Wielding Claims of ‘Fake News,’ Conservatives Take Aim at

>“Over the years, we’ve effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it’s gone too far,” said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. “Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don’t see how you reverse it.”

>Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it “fake news” to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

>“Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue,” said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. “Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we’re doing a disservice to lump all those things together.”

>The right’s labeling of “fake news” evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as “fair and balanced.” Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable.

>As with Fox’s ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives’ appropriation of the “fake news” label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media’s claim to be a reliable and accurate source.
...

>“What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy,” said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. “Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable.”

>Conservative news media are now awash in the “fake news” condemnations. When coverage of Mr. Trump’s choice for labor secretary, Andrew F. Puzder, highlighted his opposition to minimum wage increases, the writer and radio host Erick Erickson wrote that Mr. Puzder should have been getting more credit for pointing out that such increases lead to higher unemployment. “To say otherwise is to push fake news,” he wrote. (The effects actually have been found to vary from city to city.)

>Infowars, the website run by the conservative provocateur and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, labeled as “fake news” a CNN report that Ivanka Trump would move into the office in the White House normally reserved for the first lady.

>Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of “The New Celebrity Apprentice” after taking office in January. “Ridiculous & untrue — FAKE NEWS!” he wrote.

>Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump’s victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.

>“The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn’t the Russians or Jim Comey or ‘fake news’ or the Electoral College,” said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. “‘Fake news’ is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda.”
...

>Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

>When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site’s founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.

>“They’re trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking,” he said.

>There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.

>Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired “fact-checking” segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, “Michelle Malkin Investigates,” in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.

>The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. “We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe,” Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. “Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time.”

If they are against it, I'm for it. Really, all this fake news BS is really a call for censorship and for you all to STFU.

>>94783
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/23/the-man-behind-denver-guardian/

http://link.theplatform.com/s/2E2eJC/PKxgJYQCDhd7?format=redirect&Tracking=true&Embedded=true&formats=MPEG4

Meanwhile, liberals are using the "fake news" push to attack the non-traditional media. Journalism as a whole is under attack in this country.

Yup

>Article about fake news and the very first sentence is a lie.
You know what, I hope both the right and left just take down every single journalism website together so I don't have to see this shit from either side anymore.

>>94797
>The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election.

What about this is a lie? Donald Trump doesn't yet live in the White House (and seems to refuse to want to start working there either). It was known since January that Russia was doing various cyberattacks to disrupt the election process. Every private cybersecurity company involved also agreed.

>>94783
>If they are against it, I'm for it.
you sound easily manipulatable

>>94798
>What about this is a lie?
All of it.

>It was speculated* since January that Russia was doing various cyberattacks to disrupt the election process
FTFY

>Private cyber security companies employed b the DNC involved also agreed.
FTFY again

This will always be fake news, no matter how many times you repeat it or how big you try to make it. Got it Goebbels?

>>94798
Blindly repeating BBC or NPR news stories doesn't make you correct. A lot of countries and individuals do shifty shit on the internet, and are very good at hiding trails.

>>94803

This wasn't just the DNC email leaks/hacks moron. These were cyberattacks across the board: RNC, DNC, private sector, and government agencies. Here is *one* article that overviews it (poorly and incompletely, but briefly and with plenty of deferral), but you can find hundreds -- before you cherrypick individual sentences that seem to break from the main thesis (but really just disagree on whether evidence is conclusive on how where and to what extent), here's all you need:

>most congressional Republicans accepted intelligence and law enforcement officials' conclusions that Russia meddled in the presidential campaign

www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/russian-hack-donald-trump-2016-election/

>>94803
>This will always be fake news, no matter how many times you repeat it or how big you try to make it.

There's a word for an unfalsifiable belief. It's called an opinion. When Trump cites the FBI's disagreement with the CIA as evidence of conspiracy, then why doesn't his belief on the matter change once there exists consensus among US intelligence? Because his logic is, if evidence indicates a Russian hack happened, then the evidence is fake. That's called an unfalsifiable belief, and unless he's lying, it's a product of blind faith.

