independently verify. You shouldn't, either.. but you're your own person and can make your own judgement calls.

In this particular instance, it would be very easy for McConnell to refute the claim and humiliate NBC.

This is just a terrible defense. One example: DWS has never denied that she was helping the Awan brothers steal information for Pakistan. So that makes those stories true? Soros has never denied being behind all the civil unrest in the US, so clearly those stories are true as well?

remember when people slammed the 'anonymous sources' for talking about Don Jr.'s emails/meeting?

Yeah, and what happened with that meeting? Nothing, the story fizzled because it turned out to be far less of a smoking gun as we were sold. As I've said, that's the problem with our media. That story should have been bigger, but that's impossible when everything is literally "THIS IS THE END OF TRUMP!". People just don't believe the media anymore, and it hurts everyone. That's the problem with "fake news". It's something politics is very good at pushing, which I believe I've shown pretty conclusively.

What? This is like someone making a claim saying '100% of the in the marbles in this room are blue' with cherry-picked photos of blue marbles, and then a reporter comes in and shows a photograph of red marbles in the room and you call those photos cherry picked.

No, this is like someone using a photo of red balls and saying "no blue balls exist in this room!". But really, it's not actually like that at all.

It's like Person A saying the room is 80% blue balls and providing a cherry picked angle to show that. Person B then says "no, the room is 80% red balls" and provides a cherry picked angle to show that.

That's what this story is. Trump people used a picture that made the room look more full, and that article used a picture to make the room look more empty. There both have an agenda, and they are both using cherry picked angles to push that agenda.

I wrote a long post about what "Fake news" means to Trump supporters/anti-media people. I really don't want to rehash it

You could instead link it, I'd take a look. However, you're acting like Trump supporters and anti-media people view the term in the exact same way. I doubt this is true. Some people do use 'fake' to mean 'made-up'.

I do not trust/like anything I cannot independently verify.

Then you don't like anything. It's impossible to 'independently verify' 99% of things you read; instead, most people find sources they trust based on prior reporting and use that as their 'verification', and continuously update the trust level they have of sources. True 'independent verification' would mean going out and seeing things with your own eyes, and I seriously doubt that you do that with most of the news you consume.

This is just a terrible defense. One example: DWS has never denied that she was helping the Awan brothers steal information for Pakistan. So that makes those stories true? Soros has never denied being behind all the civil unrest in the US, so clearly those stories are true as well?

What credible news organization has accused her of such? What credible person has accused Soros of 'being behind civil unrest'? That's a ridiculous generalized claim that wouldn't even warrant a response. Trump saying a specific thing on a specific date to McConnell isn't.

Yeah, and what happened with that meeting? Nothing, the story fizzled because it turned out to be far less of a smoking gun then we were sold. As I've said, that's the problem with our media. That story should have been bigger, but that's impossible when everything is literally "THIS IS THE END OF TRUMP!". People just don't believe the media anymore, and it hurts everyone. That's the problem with "fake news". It's something politics is very good at pushing, which I believe I've shown pretty conclusively.

The story didn't 'fizzle out', it was based on verified leaks and then the leaks stopped, there's nothing more to report currently. We now know Mueller is looking into it, and people trust him to do his job, so it's not in the news cycle anymore.

That's what this story is. Trump people used a picture that made the room look more full, and that article used a picture to make the room look more empty.

Give me a break. They effectively zoomed out and showed the room was half empty. 'Agenda' would be zooming in on the empty part.

Trump has a really really bad history with 'crowd size' arguments. Just look at his rhetoric over his inauguration. It was so ridiculous that T_D was all over stories about the pictures of the weak turnout being faked due to the clock time being incorrect. Remember that? Total bullshit. Trump supporters, including prominent ones like Ingraham, actually posted pictures of the 2016 NBA Cavs rally and tried to pass them off as people at the Phoenix rally.

You could instead link it, I'd take a look.

If I can find it, I will. I won't lie, I'm too lazy to look through my history right now

However, you're acting like Trump supporters and anti-media people view the term in the exact same way. I doubt this is true. Some people do use 'fake' to mean 'made-up'.

I think you'll find the vast majority do. Do some people use "fake" to mean "made-up"? Absolutely. That doesn't mean it's the "usual" definition people are using. The problem is, nobody stops to ask.

Then you don't like anything. It's impossible to 'independently verify' 99% of things you read; instead, most people find sources they trust based on prior reporting and use that as their 'verification', and continuously update the trust level they have of sources.

There's a few points here. First, I can independently verify things by reading the same story, with the same claims, from multiple sources from multiple political ideologies. If I do, I can safely say the claim holds some water. If I'm only reading it from someone who's shown their bias, there's a good chance it's just biased reporting.

