Pizzagate & the American Right Wing

[Tiassa]

Stating the Obvious

​

Tiassa,

yawn... are you going to get back to the thread topic?

Sure:

Mr. Welch might not be a Trump voter, per se, and we might certainly wonder at a man who just wanted to have a "closer look" and "shine some light" on a scandal he believed was true, who describes a change of plan, but who also came armed in the first place because he intended to intervene. And while not everything about that explanation can be simultaneously true, perhaps the more important thing here is that Maddison Welch is a tool.

Mr. Trump’s supporters do not seem to care; indeed, plenty happily play along, too, unwitting but complaisant assets to the machinations of international interests. This manner of mayhem and chaos is, ultimately, #WhatTheyVotedFor. Maddison Welch took up arms against Hillary Clinton, and in the process terrorized a bunch of people at a place that, just coincidentally, conservatives don’t like.

("The Pizza Post"↱)

† † †​

This is one of those weird facets we might wish to pay some attention to. Overseas twitterbots are sufficient to move a soft-headed religious fanatic to terrorize a pizzeria as a means of taking up arms against Hillary Clinton; the lulzaholics ought to be proud, but what about the rest of Donald Trump’s supporters?

In the end, it’s all the same. They get played by Russian trolls, international misinformation bloggers, and botnets around the world because they want to.

It is easy enough to remind that it always has been about supremacism and lulz↱; as the excuses fall away, what else will be left?

("A Tragic Tale of Tools"↱)

† † †​

Then again, theirs are astounding marks, such that one can suggest, as California RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel explained, that the "1% of Wall Street Bankers" were participating in a "massive Left Wing Conspiracy", and expect they will believe it. And it sounds even better, doesn’t it, given the outcome?

Thus we ought not be surprised to find master establishmentarian Newt Gingrich trying to pad Bannon’s résumé at Goldman Sachs. Yes, really, after all that talk of Goldman Sachs’ pernicious influence, it helps if one is a Republican, to overstate one’s involvement. Dan Primack used the occasion to point out a basic fallacy: "Gingrich seems to believe that having any one of those jobs is de facto proof that one doesn’t consort with white nationalists (it’s not)."

Nor should we pretend astonishment that pollster and Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway could be heard repeating the Goldman Sachs exaggeration the next day. Lobbyists and Wall Street and corruption, oh, my! Remember, as the excuses fall away like cold cinders, what remains; it’s been there the whole time.

("What They Voted For: Swamp"↱)​

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yes, yes supremacism and lulz... so then we are fucked? There is no way we can win against trump in 4 years if supremacism and lulz is all that it took to get him there. He will build his fence, call it a wall, kicked out a few million immigrants, grab a few pussies, maybe divorce his wife and marry his daughter on live television, and get re-elected on all that alone.

No if we want to win in 4 years we are going to need to find things we can utilize, oh what this the people hate wallstreet and the big banks, many voted for trump because they wanted an anti-establishment president, and trump has so far shown to be very much the establishment, gee maybe next time we should run an anti-establishment candidate, like, oh I don't know, Bernie Sanders, or maybe Elizabeth Warren? I did not need to learn this lesson, you though do.

 

[iceaura]

No if we want to win in 4 years we are going to need to find things we can utilize, oh what this the people hate wallstreet and the big banks, many voted for trump because they wanted an anti-establishment president, and trump has so far shown to be very much the establishment, gee maybe next time we should run an anti-establishment candidate, like, oh I don't know, Bernie Sanders, or maybe Elizabeth Warren? I did not need to learn this lesson, you though do.

You can't get the core Trump voter by running any particular candidate. Not by running an "anti-establishment" candidate, not by running a better candidate, they aren't in that market. The candidate hardly matters, although white and male reassures them - if reason were involved, the Dems could have run a border collie and won that election.

