Fake News Site Owner Identified

[Revoltingest]

It's not true, dems and Hillary have condemned the violence. Trump saying things like punch them in the face and financially covering them is called condoning violence.

I'll acknowledge that it could've happened without my seeing it.
But there's no doubt that Hillary's campaign has spawned a
great deal of violence & even more threats, eg, against
electoral college electors. She spewed her share of hate...
....she's just more polished at it.

 

[habiru]

 

[idav]

Not you (that I've seen).
But I cannot recall which sources have accused them of it.

I'll acknowledge that it could've happened without my seeing it.

Spreading fake news?

But there's no doubt that Hillary's campaign has spawned a
great deal of violence & even more threats, eg, against
electoral college electors. She spewed her share of hate...
....she's just more polished at it.

Her campaign hadn't even considered a recount til the Green Party did it. Her campaign has not condoned such behavior but your mastery of obfuscation is noted, and I mean that kindly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Spreading fake news?

An unclear question.
I'm not accusing you of that FWIW.

Her campaign hadn't even considered a recount til the Green Party did it. Her campaign has not condoned such behavior but your mastery of obfuscation is noted, and I mean that kindly.

I don't know what's unclear about any of my posts.
If "obfuscation" is my goal, I'm not only unaware of it,
I'm also really bad at it.

It seems you're inferring something I'm not intending.

 

[idav]

An unclear question.
I'm not accusing you of that FWIW.

I don't know what's unclear about any of my posts.
If "obfuscation" is my goal, I'm not only unaware of it,
I'm also really bad at it.

It seems you're inferring something I'm not intending.

You basically said two claims and said you had no sources. Creating fake news?

I said the obfuscation thing because you used the term "Clintons campaign spawned".... insinuating Clinton did it herself without having to make the claim. You may just be a natural.

 

[Revoltingest]

You basically said two claims and said you had no sources. Creating fake news?

I said the obfuscation thing because you used the term "Clintons campaign spawned".... insinuating Clinton did it herself without having to make the claim. You may just be a natural.

With multiple conversations going, & other things IRL intruding,
I'm losing track of what you're getting at. Is there anything
specific with which you take issue?

 

[idav]

Is there anything
specific with which you take issue?

Not particularly but this is quite an interesting thread.

I particularly like NPR. I know someone who voted Republican in the primaries but not for trump then went with Hillary and they listen to several news sources including NPR. I wouldn't say that is fake news so much as maybe left leaning, but the whole country is left leaning, or maybe it's more of hobble.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not particularly but this is quite an interesting thread.

I particularly like NPR. I know someone who voted Republican in the primaries but not for trump then went with Hillary and they listen to several news sources including NPR. I wouldn't say that is fake news so much as maybe left leaning, but the whole country is left leaning, or maybe it's more of hobble.

NPR is "maybe left leaning"?
No kidding.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm awaiting a NYT or Wash. Post article with the headline, "Jill Stein is Dangerous for Not Accepting the Election Results." Struggling to find such though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm awaiting a NYT or Wash. Post article with the headline, "Jill Stein is Dangerous for Not Accepting the Election Results." Struggling to find such though.

As we scuba divers say....don't hold your breath.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem to think that the first statement from you is that Conservative bias is outlandish and I asked you if you have looked at what is going on in CA

I know the general policies and that California is considered one of the most Liberal states. I don't know what that has to do with the news, real or fake.

 

[esmith]

I know the general policies and that California is considered one of the most Liberal states. I don't know what that has to do with the news, real or fake.

I was attempting to show that your statement below is wrong.

I know you did. I didn't say you can't. I just said it's misplaced because there is a very clear difference between listening to someone who gets news from Liberal-biased sources and someone who gets Conservative-biased sources. Liberals-biased sources occasionally have a ring of distorted facts, while Conservative-bias is occasionally outlandish (such as the incesant cries of "they're coming for our guns!").

You are stating that Conservative-bias is outlandish and using an example. I said look at what is going on in Kalifornia and other areas concerning firearms. Now the Dem's in Kalifornia are really not banning firearms but they are enacting what many consider excessively restrictive laws that the anti-gun zealots would like to see established throughout the country (and we do not see that as outlandish). . Yet you do not see that your Liberal-biased news sources reporting the incessant and outlandish cries about the LGBT community is not the same thing.
Yes I agree that there are those on the right that see the left as gun grabbing Nazis and those on the left see the right as anti-LBBT. But you must admit that both use the same "scare" tactics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes I agree that there are those on the right that see the left as gun grabbing Nazis and those on the left see the right as anti-LBBT. But you must admit that both use the same "scare" tactics.

