It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Fake News! No Fake News! You're The Fake News!

page: 6
100
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seeker1963


I believe in the Constitution and all those troublesome things protected by it you Progressives are so willing to destroy!


Yet you voted for the guy who:

- Has a long history of suing columnists, comedians, talk show hosts, authors and anyone else whose speech he doesn't like. Promised to "open up libel laws" (you know, because he has that whole seperation of powers thing worked out) so "we can win lots of money."

- Has stated he wants to subject millions of US citizens to surveillance because of their religion.

- Has just recently said that people who burn the flag should "lose their citizenship" or possibly face a year in jail.

- Not only supports mass surveillance but said numerous times during the campaign that it should be expanded.

- Not only support Stop-and-Frisk but has stated that it should be expanded nationwide.

- Supports cruel and unusual punishments (including torture).

- Has said that the families of terrorists should be assassinated.

- Has cut backroom deals in an attempt you abuse eminent domain to take property from people for his own gain.

- Has said that he's going to see what he can do about birth right citizenship.

Hmm.. I feel like I'm missing something? It'll come to me. I'm sure I don't need to list all the applicable amendments? Not that HRC is a big defender or the Constitution but Trump has easily been the most vocally anti-Constitution candidate I can think of except when he's talking about how he'll stand up for "Article 2 and Article 12!"

Hell, he wasn't that far removed from HRC when it came to the 2A really. The difference between "expanded background checks" and "No-buy list" is mostly one of semantics.

But please, tell us more about your profound conservative love of the Constitution!


How would voting for your Queen be any different?

She represents everything you Progressives proclaim to hate!




posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

That's a fair analysis. And yes, fake news seems to appeal more to gullible conservatives. But if conservatives are more likely to believe fake news, who is more likely to create it?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'd say both sides are equally likely to use it. Fake stories from the right to hurt the left and bolster their own position, and vice-versa from the left.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Syphon




I'd say both sides are equally likely to use it. Fake stories from the right to hurt the left and bolster their own position, and vice-versa from the left.


The fake news writer Paul Horner hated Trump and his supporters. Jestin Coler, createor of DenverGuardian, NationalReport.net, USAToday.com.co, WashingtonPost.com.co, is registered Democrat and voted for Hillary. They made fake pro-Trump/anti-Hillary articles. They didn't bolster their own position.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickinVa


Of course there are tons of fake news stories... the point is,... people with common sense do not need them pointed out... they already know they are fake as soon as they see it.


That's demonstrably false. The popularity of fake news stories like that one is evidence that a lot of people couldn't smell bulls# if a bull sat on their face.


Forgotten how up til around 8pm on Nov 8, CNN claimed Hillary had it in the bag,,they had their polls to back them up,,, no point in voting.. she was going to win by a landslide.


How many millions of times has the exact same thing been said in the last few weeks?

Trump's internal polling showed him losing right up until then as well.

So because polling has its flaws, anyone who predicted a Trump defeat is on par folks who make clickbait fake news stories? You're big on "common sense" apparently — does that make any sense at all?



No one I know.. no family, friend, associates, whatever buys the National Enquirer... the biggest fake news purveyor of them all... but even they get it right once in a blue moon.

You guys gonna ban all the tabloids too?

How bout the Bible...I hear there is lots of fake stuff in there.

Idiots who go to the Onion and can't tell it is a satircal news site are beyond any hope already.
edit on R062016-12-07T17:06:06-06:00k0612Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Who is multiple. It's probably a kind of information ecosystem, with various forms evolving to fill niches and feast on the juicy gullibility, crunchy fear, and sugary passion of the right.


edit on 006Wednesday000000America/ChicagoDec000000WednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Study the process the past 3 elections NOT as a republican or democrat and its very easy to see. One single stream of typical pollster polls from one period of one single election couldn't prove or disprove it. I will say the most accurate non-crony one in the past several elections usually had him barely trailing her for a few weeks and then overtook her by a point or two the last couple days. Majority of the rest of them had her scrubbing the floor with him right up until the last minute, if I'm not mistaken.


I haven't going back through and carefully studied the polls over the duration of the campaign season but I did look at the big ones pretty much daily for a few months there. The LA Times poll had him leading for most of the time except (from memory) right after the Access Hollywood audio was released. Their methodology is a little different though in that they somehow incorporate voting from the previous election into their model.

Rasmussen also had him leading a few times throughout but Rasmussen also was one of the worst performers in 2012 overall.

There's a few things that should be considered here. The polls all showed the race tightening to within a few points toward the end but it was a very fluid couple of weeks. There was the Comey letter 11 days before the election. Then the second Comey letter a few days out that seemed to have no effect. There was the Bret Baier NY FBI rumors (that likely came from Kallstrom and/or Giuiliani) that were walked back), etc. Most of the polls are collected over a few days so there's a lot of lag there.

I don't know if you saw it (and again, this is from memory) but there was a piece that came out before the election with information from one of the polling companies that showed a large discrepancy — something like 6% — in the results depending on how the poll was answered. Basically, in live telephone polling, people were less likely to answer an intention to vote for Trump compared to online polls from the same company. Clearly there are psychological factors in live telephone polling that need to be accounted for but I think given the atmosphere, Trump support might have been particularly vulnerable to this.