And why are so many conservatives defaulting to the explanation of conspiracy? Is it reasonable to think people might be inclined to believe intelligence experts' interpretation of their data? There exists a difference between interpreting facts differently and inventing news. If the CIA and FBI agree that Russia hacked the DNC to make it possible for Trump to win, wherein comes the faking? Is it fake that the CIA and FBI reported that there was a hacking? Is it fake that journalists interpret that as evidence that hacking probably happened? What exactly is fake and where is the evidence of the lie? What evidence would you expect to see if it weren't a lie and your belief wasn't an opinion and could be falsified with the right evidence?

>>94812
>And why are so many conservatives defaulting to the explanation of conspiracy?

It's not just conservatives, there are plenty of democrats who are convinced that the Russians gave Trump the White House as some kind of shady deal.

>>94806
>This wasn't just the DNC email leaks/hacks moron.
What else then?

>These were cyberattacks across the board: RNC, DNC, private sector, and government agencies.
Post evidence.

>but you can find hundreds
Post them. Post the evidence.

Don't knowingly give a "poor, incomplete" source and then tell people they have to do your work for you if they want the full, adequate picture. This is intellectually dishonest.

>most congressional Republicans accepted intelligence and law enforcement officials' conclusions that Russia meddled in the presidential campaign
The collective opinion of congressional republicans= fact.

Are you saying that because they probably also all believe that abortion should be outlawed, that that's also correct? Cause I would sure hope not.

Why are the only defenses to the "muh russian hackers" appeals to popularity and appeals to authority? Why is it so hard to just provide credible evidence that isn't just fucking hearsay?

Oh right, it's a false flag the DNC tried to use like a Reichstag fire to usurup Trump and appoint Clinton.

>>94799

I think he's trying to say what their (the politicians) mindset is, rather a statement of his own opinion. Or at least that's how I read it, would have been better if he put in some quotes to indicate this what not his personal belief.

>>94813
>It's not just conservatives, there are plenty of democrats who are convinced that the Russians gave Trump the White House as some kind of shady deal.
Yeah, it's called being a sore loser and blaming your own shortcomings and failures on someone else.

>>94812
>There's a word for an unfalsifiable belief. It's called an opinion.
So you agree the CIA's "strong opinion" about Russian hackers is just that? Cool. Glad we're on the same page.

>then why doesn't his belief on the matter change once there exists consensus among US intelligence?
Because there's no actual consensus.

>Because his logic is, if evidence indicates a Russian hack happened, then the evidence is fake.
Actually the logic is- there is no evidence because it didn't happen, and repeated failure to produce any evidence reinforces this fact. Appeals to authority and popularity- sorry- "consensus" are not evidence.

>And why are so many conservatives defaulting to the explanation of conspiracy?
They're Neocons who feel like their power and status is being threatened by an outsider.

>If the CIA and FBI agree that Russia hacked the DNC to make it possible for Trump to win, wherein comes the faking?
Again, the complete and total lack of any credible evidence beyond hearsay.

>What evidence would you expect to see if it weren't a lie and your belief wasn't an opinion and could be falsified with the right evidence?
Literally anything beyond alphabet agencies jerking themselves off over their strong opinions.

Ya'll have been gaslighting yourselves and taking offense when people don't buy into it. Culltish, desperate behavior by those still refusing to accept the outcome of the election.

>Ya'll have been gaslighting yourselves and taking offense when people don't buy into it. Culltish, desperate behavior by those still refusing to accept the outcome of the election.

This is why they need to make a constitutional amendment to ban the Democratic party and make the US a one party state.

>>94818
>This is why they need to make a constitutional amendment to ban the Democratic party and make the US a one party state.

Everytime someone starts picking apart these threads, there's always some hyperbolic response about genociding the left and creating a one party state.

Pro-tip: The fascists lost the election, evident by their attempt at a Reichstag Fire.

You guys need to stop whining about your Putin boogeyman. Putin wouldn't risk hacking our elections.

Besides, Putin has always wanted to be a friend of the United States. Obama and Hillary wanted to make a new cold war to benefit themselves politically. Russia and the United States should be allies, and I'm thrilled to see our relationship warming up now that the Democrats are out of power.

