Fake News

[HuskerNation1]

I'm glad you're smiling because I like people to be happy.

 

Still doesn't negate the fact you are great at repeating propaganda that comes out of trump camp.

 

Sometimes nothing else needs to be said.

 

So your new ammo post-election seems to be either dodging questions or making claims that anybody who is winning the argument is simply repeating propaganda from the Trump camp. I thought you were more original than that.

[BigRedBuster]

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

[HuskerNation1]

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

 

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

 

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

 

 

You cannot make this claim with a straight face unless you're OK with the way they're gaming the electoral system.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

Losing the popular vote is not a "very strong victory" like you claim.

 

Trump himself has stated we should revolt when someone wins the EC but not the popular vote.

 

Now he and his followers are claiming his one is a "very strong trump win".

 

Welcome to politics where you shape the argument however you can to fit your needs.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

You cannot make this claim with a straight face unless you're OK with the way they're gaming the electoral system.

 

Shhhhhh.....

 

That doesn't fit the argument.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

Losing the popular vote is not a "very strong victory" like you claim.

 

Trump himself has stated we should revolt when someone wins the EC but not the popular vote.

 

Now he and his followers are claiming his one is a "very strong trump win".

 

Welcome to politics where you shape the argument however you can to fit your needs.

 

 

I agree with your last statement, and have said both sides do this. You are a Trump hater and will find anything you can to discredit him, and I am sure you will continue to do so over the next 4 years. And while you have stated you don't like HIllary, I have rarely seen you criticize Obama.

 

I do also think its important to note that, where Trump chose to compete head to head with Hillary, he won 75+ of those contests. I don't think he has the strongest of the weakest mandate with the Presidential race alone, but when you factor in that the GOP was highly successful across the entire country (despite the whining from some on the left about the electoral system), it does bolster the case for the direction the country wants to go in and is a repudiation of the Obama years.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

 

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

 

 

You cannot make this claim with a straight face unless you're OK with the way they're gaming the electoral system.

 

 

I guess I need to break out the violin...

 

Seriously, you sound like a fan after a well officiated game making excuses that the officiating was horrible or that the weather was the cause for your team's loss.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

 

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

You cannot make this claim with a straight face unless you're OK with the way they're gaming the electoral system.

I guess I need to break out the violin...

 

Seriously, you sound like a fan after a well officiated game making excuses that the officiating was horrible or that the weather was the cause for your team's loss.

When you respond like this, I know it's ok to continue not taking you seriously about anything.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Dude...nobody came on this board and constantly claimed trump won in a landslide till the trump camp started claiming it.

 

They think they have this huge mandate and in reality, they barely won. He used to hate the electoral college but it's the only reason he is our president.

 

The guy didn't even win the popular vote. Nothing about that is a "landslide".

 

The fact you and them keep saying it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Now you can keep up this myth or you can move on and actually discuss issues and the administration he is putting together.

DUDE-The point I was trying to make earlier is that most liberal pundits and members in the media just days before the election were showing Hillary Clinton winning around 310 EVs and were claiming that would be an electoral landslide and would give her a mandate. So suggesting that 300-plus EVs is just a Trump thing is completely inaccurate. My honest opinion-We haven't had a POTUS with a completely clear mandate to lead since the 1980s with Reagan and Bush. This was really before the hyper-partisan period of politics which began a bit in the 90s and then really got heated with the 2000 election.

 

Now I think you can say the GOP as a party has an overall mandate in this country given they control nearly 2/3 of the legislatures as well as the governorships, and now all of Washington. But within the party there are obviously differing views on many issues with trade being near the top of the list.

Losing the popular vote is not a "very strong victory" like you claim.

 

Trump himself has stated we should revolt when someone wins the EC but not the popular vote.

 

Now he and his followers are claiming his one is a "very strong trump win".

 

Welcome to politics where you shape the argument however you can to fit your needs.

I agree with your last statement, and have said both sides do this. You are a Trump hater and will find anything you can to discredit him, and I am sure you will continue to do so over the next 4 years. And while you have stated you don't like HIllary, I have rarely seen you criticize Obama.

