+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 451

Thread: Should "Fake News" be surpressed on social media?

  1. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by sawbonz View Post
    It is most definitely not the case that "fake news", or false news, or whatever you want to call it was the primary determining factor in the decision making process of millions of trump voters. I really cannot believe you are asserting that.
    I agree. The suggestion that it did is just more condescending leftist crap. This suggestion is itself "Fake" or "False" News - take your pick.

    It is also extremely irresponsible in that it fails to take into account the failures of not only Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but also the spectacular failures of Barack Obama and the Democrat left during the last eight years that he has been in office.

    They are refusing to examine their own faults or change their own goals and tactics. Without "Identity Politics" and "Political Correctness" to guide them, who are they? If they were to talk honestly and openly about their real economic vision for the world, how many people will support them?

    Remember Obamacare. It was mostly just a big steaming pile of lies.

    So they have determined that they should avoid talking much about their globalist economic plans, which they know most people will not identify with or appreciate, and focus heavily on the tactics of "Political Correctness" and "Identity Politics".

    These are the reasons why they lost the election, not because of a bunch of tabloid nonsense being exchanged on Facebook and Twitter.
    Last edited by Spartacus; 11-28-2016 at 07:12 AM.

  • #252
    ^^^^bingo

  • #253
    asshat HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Night Vale
    Posts
    3,868
    Should "Fake News" be suppressed on our President Elect's twitter feed?

  • #254
    Chieftain of Aggression Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    28,192
    Quote Originally Posted by sawbonz View Post
    It is most definitely not the case that "fake news", or false news, or whatever you want to call it was the primary determining factor in the decision making process of millions of trump voters. I really cannot believe you are asserting that.
    Primary determining factor? Did I say that? I said it played a role. And I cited the fact that FB and its umpteen dubious sites embedded therein are the primary news source for millions of people. Fake news alone didn't decide the election. But it played a part. If real news played a part (and of course it did), I don't see why it's such a shocking conclusion to acknowledge that fake news played a part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Horn Under a Bad Sign View Post
    It is quite appalling to me to see supposedly intelligent people dismissing the notion that Russia may have just played a huge part in electing our new president.
    It's worth investigating much further, but there's not enough to make any conclusion yet. And this is a huge, separate issue. If a foreign power acted to materially influence an American election by illegal mechanisms, that's getting really close to an act of war. Wanna be real careful where we tread there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    I agree. The suggestion that it did is just more condescending leftist crap. This suggestion is itself "Fake" or "False" News - take your pick.

    It is also extremely irresponsible in that it fails to take into account the failures of not only Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but also the spectacular failures of Barack Obama and the Democrat left during the last eight years that he has been in office.

    They are refusing to examine their own faults or change their own goals and tactics. Without "Identity Politics" and "Political Correctness" to guide them, who are they? If they were to talk honestly and openly about their real economic vision for the world, how many people will support them?

    Remember Obamacare. It was mostly just a big steaming pile of lies.

    So they have determined that they should avoid talking much about their globalist economic plans, which they know most people will not identify with or appreciate, and focus heavily on the tactics of "Political Correctness" and "Identity Politics".

    These are the reasons why they lost the election, not because of a bunch of tabloid nonsense being exchanged on Facebook and Twitter.
    Again, straw man. If the consensus was that fake news was THE reason that the election turned the way it did, then you'd have a point with your rant. However, it was AN influence -- along with all of the other issues you pointed to: no real vision for the Hillary campaign other than "it's my turn!", taking for granted votes in the rust belt, and umpteen other reasons. Hillary was a $#@!ty candidate who ran a $#@!ty campaign. But that doesn't change the fact that fake news, and a political culture that rewards blatant falsehoods, played a role in the overall picture. Hillary probably still would have lost even if we removed fake news entirely from the equation. But that doesn't mean that it's not a real probelm.

