Hacker News Reader

Comment by grayed-down | Hacker News Reader

Fake News. The national security counsel was restructured in 2018. The mission and objectives related to pandemic and bio weapon response have not changed in the slightest. This snopes site is working under a leftist agenda, and I encourage anyone with an interest in this assertion to research it back far enough to obtain proper context.

View on HN

I assume that Snopes Inc doesn't want an agenda -- but that many writers at Snopes are anti-Trump. To support your claim, what information or sources can you provide that an open minded person would find plausible?

How many examples (this being 1) would an "open minded" person need to find it plausible?

An "example" would be a source saying that these people were not pushed out, or that equivalent roles were created and re-filled during/after the "restructuring".

That has not yet been provided in this subthread. GGP's post is non sequitur nonsense—all he's doing is throwing out the "liberal" slur that's so popular with Reddit quarantine zone denizens and hoping nobody on either "side" notices that what he's saying doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Given that the user's name is "grayed-down", I'm pretty sure they're aware of that. It's an uninterrupted litany of standard tactics for distracting, evading, and ignoring. Poe's Law mean that it's hard to tell somebody pretending to be obtuse from somebody actually being obtuse.

A website run with a leftist agenda, or any agenda for that matter, can take "facts" and word it in ways that can give the reader a false world view. To give an example from the right, while most of what fox news says is factually accurate, most open minded person would not use it to know what's going on in the world.

Did or did not the Trump administration restructure the NSC, causing those responsible for preparing for and responding to pandemics and similar events to exit the organization?

If so, were or were not equivalent positions created in the new structure and filled?

Those are the only questions that matter—what is or is not said about any of it in news media is irrelevant. So I'll ask you, do you have answers to those questions that conflict with the ones published by Snopes? Or, if not, do you have additional questions and answers that show how those questions aren't the whole story?

If not, to be perfectly frank, fuck off. It beggars belief that people like you are on here peddling sophomoric wisdom about media bias and backpedaling whataboutism in the face of this crisis.

Check closely into their founders and/or ownership.

Your response refers to the mission of the CDC. That's a misdirect. No one said that the mission has changed. What the article states is that "the Trump administration axed the executive branch team responsible for coordinating a response to a pandemic and did not replace it"

Also, every budget that Trump has proposed has cut CDC funding and the current proposal is to cut it by 16%. Fortunately Congress has interceded every time.

These are verifiable facts, not opinions.

The term "fake news" used to annoy me, until I realize that it always means "a truth disliked by Trump / his minions". (Minion: "a follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one"). I've been at peace with the phrase ever since, having a better understanding of the person who used the phrase and why they used it.

No. It's a shared mission. Both the NSC and CDC have significant national security crossover. And I would encourage curious people to research the reasoning behind some of the proposed CDC budget reductions.

I can see how the term "fake news" annoys certain people as I'm sure it invokes a certain discomfort in knowing that it refers to the immoral fabrications and contextual transformations needed to maintain mass discontent with one individual person. It's got to make at least some of its creators and consumers feel dirty.

> it refers to the immoral fabrications and contextual transformations needed to maintain mass discontent with one individual person.

It's a bit amazing to me that we live in the same reality.

I can listen to Trump speak for perhaps 30 seconds because it's transparently in some new way that he is malignantly narcissistic, corrupt, and proudly uninformed about every subject he opines about. No "fake news" needed.

I'm equally amazed; perhaps even more so.

And I've felt the same way about other presidents, so we've been in the same boat.

>And I've felt the same way about other presidents, so we've been in the same boat.

Let me guess - all of those presidents have been Democrats?

You guess wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com