By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Macron Wants To Ban 'Fake News' During Elections

WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
o_O.Q said:

"many of the North African and Middle-East dictators were ousted by the people."

 

i missed this earlier and this is bs that has been spread to justify how the us has been destroying countries like iraq, lybia, syria etc etc etc

there are mountains of evidence that show that the united states has going into these countries and destabalising them by funding, aiding and training rebels and dictators

 

lets take iraq as an example were you aware for example that saddam hussein was put in power by the us?

https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

 

that the us aided saddam in his attacks?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

 

or is this all just russia propaganda? i could quite easily go on to talk about lybia, syria etc etc etc

 

witness the birth of al qaeda

 

general wesley clark a russian spy?

 

the thing is that this info is readily available and yet there's still this narrative about how the us is a peaceful benevolent brother to all countries that just wants peace

But where did I state that USA hasn't done anything wrong? I was talking about the wrongdoings and lies of Russia, and provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. And your argument is "but USA...". How does it justify the wrongdoings of a country if some other country has also done bad things? Russian trolls also use this "argument" very often when they don't have other means to defend the said country.

And where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. And Russia gave its approval for the intervention (maybe Putin foresee that the removal of Gadaffi would allow the refugee-wave from Africa to reach Europe).

In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship, and after the situation has escalated to a civil war. Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them. But that is clear to everyone that Russia has supported this terrible dictator from the start and has itself bombed cities indiscriminately.

In Iraq USA supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war (both were dictarorships) during the 80's. This was because USA wanted to restrain Iran's influence in the area. But USA didn't support Saddam after the war when he started to use chemical weapons against civilians, and attacked Kuwait. Russia on the other hand has supported almost all dictatorships, especially during the Cold War. Just look at the military equipment that these countries used, which is mostly made in Russia.

But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often, and when they do, they do it reluctantly, not because they want to promote dictatorship (for example Saudi-Arabia is an ally of USA, because its oil resources are so important to the world economy). But when has Russia/Soviet Union encouraged democracy? Russia doesn't even have any allies that are democracies. And all this is because Russia itself is not a democracy (yes, there are elections, but that was the case also in Soviet Union). But you think that Russia is "good" and USA (and other Western countries?) are "bad"? You seem like a conspiracy theorist.

 

"provided you multiple sources (also Russian (RT)) that prove that Russia straight up lies about these things. "

i've said it before and i'll say it again, i do not buy the coverage of the ukraine conflict that is being pushed... so don't bother with it

 

"In Syria USA started to support the opposition when Al-Assad (dictator) ordered the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship"

what really gave the us the justification to get more involved was the chemical weapons attack, guess who the cause was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188

https://sarahabed.com/2017/08/16/carla-del-ponte-blames-the-rebels-for-chemical-weapons-attack-yet-wants-to-falsly-convict-assad-of-war-crimes/

https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-france/frances-macron-urges-military-intervention-if-chemical-use-by-assad-proven-idUSL9N1GD016

 

...can you guess what the aim of these rebels was?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23139784

to spread sharia in syria... these rebels were aligned with ISIS and were backed by the us

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria/trump-ends-cia-arms-support-for-anti-assad-syria-rebels-u-s-officials-idUSKBN1A42KC

this "Isis and other fundamentalist-groups appeared in Syria long after the civil war started, and there is no evidence that USA has supported them."

is absolute bullshit

 

" where is the evidence that USA destabilized for example Tunisia or Libya? In Tunisia the ruling dictator was overthrown peacefully by the people, and in Libya USA and NATO airforces intervened only when Gaddafi (dictator) sent the army to destroy the protesting people who wanted to end the dictatorship. "

lol as they have in every middle eastern conflict they started by supporting rebels in a country

if i had a rich nation and decided to fund and support antifa and the communists itching to destroy the us now and i painted it as if america is a dictatorship would that be accurate?

well that is what had happened in most of the conflicts in the middle east -

i supplied two videos showing first off that the us created probably the most significant problem in that area to ironically fight russia

secondly that the wars destroying the region were planned... did you not watch the video? lybia was one of the named countries... to then come back with this silly narrative about the poor people begging america to bomb their countries into oblivion is nonsense

with regards to lybia:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

 

"In Iraq"

i have nothing more to say about iraq


"But the main point in all this is that Russia has solely supported dictatorships but Western countries don't do that very often"
to be frank, you're a joke... you really need to wake up... you should should probably start by entertaining the idea that a lot of the "russian propaganda" you talk about is actually the truth and that the beliefs you currently have are actual the propaganda
Last edited by o_O.Q - on 07 January 2018

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
o_O.Q said: how is trump an authoritarian? what authoritarian policies has he put into place?

