Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|

Well, unless I am seeing a hologram and hearing a dubbed voice I am basing my judgment on what comes from the pursed lips and cold, small hands of the man himself. Nothing like the source to get the sauce.

I find a certain demagoguery in the way terms like 'fake news' are used to shut down dissenting opinion, but the irony of the claim is enough to remind us to be vigilant with our dogma, lest we fall into the very authoritarian stupor we claim to oppose.
It is demagoguery. So is caricaturing based on physical appearances. That's why all the media outlets began simultaneously pounding out the term "fake news". So I'll turn it around and use it against them. If no facts are provided to contend with, why not? If you have specific Trump statements to analyze we could do that and perhaps both learn something.
 
the premise for the show's title was:
- the vote against Hillary was a vote against the establishment.
- "truthers" like me are post-partisan... we are not Republican in any way.
- "Bush brought down the towers..." IT says it all:
As you can see Alex, therein lies the danger, the lack of discrimination. You uncover one thing and suddenly everything that comes via the mainstream suddenly is "fake" and every conspiracy, no matter how bonkers, is the "Truth". I have seen some great journalist writing for big media, dedicated people, who will probably go to prison very soon. The problem is because the great new man in the White House shouts it too, "fake news", he has now become the new hero, because he is anti establishment, so he must be one of us, a "Truther" and there are now some real Trump Nazies on this forum.
 
You're seeing everything through the discredited distorted lens of fake news. Turn off the boob tube.
Hurm. In all seriousness, please provide your top three outlets for news that is not "fake." Your three best.

I am concerned when papers like the NYT, for example are labeled as fake news. There are outlets that are truly trying to dig in and present facts. They are not perfect, but to label an outlet as entirely fake I think is dangerous. I still get the feeling that you are labeling anything that appears "anti-trump" as fake news. It may not be the case, but that is the feeling I get from looking at your posts.
 
I think that this is really unfair using the word Nazi. Though a small handful of people openly show their support for Trump, can you provide a quote that supports your thinking?
I agree. I'm not a Trump fan. But I think the moderate path says to be both open and vigilant. We need to actually allow this presidency to move forward all the while being very vigilant to try and find the truth in the actions being taken.
 
I agree. I'm not a Trump fan. But I think the moderate path says to be both open and vigilant. We need to actually allow this presidency to move forward all the while being very vigilant to try and find the truth in the actions being taken.
I just had coffee with a buddy and we agreed that the 1st amendment is critical. Obviously it has already been eroded by past administrations by setting up specific areas for protesters. And the arrest of "journalists" who were documenting the "unrest" in Washington D.C. during the inaugural is another example of its erosion.

But it isn't hard to image that an aggressive administration may try and develop a "State News Agency" that would then began policing what could and couldn't be published on the internet. "The State News agency today shut down 37 web sites that contained content related to global warming today." That is not terribly far fetched. And of course I only used global warming as an example. Even countries like Great Britain, I believe, have already started restricting what can be published on the Internet. (I may be wrong.) That is the wrong direction. And cries of "Fake News" coming from administration supporters makes me feel like it is not a huge step to take to have an "agency" in charge of scrubbing "fake news" from the web. That would be the real beginning of the end.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
 
I think that this is really unfair using the word Nazi. Though a small handful of people openly show their support for Trump, can you provide a quote that supports your thinking?
I feel completely justify for using the term "Trump Nazie", because in less than a week of the new leader, steps have already been taken which are dangerously similar to what has happen in the Third Reich. Censorship is the most significant and most dangerous one, others are in the making like water boarding, torture and discrimination etc. Nazis are people who uncritically and unquestionably tow the line of their leader and as the next step enforce it. First they claim the moral highground. Where discrimination and extremism rears its head, extremists rally to the banner and take it to the next step. In Germany we had the "Braunshirts", in China under Mao they were called "The Red Guard", they can already be spotted. Nazis are people who follow their leader blindly and indicriminately and take it to the next level.
 