Which leads into the second point -- I do not trust the media. I never have. There are a few reporters I trust, but they are by far the minority. The main stream media has given me little reason to trust them. And this isn't new with Trump, I haven't trusted them in a very very long time. It's only gotten worse once Obama undid the "anti-propaganda" laws we had.

We now know Mueller is looking into it, and people trust him to do his job, so it's not in the news cycle anymore.

You can say it hasn't "fizzled out" but it absolutely has. Look up the definition of fizzled out. If the fact that there's nothing left to talk about is why you won't say it has fizzled out, then ask yourself why the media is still talking about the PissGate dossier? Or any of a number stories that don't have leaks anymore, but the media is still pushing. If the story was the smoking gun we were sold it was, it wouldn't have stopped being in the news cycle.

But that wasn't even my point. My point was that story is a prime example of the media, their rhetoric, and their bias doing harm to a story that could actually be something. That story could actually be meaningful, and few paid attention because the media has shown themselves to be biased. They cried wolf one too many times.

'Agenda' would be zooming in on the empty part.

That's actually exactly what they did. They zoomed out from the back corner of the room to highlight the empty part. You'd have more of an argument if they showed multiple angles. They didn't. They found one angle that showed an empty and used that to shame Trump supporters. They literally did the same thing as the people shaming them.

There's also the pesky detail that this isn't the first time the media has done this. Remember when they used pictures of before and after Trump's inauguration to try and show how few people were there for it (this doesn't mean Trump's claim of a billion million people is right, either)? That sort of ruined their credibility in this instance. That was the straw because they also did that a lot during the campaign. They also used favorable angles to show that Clinton had huge crowds when she didn't.

Trump has a really really bad history with 'crowd size' arguments.

So does the media. Not to excuse Trump overselling himself, but there's a big difference between Trump and the media. Trump is a sales person, selling himself. The media is supposed to giving us an unbiased look at the facts. Trump has no obligation to do so (even though we'd all prefer it if he did).

Remember that?

I think you and I remember that example differently, given my reply above. I remember using pictures of different times to show a weak turn out, all in order to strengthen their "everybody hates Trump" argument. You are ignoring that, and instead choosing to focus on where Trump lied. It's like you can't accept that both are pushing an agenda, and both are biased.

Either way, all of this is pointless. You asked me where politics was pushing propaganda. I found you a bunch of links where, by the definition of the word, they were pushing propaganda. You also ignored a bunch of the links I posted, as well.

Too bad, too, because I was really looking for your justification for a main stream media outlet needlessly shaming an innocent man strictly because he was pro-Trump. I was hoping you had a good defense for why that was such a high ranking link on politics last week.

I was really hoping you could tell me what this private citizen's personal life had to do with politics, and why people over in politics thought it was so important to know about.

You also ignored a bunch of the links I posted, as well.

This pretty much proves to me you didn't read what I wrote. I explicitly said why I didn't respond to all of them.

Trump is a sales person, selling himself.

He is the fucking President of the United States. Jesus, man.

He is the fucking President of the United States. Jesus, man.

So you just skipped over where I said we all want better of him, huh? It's funny that you've called me an "ideologue" numerous times, yet you keep ignoring my point and cherry picking sentences to respond to :P

I did no such thing.

"Find one fake story on /r/politics from the last week." Politics would have to be biased if they were pushing fake stories, no? Unless you believe politics is unbiased but pushes fake stories against Trump because....... reasons?

Do you really not know the difference between 'biased' and 'fake'?

Pretty sure I explained, briefly anyways, how I view "fake news"

Alright, but you don't get to redefine words to suit you as it's convenient, otherwise communication breaks down. Fake news isn't biased news. Someone calling Trump an 'idiot' isn't fake. Someone calling Obama a 'disaster of a president' isn't fake. The stories published on Infowars are almost all fake. The stories posted on Breitbart are heavily biased, but usually not fake.

We've been over this, and maybe this is my fault for not expanding on my point and being too lazy to dig through my history.

It's not that "fake" is being redefined, it's that "fake news" means something entirely different than you think it means.. at least to the vast majority of people who buy into the idea of "fake news".

It's not about being inaccurate, it's about being heavily biased and misrepresented/clear agenda pushing. A great example is how the media reported Trump talking to the vets way back during the campaign. The media claimed that Trump said vets with PTSD were "weak". They quoted that sentence properly, so it's not literally fake.. but they also misrepresented his position, achieved by leaving out context.

He never said anyone with PTSD was weak. What he said was people who come back from war need help, and they aren't getting help. That's a vastly different statement then what (many) in the media spun.

