FAKE NEWS!!!

[Kosh]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

or how Trump is in Putin's back pocket? How the Russians hacked the elections?

Silly far left drone!

 

[American_Jihad]

Fake News Media Go To War With Trump
CNN and Buzzfeed go all in on unsubstantiated dossier of anti-Trump "intelligence."
January 12, 2017
Joseph Klein

...

Fake News Media Go To War With Trump

 

[candycorn]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

 

[owebo]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

Then why did your side start it? If you can't stand the heat.....

 

[bripat9643]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

Why should we waste time debating leftwing fake news? Their sources have all discredited themselves. Nothing they publish can be believed. That's the bottom line.

 

[imawhosure]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

Why should we waste time debating leftwing fake news? Their sources have all discredited themselves. Nothing they publish can be believed. That's the bottom line.

Agreed! Tell us which reporter got caught helping any Republican! This is why, like it or not, the left no longer has sources that any REASONABLE person would believe. They keep getting busted attempting to help liberals because most reporters ARE liberals.

The left and the MSM has done this to themselves, we have not done it to them. The MSM has managed to destroy their own credibility, and with it anything the left says that is linked to their sources.

I would like the left to consider this, and I am being 100% honest-----------------> If Mcain had gotten elected in 2008 and this dossier story would have dropped out of a respected MSM outlet, Mcain's whole administration would have been in trouble, and virtually EVERY conservative Republican on this site would have been in deep despair.

Why?

Because no matter how much BIAS the MSM had, they, and you, were still credible. Fast forward to today! Know what, we are LAUGHING at all of you because we know that the odds almost always better than 50-50, you people are making it up! We seen the leaked e-mails, we know how far reporters will go to push their agenda. And, if the MSM outlets wanted to even TRY and reestablish their credibility, the reporters in question would have been FIRED for ethics violations! How many were? 1? 2? Or was it none!

Nah, you people used to talk in circles every time we said how biased the media was. Prove it you would smugly say. Remember! Well, now the shoe is on the other foot; you have to prove in our opinion, that you are NOT bias. Good luck with that-)

 

[candycorn]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

Why should we waste time debating leftwing fake news? Their sources have all discredited themselves. Nothing they publish can be believed. That's the bottom line.

Agreed! Tell us which reporter got caught helping any Republican! This is why, like it or not, the left no longer has sources that any REASONABLE person would believe. They keep getting busted attempting to help liberals because most reporters ARE liberals.

The left and the MSM has done this to themselves, we have not done it to them. The MSM has managed to destroy their own credibility, and with it anything the left says that is linked to their sources.

I would like the left to consider this, and I am being 100% honest-----------------> If Mcain had gotten elected in 2008 and this dossier story would have dropped out of a respected MSM outlet, Mcain's whole administration would have been in trouble, and virtually EVERY conservative Republican on this site would have been in deep despair.

Why?

Because no matter how much BIAS the MSM had, they, and you, were still credible. Fast forward to today! Know what, we are LAUGHING at all of you because we know that the odds almost always better than 50-50, you people are making it up! We seen the leaked e-mails, we know how far reporters will go to push their agenda. And, if the MSM outlets wanted to even TRY and reestablish their credibility, the reporters in question would have been FIRED for ethics violations! How many were? 1? 2? Or was it none!

Nah, you people used to talk in circles every time we said how biased the media was. Prove it you would smugly say. Remember! Well, now the shoe is on the other foot; you have to prove in our opinion, that you are NOT bias. Good luck with that-)

Except a few weeks ago, you guys were saying the same thing about Russia—that they were not behind the hacking of the DNC and Mr. Podesta’s e-mails; that it was all made up. Now your messiah says it was Russia. So is he making it up too?

And what does that say about the supposed bulletproof credibility of date-rapist Julian Assange. You remember him…he said his source was not Russia.

Can’t have it both ways.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

I am always curious were you guys on the extreme right or left get your news from?

I never hear of this bullshit from my main stream websites..


It's like they get it from FB or something


BTW candy this is not directed at you


.

 

[Coyote]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Secondly "fake news" is thrown around so much now, it's hard to tell what is "fake", what is merely "spin" and what is unproven and what is legit. Sometimes it's better to let it cycle through for a while.

 

[candycorn]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Well on one hand, the word “moderator” comes from the root of “moderate” meaning essentially, the middle area. So the description of the position is wrong.

Secondly, and you may disagree, but when you’re in a de facto “management capacity” there is a covenant that you should be a cut above the average poster as managers are generally regarded as being a cut above the average employee; at least in my view. I’ve moderated discussion boards before and, granted, the thing we were told was to simply enforce the written rules. Which was what we did. However, Blatant dishonesty shouldn’t be tolerated. Now was there a written rule against it? No. Does there need to be? I would hope not.

 

[Coyote]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Well on one hand, the word “moderator” comes from the root of “moderate” meaning essentially, the middle area. So the description of the position is wrong.

And by that, we should be moderate in how we handle the issues that come up regarding violations and such, not temper our political opinions on issues.

Secondly, and you may disagree, but when you’re in a de facto “management capacity” there is a covenant that you should be a cut above the average poster as managers are generally regarded as being a cut above the average employee; at least in my view. I’ve moderated discussion boards before and, granted, the thing we were told was to simply enforce the written rules. Which was what we did. However, Blatant dishonesty shouldn’t be tolerated. Now was there a written rule against it? No. Does there need to be? I would hope not.