The voters you are talking about don't know what they want this week until they are told, and they aren't listening to you tell them. Figure out how to get them to stay home, and not vote.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You can't get the core Trump voter by running any particular candidate. Not by running an "anti-establishment" candidate, not by running a better candidate, they aren't in that market. The candidate hardly matters, although white and male reassures them - if reason were involved, the Dems could have run a border collie and won that election.

1. Yeah that is why we didn't have two terms of a black president. We have been over this so many times and you refuse to comprehend even the most basic and blatantly obvious data that runs counter to your narrative.
2. The white demographic drops by 2% every presidential cycle.
3. The core trump voter is not what I'm looking for, even Hillary with all her baggage and horribly outmoded campaigning tactics was a hairs breath away from winning. If we run a different candidate, a populace anti-establishment candidate of the likes of Bernie or Warren we will win handedly simply by energizing enough liberals to vote, getting enough independent voters, third party voters and "outershell" trump voters. In short: had we run a border collie we would have won (by the way I'm a proud owner of a boarder collie, greatest breed of dog on the planet), a border collie is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

The voters you are talking about don't know what they want this week until they are told, and they aren't listening to you tell them. Figure out how to get them to stay home, and not vote.

I know: we will run another black man, that will discourage them from voting, it worked before.

 

[iceaura]

1. Yeah that is why we didn't have two terms of a black president. We have been over this so many times and you refuse to comprehend even the most basic and blatantly obvious data that runs counter to your narrative.

You show no sign of knowing what my narrative is.

Meanwhile: You present no such data - you present elections which, if analyzed, support my contention above. Obama won in 2012, for example, because (by analyzed count) 8 million erstwhile white voters, most of them apparently from the Trump demographic base, stayed home and did not vote. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ase_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

Where things drop off are in the rural portions of Ohio, especially in the southeast. These represent areas still hard-hit by the recession. Unemployment is high there, and the area has seen almost no growth in recent years.

Or (by raw count) 2 million: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

2. The white demographic drops by 2% every presidential cycle.

The absolute white vote is what we're interested in suppressing. It usually rises from election to election (as the census link shows). It fluctuates more, in its rise, than 2%. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

I know: we will run another black man, that will discourage them from voting, it worked before

It would have to be a non-scary black man - as in 2012. They're not that easy to find.

 

[Syne]

Over the weekend a man took a rifle into a Washington Pizza restaurant in search of the Clinton sex trafficking operations which he thought were taking place on the premise, because, you know, he read about it on the internet.

Unfortunately, this is just one of many popular right wing fake news stories. Pizzagate as this particular fake news story is referred to is popular even with Trump's national security adviser. Now that should be of concern. Trump's national security adviser is getting his news from fake news sites. That's deeply disturbing.
"Lt. Gen. Flynn himself tweeted a link to a story that helped fuel and generate the theories about the Clintons, which again contained no credible evidence, days before the election. According to Buzzfeed, that discredited story was part of what spurred the invention of the pizza restaurant theory.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/mike-flynn-jr-son-pizza-gate-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump/

How far does this go and what can be done about it? This is a very real and present danger, not only to the US but to the world at large. When the guys who advise the POTUS get their information from fake news sources, that should deeply disturb everyone.

Yes, because all conservatives and republicans are just as gullible. Doesn't that sound fallacious to you? What about Brian Williams, "hands up don't shoot", Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham false rape stories, etc.?

Liberals Believe Fake News Too

"Now the urgent campaign to stop the spread of fake news and the response to it have almost rendered the term itself meaningless. For certain conservatives, “fake news” now means “liberal bias,”..."​

 

[Capracus]

And men sometimes bleed from their genitals, but not like women do.

Which political candidate was smeared with more unsupported mud? Which constituency was responsible smearing that mud? Which candidate was consistently more false?

When a candidate spends more time lying than telling the truth, what does that say about the people that support them?

 

[ElectricFetus]

You show no sign of knowing what my narrative is.

You have told me everything is about racism.