That's just a single example, there are thousands more.

it's that "fake news" means something entirely different than you think it means.. at least to the vast majority of people who buy into the idea of "fake news".

No, it doesn't. 'Fake news' isn't something people 'buy into', it's a real thing that everyone agrees exists. It is not what you're saying it is according to popular definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

I'm fairly certain I've watched you call people misogynistic for being mean (calling her a slut, etc) to a single woman.

This is totally off topic, but for the record, I said that calling someone a slut with a negative connotation was 'misogyny'. Which it is.

No, it doesn't. 'Fake news' isn't something people 'buy into', it's a real thing that everyone agrees exists. It is not what you're saying it is according to popular definition.

I don't care what wikipedia says. I care about what I mean when I say it, and what the term has morphed into meaning. Taken literally, "fake news" means, basically, lies. I don't dispute that point.

Except the term has morphed into meaning something far more, which I've explained. It's not really my problem if you have no interest in understanding what people mean when they speak.

This is totally off topic

Only partially. It was relevant given what you were accusing me of.

I said that calling someone a slut with a negative connotation was 'misogyny'.

Misogyny: "Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls.". Calling a single woman a slut is contempt towards a single woman, not "women" (i.e: as a group).

Give me a break. Next you'll tell me that calling a black person the N word isn't racism, because it's just a single black person and not black people. Your argument is bad.

First off, I knew you'd latch onto this point. You seem to find one thing to pick on while ignoring the rest.

Your argument is bad and I am now having trouble believing you're being serious anymore.

Well, first off, "nigger" carries so much history than "slut", and I'm almost positive some black people would be rather offended to hear you equating the two. They're not even close to the same connotation/weight.

Second off, racism and misogyny mean different things. Racism is judging someone (an individual) based on their race (a paraphrase). Misogyny is the contempt for women (i.e: the gender). The scale is vastly different.

But you use misogyny by the new definition. It's been redefined by people who wished to use it as a cudgel. As I said, it's ironic you chastise me for redefining words yet you're using a word that's been redefined.

You seem to find one thing to pick on while ignoring the rest.

I don't have all day to respond to every point. I made this clear earlier.

They're not even close to the same connotation/weight.

Never said they were. It was using one slur to point out the absurdity of you denying that the other was.

But you use misogyny by the new definition. It's been redefined by people who wished to use it as a cudgel. As I said, it's ironic you chastise me for redefining words yet you're using a word that's been redefined.

We're not getting anywhere. You're so paranoid of some kind of conspiracy (no, I haven't forgotten what sub we're on...) that any type of discussion is impossible.

You're so paranoid of some kind of conspiracy

Funny, I never claimed this was a conspiracy only that it's something that has verifiably happened.

You know what, I took this claim of "fake stories and propaganda" to heart and went and looked. I went through the first 5 pages of "Top > All Time" and the first 5 pages of "Hot".

I could not find a single story that didn't have evidence to back up the claim it was making. Can you cite your claim about the sub knowingly pushing false stories?

Okay, so I went and looked at the 'top' from the last month.

• First entry: fake news about Antifa violence vids being deleted (I can find tons on youtube with no effort)

• Second entry: Seth Rich story

• Third entry: Seth Rich story

• Seventh entry: DWS aide story, which has no evidence of being related to the election

First entry: fake news about Antifa violence vids being deleted (I can find tons on youtube with no effort)

Videos about antifa violence were absolutely removed from YouTube. I can't actually give you evidence, because they've been removed. But just because some still exist doesn't mean none were removed.

Seth Rich story

Seth Rich is conjecture/conspiracy at this point. You absolutely cannot call it a "fake story" because there are no facts either way as to what really happened. Nobody is investigating it, so we'll never know. Just because you disagree with the conspiracy doesn't mean it's fake. It is literally a "he said, she said" story.

I will admit, them using that to shame the DNC is wrong. Just like people using the Steele dossier to shame Trump is wrong.

DWS aide story, which has no evidence of being related to the election

Can you find me a story where any T_D, with a post that got any traction at all, said DWS aids had anything to do with the election?

As for the whole story, the Awan brothers story is assuredly not fake. They've been fucking arrested, after all. There's something there, my friend :)

http://imgur.com/a/h1EYk

... have you not been paying attention?

Even though all the conservative commentators and Trumpers have been screaming at the top of their lungs "FAKE NEWS!" since day one, many qualified investigators have been diligently looking into Russia's involvement into the 2016 election.