  • #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisketexan View Post
    Again, straw man. If the consensus was that fake news was THE reason that the election turned the way it did, then you'd have a point with your rant. However, it was AN influence -- along with all of the other issues you pointed to: no real vision for the Hillary campaign other than "it's my turn!", taking for granted votes in the rust belt, and umpteen other reasons. Hillary was a $#@!ty candidate who ran a $#@!ty campaign. But that doesn't change the fact that fake news, and a political culture that rewards blatant falsehoods, played a role in the overall picture. Hillary probably still would have lost even if we removed fake news entirely from the equation. But that doesn't mean that it's not a real probelm.
    You seem dead set on trying to speak to this as an isolated issue, when it is just a part of a larger problem.

    What about the tsunami of "bad" reporting - as you previously called it - and all of the spectacularly biased and factually misleading coverage by the substantial majority of the traditional media? How many people do you believe were likely influenced to vote for Hillary Clinton because of that?

    These two phenomenon are linked and cannot reasonably be dealt with separately. In fact, they are all part of the same core problem. The campaign by the liberal media and the Democrat left to try to treat them as they are separate problems is a demonstration of just how far they are willing to go to try to control the "narrative" by trying to silence their opponents in certain venues.

    As long as you guys try to focus on this one issue while disregarding the serious and similar problems that are being produced by the traditional media very largely on behalf of the Democrat left and their candidates, then your observations will not be taken as seriously as you seem to think they should be.

    These issues are linked.

  • #256
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,639
    I'm never seen so many people threatened by the idea of calling out lies. And we aren't talking about opinions or even legitimate mistakes but stories created with the sole purpose to pull people in via outrageous lies.

  • #257
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    I'm never seen so many people threatened by the idea of calling out lies. And we aren't talking about opinions or even legitimate mistakes but stories created with the sole purpose to pull people in via outrageous lies.
    They should be called out as lies when that is what they are. However, for that to work, it has to apply to the traditional media as well.

    However, that is not what this is really about or where this would stop as I believe you know very well. Also, these same people in the traditional media who are shouting in such a shrill manner over this were themselves guilty of going all-in behind Hillary Clinton and engaging in tactics that are every bit as manipulative and dishonest as the people they are hurling accusations at.

    These people in the traditional media are the ones that need to first be held accountable, if anyone is going to be.

  • #258
    Chieftain of Aggression Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    28,192
    Et tu quoque and straw man fallacies abound.

    The traditional media is facing a day of reckoning, and damned well should. It has failed as a watchdog, it has long failed as a truly objective mechanism of information.

    But you won't acknowledge that openly FAKE, FALSE news items don't need to be addressed until AFTER you get your pound of flesh from NBC? Is that how it works?

    So, Trump doesn't get to do anything in his presidency until AFTER he addresses the hateful bastards out there doing evil racist $#@! and invoking his name? I mean, is that how this works? You can't address problem X until AFTER you address problem Y? Or, you know, maybe both are problems. And we're discussing problem X. Just X. We have also discussed problem Y, and just problem Y -- see numerous OTHER threads on this board about the media.

    Please, do tell us the list of issues that we can be concerned about, and must solve completely before addressing any other issue. Please place them in numerical order of priority, so that we can ban all discussion of any issue beyond issue 1, as we cannot address any other issues until issue 1 is totally and completely resolved.

  • #259
    Fake according to who? The Democrat left and their lackies who run social media?

  • #260
    Chieftain of Aggression Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    28,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Fake according to who? The Democrat left and their lackies who run social media?
    No, "false" according to the universe and the laws of reality. Posting things that are legitimately, and objectively, false. Like a "McConnaughey endorses Trump!" story.

  • #261
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    Fake according to who? The Democrat left and their lackies who run social media?
    How about the people that write the fake news? They openly admit it's not real. Should we take their word it's fake or do you think that their admission is fake and the news is real?

  • #262
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    How about the people that write the fake news? They openly admit it's not real. Should we take their word it's fake or do you think that their admission is fake and the news is real?
    Now you are just being obtuse. It is social media sites that are being called on to make these determinations, as you know very well.