>>94820
The liberals are traitors to the state and our greatest enemies. Why shouldn't we hunt them down like we did to the fascist or Japs during WWII?

>>94822
>The liberals are traitors to the state and our greatest enemies.
The state right now is a "liberal" nightmare. The people you call liberals have dragged that shit far left.

>Why shouldn't we hunt them down like we did to the fascist or Japs during WWII?
Because then you become as bad as them.

The key is not removing the people driving the power structure. The key is rendering the power structure itself inert.

>>94823
Ruthlessness, competition, and violence was what drove Western civilization to dominance over all others, and tolerance, peace, and empathy are what is destroying it. Even back in the days of the great Western empires, we were too kind to the untermensch, too altruistic in our want to spread our light and too unwilling to do what needed to be done. What we need now is strong, pure, and hard men to rule us and stamp out the degeneracy that festers all around us.

The time for peace is over, now is the time for change.

>>94817
>Yeah, it's called being a sore loser and blaming your own shortcomings and failures on someone else.

So what if the last 30 thousand private communications of your company were released to the competition, and you went out of business. I suppose in some sense that would still be fair, but you'd have to be kidding yourself to say you were competing on a level playing field.

I agree that that by itself can't be a an excuse for why Trump won (then again, that's something republicans are painting democrats with while no democrats have actually said anything of the sort). But it's logical to say it is unfair when one person is disallowed privacy in communications, no matter who would have otherwise won.

Regardless, it's possible to be concerned for the fact that a foreign state actor has the capacity and willingness to hack our political parties' electronic communications for its own sake.

>>94814
>Why is it so hard to just provide credible evidence that isn't just fucking hearsay?

By your standards, evidence for virtually everything is technically hearsay, including primary sources. Everything you read or are told is to some extent hearsay. The fact is that security experts who are best positioned to evaluate data concerning the hack have concluded that is was likely a product of Russian state actors and many Trump supporters will never believe that because they have blind faith in the idea that Russia didn't attempt to influence the our elections in favor of a candidate with which they had amicable relations. Demanding hard data from the CIA and FBI is an unreasonable expectation for very obvious reasons.

>>94823
>The people you call liberals have dragged that shit far left.
Socially, yes they have.

Economically, most Democrats are third way New Democrats. Basically corporate shills who will cut welfare and remove major regulations just as readily as the Republicans will. Democrats nowadays will scream about how progressive they are when they get another black on the Forbes 400, but won't give a shit when automation annihilates our workforce and we have the same wealth inequality as third world nations.

>>94827
Obama is a social elitist and an economic populist, and he billed himself that way.
Trump is a social populist and economic elitist, although he bills himself as all-around population.

>>94806
>linking fake news site CNN

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ministry-of-truth-plus-611-billion-for-the-military-in-2017-obama-quietly-signs-the-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-into-law/5564740

Anyway. The last cyber attack I heard of came from INSIDE the US. That one in the middle of the election?

Around the time Assange went missing.

>>94812
Because the CIA fucking lies.

#operation mocking bird

>>94833
>>>94825
Then why are red states so incompetent and dependent upon Obamacare while blue states contribute disproportionately to GDP?

Violence is destructive because it has no long-term macroeconomic value. It has no capacity to tease apart ability to deliver to public demand like markets.

When we use civilization to organize resources toward where they can be best leveraged, the long-term benefit is greater than when selfish violence is employed.

It's quite natural that when hard facts destroy one's concept of reality, we tend to want to return to what's familiar. Go to mothers' teat. Many conservatives have a retrograde desire to return to our past, but it will never happen, because markets are too valuable, economic gain is too preferable, we will never become a manufacturing power again; it's not lucrative to do that here by hand, and if we force it, everyone will lose out a little. We will wall ourselves off from other countries but also from reality, but it will inevitably fail entirely.

>>94825
>we were too kind to the untermensch, too altruistic in our want to spread our light and too unwilling to do what needed to be done

Do you actually honestly believe this? Even with the conditions of life for feudal peasants? Or those of the working class in the gilded age?
Or the whole of the colonial period, with such things as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, or specific horrors like Haiti or the Belgian Congo?

