The Problem of Misinformation

[habiru]

Your post was painful to read on several levels. Comparing Honest Abe to Comrade Con Man Trump is setting a new standard for a false equivalency. Your lack of comprehension of American politics is eclipsed only by your grammar and spelling. I'm guessing that English is a second language for you.

But back then, that they were referring to Honest Abe as Comrade" child killer" Lincoln, because he had sent their young sons to war and they never came back. It was impossible at the time for Lincoln to win the second time, but he had won by a landslide again. Even at the second Inauguration, in his speech, that he even stated that their young boys that had died in the war were a punishment from the Almighty. That every blood that has been spilled by the lash of the backs of slaves, that their son's blood has made up for it. The people did not boo him, because they know that it is the truth.And that is why the majority has voted for President Trump. Beause of their moral compass had guide them to vote for him.

TED CRUZ SHOCKER! 'VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE'
Refuses to endorse Trump, gets booed by convention

Read more at Ted Cruz shocker! ‘Vote your conscience’

 

[habiru]

Lincoln was a progressive.

 

[tytlyf]

Yes, republicans weren't always conservatives. American history 101

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, republicans weren't always conservatives. American history 101

They're making up for lost time.

 

[JakofHearts]

Yes, republicans weren't always conservatives. American history 101

Democratics logic here: Abraham Lincoln lead the Republican Party’s policy to abolish slavery – the Democrats say that action wasn’t conservative therefore it wasn’t Republican.

Historically the Republican Party stood for emancipation, anti-segregation, anti-lynching, and of course many others; Likewise the Democratic Party were for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc. To the Democratic Party this was their idea of progressivism. What the Democratic Party have done is use poststructuralism as a basis to push identity politics; whenever you hear about liberty and progress you’d think Democrat.

Fact is, a Republican can be a liberal because what he conserves holds to ideals of liberty for all men. A Republican can be progressive because what he conserves allows for individual initiative, community, faith, self-efficacy and encouragement to help others.

 

[Scuba Pete]

the Democrats say

Balderdash. What Democrat ever said that? That's just unmitigated BS.

Historically the Republican Party stood for emancipation, anti-segregation, anti-lynching

So, what happened? How did the party of Lincoln become the dump of Comrade Trump? How did you go from emancipation to "build the wall"? How did the party of Reagan (whom I voted for twice) become the party of ultra buffoonery? What the hell happened to the Republican party that it embraces lies over truth?

Fact is, a Republican can be a

• Bigot
• Psychopathic Liar
• Misogynist
• Narcissist
• Con Man
• Russian Stooge

and you'll still vote for him. Both Lincoln and Reagan are spinning in their graves so fast that they're liable to upset magnetic North.

 

[tytlyf]

Democratics logic here: Abraham Lincoln lead the Republican Party’s policy to abolish slavery – the Democrats say that action wasn’t conservative therefore it wasn’t Republican.

Historically the Republican Party stood for emancipation, anti-segregation, anti-lynching, and of course many others; Likewise the Democratic Party were for slavery, segregation, lynching, etc. To the Democratic Party this was their idea of progressivism. What the Democratic Party have done is use poststructuralism as a basis to push identity politics; whenever you hear about liberty and progress you’d think Democrat.

Fact is, a Republican can be a liberal because what he conserves holds to ideals of liberty for all men. A Republican can be progressive because what he conserves allows for individual initiative, community, faith, self-efficacy and encouragement to help others.

The republican party was always progressives. Back then, do you really think the southern democrats were liberals? No, the DemoKKKrat party of the south was conservative. Conservatives in the south only started voting republican 60 years ago.

Common sense should tell everyone that the south has never EVER been progressive.

 

[JakofHearts]

The republican party was always progressives. Back then, do you really think the southern democrats were liberals? No, the DemoKKKrat party of the south was conservative. Conservatives in the south only started voting republican 60 years ago.

The Republican party were progressives in certain areas, of course, but as I pointed out, this poststructuralism is what is confusing the minds of the layman in that there is a difference between policy and identity politics. The ultra-conservative Democrat named George Wallace for example was keen to keep segregation between blacks and whites, and it was through a man named Martin Luther King Jr that spearheaded equality in America. He was a republican.

The point is, is that what are people conservative on, and what they're progressive towards. Something that unfortunately not many leftists can differentiate from.

 

[habiru]

Yes, republicans weren't always conservatives. American history 101

Abraham Lincoln was a true conservative like John Brown. Christian conservatives are the ones that upholds the scriptures. But the devil has always entered to take over, by twisting the minds of the people. And they are still doing it right now at the moment. That they are trying to twist the people minds into believing that the election was rigged, instead that the MSM was playing with their minds, to get them to vote for who they want in the office..

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The ultra-conservative Democrat named George Wallace

Became an independent because he kept getting rejected by the Democrats. Most Democrats I knew were embarrassed by him as much as the Republicans should have been embarrassed by Comrade Trump. In the very end, he renounced his separatist ideology.

Martin Luther King Jr that spearheaded equality in America. He was a republican.

MLK Jr made a point to never be classified as either a Republican or a Democrat. He felt that both parties had betrayed black America. For the most part, he was right.

 

[habiru]

Balderdash. What Democrat ever said that? That's just unmitigated BS.

So, what happened? How did the party of Lincoln become the dump of Comrade Trump? How did you go from emancipation to "build the wall"? How did the party of Reagan (whom I voted for twice) become the party of ultra buffoonery? What the hell happened to the Republican party that it embraces lies over truth?

• Bigot
• Psychopathic Liar
• Misogynist
• Narcissist
• Con Man
• Russian Stooge

and you'll still vote for him. Both Lincoln and Reagan are spinning in their graves so fast that they're liable to upset magnetic North.

Once that wall is built, that it will show that who are the real culprits that are smuggling in the drugs into this country. As long as they has someone continuously sneaky into this country undetected, that they has someone to put the blame on. Bill and Obama could of have had opened up the borders years ago, but they never had done it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You misunderstand the real purpose why Comrade Trump is building this wall...

 

[tytlyf]

Abraham Lincoln was a true conservative like John Brown. Christian conservatives are the ones that upholds the scriptures.

Lincoln was a progressive, the northern republicans of the time were not conservatives. The south were conservatives who were in favor of states rights. Just like today. The ideologies are the same, a hundred years later. Blacks were republicans back then, the south was and still is conservative.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How is this different from every other news agency on the planet, or in history?

Mostly asking rhetorically, cause I realize the flavor of the bias would be the obvious difference. But that a bias exists in the news, and it varies from slight to extreme, would seem like not just normal, but without any known exceptions. If you are aware of any exceptions, I'm sure you can point it out.

There is a significant difference between a journalist that puts themselves into their work (bias on the personal) and a whole news organization who is owned and intentionally run as a machine to propagate a specific political party with the intent and purpose of molding a portion of the population to vote a certain way.

Do you see the distinction now?

I think it is the story aspect that gets us into territory of misinformation/disinformation. I find it arguable that the 'facts' are without bias when it comes to news. That a protest occurred would be the fact, but just as we do on RF, it would be helpful in such reporting of facts to be explicit with definitions while reporting. Without it, the reporting of 'facts' I really do think is arguable.

The story though is telling a narrative around the (alleged) facts that producers/editors/journalism thinks is pertinent and relevant to their (target) audience. That narrative is very likely (I would say without exception) to leave certain information out, deemed irrelevant or not pertinent to the narrative the news agency wishes to tell. Plus, it could rather easily add information that is false, but news agency may not know is inaccurate (which is also debatable).

I think in the Information Age, with mobile devices handy, it helps in understanding the story from own position (likely inherently biased) when certain narratives are being conveyed. But at some point, it all becomes philosophical / humorous / tragic in understanding the accuracy and relevancy of news to own life, and that of whatever community one identifies with.

Here is an example of facts being used in a way to help convey a message.
Fox news has stated the true fact that Obama has gone on 28 vacations. What they fail to say is that Bush went on 88. Its a matter of context. An overused news troupe that isn't specific to any one news outlet is the use of big numbers without context. "We are giving millions of dollars every year to failling schools!" That sounds bad. Its purely fact but its facts that are misleading.

Another exaple of how someone can do just the facts but omit specific things would be the Trevon Martin case. It took Fox news far longer than any station to even mention it and when it did the number of times it was covered was significantly less. There was scrutiny placed on fox and the advocate claimed that they had aired far more than they had because he has inflated his "news report" numbers with times it was mentioned in the psudo-news programs that fox covers. Beyond that even is how it was phrased. Very shortly after the initial report of the Trevon Martin case we didn't hear anything about Zimmerman or his shady actions just prior to the shooting but rather "anti-gun advocates use teen's death to go after NRA." Which this is true. However with the context of this "true" fact it slides the blame and the issue forward from a man who shouldn't have had a gun tracking down a black teen boy to how some super unfortunate no way able to predict or stop magical incident is being used by the radical left to take you're guns away!

I know for a fact that CNN has far far far less bias than MSNBC or Fox. However they do have bias. Their bias is slightly more trustworthy since its sensationalism and headlines that aren't geared specifically for a political party but rather simply for the aim of obtaining the most views possible.

 

[tytlyf]

Here is an example of facts being used in a way to help convey a message.
Fox news has stated the true fact that Obama has gone on 28 vacations. What they fail to say is that Bush went on 88. Its a matter of context.

Exactly, it's disinformation. Fox does this all the time, rarely citing examples, everything is 'some say.' Half the deception is just what you pointed out. If people don't fact check, they'll be uninformed.

Thankfully, head propagandist Roger Ailes has moved to the Trump campaign. No more Fox for him. Can't sexually harass employees constantly.

 

[habiru]

You misunderstand the real purpose why Comrade Trump is building this wall...

Like I say, that they need an alibi for all that illegal drugs that makes up several truck loads a month, that is in this country. And which that it is not that many immigrants can carry that amount in a year over the border. The Mexican President is helping out with the drug smuggling. That is why they do not want to mess up a good thing that they has going on. Hillary wanted a wall, but the Mexican President doesn't care when she had stated that, because they are a team. They all knows that they need an alibi.


CIA Plane Crashes in Mexico
Seventeen months after an American-registered DC9 airliner was busted with 5.5 tons of cocaine, a major international scandal is brewing over a second drug trafficking incident in Mexico’s Yucatan involving an American-registered jet owned by a dummy front company of the kind usually associated with the CIA.
CIA plane crash lands with four tons of coke


An airliner stuffed with dozens of sacks of Colombian cocaine crashed in the jungle of southern Mexico on Monday, police said.

Local police officer Eustaquio Arredondo told reporters no casualties had been found but one person who was apparently on board the aircraft had been arrested.

TV images showed 132 military-style black bags containing around 3.3 metric tons of cocaine lined up in rows next to chunks of the wrecked plane, which came down near the municipality of Tixkokob, a three-hour drive west of the Cancun beach resort.



Mexican army planes had been tracking the aircraft since it was spotted entering Mexican air space.

Drug planes packed with South American cocaine -- often with passenger seats ripped out to make space -- frequently fly through Mexico and Central America en route for the United States. Cocaine-laden plane crashes in Mexico jungle

 

[habiru]

Lincoln was a progressive, the northern republicans of the time were not conservatives. The south were conservatives who were in favor of states rights. Just like today. The ideologies are the same, a hundred years later. Blacks were republicans back then, the south was and still is conservative.

The reason why Lincoln wanted the slaves to be free, was that it was wrong in the sight of God. He was afraid that God was going to judge this nation if it would of kept going on. He only was making changes in the name of God. He did not separated the government and religious practices, the Christian religion. He made his decision by God's word, and that is why they has called him the Bible toting President. .


Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.


Isaiah 10:1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees,

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!



Mr. Lincoln may have had trouble taking the Bible as literal truth, but he had no trouble reading it. As President Lincoln said: “In regard to this Great book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-bible/


Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.


Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other. "House Divided" Speech by Abraham Lincoln

 

[Scuba Pete]

Wow... argumentum per deluvium. How original!

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow... argumentum per deluvium. How original!

Odd....the only on-line reference I can find for the underlined term
is some obscure scuba diving site.
Is it something about glaciers & deposits arguing with each other?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is it something about glaciers & deposits arguing with each other?

That would be you arguing with a mirror. Of course, that could also be referred to as ratio ad cogitatio.

Argumentum per deluvium, or Argument by deluge, is a tactic by which you flood your opponent with useless and most often irrelevant crap in hopes that they can't wade through the crud. You're pretty good at it as are others. It's intellectually dishonest and a good way to end the discussion if you don't have a clue how turn things your way. It's the online equivalent of a filibuster.