  • #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Brisketexan View Post
    No, "false" according to the universe and the laws of reality. Posting things that are legitimately, and objectively, false. Like a "McConnaughey endorses Trump!" story.
    I appreciate you fighting the good fight. But that story exists to echo in a chamber. Political sides engage in sports arguments now. Everyone thinks the press is on the other's side. The press isn't allowed to say anything negative about your side without complaint. And people will only watch the shows that are completely partisan to their side. That is why the actual press shouldn't normalize fake news or bad information. They can't worry about either side. If the average American wants to read crap, they will read it. They will make up more on their own or actively engage with others that do. The issue isn't that it is fake, it is that people want to believe whatever they want to think about the other side. That won't change if you eliminate Facebook or Twitter completely. The press has to stop worrying about clicks and simply report. That is the only way you rebuild the trust of majority of this country.

  • #264
    asshat DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,250

  • #265
    asshat Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign Shaggy Gold Club Horn Under a Bad Sign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Adolphe Menjou's Poolhouse
    Posts
    7,581
    Quote Originally Posted by DSA View Post

    Hilarious. Each one of those descriptions regarding Castro is true.

    He was President. He was a leader. He was a revolutionary leader. He was an icon. He was a dictator. He was a mass murderer.

    I realize that nuanced thinking isn't your bag, but one descriptor does not preclude many others from being true.

  • #266
    asshat DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Horn Under a Bad Sign View Post
    Hilarious. Each one of those descriptions regarding Castro is true.

    He was President. He was a leader. He was a revolutionary leader. He was an icon. He was a dictator. He was a mass murderer.

    I realize that nuanced thinking isn't your bag, but one descriptor does not preclude many others from being true.
    When I talk about Hitler, I don't usually refer to him as a "leader" or "icon". I don't praise his charisma. Then again.. I'm also not a $#@!ing moron like yourself.

  • #267
    asshat sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    11,442
    Primary determining factor? Did I say that?

    If, indeed "millions" of voters (which I believe you did say) were influenced to vote for Trump because they were reading fake news sites, given how close this election was, what other conclusion is there than the fake news determined the election?

    If that is not what you are saying or implying, I apologize for getting caught up in your hyperbole.

    The truth is fake news has been around in one form or another forever. Are people more susceptible to it now? I don't think so, but I think the number of morons in a given population is fairly constant. What did pt Barnum say?

    Hillary had a 60+ percent unlikable rating going into the primaries. Depending on how the question was asked, close to 90% of those polled felt she was untrustworthy at best, and at worst a flat out liar. No one was talking about fake news causing those numbers 18 months ago. She didn't even try to appeal directly to the rural rust belt voters who went for obama the previous 2 cycles. Hell obama himself called her out on that, and by reports Bill was apoplectic. You think a bunch of those folks who saw no job growth the last 8 years and got pinched by Obamacare were fence sitting and then saw some Facebook post from abcnews.co and said well that settles it? She didn't go talk to them, and they weren't feeling her. That's it

    Fake news appeals most strongly to the true believers; it validates their opinions. It is not a decision driver for the swing voters, and those who try and fit Hillarys loss to this narrative (like the "racist, misogynistic, xenophobic general population" rhetoric that was in vogue a few weeks ago) do so at the peril of another loss in 4 years.

  • #268
    Nsiap: stupid people should be suppressed on social medial.

    In face, stupid people should be suppressed in a lot of venues....

  • #269
    asshat DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA Probably Shaggy upper class DSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Castyourhops View Post
    Nsiap: stupid people should be suppressed on social medial.

    In face, stupid people should be suppressed in a lot of venues....

    media*

  • #270
    asshat sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Castyourhops View Post
    Nsiap: stupid people should be suppressed on social medial.

    In face, stupid people should be suppressed in a lot of venues....