And of course, (last I looked) Clinton had about a 2% lead in the popular vote which isn't too far off from the national polls at all. Finally, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the Trump campaign's internal polling (which has absolutely nothing to do with the media) was also showing him losing. I'm not sure how that fits into your hypothesis?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

She's no more "my queen" than Trump is your messiah and I think we both know that! I see the Clintons as being a lot like the GOP of the 80's in many regards and not really all that left. My biggest reasons for voting for Clinton were SCOTUS appointments and the fact that she wasn't Trump.

I'd have preferred Sanders even though I wasn't exactly "feeling the Bern" because I wasn't in love with some of his ecomonic positions (or lack there of). In terms of integrity, he was leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton or Trump. In terms of his voting history, he was the best of the bunch too. He was against the War in Iraq (and didn't need Sean Hannity to be his alibi to prove it), he was against the Patriot Act, etc.

Oh well, there's always 2020! The way elections are going these days, they'll probably start campaigning in 2018.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well the guy ultimately responsible for the example from the OP (though I don't think he actually wrote it) said in an interview that he voted for Clinton. It seemed that he started out trolling and then developed a taste for it (and of course, there was money to be made — he estimated $8k in ad revenue for that one story I believe).

So it would appear that there are certainly folks from the American political left behind some of these "fake news" sites. It would be pointless to refute that. It's also possible (perhaps likely) that some of them have been created in an attempt to embarrass/discredit conservatives as well.

According to the popular BuzzFeed piece, their investigation revealed that over 100 sites had been created by individuals from a single Macedonian village and based on interviews, the motivation was exclusively ad revenue.

One site that is of particular interest to me is True Pundit. True Pundit was the most successful of the bunch as far as I can tell. They were the source for a number of stories that were cited by MSM media personalities at Fox, Lt. Gen Michael Flynn on Twitter (and his son), etc. In fact, you can still see people alluding to some of them here such as the "can't we just drone strike the guy?" story (purported to have been Clinton referring to drone striking Julian Assange).

I don't have a shred of proof but I suspect that True Pundit has some sort of substantial backing. If I were asked to name a site that I thought was more likely than others to have been sponsored by a foreign state, that would be my guess.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Why are you saying "are you guys going to ban?"

Where have you ever seen me advocate banning anything? I'm adamantly opposed to censorship of even fake news. What I am advocating for is people wake up to the existence of what is now being called "fake news."

Now you've brough up the National Enquirer (and tabloids in general). The difference between the NE and "fake news" sites are that the NE is a well known brand. They have offices. They have an infrastructure. They have a reputation. If you read the NE, you know what you're getting.

When people come across one of these "fake news" sites, they don't have any real way of making that distinction. Do you see what I'm getting at?



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

True Pundit looks like no more than a blog to me, kind of like Buzzfeed, though I see what you mean. One of those articles, even if it is more yellow journalism than fake (I find no distinction between yellow journalism and "fake news"), can be shared with no concern to its origin and contents. Maybe a blurring of the lines between blogs and news sites is a part of the issue.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'll tell you what is FAKE NEWS...


iTS' the declared COLA ~cost-of-living-adjustment~ I was notified of today...

a UN-funny $36 per Year COLA that takes into account the cost-of-living-&- inflation rate of the past year
to help the fixed-income payee maintain their status-quo in living standards/food cost/rents increases etc etc

see my other post here: www.abovetopsecret.com...


FAKE, manipulated, rip-offs by the elites in power positions
edit on th31148115560107062016 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Those last few months are mostly irrelevant. Normally, the real jazz comes during the Primary's PSYOP, because that's when they normally weed out any potential 'outsiders'. Once they are (normally) establishment picks for "both parties" then the people who really rule this nation mostly just sit back for the show. Although I will state, as I predicted during 2008 it actually "had" to be Obama. I kind of saw the cult overload coming, or at least that it'd be far more hardcore than they could have achieved with McRomney. How far beyond driven they went on to take things with this new 'SJW Generation' though even blew me away in hindsight.

Anyways, under 'normal' times, the 'real election' happens during the Primary's. Once its down to only Establishment picks, with no hope for "Third" Party's, game over America. Game over. Oh, and this time Trump smashed through were he wasn't invited. But the general model I've been talking about since 2008, as described earlier in the thread, and the way the MSM wielded such polls all along (that would include FOX News who is Establishment just the same), my 'speculation' of a Model is simply undeniable now to any objective mind.
edit on 7-12-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

How can you drink that beer 🍺

Fake beer
Fake cola
Fake reality tv
Fake boobs
Fake news
Fake crabmeat
Fake religion
Fake music



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule






posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

you have really went off the deep end, you need to see a mental health specialist



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
This thread is so demoralizing



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Which part is wrong. Which line? Or are you incapable of actual debate, and only capable of insults? I can win either way, I promise you that.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Which part is wrong. Which line? Or are you incapable of actual debate, and only capable of insults? I can win either way, I promise you that.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Oh well, there's always 2020! The way elections are going these days, they'll probably start campaigning in 2018.


I'll be happy if we have elections in 2020



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join