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

 

"Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. "

the united states is not a democracy... its a republic

 

"It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever"

the vast majority of people i've seen use this word over the past year or so, do not really understand what it means

 

ok let me give an example lets say i have a group of 10 people and 6 people (the majority obviously) democratically get to determine what policies the group has to follow... lets say they then decide to silence the opinions of the remaining 4... is this fascism under democracy? or not?

what is the solution to this problem? can you guess?

 

"Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian."

how can he be authoritarian towards citizens of other countries? doesn't that only apply to people who are citizens of your own country?

 

"founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this"

the founding fathers were leviathan intelligences and when their gifts are completely thrown away, the consequences for us citizens will be dire

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 07 January 2018

o_O.Q said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

 

"Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. "

the united states is not a democracy... its a republic

 

"It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know?"

the vast majority of people i've seen use this word over the past year or so, do not really understand what it means

 

ok let me give an example lets say i have a group of 10 people and 6 people (the majority obviously) democratically get to determine what policies the group has to follow... lets say they then decide to silence the opinions of the remaining 4... is this fascism under democracy? or not?

what is the solution to this problem? can you guess?

 

"Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president."

how can he be authoritarian towards citizens of other countries? doesn't that only apply to people who are citizens of your own country?

 

"founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this or were forced to make a compromise"

the founding fathers were leviathan intelligences and when their gifts are completely thrown away, the consequences for us citizens will be dire

I know you read the bolded. Please don't argue as if you didn't. 

"ok let me give an example lets say i have a group of 10 people and 6 people (the majority obviously) democratically get to determine what policies the group has to follow... lets say they then decide to silence the opinions of the remaining 4... is this fascism under democracy? or not?"

Yes, but banning fake news isn't silencing the opposition in the same way that a fascist regime would do. There's a difference between, "I'm going to fine you if you don't remain as objective and neutral as possible", and "I'm going to throw you in jail if you so much as say anything against the ruling party."

"how can he be authoritarian towards citizens of other countries? doesn't that only apply to people who are citizens of your own country?"

All executive orders are authoritarian. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Louie said:

 

The news should report the facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts. If those facts support one candidate over another, then that is not propaganda. It simply means reality is biased against one candidate over another. All opinion pieces in newspapers, and cable T.V. are propaganda to some degree or another, unless the outlet gives equal time, representation, and space to both sides of an issue. For example: Let's say Fox or CNN, or NBC decides to gather up a panel to talk about global warming. Now let's say they bring in a ratio of 5 to 1 either for or against global warming. The minority (whichever it may be) gets hammered by the other five people on the talk show. That is propaganda. A better approach would be to bring in just two experts, one that agrees, and one that disagrees. In the 80's and 90's broadcasters were stuck with a fine for doing this. Republicans and a few Democrats decided to do away with those fines. That gave rise to Fox News, with its reporters that scream over any liberal guests, and cut their mikes. 

Anyway I hope that answers your question of what we should do. Simply go back to fining offenders. 

Any outlets saying that Clinton had a 99% chance to win the election were blatantly lying. The real odds were more like 33% for Trump and 66% for Clinton. That's what sites like 270 were reporting based on detailed analysis. 

It's not about censoring left or right outlets. There should be no left or right outlets, and before 1996 all news networks were simply news. If any network decided to start making propaganda they were struck with fines. But again, after these fines were done away with Rupert Murdoch started Fox News and ran a 24/7 propaganda network. Slowly other networks joined in as a reactionary tactic, and news became more about ratings than actual news. Nine times out of ten, whenever a right winger says that mainstream media is biased, what they really mean is that reality is biased. Some things such as evolution, man made global warming, price controls, and the success of communism are not up for debate. Ninetynine percent of climate and evolutionary scientists agree, because the facts overwhelmingly line up with their assessments. It doesn't matter what religious idiots, or oil companies think. Nintetynine percent of economists agree that price controls, and communism are terrible for the economy. It doesn't matter what New Yorkers with rent control, or Bernie supporters think. The difference here is that you won't hear liberals complaining that the MSM doesn't report on the successes of extreme socialism, because they know that's crazy talk. They secretly know that their extreme positions have been rejected by reality, and understand why the MSM doesn't give their ideas the time of day. 