    Think of how dumb the average person is. Then realize that half of people are dumber than that. A great American philosopher once said that.
    -

  • #271
    Quote Originally Posted by phdhorn View Post
    $#@! the recounts. Electors just need to vote for Hillary because I don't know she's qualified or something or what I get the Electoral College REALLY wrong but LISTEN TO ME DAMMIT I'm a HARVARD PROFESSOR! Tears of salt. Very pretty.
    Hey, Lawrence Lessig ran this election for about 3 weeks, before any primaries or even debates. Give him some credit.

  • #272
    asshat sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum sawbonz Shaggy Platinum
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Teeth View Post
    I appreciate you fighting the good fight. But that story exists to echo in a chamber. Political sides engage in sports arguments now. Everyone thinks the press is on the other's side. The press isn't allowed to say anything negative about your side without complaint. And people will only watch the shows that are completely partisan to their side. That is why the actual press shouldn't normalize fake news or bad information. They can't worry about either side. If the average American wants to read crap, they will read it. They will make up more on their own or actively engage with others that do. The issue isn't that it is fake, it is that people want to believe whatever they want to think about the other side. That won't change if you eliminate Facebook or Twitter completely. The press has to stop worrying about clicks and simply report. That is the only way you rebuild the trust of majority of this country.
    Excellent post

  • #273

  • #274
    asshat YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu Shaggy Gold Club YoLaDu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    guitar starts spinning, rock and roll starts winning
    Posts
    12,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post

  • #275
    asshat phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Lovetron, ATX
    Posts
    43,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Knight View Post

  • #276
    We are so $#@!ed. That is all I know. There is obviously no way to effectively, consistently and fairly suppress "fake news," however you define that. Sitting back and just allowing $#@! to play out like it is is also not an acceptable option. We have been rather suddenly plunged into a post-reality world. By which I mean that, to an ever-greater extent, the whole idea of a collective, shared reality is disappearing. Everyone's working off of totally different facts, their facts, the facts accepted and promoted by their little segment. Obviously there's always some disagreement about facts, but it's to the point where you get 180 degree differences along partisan lines on things that should be reasonably verifiable. Those facts form the basis for beliefs, and it becomes impossible to even argue about beliefs, because you never get past arguing about what is real or not.

    If we're getting on a plane and my source says its 30 below zero at our destination, but yours says it's 115 degrees, there's no way to have a meaningful exchange of ideas on what clothing we should take. I'm gonna say we need tons of layers and heavy parkas and face coverings and gloves. You say we need to be wearing lightweight, loose fitting clothes and sun hats. Each of us will look at the other like they're not just crazy, but actively dangerous. They're pushing a plan that's gonna get you killed. How do they not see it? So then pretty quickly it gets back to just arguing about what is real and what is not. And if you've never even been exposed to the idea that maybe the temperature could be something other than what your source says it is, you'll be that much quicker to completely dismiss any source that would say such a thing.

    It's not getting better. It's gonna get worse.

  • #277
    asshat TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I wear your granddads clothes. I look incredible.
    Posts
    18,318
    On the 3 million illegals voting thing. I don't get the denial. We know illegals voted. For example, tens of thousands in Virginia. How can you reject 3 million without having even the tiniest shred of evidence of the true number?

  • #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Thermos H Christ View Post
    We are so $#@!ed. That is all I know. There is obviously no way to effectively, consistently and fairly suppress "fake news," however you define that. Sitting back and just allowing $#@! to play out like it is is also not an acceptable option. We have been rather suddenly plunged into a post-reality world. By which I mean that, to an ever-greater extent, the whole idea of a collective, shared reality is disappearing. Everyone's working off of totally different facts, their facts, the facts accepted and promoted by their little segment. Obviously there's always some disagreement about facts, but it's to the point where you get 180 degree differences along partisan lines on things that should be reasonably verifiable. Those facts form the basis for beliefs, and it becomes impossible to even argue about beliefs, because you never get past arguing about what is real or not.