Meanwhile: You present no such data - you present elections which, if analyzed, support my contention above. Obama won in 2012, for example, because (by analyzed count) 8 million erstwhile white voters, most of them apparently from the Trump demographic base, stayed home and did not vote. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ase_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ase_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

If there motivation was racism clearly they did not mind a black man being president, twice, enough to get out and vote. There are OTHER REASONS they voted for trump, reasons we can exploit. You can look at the numbers I presented repeatedly before that show Trump made gains (be it minor) with Hispanics and Blacks, while Hillary made loses with almost all demographics more so to third parties then Trump.

It would have to be a non-scary black man - as in 2012. They're not that easy to find.

You sure about that? The republicans found Ben Carson with ease. Your non-scary black man excuse is insane and reveals how desperately your trying to make all this fit your narrative.

The whole idea of voter suppression is horrifying: that is what conservatives do, not us. There are many factors that came together to elected Trump, MANY, yes the rise of the alt-right and racists is one of them, primary as a scapegoat for the economic woes of the labor class. We can't do anything about the racist vote (other then run a non-scary black man as you say, that literally suppresses their turn out you claim), other factors though that we can use are not running an un-electable candidate with decades of baggage, run an anti-establishement candidate that is focused on radical economic reforms to help the labor class.

Liberals Believe Fake News Too

Yes, totally agree, that is how we end up with people like iceaura. Clique-hug box thinking like iceaura ilk is why they can't comprehend me liking your post.

 

[joepistole]

Yes, because all conservatives and republicans are just as gullible. Doesn't that sound fallacious to you? What about Brian Williams, "hands up don't shoot", Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham false rape stories, etc.?

And other than you, who has said that? You have created a straw man. No one other than you, has said all Republicans are gullible. Some are just flat out dishonest.

What about Brian Williams and "hands up don't shoot" or Lena Dunham false rape stories? I'm guessing you don't know what fake news is. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

Just because you don't like MSNBC, it doesn't make MSNBC a fake news outlet. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...en_t_the_only_ones_who_believe_fake_news.html

"Now the urgent campaign to stop the spread of fake news and the response to it have almost rendered the term itself meaningless. For certain conservatives, “fake news” now means “liberal bias,”..."​

And where exactly was the "fake news" in your video? Again, that makes me think you don't know what fake news is and you are reacting viscerally to defend your right wing beliefs.

Though I have never seen them and know of none, I'm sure there are left wing fake news sites too or there soon will be, because extremists of any ilk share the same qualities and tactics. But the fact is fake news is primarily a right wing phenomena.

"Watts (a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University) says that, during the election campaign, three main groups traded in fake news: passionate Trump supporters; people out to make money by driving followers to their websites with "click bait" stories; and the Russian propaganda apparatus. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/russia-fake-news-reality/

 

[Syne]

And other than you, who has said that? You have created a straw man. No one other than you, has said all Republicans are gullible. Some are just flat out dishonest.

What about Brian Williams and "hands up don't shoot" or Lena Dunham false rape stories? I'm guessing you don't know what fake news is. For your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

Just because you don't like MSNBC, it doesn't make MSNBC a fake news outlet. MSNBC doesn't make stuff up.

No one, just the impression I get. Those examples certainly are propaganda or disinformation. It's a false dilemma if you're arguing that fake news only comes from websites devoted solely to fake news. I never said MSNBC was a fake news outlet, so it's you arguing a strawman. Many news outlets, on both sides of the political spectrum, have propagated false news stories. It's fake news whether it was originally intended as such or whether the journalists didn't bother to do their due diligence because they liked the narrative.

And where exactly was the "fake news" in your video? Again, that makes me think you don't know what fake news is and you are reacting viscerally to defend your right wing beliefs.

It's sad I have to explain it. Mika said she tried to expose the challenge Hillary was facing, only to have her job threatened. The left-leaning media is just more fond of lies of omission. But I don't really expect you to see that.

 

[spidergoat]

"hands up don't shoot"

Corroborated by several witnesses including Dorian Johnson. It would not have been fake news to report this.

 

[iceaura]

You have told me everything is about racism.

No, I haven't. You keep believing what you type, I don't know why.

If there motivation was racism clearly they did not mind a black man being president, twice, enough to get out and vote. There are OTHER REASONS they voted for trump, reasons we can exploit.

Racism is not an exclusive factor, that only operates in the absence of all others. As I have attempted to remind you, the exact opposite is the case: racism operates in the presence of everything else, in the US. In this case, one major factor is sloth - simple irresponsibility, inattention, a serious factor among Trump voters.

You sure about that? The republicans found Ben Carson with ease. Your non-scary black man excuse is insane

And Obama's famous and overriding policy of never expressing anger or engaging in conflict was just silliness on his part?
The Republicans will have no problem finding non-scary black men (almost no other kind is Republican), but the Democrats will - since it's the Republican voter who has to be reassured, and not motivated to vote. Obama is not a common kind of man.

You can look at the numbers I presented repeatedly before that show Trump made gains (be it minor) with Hispanics and Blacks,

They don't.
You presented evidence that Trump gained over Romney - one of the least popular candidates among blacks and hispanics ever to run - in percentage terms, which completely ignores absolute turnout and turnout rate (percentage of eligible adults who voted). Your conclusion - that Trump appealed better to blacks and hispanics than previous Republican candidates, made actual gains as opposed to reduced losses - was invalid, and your deduction that Trump was not appealing heavily to the racism in lower class white voters was simply bizarre.

The 2012 election was anomalous - almost unique in American history - in that the turnout, the absolute vote total, from white people fell from 2008. Trump's vote gains were via turnout among whites, and almost entirely among the most racist demographics of those white people. He got the white bigots, who stayed home in 2012, to turn out and vote. That's how he got the vote close enough to (probably, by the evidence) steal the electoral college.

Your black vote percentage numbers are completely explained just by Republican voter suppression, btw, even without the vote tally problems or the other turnout issues: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the...rn-out-for-hillary-clinton-and-how-to-fix-it/
It's quite possible that Trump running against Clinton did even worse among blacks, in absolute terms, than Romney did running against a black incumbent President. Your statistics allow that as a likely hypothesis.

Btw: I heard on major media that Trump nominated a guy named Walter White to head the DEA - a schoolteacher turned successful businessman, with extensive border security experience, that Trump met during his work as an executive producer of TV programs.

 

[iceaura]

Many news outlets, on both sides of the political spectrum, have propagated false news stories.

That is what is known as "false equivalence". It's a species of bullshit.

Nobody is arguing, or ever has argued, that any news outlet is completely without any history of having presented a story as true when it was false. Actual and ordinary mistakes, handled in the standard manner, are not the problem here.

The difference is in things like frequency, scale, repetition, significance, and handling of exposure - the agenda of the "news" outlet, as revealed in how they handle such things. The difference between handling them as serious and shaming errors, and handling them as company policy and routine behavior, is significant - don't you agree?

You mentioned Williams: Brian Williams exaggerated and romanticized in retrospect his presence at an event of military hazard, Bill O'Reilly claimed eyewitness news-journalist authority and presence at an event of military hazard hundreds of miles away from his physical location at the time. Compare the handling.

It's sad I have to explain it. Mika said she tried to expose the challenge Hillary was facing, only to have her job threatened. The left-leaning media is just more fond of lies of omission

I'm confused: are you trying to claim that Morning Joe is an example of left-leaning media? Seriously?

 

[joepistole]

No one, just the impression I get.

Then you shouldn't be hanging your impressions on others. No one has said what you have attributed to them.

Those examples certainly are propaganda or disinformation. It's a false dilemma if you're arguing that fake news only comes from websites devoted solely to fake news.

They were your examples; why did you use them if you knew they were propaganda or disinformation?

I never said MSNBC was a fake news outlet, so it's you arguing a strawman. Many news outlets, on both sides of the political spectrum, have propagated false news stories. It's fake news whether it was originally intended as such or whether the journalists didn't bother to do their due diligence because they liked the narrative.

So you don't remember writing, "What about Brian Williams, "hands up don't shoot", Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham false rape stories, etc.?" and writing, "Liberals Believe Fake News Too", and citing a MSNBC video clip?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pizzagate-the-american-right-wing.158375/page-4#post-3422121

Now, I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. You made the MSNBC reference. In my last post, I questioned you about your MSNBC reference. I'll repeat it once again for your edification: "And where exactly was the "fake news" in your video? Again, that makes me think you don't know what fake news is and you are reacting viscerally to defend your right wing beliefs." That's not a straw man; that's a question. There is a difference. And you haven't answered my question.

You are not being honest or as I previously wrote you don't know what fake news is. Simply because a legitimate news agency reports something that may not be true, it doesn't make them a fake news agency. In your example, the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" Brown story. That's what wittiness told the media, and that's what the media reported. It later turned out that wasn't true. But that doesn't make the media "fake news". I gave you a link which, if you read it, explained what fake news is.

It's sad I have to explain it. Mika said she tried to expose the challenge Hillary was facing, only to have her job threatened. The left-leaning media is just more fond of lies of omission. But I don't really expect you to see that.

It's sad you have made this argument. What does that have to do with fake news? Nothing. There was no "fake news" there so why are you citing it as an example of fake news?

The show you referenced is the "Morning Joe", the Joe referring to Joe Scarborough a right wing former congressman. The fact that you think Scarborough and his morning show is "left leaning" speaks volumes of your bias. There is nothing "left" about Joe Scarborough or his show.

Further, Mika's job wasn't threatened. A viewer demanded she lose her job, apparently for something she said and that something wasn't clearly expressed in the brief video clip you referenced. Mika's boss is Joe Scarborough; only Joe Scarborough can threaten her job, and he didn't threaten her job.

If you have some proof the "media" is left leaning, now is the time to show it. But you can't. Because it isn't. Fox News isn't by any stretch "left leaning" and neither is Joe Scarborough's Morning Joe show. Who is this "left leaning media" and where is your evidence to support it? You have none, because none exists. Where is your evidence? Where is your evidence of these "lies of omission"? Now I can very easily tune into any right wing media broadcast like Fox News or right wing radio and quickly identify any number of lies including lies of omission. But those lies and those omissions don't bother you. You probably don't even notice them.

 

[Syne]

Then you shouldn't be hanging your impressions on others. No one has said what you have attributed to them.

Go read that again, mate. I made a characterization...then I asked your opinion of it. If I were attributing it to you, I would not be asking your opinion. It was not a rhetorical question, and you seem to be making a strawman out of assuming it was.

They were your examples; why did you use them if you knew they were propaganda or disinformation?

Propaganda and disinformation is fake news...as defined by your wiki link.

So you don't remember writing, "What about Brian Williams, "hands up don't shoot", Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham false rape stories, etc.?" and writing, "Liberals Believe Fake News Too", and citing a MSNBC video clip?

Now, I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. You made the MSNBC reference. In my last post, I questioned you about your MSNBC reference. I'll repeat it once again for your edification: "And where exactly was the "fake news" in your video? Again, that makes me think you don't know what fake news is and you are reacting viscerally to defend your right wing beliefs." That's not a straw man; that's a question. There is a difference. And you haven't answered my question.

You are not being honest or as I previously wrote you don't know what fake news is. Simply because a legitimate news agency reports something that may not be true, it doesn't make them a fake news agency. In your example, the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" Brown story. That's what wittiness told the media, and that's what the media reported. It later turned out that wasn't true. But that doesn't make the media "fake news". I gave you a link which, if you read it, explained what fake news is.

Go back and look. "Liberals Believe Fake News Too" was a link to an article by that title. It was not a title for that MSNBC video. LOL.

That video merely showed how false news by omission happens. Don't you think more people would have turned out to vote for Hillary if they were more aware of what Mika said?

"Hands up don't shoot" has been treated as credible, at least in sentiment, since proven false, even when the data do nothing to support the narrative.

