Well, it did get Trump elected and we're learning that's about as much harm a misinformed public can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Printable View
Well, it did get Trump elected and we're learning that's about as much harm a misinformed public can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.52eb389a83e6
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c0c530e4f6ca
I highly recommend these stories, particularly the opinion piece by Seth Rich's parents, which is a plea for common decency directed at those with none.
This is the danger we all face from fake news. Fake news is not news you don't want to hear or a biased take on known events, it consists of intentional distortions. Sean Hannity of Fox News has been pushing the narrative that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered in what appears to be a botched robbery attempt in DC, was really the person who provided DNC emails to wikileaks. His murder, the theory goes, was in retribution for his cooperation with wikileaks.
Astute observers will notice that this theory collides with certain facts we already know, for instance that 17 intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked both the DNC and RNC and decided to only release the DNC's emails. It also doesn't provide much of an explanation for why Macron's emails were hacked or for the enormous amount of propaganda Russia directed at our electorate. It also has the demerit of having no evidence to support its premises. The fact that a media outlet would ever consider allowing one of its commentators to broadcast this utter nonsense, this pure wish fulfillment fabrication is disgusting and frightening. Sean Hannity simply has no soul.
Thanks for these links, I read about this in the UK press the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The 'fake news' trend and its links to conspiracy theories have surely reached a bleak nadir with the despicable attacks on the families who lost their children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. I can't be shocked easily these days but this report raised incredulity at the cruelty of some people to a new level. The full report is in the link but it begins:
It was one of the worst school shootings in American history, but some people insist that the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. They post YouTube videos and spread rumours online, and their false theories have been repeated by a media mogul conspiracy theorist who has been linked to Donald Trump. Now, after years of harassment, the families of the victims are fighting back online.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-39194035
GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte (running in Montana) attacked Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian yesterday. Jacobs asked Gianforte to comment on the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the House legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act. When Gianforte passed off the question without answering it, Jacobs persisted. Fox News reports that Gianforte became agitated, screamed, “I’m sick and tired of this!” and punched Jacobs. Jacobs said Gianforte body-slammed him and broke his glasses in the process. Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault.
My prediction is that this behavior toward the press will only help Gianforte in the election. It ties right in with Trump’s outrageous claim that the press is the enemy of the people, his rants about fake news and his complaints about being the most abused president ever.
Would that the GOP defend and cherish the 1st Amendment as feverishly as they do the second.
Gianforte was just announced the winner of the special election. Shortly after assaulting Ben Jacobs, he released a statement riddled with lies claiming that Jacobs had been aggressive and that the encounter was virtually mutual combat. At the time he didn't know his statement was contradicted by an audio recording of the incident. It was also contradicted by three eyewitnesses who said the assault on Jacobs was even more severe than Jacobs himself had said and that Jacobs did not get physical at all with Gianforte.
One eyewitness claimed Gianforte had his hands on Jacobs' neck, then later altered her take to say his hands were positioned differently but maintained that he threw Jacobs down and punched him. All day on right wing media people have been claiming that this eyewitness recanted her story and should be sued. Other right wing figures such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and others spent the day mocking Jacobs and claiming that he represented the aggressive liberal media, as well as a crybaby snowflake because he diligently did his job and did not fight back.
It appears Trish is right that the action did not hurt him but actually made people stand in solidarity with him. Callers into radio shows, it's been reported, were mostly supportive of Gianforte's actions. So his win is another feather in the cap of...whatever the hell this movement is.
Breaking news: Gianforte issued an apology. It is a well written apology and I think it's important to accept sincere apologies but if Jacobs had not been able to corroborate what happened, he would have just continued lying about it. Still, it's better than not apologizing because he's not defending the action. Still, again, without the corroboration he wouldn't have had to defend the action he would have just claimed it didn't happen.
There's the feeling that there are certain people who cannot be reached. Not to be pessimistic as there are still a core of decent people left and right, but they're getting scarce. I used to see someone with the National Review and feel a petty rivalry because they were on the other side of the aisle, but compared to Breitbart or Fox, these might be the people willing to condemn assault or unconstitutional acts. I think. Well that's my bipartisan thought for the day.
As Bronco said, Gianforte won the election. I heard a number of man-on-the-street interviews this morning in which Gianforte supporters were exclaiming that Ben Jacobs deserved what he got.
Yes, Gianforte apologized (a very unTrumpian move), but he did wait until the polls were closed and he after he accepted the win. Did he know his base (which broadly overlaps with Trump's in Montana) would be spurred on by this burst of violence? I think so; just as he knew they'd be turned off by an early apology.
So do I accept his apology? It's not my place to accept or not accept his apology, I'm not a Montanan for one thing. That's a decision for Ben Jacobs and the Montana electorate. Gianforte supporters certainly don't accept it - not in any real sense - they applaud the behavior he was apologizing for.
I'm not sure who's pressing the misdemeanor charges in this case: Jacobs or the State. Should the charges be dropped because of the apology? Call me vindictive but I think not. The legitimate press has been getting a bad rap for too long. We need to defend the First Amendment.
I hope voters in the future will remember the incident and consider it along with Gianforte's performance in his new office when it's time to reassess his fitness for office. However, given the current mindset of the GOP base, this will only help him.
Finally, Gianforte's violence did successfully allow him to avoid answering Jacob's question. We still don't have Gianforte's reaction to the Budget Office's assessment of the House bill repealing the ACA - or do we?
Lower down the line maybe, but the Republicans lost two seats in their State legislatures they won last November, in Long Island and New Hampshire.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0ec129d3082d0
For a while I didn't know whether the Russia story was real. I knew there was evidence to raise suspicion, and the firing of Comey was improper, and the connection to Alfa bank suspicious but not conclusive. Then there were the apparently independent corrupt actions of the Russian government during the election. So there was a ton of smoke. Now we have evidence that Kushner wanted a private channel with the Russians.
My guess: Trump's properties are financed with large Russian loans. I was surprised when Forbes did a report on his wealth, they concluded he does indeed have a probable net worth of 4 billion dollars. There were a bunch of loans worth tens of millions of dollars. How did he get that money? Who would lend to him in such amounts given his history? To me, this is the simplest explanation I can think of. The Russians knew he was beholden to them, wanted him in the White House, and through his statements it was obvious he wanted to favor them. Further, both Eric and Donald Jr. had made statements about Russian financing. Maybe Kushner wanted his own loans from Russia or maybe he simply was acting as agent for Donald.
But the key probably lies in his financials, which there will be an even stronger cry to subpoena.
I was astonished to read in the Independent that in some states in the USA there are no restrictions on the age at which someone can get married. I don't understand how this can work if there are laws that govern both the legal age for marriage and consent to sexual intercourse. In the UK it is legal for a boy or girl aged 16 to get married with parental consent -otherwise it is 18- but legal without parental consent in Scotland. The age of consent is 16 throughout the UK but not in the US where it is 18 in some states. It is also possible for someone aged 51 to marry a 16 year old, as happened when the actor Dug Hutchison married a 16-year old aspiring singer Courtney Stodden.
The story in the Independent concerns a woman in Florida who claims that when she was 11 years old she was forced to marry the man who raped her, and that-
Florida is one of 27 US states that permits children of any age to be married with their parents’ permission.
In addition, Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey vetoed a law that would outlaw child marriage:
“An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities in New Jersey based on religious traditions,” Mr Christie said in a statement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7761816.html
It seems the child in the Florida case was a member of some sort of Christian fundamentalist church, so I don't know what the religious and/or cultural argument is, but then I clearly do not understand this at all.