    If we're getting on a plane and my source says its 30 below zero at our destination, but yours says it's 115 degrees, there's no way to have a meaningful exchange of ideas on what clothing we should take. I'm gonna say we need tons of layers and heavy parkas and face coverings and gloves. You say we need to be wearing lightweight, loose fitting clothes and sun hats. Each of us will look at the other like they're not just crazy, but actively dangerous. They're pushing a plan that's gonna get you killed. How do they not see it? So then pretty quickly it gets back to just arguing about what is real and what is not. And if you've never even been exposed to the idea that maybe the temperature could be something other than what your source says it is, you'll be that much quicker to completely dismiss any source that would say such a thing.

    It's not getting better. It's gonna get worse.
    That's a pretty good post there, Therm. The thing is, this problem has been around for a while, but it is only because the recent election results did not go the way that certain people wanted that this is being made a priority issue at this time.

    The difficulty in approaching a resolution on this is that the leaders of social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc., are partisan leftists who cannot be trusted to refrain from using this as a thinly veiled cover for the screening out of ideas that they find objectionable. It does not follow that those ideas are "Fake," but they are certainly not "Politically Correct".

    Let's take climate change, for example. Below is a link 3 minute clip from an interview of Max Read, a senior editor from New Yorker Magazine on CSPAN's Washington Journal on the topic of "Fake News". In this clip he answers a call-in question about whether articles that "deny" climate change constitute "Fake News".

    Max Read (New Yorker Magazine) on "Fake News" - Climate Change question

    Short answer, they do. As a result, he would like to see any such dissent from the Democrat left's "Politically Correct" position on this topic cleansed from social media and probably from the public discourse altogether. Also, here is a link to the entire 44 minute interview, for those who are interested.

    This is where the problem is. There is apparently zero chance of the people on these social media sites screening "Fake News" in a purely objective and non-partisan way. I get it that some of you actually have drunk the Kool-aid on the AGW alarmism issue. However, just because you disagree with the opposing perspective on this, that does not honestly make this opposing perspective "Fake" or illegitimate.

    If these people could be trusted to only screen out stories that are absolutely false and completely absurd (i.e., 'Chelsea Clinton is the spawn of Hillary and a space-gremlin from Alpha Centauri'), I would support them screening those stories out of the general feed, or marking them as the flat out fictions that they are. But surely not even you believe that they can actually be trusted to conduct themselves with anything approaching that level of discipline or restraint.
    Last edited by Spartacus; 12-02-2016 at 05:43 PM.

  • #279
    asshat Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club Sevenz Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,048
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexasHammer View Post
    On the 3 million illegals voting thing. I don't get the denial. We know illegals voted. For example, tens of thousands in Virginia. How can you reject 3 million without having even the tiniest shred of evidence of the true number?
    How can you believe it without the tiniest shred of evidence?

  • #280
    Chieftain of Aggression Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan Definitely Shaggy upper class Brisketexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    28,192
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexasHammer View Post
    On the 3 million illegals voting thing. I don't get the denial. We know illegals voted. For example, tens of thousands in Virginia. How can you reject 3 million without having even the tiniest shred of evidence of the true number?
    Okay, all of the Virginia stories go back to one single event -- a voter rolls check, which found 1,046 non-citizens had been registered in Va. Which -- let's be clear -- is illegal, they should be purged, and if they actually voted, they should be prosecuted. But you didn't say 1,046. You said "tens of thousands." Then, you say "prove the negative" with respect to the 3 million number. That's not how rational discourse works.

    Under those rules, the other side doesn't get to say "Donald Trump secretly bought the voting machine companies and rigged them, getting him 11 million votes that weren't really cast!" They have to have proof.

    Each of you can say "I suspect that millions of illegals voted/I suspect that Trump used electronic trickery to rig the election" -- that's fine. But to take it any further than your suspicion, you then need to show up with evidence. Not vice-versa -- you don't say "hey, I made a blanket statement not based on evidence -- now prove me wrong!"