I agree with this in principle but I think it's quite naive to assume political outlets would ever do that. Politics is a battle of ideas, just as much as a battle of facts. You can never have absolutely objective politics, it doesn't work. Also, you seem blinded by your political - wait for it - agenda. You talk about Fox News doing propaganda and I absolutely agree with that. But left-wing media also does that and in Germany (where I live) the two biggest TV channels are run by a committee put in place by the biggest political parties. Did you see the example where some news outlets reported Trump committed a Faux Pas while feeding Japanese fish - even though Trump followed the example of the Japanese Prime Minister (which those news outlets conveniently cut out of the picture)? Or my other example about Huffington Post distorting studies about domestic violence, by basically saying "women only hit back, so it doesn't count"? Both sides do it equally and assuming "reality" is biased against one side is just not true. A conservative could simply say the same - which one of you would be right? It's just that you are blind to the distortion of facts of "your" side - just like any conservative is, as well.

What seems fair and unbiased to you is not fair and unbiased to a conservative person because conservative people value different things: left-leaning people value fairness more than anything else, while right-leaning people put more emphasis on things like structure and order. Neither of this is "correct", it is a matter of personal belief and opinion.

Edit: Oh and about Clinton's odds in the election - it depends on your interpretation of the facts! If you thought the "Blue Wall" was real (which could be backed up by statistics from the last 25 years) then a chance higher than 90% for Clinton absolutely made sense. I mean, that's the point really: We are not just dealing with simple numbers here! There's dozens of variables going into these estimates like which pollster is biased in which way and how to interpret past elections and the data collected in them or predictions to be made like how the black vote will turn out if a white woman runs for president compared to the years before. You can't just look at this stuff in hindsight and say these outlets were lying. It was way more complicated than that and the mainstream media outlets - the ones you defended in your post! - all believed Clinton's chances were a lot closer to 99% than 60%.



o_O.Q said:
Errorist76 said:

This thread is about fake news. 

have you realised that i've asked you about 5 times now for an example of one of the russian lies pushed to influence america ( such as the facebook ads you mentioned ) and so far you have not been able to list one?

You’re seriously getting on my nerves. I had posted some links already, here’s another one. Can’t you use Google yourself?!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook



Around the Network

Im all for it. Anyone otherwise are advocates to the destruction of western society



Cerebralbore101 said:
o_O.Q said: how is trump an authoritarian? what authoritarian policies has he put into place?

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

He was legitimately elected as President and you don't know what authoritarian or fascist means considering how you're using the terms.  



Aeolus451 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Well for starters, he wasn't democratically elected. 

"Oh but you see we're not a Democracy, but a Republic. The founding fathers didn't want a rule of the majority, so they setup the Electoral College to prevent that!"

Yeah, yeah, X people's votes shouldn't count. It's the rallying cry of every fascist regime ever. China, Russia, and every other tinpot dictatorship around the world is technically a Republic too ya know? Not to mention, the creation of the electoral college was a result of the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Northern states didn't think it would be fair for southern states to be able to count slaves as people towards representation. Southern states didn't think it would be fair to not count slaves at all. Of course, in hindsight, obviously having slaves who were ineligible to vote, being electorally represented, at the ballot box, by the very people who put them in chains, is fascist. But the founding fathers either weren't bright enough to see this due to their cultural bias, or were forced to make a compromise either way. 

Second, his list of travel banned countries was authoritarian. But he's not the only authoritarian president. There have been many starting with Andrew Jackson. The office of the presidency needs to be reigned in massively. 

He was legitimately elected as President and you don't know what authoritarian or fascist means considering how you're using the terms.  

Yeah...both Putin and Erdogan (and Hitler btw) were also democratically elected...and all used fear mongering and misinformation and threatening the opposition as tactics to gain votes and confuse and destabilise the opposition and their supporters.



vivster said:
It's never a bad idea to remove lies from the internet. And while we're at it, give people believing and spreading the lies a mandatory course in critical thinking before they can access their internet again.

We need the browsers to step in here and flag every news article that is not properly sourced as a first step.

Who determines it though? It can't be a popular/majority vote.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The problem is that the internet gives people the idea that anyone can have as important an opnion as anyone else, and that is simply not true.

Before the internet, when discussing a subject, you would have specialists of the area giving their opinion. Average Joe didn't get a say and that is the way it needs to be. Facts and truth. This can be achieved with better regulation, not with gag orders. That's dictatorial.

 

If this happened in the US impartially, it would be the end of FOX news.



Errorist76 said:
Aeolus451 said:

He was legitimately elected as President and you don't know what authoritarian or fascist means considering how you're using the terms.  

Yeah...both Putin and Erdogan (and Hitler btw) were also democratically elected...and all used fear mongering and misinformation and threatening the opposition as tactics to gain votes and confuse and destabilise the opposition and their supporters.

Again, some of you should look up what authoritarian means and how that reflects in policies. Comparing him to the likes of hitler only makes it difficult to take you seriously.