The Fake News

[FriendlyFire]

While I find it hypocritical for Trump to complain about anything fake given his predilection for lying, he is right about the fake news... I'm a regular viewer of MSNBC, I use it for background noise and the deceit is constant. They show Trump talking about the 'fine' people who objected to removing a statue and renaming a park and then show interviews with neo-Nazis (Cantwell?) and 'question' how Trump could be calling them fine people.

You want to watch PBS news hour for totally non-partisan news
All others 24hours news networks are driven by profit and views, Fox news for example is busy building up a narrative to blame the Liberals for the violence, which is even further removed from reality then Msnbc

 

[FriendlyFire]

Course the media hypocrisy is noteworthy, had a group of people rallied to remove the statue and the KKK showed up and a brawl ensued, the media would have no problem identifying the catalyst. Neither would I... So, are people free to speak in this country or not? If someone is protesting, let them protest... Dont get in their faces with weapons and armor. After Trump's comment on Saturday I was quick to criticize him for blaming both sides, I can see why he did now.

Facts have a liberal Bias

Photo of ‘Antifa’ man assaulting officer was doctored, analysis shows

An image that appeared to capture a member of an anti-fascist group beating a U.S. police officer with a club during a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is fake.The doctored photograph, the Associated Press and Snopes.com found, turned out to be a Getty Image shot in 2009 during clashes between police officers and protesters in Athens, Greece. An “Antifa,” or “antifacist,” logo was digitally superimposed onto the jacket of a protester, who is seen attacking an officer with a blunt object.

often used to support President Donald Trump’s statement that “both sides” were to blame for the Charlottesville violence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/photo-antifa-man-assaulting-officer-doctored-analysis-shows/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I saw an interesting thing on Breitbart today. They are using some Harvard study to show how benign they are; "hey, it's not like we are The Daily Stormer," which I thought was hilarious. But the interesting and certainly unintended part was this chart from the study that was like a bubble cloud showing hundreds of media organizations in a 'left bias to right bias' format...in which the dead center was a large bubble identified as CNN.

 

[Ryika]

images

How is that even a question? I can see just by looking at the image that it's fake, particularly the upper edge of the logo doesn't follow the bend of the rest of that jacket.

 

[Berzerker]

As an intelligent commentator on CNN said: if you are a "fine person" who goes out to protest the removal of a statue and you find yourself marching alongside a bunch of guys waving nazi flags you have two choices; either go home or turn in your 'fine person' card. Giving Trump's ridiculous claim that there were 'fine people on both sides' any credence at all is the 'fake news,' and your sharing of it says a lot about you.

Trump condemned the combatants on both sides, but he directed more blame at the counter protesters because he believes they instigated the violence. Looks to me like they did... They showed up at someone else's assembly armed for battle. The "fine people on both sides" I assume refers to noncombatants. But you're doing what the media has done - conflating the violent people with the peaceful people to accuse Trump of doing the same.

Was Trump referring to the violent counter protesters as 'fine people'? Of course not, so why do you (and CNN's 'intelligent commentator') assume Trump was calling the violent people on the other side fine people? That aint even logical... He just criticized their bad behavior. As for fine people not leaving, were there fine people on the other side? Did they leave or did they watch the spectacle? Fine people on both sides didn't leave. Well, 'fine' is subjective but I can at least see Trump defined it as non-violent.

As for what it says about me, I have the ability to be impartial because I dont like either party and both these groups remind me why. Well, I dont need to be reminded. But free speech is important and one group there was trying to silence another. You may find that acceptable or even desirable because you dont like the message, but how is that not fascistic? I think the ACLU would agree with me. Like I said, had the KKK showed up at someone else's rally to remove the statue and a fight broke out, the media wouldn't have any trouble identifying the culprits and they wouldn't need fake news to convince us.

The issue isn't "who threw the first punch."

So punching someone is morally equivalent to getting punched?

The issue is whether there is a moral equivalence between throwing punches to forward white supremacy and throwing punches to oppose white supremacy. I contend that there is no such moral equivalence. The President of the United States has stood up and pronounced that there is such moral equivalency, and the media has reported that he has done so.

Actually Trump was harder on the counter protesters and probably should have been, maybe he shouldn't have condemned the protesters if all they did was defend themselves. Maybe these counter protesters should be charged with violating the civil rights of the protesters. Wouldn't that be the likely result if not for the content of the message? I think so...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Trump condemned the combatants on both sides, but he directed more blame at the counter protesters because he believes they instigated the violence. Looks to me like they did... They showed up at someone else's assembly armed for battle. The "fine people on both sides" I assume refers to noncombatants. But you're doing what the media has done - conflating the violent people with the peaceful people to accuse Trump of doing the same.