  • #281
    asshat phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Lovetron, ATX
    Posts
    43,550
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexasHammer View Post
    On the 3 million illegals voting thing. I don't get the denial. We know illegals voted. For example, tens of thousands in Virginia. How can you reject 3 million without having even the tiniest shred of evidence of the true number?
    Let's put it this way... there's less evidence that something was significantly hacked or otherwise tampered with in the swing states that Stein wants recounts on as there is that 3 million illegals didn't vote. Here's one argument.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...-vote-in-2016/

    The likelihood that 3 million illegals voted can't be much proven nor disproven, because 1) we know that some illegals almost certainly voted, and 2) but since most states or authorities admit that they really have no way of reliably counting possible illegal votes, they have no idea.

    The likelihood that the swing states votes were NOT compromised or falsely manipulated is fairly well established (I posted an article above on what the election workers do to prep each machine before the election, and the care they take to ensure that no one goes to a machine without authorization (even if they do, there's not much they can do (being watched by officials) unless they stay there for a few hours. The machines are not Internet connected, and verified 4-5 times on precinct, local, and state levels (sometimes Federal as well) to make sure they're working). So it's less likely that evidence can be found that they were tampered with than they weren't, for which there is ample evidence. And, as we've seen no concrete evidence whatsoever exists for fraudulent activity or items. No one including Stein, the Clinton team, nor anyone else has any reasonable evidence. The only "evidence" is some abstract computer models that had no real tangent within the contexts of these elections, which even the creator of those models admits that he sees nor has no tangible evidence of his theory of machines don't match "polling numbers" and the like.

    So, it's more logical to believe that 3 million people could have voted illegally than the swing state votes in the 3 states are in any way inaccurate to more than a few hundred votes, and infinitesimally likely due to intentional misrepresentation.
    Last edited by phdhorn; 12-02-2016 at 05:54 PM.

  • #282
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,639
    Has it been proven that 1 illegal immigrant voted or it is an assumption? And I mean voted, not registered. To be clear, I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. However I'm reading here that it's a fact.

  • #283
    asshat phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn Definitely Shaggy upper class phdhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Lovetron, ATX
    Posts
    43,550
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    Has it been proven that 1 illegal immigrant voted or it is an assumption? And I mean voted, not registered. To be clear, I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. However I'm reading here that it's a fact.
    The article I cited in turn cited a Harvard study in 2015 (ironically refuting a study that said some 2.8 million illegals voted in 2008 and 10) that said that the percentage of likelihood that illegals did not, and do not regularly vote in elections, especially presidential, "is zero". IOW, it's zero likely that NO illegals voted or vote regularly. FWIW.

  • #284
    asshat TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer Shaggy Gold Club TheTexasHammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I wear your granddads clothes. I look incredible.
    Posts
    18,318
    There are 95 counties in Virginia. In the PILF study that identified 1.096 voters, they only surveyed eight counties. Could have been the smallest or the biggest, I have no idea. Can't extrapolate meaningfully. FURTHERMORE, the status was self reported. An actual illegal alien (I $#@! you not) had to check a box stating that they are an illegal alien. It is reasonable to assume that most lied. So you could have tens of thousands in Virginia alone. Nobody knows.

    3 million nationwide is probably too high. And it certainly hasn't been supported by any analysis. Neither side can do an analysis because the system in several states, most notably california, have been built to (a) register illegals, and (b) hide their status.

    Our election system is corrupt. If a state doesn't ID their voters, they don't know who voted. If they don't know who voted, they cannot validate that votes are legally cast. Those votes should be tossed out - their entire election should be tossed out. We have many states that simply don't have election systems that are valid. The end. No other conclusion is possible.

    We need a federal law to deal with this. If one were passed, we would magically see Democratic participation decline several points is my guess.

    Last edited by TheTexasHammer; 12-02-2016 at 06:22 PM.

  • #285
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,639
    Once again it may or may not be occurring but there doesn't seem to be any (few?) cases. Didn't gwb have the doj search for any and all voter fraud and they couldn't find any?