Come on now, horror terror and cruelty is what we have ALWAYS specialized in. It's just been the top classes always using it upon the proles. You are a prole, and it is being used on you.

The degeneracy you see? It is precisely what they intended.

>>94799
This is a common mindset these days. "If my enemy likes it, I hate it". 4chan used to never have a real problem with lgbt until the left started pushing it hard, now the alt-right here shit their pants the moment they're mentioned

>>94837
Its intended to be a kind of easy way to catch the agenda of the enemy and crush it.

The problem is; of course; for those that act as reactionaries they are easy to control.

>>94836
This brings up a good point, which is that at the height of colonialism, the western world dominated other countries because they were already economically more competent. Westerners had developed superior technology and manufacturing capacity and that's what made them successful at violence; not the other way around.

What produced the condition for strong economics is a little more complicated. Certainly there was a military aspect to that; Europe was quite fractured and infighting was very common throughout history. Competence at warfare is sort of a proxy measure of economic competence as a whole, but it's not the whole story. It's not as valuable a means to distinguish ideas on the basis of economic merit than just having relatively free market competition by itself, but it still did the trick a few centuries ago.

>>94837
>4chan hates lgbt

I come here for the gay porn, what are you talking about?

>>94837
Not really have you seen /pol/ or /v/ they love gay porn

>>94832
>http://www.globalresearch.ca
Do research on your sources before you accuse people of fake news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
>Common conspiracy theories are frequently advanced, and stated as facts by authors including Chossudovsky himself on his website Global Research. A few examples are: The New World Order (conspiracy theory),[17][18] 9/11 conspiracy theories, such as the assertion that the attack on the Twin Towers was a False flag operation,[19][20] The HAARP conspiracy theory, that the installation is a "secret weapon used for weather modification, electromagnetic warfare",[21][22] (Also included by Chossudovsky in one of his books.), Global warming conspiracy theory,[23][24] Charlie Hebdo shooting conspiracy theories,[25][26] and the FEMA camps conspiracy theory.[27][28]

>>94844
But they hate lesbians.

>>94848
Only 3d ones

>>94779
Help me and others spread the word about how the MSM is telling us how we "like" the new star wars! I thought I enjoyed it until I watched the reaction of logical thinking people. Disney is the devil, that's why the three sixes are there. This show is complete garbage and I pray you spread this message to everyone. Don't let MSM control you! Please like this video with every account you own, share it and help others. #StarWarsWasNeverGood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2YJchDTASg
It's time to fight back and tell the world we don't even like this garbage!

>>94845
/v/ loves trap shit
/pol/ loves interracial cuckholdery and BLACKED.

>>94853
True though /pol/ also loves traps.

>>94852
>>>/godlikeproductions/

>>94843

Indeed, violence was a product of success, not a factor that led to success. In order to be a conquering (aka successful) power, you need to have some sort of power base to pull from, whether it be manpower, technology, or resources. You also don't expand unless you run out of space or resources (or anticipate such a shortage due to demand).

Compare Europe to the Americas in the same precolonial time period. Europe is nothing but back to back nations with growing populations as a result of good resources, thus they fight over land continuously to fuel this growth. Meanwhile in the Americas, there's loads of empty space between nations which have small populations, as such there is little need to fight since as resources decline they can expand or move without much issue. Only in the comparatively dense Central America are there large cities and frequent fighting, and even then they didn't have the resources to expand the conflict to European levels (notably pack and farm animals, something which greatly enhances economic and military output).

Of course these aren't the only factors for success and why Europe became the dominate power on the planet. For instance, the Mongols and the Crusades would basically destroy the intellectuals of the middle east, and coupled with the fall of the Turks lead it to where it is today. Sub-Saharan Africa is filled with terrible soil, either too dry or too depleted to be workable without modern techniques which prevented development in those regions from early on except in coastal areas where outside trade could boost growth (which not coincidentally where some of the areas conquered last due to favorable relations with Europe as well as more formidable economic and military power). Meanwhile Asia destroyed itself through arrogance and the resulting isolationism, only after crushing defeat and humiliation to foreign powers did this line of thought change and lead to the rise of the modern Asian powers.