I agree, in general, with that - but at the end of the day, we're all just human and sometimes stuff gets under our skin too. The thing is for some - what is "blatant dishonesty" is to others "factual".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Secondly "fake news" is thrown around so much now, it's hard to tell what is "fake", what is merely "spin" and what is unproven and what is legit. Sometimes it's better to let it cycle through for a while.

I agree 100%

I hear a story on ANY channel or radio station and I have no idea of its factuality.

 

[Coyote]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Secondly "fake news" is thrown around so much now, it's hard to tell what is "fake", what is merely "spin" and what is unproven and what is legit. Sometimes it's better to let it cycle through for a while.

I agree 100%

I hear a story on ANY channel or radio station and I have no idea of its factuality.

It seems like in just the last year it's exploded!

 

[candycorn]

I agree - it's being thrown out a lot now as opposed debating it.

Here's the thing about fake news - real fake news, not just news you happen to disagree with. What sort of position should you articulate when it's clearly fake beyond showing that it's fake? It takes time and energy to articulate a position. So why waste on something like "Trump takes victory tour to Red Square"? People no longer seem to be checking sources for accuracy - they see it, they believe it because it fits their particular view, and they throw it into the arena and expect everyone to debate it. Sometimes I just wonder if it's worth it.

How many times does HuffinPaintPost need to be parsed, and shown to be highly biased, before they just get dismissed out of hand?

How many times can you shout "WOLF!" before people tell you to pound sand?

How many articles have they posted that are complete fabrications? IE - fabrications like Trump's Victory Tour in Red Square? Or Hillary has parkinsons and wears a catheter? Or Pizzagate?

Or the supposed love affair with Yoko Ono
Or the supposed hole in her tongue
Or the supposed sex trafficking


It would be great if each site's editors (in this case the moderators) sought to eliminate obvious bullshit stories. Instead, on this site, we had at least one mod fully participating in the posting of clearly bullshit stories. When those who are supposed to be impartial (they are called moderators) are as flagrantly biased as some posters...it's not a great sign

Oh brother. We mods post just like any other members. There is no requirement for us to be "impartial" in our participation as POSTERS. We can be as flagrantly "biased" (a loosely defined term depending on what partisan lens you are viewing it through) as you are in what we post as MEMBERS. Sheesh.

Secondly "fake news" is thrown around so much now, it's hard to tell what is "fake", what is merely "spin" and what is unproven and what is legit. Sometimes it's better to let it cycle through for a while.

I agree 100%

I hear a story on ANY channel or radio station and I have no idea of its factuality.

AP and NPR shoot straight 100% of the time. Since humans are involved, there is a chance they will occasionally get something wrong. Perfection is a standard that just doesn't exist. Never has.

You also have to do some active listening. There are times when the commentator will say, "______________ is reporting that....".
You also have to have some common sense. Your brethren longknife and Clementine reported the same long debunked story that there were 20,000 ballots found for Ms. Clinton in an Ohio warehouse.
“Tens of thousands” of fraudulent Clinton votes found in Ohio warehouse from 10/3 and
“Tens of thousands” of fraudulent Clinton votes found in Ohio warehouse from 9/30

Thirty seconds of research into the picture and source revealed that it was false. What was more incredible was that, of course, there are no apologies that come out after it's revealed as a hoax, no penalty for posting total garbage here, so why stop?

 

[hazlnut]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

Fake News = false or misleading information designed to look like news.

Trump loves to tweet these stories and play fast and loose with innuendo and rumor.

When it got turned on him by Buzzfeed he screams like a bitch.

 

[American_Jihad]

Benjamin Crump: TV's Rising Fake News Star

Michelle Malkin
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2017

He's the new Al Sharpton on steroids -- and he's coming to a TV near you.

Benjamin Crump, camera-lovin' lawyer for the families of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, rocketed to fame perpetuating the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie.

Never mind that even the left-wing Obama Justice Department concluded that the 22 witnesses who manufactured the Black Lives Matter-promoted narrative were unreliable, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unsupported by a shred of forensic evidence, or outright lying.

In Crump World, anti-police ideology trumps facts. Social justice trumps actual justice. And lying about crime pays. Big time. Crump is going Hollywood.

...

Benjamin Crump: TV's Rising Fake News Star

 

[Freewill]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

Another thread posted by the alt-right about fake news.

 

[oreo]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

Which was why George Washinton the 1st President never wanted political parties because it turns into more of a team sport than getting things done that benefit this country and it's citizens. And a team will use anything and do anything to win, including using FAKE news.
George Washington’s views on political parties in America

 

[American_Jihad]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

Another thread posted by the alt-right about fake news.

Alt-left complaining about alt right...

 

[oreo]

The new meme that gives you a get out of jail free card from debating any topic on its merits.

Beyond stupid. It's second only to dissing sources.

Either way both are used as an escape from exercising your ability to articulate an argument for an opposing position.

It was amusing for awhile but too many are using it as an excuse for a lack of debate now.

Another thread posted by the alt-right about fake news.

Alt-left complaining about alt right...

First of all I am one of those Independents everyone hates to debate--because I really don't give a rats ass if they're a Republican or Democrat--I am going to hammer away if they screw up.

FORTUNATELY--the majority in this country are now Independent voters. That is the largest voting block and they outnumber the Republican Party and the Democrat party.

More and more states are recognizing this and are starting to allow them to vote in the Primaries like my state of Colorado.

In fact it's very refreshing, because you're no longer required to defend the assholes. You're no longer required to lower your own integrity & intelligence to defend the indefensible, because some jack off decided to put an R or D behind their name.

But as far as FAKE news, it's all over this board, and it's typically brought on this board by Reich wingers, who have this insatiable appetitite for conspiracy theories. In fact Trump is the FAKE news.