  • #286
    asshat Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim Shaggy Silver Club Fillmore Slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Only a coward laments over a past unlived.
    Posts
    9,975
    Obama went on TV and urged illegals to vote, saying they would not get in trouble.

  • #287
    Facebook is introducing a new tool that allows readers to rank the use of "misleading language" in the titles of linked articles posted on the site. It is not clear how or even if they intend to respond to these rankings. But they do know from past experience that most people who rank linked articles and websites do so without actually clicking on the link and do so based on the title alone.

    This article is from the left-leaning UK Guardian and should be read with an awareness of that in mind.

    Facebook reportedly testing new tool to combat fake news

    Facebook appears to be testing a tool designed to help it identify and hide so called “fake news” on the social network, in an attempt to quell increasingly vocal criticism of its role in spreading untruths and propaganda.

    The tool, reported by at least three separate Facebook users on Twitter, asks readers to rank on a scale of one to five the extent to which they think a link’s title “uses misleading language”. The articles in question were from reliable sources: Rolling Stone magazine, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Chortle, a news site which reports on comedy.

    It isn’t clear how Facebook intends to act on the data it is collecting, or whether it intends to act at all. Misleading link text is certainly a part of the fake news problem on the social network, as evidenced by the two misleading adverts that accompanied Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s 18 November post about fake news. (That post was later temporarily deleted by Facebook, before the site acknowledged the “system error”).

    The problem of misleading links is compounded by Facebook’s user interface, which serves to de-emphasise links to external sources in favour of encouraging users to like, share or comment on the site itself. Research suggests that almost 60% of social media shares come from users who never clicked the link, implying that the headline drives discussion and sharing far more than the content of an article.

    At the same time, much of the conversation around fake news has focused on articles and publications with many more problems than simple misleading headlines. The “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, which resulted in a self-radicalised gunman discharging his weapon in a popular pizza restaurant in Washington DC on Sunday, was spread with the help of a string of fake news stories falsely accusing the owners of being part of a made up paedophile ring with supposed ties to Hillary Clinton.

    While the Pizzagate stories ranged from misleading to outright fabricated, the headlines on them were accurate summations of their content, suggesting that readers from Facebook who clicked through would end up ranking them as highly trustworthy links under the site’s experimental system.
    Probably the most reasonable and unintrusive thing that Facebook or Twitter can do while not doing nothing is to provide information to readers that will let them know there is some degree of controversy around certain articles.

    At the end of the day, what people believe is not going to be able to be controlled or dictated by our government or the media.
    Last edited by Spartacus; 12-06-2016 at 04:49 AM.

  • #288
    asshat BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club BA93 Shaggy Silver Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Fillmore Slim View Post
    Obama went on TV and urged illegals to vote, saying they would not get in trouble.
    No he didn't.

  • #289
    asshat maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Catalina Fucking Wine Mixer
    Posts
    44,226
    Quote Originally Posted by BA93 View Post
    No he didn't.
    Yeah he kind of did


  • #290
    asshat clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn Probably Shaggy upper class clear lake horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Bucolic Wonderland
    Posts
    20,792
    Quote Originally Posted by phdhorn View Post

  • #291
    asshat bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate Shaggy Gold Club bad_teammate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    8,719
    Quote Originally Posted by maninblack View Post
    Yeah he kind of did

    Obama: "And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself."

    No, he didn't.

  • #292
    asshat maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Catalina Fucking Wine Mixer
    Posts
    44,226
    Quote Originally Posted by bad_teammate View Post
    Obama: "And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself."

    No, he didn't.
    Yes he did but nice try.

  • #293
    never saw that video before.

    teammate....are you serious? Obama clearly lays out the case that there would be be no consequences for someone who votes and is in this country illegally.