Democrat politicians are not coming for your guns. They are not. This is a fact. Many, many Republican politicians are actively working towards diminishing and eliminating LBGT rights. This is a fact. None of this has to do with the news, except when it becomes fake and suddenly the Dems are going to bust in your door, seize your guns, and make you a criminal, and the Reps are champions of freedom by allowing discrimination against the LBGT community and not letting them get married, and of course they aren't "actually" discriminating against LBGT.
But, no, it's not the same because the Democrats are not coming for your guns, they aren't trying to criminalize guns, and they aren't trying to ban guns. But, do not forget, the Republican Party Platform is explicitly anti-LBGT.
https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman....
Every child deserves a married mom and dad...
Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go against their religious views about such activities....
We emphatically support the original, authentic meaning of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972....That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats — and by the current President of the United States — to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories. Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools — and our entire society — to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions. Their edict to the states concerning restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities is at once illegal, dangerous, and ignores privacy issues. We salute the several states which have filed suit against it.

That is not news, but rather "straight from the horses mouth." Rather you want to accept it or not, that platform pledges to discriminate against LBGT Americans. The Democrat Party Platform has no such rights-corroding and denying language in regards to gun ownership. Sanders, the rightful party nominee, even represents one of the most gun friendly states in America, and has consistently came out in favor of gun ownership.

 

[Revoltingest]

Democrat politicians are not coming for your guns. They are not. This is a fact. Many, many Republican politicians are actively working towards diminishing and eliminating LBGT rights.

This is an overly comforting picture regarding gun rights,
& a sky-is-falling one for LGBT rights.
Just as some Pubs want to curb LGBT rights,
some Dems want to curb gun rights.
It makes sense to oppose both, rather than to
pick one as safe & the other as evil incarnate.

 

[esmith]

This is an overly comforting picture regarding gun rights,
& a sky-is-falling one for LGBT rights.
Just as some Pubs want to curb LGBT rights,
some Dems want to curb gun rights.
It makes sense to oppose both, rather than to
pick one as safe & the other as evil incarnate.

 

[idav]

This is an overly comforting picture regarding gun rights,
& a sky-is-falling one for LGBT rights.
Just as some Pubs want to curb LGBT rights,
some Dems want to curb gun rights.
It makes sense to oppose both, rather than to
pick one as safe & the other as evil incarnate.

How does LGBT issues compare to gun rights? LGBT issues has more to do with civil rights, dearimination type rights. And I certainly dot see the issue with gun control, we aren't in the Wild West.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just as some Pubs want to curb LGBT rights,

I gave definitive proof that the Republican Party itself is inherently anti-LBGT according to their party platform. It states, numerous times, marriage is "one man, one woman," allowing transgender students to use appropriate gender-segregated facilities is wrong, and they will work to undo the progress that has been made in those areas. This is PARTY PLATFORM. It's not some news group exaggerating it, it's not words being twisted and taken out of context, it comes straight from what the Republican Party itself is saying they uphold.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I certainly dot see the issue with gun control, we aren't in the Wild West.

They actually had way more gun control during the Wild West, and many cities prohibited people from carrying firearms. According to some travel advisors of the time, having your gun with you was begging for trouble.
And, of course, there is no such movement to criminalize and ban guns like there is to deny and remove LBGT rights and protections. Some restrictions, yes, but we desperately need to enforce the laws we have and address the many shortcomings and problem areas in our existing laws. That does not equal taking guns away, but many on the Right, especially the NRA, try to turn "keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them" into "they're gonna take everybody's guns!"

 

[idav]

They actually had way more gun control during the Wild West, and many cities prohibited people from carrying firearms. According to some travel advisors of the time, having your gun with you was begging for trouble.
And, of course, there is no such movement to criminalize and ban guns like there is to deny and remove LBGT rights and protections. Some restrictions, yes, but we desperately need to enforce the laws we have and address the many shortcomings and problem areas in our existing laws. That does not equal taking guns away, but many on the Right, especially the NRA, try to turn "keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them" into "they're gonna take everybody's guns!"

Pretty much, that was one of the arguments in the presidential debate, "keep guns away from children", "what? Don't take my guns!"

 

[esmith]

How does LGBT issues compare to gun rights? LGBT issues has more to do with civil rights, dearimination type rights. And I certainly dot see the issue with gun control, we aren't in the Wild West.

We are not discussing the issues we are looking at fake news. It was just put forward that right leaning news sources are more "outlandish" than left leaning news sources and I was using the gun issue and LGBT issues as an example of typical overstating the facts to the point of being "fake news".

I don't see any reason to get into another gun rights issues since this election has apparently calmed the fears of most of us. That is except for those living in certain States.