And every time they turn over new evidence, it looks worse for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this whole "there is no evidence of MUH RUSSIA!" nonsense is, well, just nonsense. There are mountains of evidence that Russia used propaganda and social media and hacking to fuck with our election.

It's not really evidence, though. A story gets put out there every time things seem to be settling down. The media runs with it like crazy until it is either disproven or is in fact true, but turns about to be close to nothing of any concern. Even if I assume the Podesta and DNC leaks were in fact hacks, they appear to be true and if the truth swayed voters well, good.

Before the elections, did the FBI know this was going on and informed the Dems and Rep., yes.

I'm not sure what your implication is here, can you elaborate?

Sure, both parties were informed of Russian improprieties before the election, nothing new to either party.

What does that have to do with the OPs claim that the 'deep state' is the source of today's most alarming propaganda, rather than the actual propaganda we know about?

OPs claim

Ø

Russia set up a massive propaganda network in the US to help discredit Clinton.

+1

Assuming you're using that symbol to mean 'null set', I still don't know what point you're trying to convey. Brevity is the soul of wit, but in this case, it wouldn't hurt you to use a few more words to explain. Thanks.

I never replied to OP's claim, only your russia-clinton hack that was well known about before the elections, and everybody knew about.

Wait, you do suspect some trickery and subterfuge played a role in the 20l6 election, but you want to ignore it.

Why?

Probably because he thinks this was a "good" conspiracy because he was part of it and his side won.

Your entire post seems more like dancing around the issue than what the "deep state" or "controlled media" is doing.

No, it wasn't taken, it's because of reddit's 20 character maximum for usernames. you

I downvoted your post, and both of your comments for a complete lack of candor.

I didn't tip any ships, you did.

How will we all stand straight and still, quietly, peacefully, knowingly in this space?

We'll stand knowingly and still because that is about all anyone ever does then it's back to binge watching, eating, drinking, and game playing. Even if everyone on Reddit, including the shills all agreed, still nothing would happen because everyone is still sitting on their ass.

Like Adam Curits said, only people with nothing lose will initiate radical change. America will continue to sit on its collective ass and watch the free entertainment along with the commercials. Matt Taibbi just wrote an article about how Trump is good for the media business.

If we let the media win... Could go either way imo now that a lot of people are waking up to their BS.

I don't know. It seems in recent years they've been emboldened by how much they been able to get away with virtually pissing in everyone's face and convincing them that it's raining in spite of existence of the internet. Or maybe it is also because of it.

Agreed. That said though, we should still be pretty fucking concerned about human trafficking and pedophilia in high positions of power.

Aaaaaaannnd it's all about Trump again.

The true elephant in the room rhymes with shoes.

poos?

moos?

I'm lost here. Help me out.

oy vey

But I know OP isn't referring to them - He can't be because this sub is heavy into calling out the manipulation of Ashkenazi Khazars in society. No elephant in the room there in the least.

because this sub is heavy into calling out the manipulation of Ashkenazi

Is it? Every time I see the JQ brought up the thread is quickly slid.

Not saying sliding doesn't occur. Shills run amok in this sub. Yes. However, there's a LOT of Ashkenazi Khazar calling out that's occurred in this sub as far as I've seen even in spite of the shilling.

Shills run amok in this sub.

yes, this is a true statement >:|

Jesus. Not that it's the biggest deal in the world, but just the very fact that people are downvoting these simple, basic comments being made is a testament to the massive shilldom (or trolldom) in this sub.

Oh well.

It's because you two are trying to slide antisemitism in and being really ham-fisted about it.

lol. Wat? Are you really serious? Please describe how exactly I'm being "antisemetic"?

Just say you want to kill Jews, it's what you want, but your to scared to say it because your afraid your precious Reddit account will be banned

W/e

Your a jq nut and you think Jews run everything- fuck you

I don't want to kill all Jews. I want them to stop subverting White nation's politics and culture. And of course Jews run everything. The media, the banks, ZOG, etc. they admit as much.

Kazoos?

Listen, we already tried alcohol prohibition and it was a huge failure. If you can't handle your booze, that's a personal problem. Don't try to take it out on everyone else.

The liquid Jew

The real problem is a subset of Jews called Zionists. All of the Zionists aren't even really Jews, they're fake Jews. Masquerading as Jews. It's pretty clever.

It goes far beyond Zionism my friend.

To make you watch more, and learn less. It's about creating so much noise desired signals can't be received.

Government is a lie, an abstraction to insulate powerful and wealthy elite from the common people, and maintain that dominance. Worrying about which bureaucrats are "in charge," or anything other than creating a function alternative, is a complete waste of time.

That's the elephant in the room. Has been for a long time.

Yes, communication is that powerful.