  • #294
    asshat maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Catalina Fucking Wine Mixer
    Posts
    44,226
    Quote Originally Posted by gecko View Post
    never saw that video before.

    teammate....are you serious? Obama clearly lays out the case that there would be be no consequences for someone who votes and is in this country illegally.
    Yes he's seriously intellectually dishonest

  • #295
    asshat HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Night Vale
    Posts
    3,868
    Snopes says he didn't. If anything the editing was dishonest. At most, he's talking about her voting as a way to speak for illegals.

    http://www.snopes.com/obama-encourag...liens-to-vote/

  • #296
    asshat maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Catalina Fucking Wine Mixer
    Posts
    44,226
    Quote Originally Posted by HornGrandioso View Post
    Snopes says he didn't. If anything the editing was dishonest. At most, he's talking about her voting as a way to speak for illegals.

    http://www.snopes.com/obama-encourag...liens-to-vote/
    Riiiiiiiiiiight

  • #297
    asshat HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? HornGrandioso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Night Vale
    Posts
    3,868
    part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...

    RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

    OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
    The distinction is right there, like two seconds after the video of a video cuts off showing an outraged Neil Cavuto.

  • #298
    asshat maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack Shaggy Platinum maninblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Catalina Fucking Wine Mixer
    Posts
    44,226

    Should "Fake News" be surpressed on social media?

    Quote Originally Posted by HornGrandioso View Post
    The distinction is right there, like two seconds after the video of a video cuts off showing an outraged Neil Cavuto.
    However, in the context of the question he was asked right before that he gave a wink to every illegal that wanted to vote that they wouldn't be prosecuted which was what Fillmore more or less said.

    RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

    OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

    RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.
    Last edited by maninblack; 12-06-2016 at 11:41 AM.

  • #299
    Good piece

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/...of-credibility

    Despite having decisively won the presidential election by the only measure that counts, the Electoral College, Donald Trump recently decided to call the legitimacy of the entire process into question. “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted.

    There was instant widespread condemnation of Trump. The New York Times ran a headline declaring that Trump’s claim had “no evidence.” ABC News declared it “baseless,” NPR went with “unfounded.” Politico called it a “fringe conspiracy theory.” Those news outlets whose headlines about the tweet did not contain the word “false” were criticized for failing their responsibility to exercise journalistic scrutiny.

    The Washington Post swiftly sicced its top fact-checker on Trump. Glenn Kessler denounced Trump’s “bogus claim.” Kessler gave Trump a lecture on the importance of credibility, writing that since Trump was now “on the verge of becoming president, he needs to be more careful about making wild allegations with little basis in fact, especially if the claim emerged from a handful of tweets and conspiracy-minded websites.” Should Trump persist in wildly distorting the truth, he “will quickly find that such statements will undermine his authority on other matters.”

    The media demanded to know where Trump had come up with such a ridiculous notion. The day after the tweet, Trump spokesman Jason Miller was asked by NPR whether there was any evidence to support the idea that millions of people had voted illegally. But surprisingly enough, Miller did have a source: The Washington Post.

    In 2014, under the headline “Could non-citizens decide the November election?” the Post had run a piece from two social scientists, Jesse Richman and David Earnest, suggesting that illegal voting by non-citizens could be regularly occurring, and could even be prevalent enough to tip elections. As they wrote:

    How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

    Richman and Earnest’s thesis was extremely controversial, and was so heavily criticized that the Post ultimately published a note preceding the article, pointing out that many objections to the work had been made. But the Post never actually retracted or withdrew the piece. It was ironic, then, that when Trump tweeted about millions of illegal voters, the Washington Post’s fact-checker chastised him for relying on “conspiracy-minded websites.” After all, the conspiracy-minded website in question was the Post itself.

  • #300
    asshat The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link Shaggy Bronze Club The Missing Link's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Hyrule
    Posts
    7,603
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexasHammer View Post
    We need a federal law to deal with this. If one were passed, we would magically see Democratic participation decline several points is my guess.
    Which is why it won't happen. As long as it favors one side to not have more legitimate elections, we won't get them.

  • + Reply to Thread
    Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts

     

     

    Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
    Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
    Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
    Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont