Fake News Awards - page 4

So does this mean NYT won first? Or are they all equally fake? Kind of like everyone gets a participation trophy. https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/... Read More

  1. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Soldiers died. And there was mounting evidence there was negligence by Clinton, as she was in charge. Have people died because of Russia? Is there mounting evidence of Trump collusion? What is it?!

    If you can't use the internet, the Benghazi investigation ranged from Sept 2012-Oct 2015. So about 3 years. We might have had a clearer answer, sooner, had evidence not been destroyed.
    What "mounting evidence" are your referring to?

    Clinton "was in charge" of the State Department, the response to the Benghazi attacks were handled by the DOD, not State.
    Last edit by MunoRN on Jan 24
  2. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    If you could read and follow directions, I directly said the video in the Twitter post. The twitter post that made that specific video linked to the tweet, go viral because it tried to portray Trump as doing something that he wasn't suppose to.
    I'll assume you're having a bad day and ignore the snide comments, but the CNN twitter post links to the same video you linked to earlier, which shows Abe tossing in his fish food before Trump dumped his, so exactly where and in what video did it show Trump dumping his box of food first? Links or hyperlinked video would be helpful here.
  3. by   toomuchbaloney
    Benghazi, mounting evidence = fake news

    What a brilliant way to present the evidence of fake news, by pretending that you really have bought into the false narrative. That really and clearly demonstrates the power that it has over some people.

    Another way to promote fake news is to hashtag it and have the Russian network and bots pick it up.
    #releasethememo
  4. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from nursej22
    3 years and more than $7 million dollars. It revealed the use of a private email server, which set off another round of investigations. In fact, some Republicans are calling for more investigations.
    I am thinking they won't give up until they "lock her up."

    Or they get locked up.
    Well, when you say, "It was because of a video" and then e-mail saying, "We know it wasn't because of the video. It was a planned attack. Not a protest." Don't you think you should look into why that person KNOWS it was planned? Then, someone else saying, "The attackers were using the protests of the video as an excuse to attack" when there were NO reports of protests at all. THEN, the Press Secretary, Rice , and a number of other spokesmen say, "It was because of the video, there was no intelligence it was pre-planned." Don't you think these people would wonder why "protesters" would carry an extensive amount of weapons and explosives, for a protest, only to attack somewhere, for hours? But rather call it a "spontaneous protest" for 2 weeks. Even though, immediately after the attack, Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, meaning it was planned, and it was an act of terror. But we can just ignore that, right? For whatever reason...

    So where are all the recordings, e-mails, transcripts? Classified? Deleted? Oh, you want me to testify? Sorry, now I have a concussion. Then, a month later, you say you want it to not happen anymore, but "What difference does it make?!" on what caused the attack, how it was spurred, and if planned, how?!

    AND repeatedly, avoiding calling it what it was, terrorism.

    But sure, we aren't incompetent/willfully ignorant of what's going on. But we sure don't want you to read our e-mails.

    Lastly, if you will, she should have been charged with sending classified information on a private server. But she never was. Why? YOU would be. Is she above the law?
    Last edit by itsybitsy on Jan 29
  5. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    What "mounting evidence" are your referring to?

    Clinton "was in charge" of the State Department, the response to the Benghazi attacks were handled by the DOD, not State.
    See last post.

    The State Department denied requests for additional security before the attack occurred. Why would they deny that?
  6. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    I'll assume you're having a bad day and ignore the snide comments, but the CNN twitter post links to the same video you linked to earlier, which shows Abe tossing in his fish food before Trump dumped his, so exactly where and in what video did it show Trump dumping his box of food first? Links or hyperlinked video would be helpful here.
    Correct. If you scrolled down, to the article, there is a twitter post, by the author of the article. Here is a link to the tweet, that is ALSO on the article.

    Twitter

    This video and tweet, is what went viral, in people freaking out that Trump did that.
  7. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Correct. If you scrolled down, to the article, there is a twitter post, by the author of the article. Here is a link to the tweet, that is ALSO on the article.

    Twitter

    This video and tweet, is what went viral, in people freaking out that Trump did that.
    The video in the tweet is just zoomed in on Trump's face, it makes no claim of any sort of order of fish feeding, which brings us again to the bigger point, do you really agree that how the order of fish feeding was reported is a significant abuse of the freedom the media is afforded?
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    See last post.

    The State Department denied requests for additional security before the attack occurred. Why would they deny that?
    Because the State department was denied additional funding for additional security, and not only denied additional security funding, but the House budget controlled by Republicans actually slashed security funding for embassies and consulates in the two years leading up to the attack.
  9. by   itsybitsy
    Recent NBC reporting has misrepresented facts and confused the public with regard to Department of Homeland Security and state and local government efforts to combat election hacking. First off, let me be clear: we have no evidence – old or new - that any votes in the 2016 elections were manipulated by Russian hackers. NBC News continues to falsely report my recent comments on attempted election hacking – which clearly mirror my testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last summer – as some kind of "breaking news," incorrectly claiming a shift in the administration's position on cyber threats.
    DHS Statement On NBC News Coverage Of Election Hacking | Homeland Security
  10. by   Tweety
    Not to be a skeptic because I know NBC is no friend of Trump. But it is very important for the government to portray the media as making up Fake News. What NBC report is he talking about, or is it something they continually are doing. I'm not finding it.

    Kind of reminds me of Fox's relentless pursuit of "but her emails" without evidence. It's getting old.
  11. by   MunoRN
    It would be helpful if you could clarify what about the NBC story you find to be "fake news". DHS makes no specific claims that anything in the NBC reporting was false, in clarifying some points they do seem to infer that these facts were not included in the NBC story, however each and every one of the facts they re-state were included in the NBC story.

    What the DHS cybersecurity chief appears upset about is that the media is not more complimentary and ignore facts that are not purely positive regarding the jobs government officials are doing. This type of media does exist, totalitarian regimes rely on this style of reporting to maintain their power, and the US isn't a totalitarian regime, although that's become sort of a gray area over the past year.

    The NBC story in question:Russians penetrated U.S. voter systems, top U.S. official says - NBC News

close