Wikileaks Drops Bombshell Cia Provided Podesta Emails To Wikileaks Not Russia! [video]

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

This is not an example of fake news. It is an example of polling models that failed to accurately predict the outcome of the election.

Sure it is when it's that far out, even Cenk from TYT berated the Huff for it's fake news based on bogus polls, I love the smell of Hillary supporters fighting amongst themselves in the morning. Carry on while I go get some popcorn.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That far out? How precisely do you intend to demonstrate your claim? How do you know their odds were off? Could it not be that Trump winning was indeed incredibly unlikely, but happened regardless? Not that I believe that, mind you. I believe they were biased and partisan and their confirmation bias lead them to focus on polls that told them the story they wanted to hear.

That is not the same thing as fake news, however. And you ardently repeating things does not by fiat make them true.

I'm curious, what is it about the psychology of the far right that leads people to relish the notion that people who disagree with them honestly and with good intention are suffering? Is there some obligatory sense of sadism that accompanies your "values"?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Sure, it was flawed, and the Huff ran it. But according to you it is not fake, just terribly flawed news?

According to me, everyone attempting to project an election is to some extent guessing. There are seas of data, some of the datum are better than others. FiveThirtyEight was close to getting it right, but still underestimated Trump's chances. HuffPost is as an extremely biased source, as we all know. "Fake" is not letting your confirmation bias get the better of you and missing a projection. "Fake" would be the utterly fabricated article that said Trump had won the popular vote when the truth leaned the other direction by more than a million votes. Did you distribute it as truth like most of the rightists I know? When it was demonstrated to be actual fake news, did you retract your statements and apologize for your error? I suspect not.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

So you assume Huff didn't cherry pick the polls they wanted?

I call that fake news as well.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

That far out? How precisely do you intend to demonstrate your claim? How do you know their odds were off?

Did you even follow the election ?

They used formula's that consistently favored Clinton resulting in propaganda, this propaganda was presented by the MSM as news, and it turned out to be fake news.

HuffPost is as an extremely biased source

Now I understand when the left put outs fake news it's "extremely biased" when the right puts out fake news it's not "extremely biased" it's just fake news, got it.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

So you assume Huff didn't cherry pick the polls they wanted?

I call that fake news as well.

As I said in my post, I think that their confirmation bias lead them to what was for them an over-optimistic projection. If you claim that you cannot see the difference between something that was written with the intention of being untrue (the popular vote story) being circulated as truth and a media outlet falling victim to their bias and thus underestimating the odds of a Trump victory, you are very likely one of two things: a liar or an idiot.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

That far out? How precisely do you intend to demonstrate your claim? How do you know their odds were off?

Did you even follow the election ?

I suspect I followed it with quite a lot more rigor and analysis than you did. Did you even try to answer my question?

They used formula's that consistently favored Clinton resulting in propaganda, this propaganda was presented by the MSM as news, and it turned out to be fake news.

Poor predictions are not the same thing as propaganda. What you are doing here on ATS, on the other hand, is very much propaganda.

Now I understand when the left put outs fake news it's "extremely biased" when the right puts out fake news it's not "extremely biased" it's just fake news, got it.

Lying about the outcome of the popular vote is "fake news". Producing a bad prediction is not.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

My question was do you think they cherry picked the poles they chose?

If so what is the difference?

According to you one is write it and print it, it is lie (fake news).

My question
if Huff cherry pick poles add them together and print Hillary projected 98% this is real news? Hardly

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Poor predictions are not the same thing as propaganda.

If that was truly the case, the fact is the cognitive dissonance of the liberal left had them drinking the cool-aid by the gallons, that's why they had such absolute meltdowns election night like we have never seen in political history. Because fake news told them they were going to win and by a landslide, did you watch the TYT highlights of election night.

The woman at one point actually said what everybody was going through "I am losing my mind"

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

My question was do you think they cherry picked the poles they chose?

If so what is the difference?

According to you one is write it and print it, it is lie (fake news).

My question
if Huff cherry pick poles add them together and print Hillary projected 98% this is real news? Hardly

No. As I said, I think they fell victim to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is an honest mistake made at one point or another by all human minds to gravitate towards information that tends to support your preconceived notions. The polling data are universally available and nearly everyone, including Trump's team, seems to have missed the mark by quite a lot.

According to you one is write it and print it, it is lie (fake news).

Uh, could you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

a reply to: dashen

Omg you owe me a new tablet!!!! And sinuses for the soda I just spewed out my nose haha

Lil

ETA as to the thread how bout this ... It is ALL fake, to get us exactly where we are now... Fighting each other instead of "them".. Just remember in the end together we stand divided we fall... Almost Every single person on this thread so far is doing exactly what "they" want you to do..

On a side note I'm still open to who or what "they" actually are but if you step back and look at the whole world with open eyes you can see it is ALL being done to make us hate each other. And so we will not join together to fight them.

I'm so convinced of this I voted for a 16yo kid(Deez Nuts) for Prez and a cat(Limberbutt MvCubbins) for VP because they were putting in who they want not who we need and nothing we do will change that with things the way they are now with us fighting

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Poor predictions are not the same thing as propaganda.

If that was truly the case, the fact is the cognitive dissonance of the liberal left had them drinking the cool-aid by the gallons, that's why they had such absolute meltdowns election night like we have never seen in political history. Because fake news told them they were going to win and by a landslide, did you watch the TYT highlights of election night.

The woman at one point actually said what everybody was going through "I am losing my mind"

It is simply true and requires little to support it: Failed. Predictions. Are not. Propaganda. Nearly everyone failed to project the results. As you have naturally and repeatedly ignored, Trump's internal polling also projected a Clinton win. There's really not much to argue about. Everyone was upset not because of "fake news" but because polling models which successfully predicted outcomes with pinpoint accuracy in 2012 (see FiveThirtyEight) failed to predict this and instead we have a proto-fascist running our country and a bunch of his minions are covering Jewish neighborhoods with swastikas.

a reply to: seasonal

CIA and US intell ops gave Hillary's emails to Wikileaks not Russia. They did because they were concerned about her rampant corruption and mishandling of classified information.

There's nothing like having white hats working for We The People, I love it!

This assures me that there are some good people in the higher echelon of our government that will risk everything to do the right thing.

I am very proud of these men and women who did this.

Regardless of what incriminating evidence of treason and mutiny is leaked out about the clintons and obamas , and all the rest of the regime ,don't underestimate mankind's discernment and instinct , on a true threat to the World , these leaders are undoubtedly jaded figures ,"Worldwide".

Our own intelligence agencies gave it to Wikileaks. Because they didn't want the Clintons destroying America. She is a criminal people.

a reply to: Informer1958

No kidding, after a while you loose faith in our system. Good to hear that there is a soul left out there.

originally posted by: texasyeti
Our own intelligence agencies gave it to Wikileaks. Because they didn't want the Clintons destroying America. She is a criminal people.

1) I'd be willing to bet otherwise.

2) If they did in fact hack an American citizen's emails and turn them over to Wikileaks to interfere with an election, that would be treason.

3) I realize it's all the rage these days to call people criminals and pedophiles with nothing to stand on but lies and fabrications, but it's really entirely tasteless.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Do you think HRC should prosecuted for mishandling classified docs?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Do you think HRC should prosecuted for mishandling classified docs?

I'm not a LEO nor am I involved in criminal law. I don't think Comey is any friend of hers and he seemed to think it wasn't worth pursuing, so I'm inclined to respect the opinions of the experts.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Surely you can give your opinion.

She did say that she didn't know the classified docs she was mishandling were classified.

She was in the State dept, and I would think an awful lot of classified docs ran across her dirty mits. So do you think she was being truthful when she said I don't know?