Was Trump referring to the violent counter protesters as 'fine people'? Of course not, so why do you (and CNN's 'intelligent commentator') assume Trump was calling the violent people on the other side fine people? That aint even logical... He just criticized their bad behavior. As for fine people not leaving, were there fine people on the other side? Did they leave or did they watch the spectacle? Fine people on both sides didn't leave. Well, 'fine' is subjective but I can at least see Trump defined it as non-violent.

As for what it says about me, I have the ability to be impartial because I dont like either party and both these groups remind me why. Well, I dont need to be reminded. But free speech is important and one group there was trying to silence another. You may find that acceptable or even desirable because you dont like the message, but how is that not fascistic? I think the ACLU would agree with me. Like I said, had the KKK showed up at someone else's rally to remove the statue and a fight broke out, the media wouldn't have any trouble identifying the culprits and they wouldn't need fake news to convince us.



So punching someone is morally equivalent to getting punched?



Actually Trump was harder on the counter protesters and probably should have been, maybe he shouldn't have condemned the protesters if all they did was defend themselves. Maybe these counter protesters should be charged with violating the civil rights of the protesters. Wouldn't that be the likely result if not for the content of the message? I think so...

This post is so full of disgusting false statements that it was hard to read.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Trump condemned the combatants on both sides, but he directed more blame at the counter protesters because he believes they instigated the violence. Looks to me like they did... They showed up at someone else's assembly armed for battle. The "fine people on both sides" I assume refers to noncombatants. But you're doing what the media has done - conflating the violent people with the peaceful people to accuse Trump of doing the same.

Facts have a Liberal Bias
Remember the God emperor had to wait to get the alternatives facts first before he put hes foot into hes mouth.

Trump is Totally Wrong, Anti-Racist Protesters Actually Did Have Permits

As a federal judge recently noted in a ruling for “Unite the Right” organizer Jason Kessler, Charlottesville granted permits for counter-protesters too. During a fiery back and forth that drew heavy criticism, Trump wrongly claimed that only the white supremacists had the right to legally protest. That’s just not true.Except that LawNewz has confirmed that two permits were granted for counter protesters in the city. According to records obtained by LawNewz, Walter Heinecke applied and was approved for two permits for his group, Peoples Action For Racial Justice.

https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/tr...-racist-protesters-actually-did-have-permits/

 

[FriendlyFire]

Protesting while Black = clearly the black persons fault for provoking the white people armed with poles and helmets

 

[Lexicus]

Please spoil that image as it is both large and violent.

 

[Berzerker]

Facts have a Liberal Bias
Remember the God emperor had to wait to get the alternatives facts first before he put hes foot into hes mouth.

fact: They showed up at someone else's assembly armed for battle.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

fact: They showed up at someone else's assembly armed for battle.

When lying doesn't work, repeat it in bold. What's next? All caps?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The press as a whole did never, not once in history, live up to the reputation that they've spread about themselves. It is, and has always been, a tool of propaganda, that operates under the guise of neutrality, while using its ability to show you exactly what they want you to see, and leaving out exactly what you are not supposed to know, to lead you towards the opinion that they want you to have. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle. Thank God for the internet, where you actually can get most of the information, raw from the scene. (Which, unfortunately, most people are not very interested in, but at least you can get it now and see that most people are uninformed idiots who are just defending their side.)

So yeah, it's not a surprise that the media would create this narrative of the bad white supremacists beating up protesters, even though the police chief (or whatever his exact position is called - the guy who spoke to the press) said that it was parts of both groups that were fighting each other, supporting what Trump had said.

Technically speaking, before the birth of yellow journalism back before any person alive today was born it was just news, for a brief moment.

These days, and throughout our lifetime + before, news is for selling ads basically. Click bait, prior to the clicks. You can't trust much in the way of any widespread sources, and getting good info from the internet is a pain (pretty intentionally I'd suspect). Unfortunately, the garbage influences people, a lot. When politics start getting involved the likelihood of trash is so great that it's usually not worth anybody's time. I wish more people realized that but w/e.

 

[Berzerker]

When lying doesn't work, repeat it in bold. What's next? All caps?

FF bolded it, I just copied him and noticed it was bold too. I dont know why that happens but I typed it out and it was still bold, so I left it. Now why is it a lie?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

FF bolded it, I just copied him and noticed it was bold too. I dont know why that happens but I typed it out and it was still bold, so I left it. Now why is it a lie?

Well, the first indication is that you posted it, but there's plenty of others which I won't bother to repeat since it was already refuted before you brought it back up.

 

[Berzerker]

you were wrong about why the text was bolded, does that make you a liar...or just a hypocrite?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

you were wrong about why the text was bolded, does that make you a liar...or just a hypocrite?

Neither. But you've removed all doubt about what you are at this point.

 

[Pokurcz]

I often hear the American gun lobby claiming that the guns are for the citizens to protect themselves from the government. So now with the president basically being a Nazi, the opposite of everything that is good, why hasn't anyone shot him? With the country overflowing with guns, what are the guns really for?