>>94829

>Obama
>an economic populist

He transformed 400 billion dollars of TARP funds into bank stock, tying the Federal Government to banks in a way never before seen.

>>94864
It's like you think Obama personally came up with TARP and not Bush's Treasury Secretary.

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

>>94866

Nobody, but NOBODY in Bush's cabinet came up with the idea of transmuting TARP funds into common stock. That's a conflict of interest to the tune of 400,000,000,000.

>>94871
You're thinking of this?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

>U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed a plan under which the U.S. Treasury would acquire up to $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities.[21] The plan was immediately backed by President George W. Bush and negotiations began with leaders in the U.S. Congress to draft appropriate legislation.U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed a plan under which the U.S. Treasury would acquire up to $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities.[21] The plan was immediately backed by President George W. Bush and negotiations began with leaders in the U.S. Congress to draft appropriate legislation.

>Consultations among Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox, congressional leaders, and President Bush, moved forward efforts to draft a proposal for a comprehensive solution to the problems created by illiquid assets. News of the coming plan resulted in some stock, bond, and currency markets stability on September 19, 2008.[23][24]

>The proposal called for the federal government to buy up to US$700 billion of illiquid mortgage-backed securities with the intent to increase the liquidity of the secondary mortgage markets and reduce potential losses encountered by financial institutions owning the securities. The draft proposal was received favorably by investors in the stock market, but caused the U.S. dollar to fall against gold, the Euro, and petroleum. The plan was not immediately approved by Congress; debate and amendments were seen as likely before the plan was to receive legislative enactment.[25][26][27]

>>94872

Nope, but nice try. Here, I'll spoonfeed you. Heeere comes the airplane! Open up the hangar! Brrrrrrrowweeeowwwww!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20bailout.html

>>94875
>he thinks he's the one doing the spoonfeeding here
Here you go, young trumpling, let me help you:
>TARP does not allow banks to recoup losses already incurred on troubled assets, but officials expect that once trading of these assets resumes, their prices will stabilize and ultimately increase in value, resulting in gains to both participating banks and the Treasury itself. The concept of future gains from troubled assets comes from the hypothesis in the financial industry that these assets are oversold, as only a small percentage of all mortgages are in default, while the relative fall in prices represents losses from a much higher default rate.

>The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) requires financial institutions selling assets to TARP to issue equity warrants (a type of security that entitles its holder to purchase shares in the company issuing the security for a specific price), or equity or senior debt securities (for non-publicly listed companies) to the Treasury. In the case of warrants, the Treasury will only receive warrants for non-voting shares, or will agree not to vote the stock. This measure is designed to protect the government by giving the Treasury the possibility of profiting through its new ownership stakes in these institutions. Ideally, if the financial institutions benefit from government assistance and recover their former strength, the government will also be able to profit from their recovery.[4]
See the part that says "2008" ? 2008 happened before 2009. Bush was president.

>>94879

Nope, because while this still falls under TARP as a program, the change in scale is an Obama twist on a Bush program. Warrants are not the same thing as the government straight up owning large chunks of the American banking industry, so that part's fine. But purchasing 400 billion dollars of preferred and common stock necessitates a large conflict of interest, even if the government abstains from using that stock to vote in shareholders meetings.

>>94881
Do you know who Henry Paulson was, son?

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
-Trump

>>94901
Who cares who does the exposing? If it's the Russians, the Norwegians, even the fucking Taliban, exposing leftist lies and hypocrisy is a good thing and I'm surprised that you people are upset about it. Putin should be getting pat on the back for showing who Hillary and the Democrats were, not fucking threatened with war and sanctions.

>>94913
>Who cares who does the exposing?
Americans.

>>94913

>for showing who Hillary and the Democrats were

For 30K private communications from the highest echelons of a political party, the leaks were fairly tame. I thought it was sort of encouraging.