 

I do also think its important to note that, where Trump chose to compete head to head with Hillary, he won 75+ of those contests. I don't think he has the strongest of the weakest mandate with the Presidential race alone, but when you factor in that the GOP was highly successful across the entire country (despite the whining from some on the left about the electoral system), it does bolster the case for the direction the country wants to go in and is a repudiation of the Obama years.

Probably because you weren't around during that election and while he was passing the ACA.

 

I heavily criticized him for being extremely unqualified. All he had been was a community organizer...etc. once he got to the senate he did absolutely nothing that could stick to him when he ran for president.

 

I heavily criticized the ACA and have continued to do so when appropriate.

 

I have criticized him when he wanted to bring Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. For trial

 

I have criticized him for making a promise to close Gitmo when I knew he wouldn't and couldn't.

 

But, I do believe he has been presidential and hasn't been the disgusting human being that republicans want you to think.

 

I have criticized Michelle Obama's school lunch mandates as being horrible. It was even a joke on here for a while how much I talked about it.

 

Again, I think she has been dignified and even though I oppose her policies, I respect them as people and representatives of the U.S.

 

Now, I don't think you were on this board during those times or you have just chosen to forget them.

 

Obama wasn't running in this election was he???? Clinton was seen as 4 more years of his policies and I made it very clear I didn't want her as president.

 

I also made it clear why I have been pissed off about the clueless republican voters that nominated trump. It's because I really wanted a good conservative to vote for and not just the most immature jack ass on the stage calling everyone names.

 

Now, I seriously have tried to give him a chance because I don't want to spend the next 4 years pissed off.

 

However, every time I try, his immaturity keeps popping up everywhere. I don't need some liberal propaganda network to tell me that. Just watch his pathetic Twitter feed.

 

Sorry if I don't just jump on board anymore because someone has an R beside their name.

 

He needs to prove it to me that he is respectable enough to represent me.

 

Oh and....about that republican mandate. They have been a total embarrassment lately with things like what is going on in NC. So, pardon me if I don't jump on that bandwagon.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

Instead of focusing on fake news the lefties should start reporting real news, how about that.

WikiLeaks anyone?

[Enhance]

This article does a pretty incredible job breaking down how we've hit the point where a lot of people, namely conservatives, view the maintstream media outlets as biased and providers of fake news.

 

WASHINGTON — 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. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as “left-wing fake news.”

 

Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. “The fake news is the everyday news” in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. “They just make it up.

 

Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of “Fake news!”

 

Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

 

 

Full article here

[84HuskerLaw]

It is interesting to see the dramatic change in the Yahoo 'news' site since the election. Prior to the election, Yahoo was chock full of fake news and deceptive stories with obvious misleading headlines and captions. Often the very liberal slant to their stories (I just can't call them news as that term rightfully implies a basic factual content with little or NO editorial content or propaganda aspect - in simple terms news means 'just the facts'). Since Clinton and Yahoo lost the election, the Yahoo site has bascially gone silent and has begun a nothing but hollywood and insigificant import articles. You would hardly know who the President is (current or future) now. I guess the 'fake' news label must have stuck in the minds and hearts of those liberals who wrote the stuff and now they don't know what to say or do as they don't like the facts and therefore have determined no news is better than bad news all the time. This is not the only example but it is quite blantant. I read the Yahoo site daily and maybe the many negative comments by readers about the tripe they were putting out made them rethink their strategy.

[Enhance]

Forgive me if this was discussed on one of the earlier pages and I forgot and/or missed it - what kind of definition do people operate under with the term "fake news?"

 

It seems a lot of people, as the article I quoted suggests, use the term "fake news" to describe anything that may have some manner of bias or does not align with their point of view.

 

For me, something is only "fake news" if the whole premise is 100% fabricated or the facts have been heavily manipulated to create a false narrative. Based on this, 84HuskerLaw, are you suggesting that Yahoo was deliberately creating stories that were entirely or almost entirely false?

[Moiraine]

IMO fake news doesn't have to be completely false but a mild biased slant doesn't make it fake news. For instance there is some stuff on fox that isn't fake. They're mostly just strongly biased.But every so often they have a story with completely made up BS.

 

Then there are purposely misleading articles or articles that throw in a few false things and put just enough truthful or truthful sounding things to make it seem legit. I consider that fake news.