Last edited:
I feel completely justify for using the term "Trump Nazie", because in less than a week of the new leader, steps have already been taken which are dangerously similar to what has happen in the Third Reich. Censorship is the most significant and most dangerous one, others are in the making like water boarding, torture and discrimination etc. Nazis are people who uncritically and unquestionably tow the line of their leader and as the next step enforce it. First they claim the moral highground. Where discrimination and extremism rears its head, extremists rally to the banner and take it to the next step. In Germany we had the "Braunshirts", they can already be spotted. Nazis are people who follow their leader blindly and indicriminately and take it to the next level.
I think you need to be much more specific. I don't believe he has signed the exec order on torture yet, which I heard focuses on researching whether more intense torture than is allowed in the Army Manual may be effective.
Can you list exactly what censorship has occurred? I am aware of some federal agencies being restricted.
I think it is important that we stick to the facts at a time like this. There is a lot of hyperbole in your writing.
 
feel completely justify for using the term "Trump Nazie", because in less than a week of the new leader, steps have already been taken which are dangerously similar to what has happen in the Third Reich.
Wow, so does that make anyone who voted for or supports Trump a nazi, on the basis of what he's done so far. Do you really think that's a reasonable position to take?
 
Hurm. In all seriousness, please provide your top three outlets for news that is not "fake." Your three best.
Drudgereport, Infowars, Zerohedge

I am concerned when papers like the NYT, for example are labeled as fake news. There are outlets that are truly trying to dig in and present facts. They are not perfect, but to label an outlet as entirely fake I think is dangerous.
There may be some individuals with good intentions therein. But the major talking points are either resonated out of an extremely small echo chamber or centrally devised and handed out by the deep state.

I still get the feeling that you are labeling anything that appears "anti-trump" as fake news. It may not be the case, but that is the feeling I get from looking at your posts.
Not at all... just the ones that try to claim he's a racist, homophobic nazi... and the ones who endlessly reported fake poll results and claimed he had no chance or was about to drop out or was just doing this for publicity... or the ones that tried to cover up and distract from the exposure of Hillary's and Podesta's sins by shifting the focus and blame to Russia without any evidence. But if you want to try to give a valid explanation why getting us out of the TPP is bad for America, that's legit.
 
I think you need to be much more specific. I don't believe he has signed the exec order on torture yet, which I heard focuses on researching whether more intense torture than is allowed in the Army Manual may be effective.
Can you list exactly what censorship has occurred? I am aware of some federal agencies being restricted.
I think it is important that we stick to the facts at a time like this. There is a lot of hyperbole in your writing.
Trump Administration Orders EPA to Remove Its Climate Change Web Page
Torture U-Turn
Trump Reviewing science research
 
I have always criticized Trump for his statements in one of the early debates supporting torture. I think he can be steered away from that. If he is not steered away from that John Wayne Jack Bower type stance I will continue to criticize him for it and he will lose a lot of his support from civil libertarians.
 
I'm not seeing much echo chamber here. Are you talking about the opinion pages?
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politi...iniNav&contentCollection=Politics&WT.nav=page
Skimming down the page, this caught my eye:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/...se-claim-investigation.html?ref=politics&_r=0

The headline says Trump's claim of voter fraud is a false claim.

1) voter fraud always goes on so it is a ridiculous on the face of it
2) whether the claim is true in totality or not requires an investigation - which is exactly what Trump is calling for... an investigation
3) the claim that 3 million illegals voted is not implausible as there are probably over 11 million in the U.S.
4) With a little journalistic due diligence the NYT would have learned that the claim that 3 million illegals voted originated from a private investigator Gregg Phillips who claims to have info backing up the claim that is either to be released to the new justice dept if can be trusted or to the general public if cannot. Yes it requires verification... thus the need for an investigation. I would not claim with absolute certainty that it happened without investigation, but as I said it is not implausible.
5) we have statements from Bob Creamer who visted Obama's White House 342 times talking about how they would bus people around to vote multiple times - how they've always done it and how they always will.

So how is it not "fake news" when they say "Trump falsely claims" when they don't know if it's false, act as if voter faud didn't happen at all and never happens, and treat it as if it is a foregone conclusion when the real substantive issue is that Trump is calling for an investigation which is the proper thing to do to settle the matter once and for all.
 
Last edited:
So how is it not "fake news" when they say "Trump falsely claims" when they don't know if its false and treat it as if it is a foregone conclusion when the real substantive issue is that Trump is calling for an investigation which is the proper thing to do to settle the matter once and for all.
Fox News is reporting the exact same story but with harsher language on some points. The NYT calls it a false claim. State's Attorneys Generals from all 50 states basically say it is a false claim. You have Gregg Phillips who says it is not. And someone who claims Democrats bus people around to vote twice. You think they bus millions of people around? Do you think that Democratic vote cheating isn't offset by Republican vote cheating?
 
Top