I guess it sucks that there was a preference for one candidate over another within party leadership. I'm not really surprised though. I wish there was more transparency and honesty but what do people suspect the backroom conversations and deals in parties looked like? If the RNC or Trump had a leak of similar scale and the outcome was equally tame, then if anything, I'd find it encouraging that there's so little scandal behind the scenes.

>>94913
>democrats
>leftist

hahaha, the dems are centrist at best, ameriburger

most countries would call them center-right

>>94919
Typical idiot liberal. Bury your head in the sand the instant your beloved goddess hillary starts shrieking about anything.

You are everything wrong with politics and people these days.

>>94835
>this myth again
The red states will bury the left. We have more states, more governors, and more senators. We will destroy your liberal enclaves and cast you all into obsolescence.

The future is conservative! The future is fash!

>>94921

>these leaks aren't as bad as they could have
>IDIOT LIBERAL OH WOW WHY DON'T YOU SUCK HILLARY'S DICK MORE

I mean that shit wasn't great for the Democrats, but it certainly wasn't as world ending as some made it out to be, especially when you consider that the Republicans have equally scathing emails about specific candidates as revealed in Colin Powell's emails (and that's only the correspondence of one man who's less active in the party, imagine if they got Rance Prebius's email).

>>94925

>more leaders
>less people

Aren't Republicans the sort of people who want less government? If so, why is it they have the most top heavy (by ratio) governments in the union?

I know it's more about the regulations and whatnot but it's kind of funny that the Republican leadership is a much larger fraction of the people they represent than the Democrats are to theirs.

>>94928
That applies to some Republicans anon just as there is diversity of thought in the Democrats party so too is that notion true for the Republican party.

>>94925
>The future is conservative!
You could have fooled me. It looks like the same tried-and-failed supply side trickle down reaganomic policies that have been proven wrong time and time again over the last 40 years.

>>94837
>4chan used to never have a real problem with lgbt
most people have always had a problem with every letter after the b because its insane nonsense.

the left acting even more insane about the whole thing and being hostile to everyone that disagrees only makes it a lot worse.

>>94946
sent too soon.

sure people here fap to traps and trannys and other degenerate shit all the time, but its not much more then that.

progressives just take the whole thing way too far.

>>94837
This has been around since k and pol first started, probably since 4chan started. There has definitely been a push by some liberals and their detractors, but most people here have never been exceedingly smart or wise.

I still think it's amazing when I see a liberal thread and a conservative thread right next to each other, and both bitch and moan about each other in the same way. Cons (especially if religious) get triggered just as much as libs. Being this averse to calmly and politely working out issues is nothing short of cosmic irony.

>>94945
>Hiding behind muh trickle down meme to avoid the fact that your opinions are shit
Really sad, desu.

>>94963
Trickle down hasn't been just a meme since 1981 and you wouldn't know a good opinion if it bit you in the ass.

>>94837
Nobody cares about the LGB bits, we're all cool with those fags, It's the trannies that are an issue. They are attempting to lump their rampant mental illness into gay rights shit.

It's absolutely absurd, these dick-mutilators are fucked in the head, they are crazy people, not people with different sexual orientation.

>>94806
>DNC emails leaks/hacks

This bothers me, because I have to go back farther and farther to find out what is meant by this. As far as I know, there was one leak and one hack:

1. Podesta's email;
2. Clinton's server.

But Podesta was fooled by a phishing email that he was specifically told NOT to open. His password was then revealed to be p@ssw0rd. This contradicts the claim that the hack was so sophisticated it had to come straight from the Kremlin.

Furthermore, Clinton's server was also less-than-secure. Russia was never mentioned when these leaks came out, because the WikiLeaks themselves said that the source was a leak from inside the DNC.

So, I guess, this puts you before a decision: believe a known government whistle-blower who has never been wrong? Or believe a government organisation known for subversion and lying?

Seems like a simple choice to me.

>>94987
The Podesta "hack" was by no means sophisticated. It was a straight standard spear phishing attempt.

>>94919

Trump starts tweeting his thoughts of the day at 3 AM, exactly where do you draw the line at transparency? Do you want the President to be wearing a GoPro at all times?