It's sad you have made this argument. What does that have to do with fake news? Nothing. There was no "fake news" there so why are you citing it as an example of fake news?

The show you referenced is the "Morning Joe", the Joe referring to Joe Scarborough a right wing former congressman. The fact that you think Scarborough and his morning show is "left leaning" speaks volumes of your bias. There is nothing "left" about Joe Scarborough or his show..

Where did I say Morning Joe was left-leaning? What is that...three strawmen from you now? LOL.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No, I haven't. You keep believing what you type, I don't know why.

I could go back and quote you, but what ever.

Racism is not an exclusive factor, that only operates in the absence of all others. As I have attempted to remind you, the exact opposite is the case: racism operates in the presence of everything else, in the US. In this case, one major factor is sloth - simple irresponsibility, inattention, a serious factor among Trump voters.

Well it is not a factor for many trump voters, frankly a majority of them, as for laziness: well they were not lazy enough not to vote.

And Obama's famous and overriding policy of never expressing anger or engaging in conflict was just silliness on his part?
The Republicans will have no problem finding non-scary black men (almost no other kind is Republican), but the Democrats will - since it's the Republican voter who has to be reassured, and not motivated to vote. Obama is not a common kind of man.

And, what your point? That they can't stand angry black men? Let me get this straight, your argument is they are racist, but so long as the black guy is cool like Obama, they don't vote against him? Not very racist if you ask me. Heck Dean was stricken from the presidency for one yell! Cool and collective are fucking great traits I want in a president! Apparently ignorant slanderous boar pig though is all the rage these days in presidential traits, so I actually see Kanye West having a chance in 2020.

They don't.
You presented evidence that Trump gained over Romney - one of the least popular candidates among blacks and hispanics ever to run - in percentage terms, which completely ignores absolute turnout and turnout rate (percentage of eligible adults who voted).

So are you saying Romney was less liked by Hispanic and Blacks than trump?

Your conclusion - that Trump appealed better to blacks and hispanics than previous Republican candidates, made actual gains as opposed to reduced losses -

So less blacks and Hispanics show up to vote at all, of the ones that did, they vote slightly more republican then in previous elections, is that what your saying?

was invalid, and your deduction that Trump was not appealing heavily to the racism in lower class white voters was simply bizarre.

Oh sure he appealed to racist, it just was not the major factor in his win. Far more of the lower class white voters, labor class votes in general were my inclined to vote for him because his stance on jobs, immigration and international trade. They said "We want our jobs back" and he said "I will get them back for you, I promise, trust me, it will be great, so great" and they bought it hook line and sinker. Those that did not buy it but could not stand "more of the same" with Hillary voted third party or simply did not vote at all, thus explaining the turn out.

The 2012 election was anomalous - almost unique in American history - in that the turnout, the absolute vote total, from white people fell from 2008.

Yeah white people are falling as a percentage of the population by ~2% every presidential cycle.

Trump's vote gains were via turnout among whites, and almost entirely among the most racist demographics of those white people. He got the white bigots, who stayed home in 2012, to turn out and vote.

If the white bigots were so enamored with Trump simply because of racism, then why did they not turn out to vote against Obama in 2008 and 2012? How come it is so fucking hard for you to see beyond your racism narrative and admit all the other factors, such as how horrible a candidate Hillary was, how the economic stagnation of the labor class made them ecstatic for a huckster that promised them jobs and prosperity like the old days? How you and your ilk divided the left and rallied everyone you call a racist and misogynist to vote for Trump.

Your black vote percentage numbers are completely explained just by Republican voter suppression, btw, even without the vote tally problems or the other turnout issues: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the...rn-out-for-hillary-clinton-and-how-to-fix-it/
It's quite possible that Trump running against Clinton did even worse among blacks, in absolute terms, than Romney did running against a black incumbent President. Your statistics allow that as a likely hypothesis.