71% upvote...smh

Source? When has the IC said that it's inaccurate?

...

“Without respect to the veracity of the contents of the dossier, that’s why it was not included as part of our report because much of it could not be corroborated,” said Mr. Clapper, referring to a time President-elect Donald Trump received an intelligence briefing. “And, importantly, some of the sources that Mr. Steele drew on, the second- and third-order assets, we could not validate or corroborate.” - James Clapper

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke but there is no fire, at all,” Mr. Morell said at an event sponsored by Cipher Brief. “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.” - Michael Morell

Source

There's also that pesky detail that the Russian lawyer, the one who met with Trump Jr., is actually tied to FusionGPS. She was also granted a special extension to her visa, after it was original denied, by Obama's DOJ. Curious all that, no?

That isn't true at all.

What's not true about it? They've been hired by the DNC to do all sorts of "opposition research". That makes them, basically, an arm of the DNC.

The linked article has been almost universally ridiculed as complete bunk, and discredited by multiple sources.

Oh yeah, can you source that? I can tell you this - as someone who's "in the know" in terms of technology, and networking, the conclusion drawn in the linked article are not inaccurate.

In fact, they are far more believable than the Russians hacking a political party and leaving a footprint that literally says "RUSSIA WAS HERE" (which is the evidence CrowdStrike claims exist, fucking lol).

I think it's funny you're attacking my claims when I've provided evidence. You've provided none ;)

Re: Steele Dossier. You think "something that can't be verified" should be believed. I do not. There's nothing to discuss there anymore. We apparently have fundamentally different ideas about what something needs to be considered truthful.

First off, you accuse me of "gish galloping", or whatever the fuck you said... and then you accused me of ignoring your "counter points".. yet, here you are, completely ignoring my evidence that all but proves the DNC wasn't hacked and the "evidence" showing it was was faked.

Funny how that works.

Nope, you called it 'inaccurate'

The idea that the Steele dossier is evidence of anything tying Trump to Russia is absolutely 'inaccurate'. The information within the document cannot be verified, per our IC, and therefore cannot be used as supporting evidence for anything.

And the fact that Wikipedia cites it as evidence calls into question the accuracy of the Wikipedia article.

I don't know. It seems in recent years they've been emboldened by how much they been able to get away with virtually pissing in everyone's face and convincing them that it's raining in spite of existence of the internet. Or maybe it is also because of it.

Clearly 'meltdown' is subjective, so I don't see how you can call this 'fake'.

It's 'fake' because, in this context, 'fake' doesn't mean '100% not true'. I wrote a long post about what "Fake news" means to Trump supporters/anti-media people. I really don't want to rehash it, but it doesn't mean "this is not true". It has everything to do with how the facts are being spun.

The article is being spun as if his speech was bad. That's a subjective thing that's being presented as fact. It's not. In fact, nearly all Trump supporters thought it was one of this best speeches. It's biased propaganda (Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause).

Apparently you have an issue with anonymous sources.

I absolutely do. Maybe you've noticed a pattern with me, maybe you haven't. You should have, though. I do not trust/like anything I cannot independently verify. You shouldn't, either.. but you're your own person and can make your own judgement calls.

In this particular instance, it would be very easy for McConnell to refute the claim and humiliate NBC.

This is just a terrible defense. One example: DWS has never denied that she was helping the Awan brothers steal information for Pakistan. So that makes those stories true? Soros has never denied being behind all the civil unrest in the US, so clearly those stories are true as well?

remember when people slammed the 'anonymous sources' for talking about Don Jr.'s emails/meeting?

Yeah, and what happened with that meeting? Nothing, the story fizzled because it turned out to be far less of a smoking gun as we were sold. As I've said, that's the problem with our media. That story should have been bigger, but that's impossible when everything is literally "THIS IS THE END OF TRUMP!". People just don't believe the media anymore, and it hurts everyone. That's the problem with "fake news". It's something politics is very good at pushing, which I believe I've shown pretty conclusively.

What? This is like someone making a claim saying '100% of the in the marbles in this room are blue' with cherry-picked photos of blue marbles, and then a reporter comes in and shows a photograph of red marbles in the room and you call those photos cherry picked.

No, this is like someone using a photo of red balls and saying "no blue balls exist in this room!". But really, it's not actually like that at all.

It's like Person A saying the room is 80% blue balls and providing a cherry picked angle to show that. Person B then says "no, the room is 80% red balls" and provides a cherry picked angle to show that.

That's what this story is. Trump people used a picture that made the room look more full, and that article used a picture to make the room look more empty. There both have an agenda, and they are both using cherry picked angles to push that agenda.