>>94989
That isn't what transparency is. Trump could tweet when he's taking a shit and not ever reveal to the public how many lobbyists he spoke with that day. That's transparency (or lack of it).

>>94987
The DNC email "hack" (Wasserman-Schlutz's emails) is a separate phishing attempt than the Podesta campaign email "hack", which is in turn separate from the Clinton state department email "hack", which is in turn separate from JudicialWatch's FOIA-requested email dumps to wikileaks. And then on top of all that you've got Snowden and Manning leaks of State Department emails & other material.

>>94988
>>94992
Please note, that "hack" is in quotes because in both instances the parties practiced little to no infosec polices which may have prevented this data being compromised in the first place.

>>94994
We've all seen how to some in the media a DDoS attempt counts as a "hack".

>>94995
As Exchange administrator, the Guccifier 2.0 attack on Clinton's private email server could most definitely be considered a "hack" by most laymen, but in the industry it would just be considered an embarrassment to the admin in charge.

>no patches
>default configs

It's like little baby's first Exchange server (TM).

>>94964
How has supply-side been a failure? It's grown are economy remarkably well since Reagan, much better then the stifling demand-side of the 40s through 70s.

>inb4 muh wealth inequality
It's a feature, not a flaw. A less then livable income at the bottom incentivizes people not to fall into the lower classes and work harder. As for the poor, most deserve to be there. The risk of starvation or homelessness also provides a motive for them to climb out of poverty and acts as a screening process for who deserves a slice of the economic pie.

>>95184
>most deserve to be there
nah
>climb out of poverty
And how are they supposed to do that working as hard as they can barely keeps them afloat?

>>95184
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55785d3069bedd9042880a33/how-many-hours-youd-have-to-work-earning-minimum-wage-to-rent-an-apartment-in-every-state.jpg

>>95184
>A less then livable income at the bottom incentivizes people not to fall into the lower classes and work harder

This made sense during industrialization with one glaring flaw, which is that socioeconomic status is inherited. A family fallen on hard times can generally be expected to live an impoverished or dependent upon government support for generations because their children will be afforded less opportunity for development to their potential.

Either way, not producing a floor for living standards serves as an obstacle in a post-industrial economy because a knowledge economy is driven by risk taking and innovative / creative ideas. Placing inordinate importance on hard work only serves as a confounding variable in producing the right incentives. If I have a great idea and concept for a business and I have enough to invest toward actualizing that, it's not helpful if I'm too afraid for my basic subsistence to go forward because what if some day I can't afford my own health insurance, or what if there's a risk my business flops and the risk of living in a cardboard box outweighs my desire to produce a successful business? I'm better off just playing it safe and working in an established company. There is a real macroeconomic opportunity cost.

>>95184
It'd be nice if this at least applied to everyone though. If I declare bankruptcy, four times, there's not much chance of me becoming a billionaire in the future.
Downward social mobility doesn't work the same way for the rich as the poor in our economy.

Sounds like censorship. The right can eat a dick just like those sjws that were calling for it a few years back.

>>94798
>muh fake news!
>openly report falsities

this is why the NYT is dying

>>94826
>Demanding hard data from the CIA and FBI is an unreasonable expectation for very obvious reasons.

Yeah, why should we demand actual proof of our government's declarations? Iraq had WMDs after all!

>>95893
What's false about it?

>>95894

I agree comrade, the US should reveal who their sources are inside the Kremlin! They should also reveal their cybersecurity detection methods! This would be good for us fellow Americans, would it not?

ha ha time for gulags

>>94779
Wow, how can you not trust the giant transnational corporations that own your news media?

>>94779
>WASHINGTON — The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking
The FBI said no such thing. They can't even get past the first sentence without lying.

>>95940
True; can't go wrong with NPR

>>94779
>The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election

It didn't interfere with the election though. No ballots were changed or edited. DHS even admitted that.

>>95953
Source? The unauthorized release of hacked campaign emails is more than enough to effect an election.

>>95976
>No ballots were changed or edited
Voting registrars were targeted in more than one state. All of the registered voters in Arizona and Illinois had all their personal info taken. True that no ballots were changed but it's incorrect to say they didn't interfere at all.