Sure it is possible, even probable, but the Salon (almost the lefts version of breitbart) makes a fine argument but presents no proof that voter suppression was the cause.

Btw: I heard on major media that Trump nominated a guy named Walter White to head the DEA - a schoolteacher turned successful businessman, with extensive border security experience, that Trump met during his work as an executive producer of TV programs.

Why are you telling me this? You think I enjoy this? Go tell Tiassa that.

 

[iceaura]

"Hands up don't shoot" has been treated as credible, at least in sentiment, since proven false, even when the data do nothing to support the narrative.

"Hands up don't shoot" was never disproven, and is in conflict with none of the physical evidence.

It was dismissed on grounds of inconsistency among the various eyewitnesses and absence of positive forensic support, on the "reasonable doubt" criterion - the issue was that if accepted as established it would have indicated criminal guilt in the shooter. In American law, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

So with Williams dismissed on comparative degree of falsehood and handling of exposure, and hands up don't shoot on grounds that it was never fake news in the first place, you have the Rolling Stone phony rape story left - do you want to compare that one (the way it was handled upon exposure, its political orientation, the status of Rolling Stone as major news media, etc) with other similar events - such as the New York Central Park wilding?

 

[spidergoat]

"Hands up don't shoot" has been treated as credible, at least in sentiment, since proven false, even when the data do nothing to support the narrative.

It's a rallying cry against police violence. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether Michael Brown had his hands up or not. Plenty of other incidents have been recorded where people were shot in spite of having their hands in the air.

 

[iceaura]

I could go back and quote you, but what ever.

If you would just do that, instead of repetitively typing falsehoods, it would save us both trouble.

Well it is not a factor for many trump voters, frankly a majority of them, as for laziness: well they were not lazy enough not to vote.

But they were in 2012. And in 2008, actually, if you crunch the numbers.

Let me get this straight, your argument is they are racist, but so long as the black guy is cool like Obama, they don't vote against him?

When the black guy is not too threatening, and the white guy is not on their side. Yep.

So are you saying Romney was less liked by Hispanic and Blacks than trump?

Nope. Reread.

So less blacks and Hispanics show up to vote at all, of the ones that did, they vote slightly more republican then in previous elections, is that what your saying?

I haven't looked at the Hispanic vote, but the numbers for the black vote indicate that about the same or smaller (potentially significantly smaller, depending on how one handles vote suppression and tally issues) fraction of eligible black adults voted for Trump as voted for Romney - and Romney was running against an incumbent and very popular black President.

Sure it is possible, even probable, but the Salon (almost the lefts version of breitbart)

Nonsense. Salon is a reputable source of information, when they turn their hands to it - not even particularly "left", in most ways.
And by making that mistake you have outed yourself, ideologically. Let's have no more nonsense from you about your liberalism, leftiness, or the like.

makes a fine argument but presents no proof that voter suppression was the cause.

No "proof" - just plenty of evidence and a solid argument - so far, the only one.

"The 2012 election was anomalous - almost unique in American history - in that the turnout, the absolute vote total, from white people fell from 2008."
Yeah white people are falling as a percentage of the population by ~2% every presidential cycle.

That's irrelevant to the absolute vote totals. Note the term "absolute vote totals" - it's key to your realizing where you are screwing up here.

How you and your ilk divided the left and rallied everyone you call a racist and misogynist to vote for Trump.

We didn't. Why do you repeat wingnut talking points, and btw help the rightwing fake news people cover their tracks, while claiming lefty and liberal status?

 

[Capracus]

Nonsense. Salon is a reputable source of information, when they turn their hands to it - not even particularly "left", in most ways.
And by making that mistake you have outed yourself, ideologically. Let's have no more nonsense from you about your liberalism, leftiness, or the like.

I wouldn’t exactly call them a Breitbart equivalent, but they do qualify as liberal.

Salon is a progressive/liberal website created by David Talbot in 1995 and part of Salon Media Group (OTCQB: SLNM). It focuses on U.S. politics and current affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon_(website)