Why only mention pro-Trump fake news? I know plenty of people spreading fake Propaganda about Trump based on hearsay and false information.
...including links and comments on HN. Maybe HN needs to filter out the fake stuff too?
...including links and comments on HN. Maybe HN needs to filter out the fake stuff too?
Sounds like you didn't read the whole article, as it mentions anti-Trump fake news and then answers your question:
After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left.
The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.
Nuclear War Alert: US Prepares For North Korea Missile Launch
http://www.morningnewsusa.com/nuclear-war-alert-us-prepares-...
I have no idea what this "news" site is, but I'm pretty sure that the US is not currently rushing to prepare for a North Korean nuclear missile launch.
Trump's statements are usually non-specific and often contradictory. He's made denials that go far beyond straining credulity.
Basically, I think it's fair to say that people aren't fabricating stories so much as grasping at straws. Much like his supporters.
The only real way to understand Trump is as a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Or maybe some surreal parody of NPD. Once you understand that his primary and in many cases sole motivation is self-aggrandizement and attention seeking[1], everything he says makes so much sense. Or rather, you stop searching for the earnest, substantive policies and opinions. He's alot like an adolescent in that regard--his opinions are based on an immature and highly self-referential worldview. Sometimes his points and counter-points seem well-grounded until you realize that he's literally parroting an argument he's read or heard elsewhere, without any serious attempt at critical assessment or application. The fact that they're all over the board (as opposed to consistently preferring a particular narrative) is only more evidence of this methodology. Again, it's basically the methodology of an adolescent.
You cannot identify anything concrete about Trump's policies, and you cannot predict what Trump will do, without understanding that. And once you do, you realize that you _still_ cannot identify or predict anything. You can't even predict whether he'll be a devastating president, become more popular than the second-coming of Christ, or fit somewhere in-between. I mean, by most definitions he's successful. That means something... I'm just not sure what.
The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture.
[1] I don't even mean to use those terms derisively. They just seem so apt and obvious and beyond dispute. And I'm not using them to imply he's good or bad or right or wrong. The only way to come close to understanding the man and his behavior is with an almost clinical detachment. A Trump presidency is like a natural, cosmic phenomenon. Even the word cataclysmic doesn't work because it implies some subjective value judgment. His eventual policy decisions can and will be judged. But the man himself and his words... there's nothing you can really say. Just like there's nothing you can really say when a small child surprises you with some facially sophisticated argument that he's just echoing. The statement and the thought process behind them are basically immune from meaningful criticism. Put another way, in some sense both the child and Trump lack capacity for the same kind or degree of culpability of a typical adult. Yes, normally selfishness is frowned upon; but if it's the product of an abnormal mind, there's no value judgment to be made.
I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack dog, and conspired against all of her enemies, and tried to steal the white house.
We also have PC culture run amok. Trump is a big 'Fuck You' many intelligent Americans have been waiting for, for many years. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
The saddest thing? The fact that Wikileaks had to bring many of this to light. Julian Assange still hasn't been heard from since his power was cut at the embassy.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-chel...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/114379...
Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need direct evidence of Hillary's involvement, focus on the 33k emails she deleted AFTER receiving a Congressional subpoena, emails that were originally sent from a private server expressly to avoid public disclosure FOIA requirements.
The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment was received, and notes the donation was unsolicited.
What major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti? Both of those are a contradiction in terms - at what point would Clinton have multiple interests in them?
The 33k emails are gone, so I can't read them. You note they show her direct involvement. Direct involvement in what? How do you have access to the emails? Have you considered leaking them?
> The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited.
And you apparently can't distinguish between a journalist reporting a fact ("Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules") and the same journalist attributing a claim to a third party (yes, the "claim" that the donation was unsolicited comes directly from the Clinton Foundation).
You can Google Uranium One for Russia and earthquake recovery contracts for Haiti if you really want to dig into the patterns of criminal behavior, but I wouldn't worry about it. The FBI is confirmed to have multiple ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. And we know for a fact that Clinton intentionally deleted work-related emails after getting subpoenaed by Congress, which is two felonies right there (obstruction of an investigation, and destruction of evidence). So throw out the claims that these are "extraordinary claims" with "no sourcing"... it's highly suggestive evidence of corruption with documented attempts to obstruct investigative work that continues to justify extensive Federal investigations.
If I find the emails Hillary put through the shredder I will let you know. Fortunately, there is enough to put her in jail based on the materials that have already been leaked.
Before reading the following, please consider that I genuinely wish you well and think you're making an honest effort at staying out of ideological swamps. There's no need to feel that I'm judging you or your choice of sourcing, I'm only curious about this subject and genuinely want to learn more, so I'm trying to find more source material.
When no charges are bought after 4 years under a president and attorney general who have been thirsting to try her for anything, I hope you reconsider the fever swamp of information we've been discussing. These...news...sites contradict their own sources, and from the research I've done and the form of your answers, it seems impossible to find justification for their extraordinary claims.
Nope, my complaint is that you write-off Hillary's destruction of federal records, multiple active criminal investigations, and suspicious evidence of pay-to-play (in direct violation of her ethics agreement) as nothing warranting suspicion. And then accuse anyone who points out these flagrant breaches of public trust of being mired in a "fever swamp" and making "extraordinary claims" instead of factual observations.
It is certainly possible that Clinton is guilty of no further crimes than those which have already been revealed, although I wouldn't be money on it. With that said, I'm glad to hear you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into HRC and the Clinton Foundation, and view it as an exonerating step that will redeem Hillary's questionable political legacy.
Where do authoritative sources come from? Government? Mainstream media?
I think "personal piggy bank" might refer to Clinton foundation donations and collusions, but don't expect it to be too easy to find that information, no time will be spend producing fancy interactive info-graphics to make that easier to understand...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...
These articles were written by the left-leaning mainstream media and repeated ad nauseam over social media.
I see people that still believe that Trump is going to deport all of the 'Brown people'. There isn't one instance where he said this. The media created this fear through lies and propaganda and made Trump out to be a monster.
They are mostly to blame for all of the violence and protests we are seeing today.
But a Trump win still won't force them to tell us the truth. I'm just glad that the American people did.
See Ms. Tufekci's previous hard-hitting, facts-be-damned op-ed contribution to the NYT, "WikiLeaks Isn't Whistleblowing" to get your answer.