Republican here. It seems to me that the right and left are both using "fake news" as a buzzword to describe any news they disagree with.

Any article that says anything positive about Trump, CNN and USA Today will declare to be "fake news" regardless of it's source or credibility.

Any article that says anything negative about Trump, Breitbart and Drudge Report will call "fake news".

Genuinely fake news doesn't bother me. It's easy to spot. It's been around for years. It's not an issue right now.

What is an issue is biased news. I used to trust most of the major news networks and newspapers to be mostly unbiased, since it's generally in their best interests to appear unbiased. This election season changed everything though. With CNN, USA Today, Fox News, BBC, etc. all ganging up on Donald Trump and putting out completely misleading articles that paint him to be some kind of inhuman monster and even just putting out flat-out lies and one-sided opinions labeled as facts, I can't trust the MSM anymore.

I don't believe all the "fake news" hype, but I do believe that the largest media outlets that Ive relied on for years have thrown out their integrity for the sake of defacing the candidate they're opposing.

>>95995
>What is an issue is biased news.

This. And news outlets that selectively report on stories that fit their narrative and ignore the ones that do not. For example, there was a -big- pro-gun rally in my county here, and all it received from the local news was a couple of paragraphs on their website, while a smaller BLM protest was front page on both the paper and website for several days.

>>95995
It'd be awesome if Trump tore down the liberal media establishment and replaced it with only truthful ones like Brietbart, Info Wars, and Zero Hedge.

>>96010
I'm all for more liberal tears but that doesn't solve the problem, though.

>>96010
>truthful ones
What makes you think any of those are truthful?

>>96010
Is this a joke?

>>96071
Nothing could make him "think" they were truthful: he "believes," without thinking. Lying actually requires one to have the truth in the first place to make the distinction, so most people just bs cause it's easier, it's the first stupid thing out of their mouth.

Facts should be assumed to be opinion and questionable: sustained data in quantity (cosby accusations) I reasonably tend seeing as likely fact.

Reasoned intelligence can be reproduced and thus proven as well as can be.

Who is anyone to say that liberals should be hunted down? This is pure chaos.
I seriously doubt this discussion holds any serious clout.
The simple fact is, is that you don't get to pick. Liberalism is the front for science and secularism, not conservatism. This has always been the case, and will always be the case too, in politics, engineering, and art. Change is the future, not hate. Everyone knows that. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you have to pick.
Most on here claim that we should just give up on liberalism,well liberalis brought you science, brought you warheads, brought you skyscrapers, the arts.
Why even continue? I'll stop here.

>>96328
The US liberals aren't what can be considered liberals, they are centralists at best

>>96332
If you ask US republicans and some in the media, they say US liberals are hardcore socialists and leftist radicals.

>>96362
He's fallen for the 'all true fascists and communists are liberal' meme. If a pretty common belief on /pol/.

>>96328
>well liberalis brought you science,
dumb meme.
politics only gets in the way of science.

>>95995
This right here. "Fake news" is old news and only reuires a few moments of thought to see through. People just keep clicking on FB "articles" selling them snake oil because they can't be bothered to think on the internet.

The problem is when biased news and fake news become conflated. Major news agencies were putting out headlines like "Trump Brags About Raping Women" all because of that stupid video. Or hell, anyone else remember all the "attacks" by Trump supporters?

>>96328
Liberals brought about the enlightenment, the biggest mistake in Western history.

>>96441
What's wrong with the enlightenment?

>>96443
Tolerance, mercy, fairness, democracy, and love were all constructs of the enlightenment. These values weaken Western culture.

>>96448
lol
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38204388

>>94792
>Journalism as a whole is under attack in this country

Easy to see when most current 'news' articles would be considered yellow journalism or opinion pieces just 20 years ago.
And whoever came up with trying to pass off opinion pieces under the guise of 'fact checking' should be taken out back and shot!

>>96448
>These values weaken Western culture.
with the way progressives handle it, sure it is pretty harmful.
but they are good qualities in a culture when done properly.