Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Buzzfeed: Renegade Facebook Employees Form Task Force To Battle Fake News

visionary

By visionary
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, btfoom said:

Well, considering his site was WAY more accurate than those completely truthful folks at NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc,:rolleyes:, you may want to re-think who is truthful and who was fake.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

While I do dislike the idea of censorship, I would like to acknowledge that this ^^^ is a HUGE problem in our country right now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Rocky21 said:

No ****.  I saw on facebook this morning that Trump won the popular vote. 

 

Probably came to that by subtracting the 'reported' 3 million illegal alien votes , haven't heard how many dead voted yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
Posted

I like how an incorrect prediction for Clinton is now regarded as dishonesty. Even Trump didn't think he'd win.

I mean is this how the logic works? Breitbart supports Trump, predicts Trump to win, Trump wins and thus Breitbart is the arbiter of truth?

I guess whoever thought the Giants would beat the Patriots in 2008 were truthful, while everyone else was dishonest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rocky21 said:

Last month Drudge published a story falsely claiming that Bill Clinton had an illegitimate child with a hooker; an allegation that Drudge Report itself had debunked in 1999

 

Last month MSM reported Hillary had transmitted confidential information on a private server and deleted e-mails the public owned....after debunking it earlier. :kickcan:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Donald Trump was elected because Dp got 400,000+ fewer votes than Romney. Clinton got 4.6M fewer votes than Obama.

 

They only stayed home because Drudge deceived them though .....I read that somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Donald Trump was elected because Democrats stayed home. Trump got 400,000+ fewer votes than Romney. Clinton got 4.6M fewer votes than Obama.

I'm not sure that's true.  Voter turnout is essentially identical to 2012.  

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

Over 4 million more voted 3rd party.  The vote got out, but it didn't vote the same way.  And in an election this close, I'd be leery of drawing too many conclusions from the exit poll data.  The exit polls actually have Hillary winning NC, PA, and WI.

" The national exit poll shows Trump making bigger gains among black and Hispanic voters than among whites. But I’d urge at least a little caution. I know that exit polls aren’t supposed to be used for projecting results, but they did an awfully bad job tonight, initially showing what had looked like a near-landslide margin for Clinton. Furthermore, as compared with pre-election polls, Trump clearly overperformed the most in whiter states. So on second thought, maybe that’s a lot of caution and not just a little. "

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-coverage/

Either the exit polls were flawed for some reason or the election was rigged (for Trump).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not sure that's true.  Voter turnout is essentially identical to 2012.  

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

Over 4 million more voted 3rd party.  The vote got out, but it didn't vote the same way.  And in an election this close, I'd be leery of drawing too many conclusions from the exit poll data.  The exit polls actually have Hillary winning NC, PA, and WI.

" The national exit poll shows Trump making bigger gains among black and Hispanic voters than among whites. But I’d urge at least a little caution. I know that exit polls aren’t supposed to be used for projecting results, but they did an awfully bad job tonight, initially showing what had looked like a near-landslide margin for Clinton. Furthermore, as compared with pre-election polls, Trump clearly overperformed the most in whiter states. So on second thought, maybe that’s a lot of caution and not just a little. "

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-coverage/

Either the exit polls were flawed for some reason or the election was rigged (for Trump).

Ok? Trump got 400k fewer votes than Romney (Romney got 60,933,504, Trump got 60,526,852 to date). Not debatable. There was no white uprising here. He got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton got 4.6M fewer votes than Obama. I don't care if they voted for Stein or Johnson, they didn't support her. My point is/was that Trump didn't turn out a massive amount of voters that swept him to a win. Instead, Clinton supporters either stayed home or voted for other candidates. Hell, there were thousands of blank presidential ballots in Wisconsin (or Michigan) that had down ballot votes cast. If she gets those votes, she takes the state.

There is no mandate for Trump. He didn't win the popular vote and he "stole" a couple states...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExoDus84

ExoDus84

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, btfoom said:

Well, considering his site was WAY more accurate than those completely truthful folks at NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc,:rolleyes:, you may want to re-think who is truthful and who was fake.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

Even I'm exhausted from the mental gymnastics one has to do to come up with a line like this.

Ladies and gents, one of the victims of fake news, in front of our very eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btfoom

btfoom

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ExoDus84 said:

Even I'm exhausted from the mental gymnastics one has to do to come up with a line like this.

Ladies and gents, one of the victims of fake news, in front of our very eyes.

Of course you can't answer, Drudge had polls from both sides, but had ones that showed Trump ahead. The fake news I linked to in my post.  

Hillary supporters are the victims of fake news, as they just fed and fed on the lies.  Can't see how you can eat any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoodBits

TheGoodBits

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, btfoom said:

Of course you can't answer, Drudge had polls from both sides, but had ones that showed Trump ahead. The fake news I linked to in my post.  

Hillary supporters are the victims of fake news, as they just fed and fed on the lies.  Can't see how you can eat any more.

The 538 polling average had Hillary +2. That's damn close to where it'll end up. 

There's no such thing as polls "from each side." There are good polls and bad polls. Good science and pseudoscience. 

But I ask myself... why am I wasting my time responding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

Ok? Trump got 400k fewer votes than Romney (Romney got 60,933,504, Trump got 60,526,852 to date). Not debatable. There was no white uprising here. He got fewer votes than Romney. Clinton got 4.6M fewer votes than Obama. I don't care if they voted for Stein or Johnson, they didn't support her. My point is/was that Trump didn't turn out a massive amount of voters that swept him to a win. Instead, Clinton supporters either stayed home or voted for other candidates. Hell, there were thousands of blank presidential ballots in Wisconsin (or Michigan) that had down ballot votes cast. If she gets those votes, she takes the state.

There is no mandate for Trump. He didn't win the popular vote and he "stole" a couple states...

Certainly, the election was close, Trump did not invoke a large amount of support that resulted in a blow out, and there are a lot of scenarios where Clinton could have won because it was a close election.

However, I do think there was a Trump voter, and I think it was somebody that doesn't normally vote.  This isn't one of those things we are ever going to know though,.  I think more people may have voted in this election than in the 2012 when you look at blank and write in voters.  I think mellinials that generally supported Obama went more 3rd party this year, and I think that hurt Hillary.

I think some Republicans either didn't vote at the top of the ticket (this was going to be the Bush family approach, which are the votes that ) or voted write in (I believe the NH Republican Senate candidate talked about writing in Kasich).  I also believe some people that normally vote Republican at the top of the ticket, especially, just stayed home.

I think then there were people that showed up to vote for Trump that don't normally vote to get him close to Romney's total, and then down ticked voted Republican.  This then explains why the Republican did better than expected in the Senate too.  Their Senate vote was people that normally vote Republican (e.g. the Bushes) + voters that come out to vote for Trump.

This also would help explain issues with the state and Senate polls as the biggest issues for pollsters is who is actually going to vote.  One part of the equation in terms of likely voters is do you vote regularly.  If Trump turned out people that don't vote a lot and then they voted down ticket Republican, then you have an explanation for Trump's and the Republican success.

I haven't seen anybody really put together an explanation for the whole election result that doesn't include that there were Trump voters that voted Republican down ticket.  This is one of those things that we'll never know though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kosher Ham

Kosher Ham

Posted
Posted

And these are the people we pay to protect and serve. 

Talk about a waste of money. 

Yet they wonder about why more officers of the law should be fired. 

Seems pretty simple to me, because they profile. 

Anyone who tells me that LEOs don't profile is a straight up liar. That's a fact. They do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grego

grego

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Springfield said:

May want to research your news stories, regardless of the source, and come up with an informed opinion.

 

its a problem. there are stories on right or left leaning sites that you wont find on sites with the opposing viewpoint, yet are factually correct.

i dont know how you can be informed and not go to a variety of sites to gather information.

anyone know some good, non partisan news sites? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, grego said:

 

its a problem. there are stories on right or left leaning sites that you wont find on sites with the opposing viewpoint, yet are factually correct.

i dont know how you can be informed and not go to a variety of sites to gather information.

anyone know some good, non partisan news sites? 

If you can get past some of the vitriol being speed here the last few days, I actually find this place to be good source of news.  someone on one side will post an article and then someone else will post the opposing view to make a counterargument.  you get both sides with having to do much legwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, grego said:

 

 

anyone know some good, non partisan news sites? 

 

Pravda. :) .....

I use news aggregates , it is also helpful at times to use foreign news.

everyone has a agenda, if you know what they are it helps to filter once you establish fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...