What most people fail to realize is that they're not voting for Trump because of the policies he's promoting, it's because they're sick of all of the PC bullshit that is destroying the western world and that they don't want to see the US become the rape capital of the world like Sweden has become
Not to mention, they don't want their taxes going towards paying for for racist social justice courses that promote anti-white rhetoric by college professors
You're living in a fantasy world of ignorance. Please, I beg of you, educate yourself.
i really enjoy reading the articles on this site for the most part. Why ruin it by joining in on the trump bashing band wagon? Just keep it neutral, or leave it alone all together. Trump this and Trump that..... PLEASE, get off Hillary's lap. I imagine it's getting real crowded with all the other lapdogs currently there....
I'm really curious who these people are who keep claiming this. They're not actually readers of the site:
1. We didn't jump on the Trump bashing bandwagon. We wrote a story about a key thing that Trump has done repeatedly (issue bogus defamation threats against the 1st Amendment) which is a topic we've covered over and over and over again on this site.
2. We are not Hillary supporters either, and have written many stories commenting on our issues with her actions and policies -- including one on her mocking the First Amdendment as well.
3. It's possible to call out the bad actions of one candidate without being in the tank for the other.
4. "Keep it neutral." This site has always been an *opinion* site. We state our opinion. And, in my opinion, your comment is ridiculous. How's that for neutral?
Which they are...and which you so blatantly support in your article.
FFS, you even list an article about some artist who made a bogus claim that she was threatened by Trump yet she provides no evidence of such a threat. And then you go to list a conservative group that threatened to talk shit about him unless he donated a million dollars to their cause...which of course, you blatantly ignore.
Heh. Seriously, I would suggest that if you're not just trolling, that you learn something about defamation law. None of the things you talk about are defamation, no matter how much you want them to be.
Him threatening people with defamation lawsuits over them is a out and out attack on the First Amendment.
It's like you're just listing shit willy-nilly without actually fact checking any of it.
I think anyone who knowingly skews the truth should be prosecuted.
"Knowingly skews the truth." This is from someone who has repeatedly "skewed the truth" in this very thread. Hilarious.
Anyway, the First Amendment and all the case law about it says that's not how it works. You might want to learn something, because you're "skewing the truth" about the First Amendment, and according to your own demented logic, you should be prosecuted.
I know, by this time, that you've read what I've wrote...so what's your excuse for refusing to do any kind of investigative journalism?
First, you're wrong. I just read it now. Second, huh? It seems that you don't know the first thing about what investigative journalism actually is. Third, we're not an investigative journalism outfit anyway. Fourth, you're not my boss.
Fifth, and finally, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Please go to some other site where people care about politics. This site isn't it. Go away.
Are you seriously trying to defend Buzzfeed et al?
Huh? Who said anything about Buzzfeed?
I was specifically discussing Trump's claims about opening up libel laws. I note that you don't actually respond to my point, which is that his reference in opening up libel laws was directly in reference to an article that he did not like, not one that was defamatory.
They are some of the most racist and bigoted publications out there and yet you're defending them because they're getting rejected from attending Trump rallies that are paid out of pocket by Trump?
Huh? You're changing the subject. First off, whether or not they are racist or bigoted is really besides the point (also, you're totally full of shit on that, but that doesn't even matter -- it is not illegal to be racist or bigoted, other than in specific areas, such as hiring).
Even if they were upset about being barred from Trump rallies (which -1- they're not and -2- the campaign reinstated all of them after the primaries anyway), again, so what? So long as they're not knowingly making deliberately false claims, it's not defamation.
Dude, I don't know how anyone can take you seriously anymore if you're defending the most bigoted publications out there that are all well known for pushing garbage.
If someone as clueless as you doesn't take me seriously, I consider that a victory.
Listen, all I'm asking for is that you do some REAL investigative journalism and actually making direct citations of the sources instead of tricking us all with the 'phone game' that you're playing.
When you own this publication, then you get to tell me what to do. Until then: fuck off.
He's speaking about expanding libel laws to prosecute people who attempt to destroy the lives of others which is typically done by far left leaning regressive extremists via 'doxing' which is more common than you think:
So much bullshit to unpack in that one sentence.
First, no, that's not what he's talking about. He's talking, quite clearly, about opening up libel laws to prosecute reporters and publications that report on Trump in a negative way. His "open up libel law" comment came in reference to the Washington Post, who had covered Trump in an unflattering light, which IS NOT LIBEL.
Second, privacy violations have nothing to do with libel law. If you're concerned about "doxxing" then, no, you don't talk about opening up libel laws. And Trump was not talking about doxxing at all.
Third, "doxxing" is done on both sides pretty equally. It's not a "left" thing or a "right" thing. And, honestly, in most cases, when anyone says "the left" does this or "the right" does that, they're full of shit and playing "the people wearing my uniform are pure and the people wearing the other uniform are the enemy" bullshit politics. There are sleazy people on all sides who using doxxing.
Fourth, legitimate reporting on issues of public interest is not "doxxing." If someone is running for office and making specific claims publicly, finding relevant information about them and reporting it is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it doxxing. It's *reporting*.
If anyone is more anti-first amendment than anyone, it's the regressive left which is basically the twisted twin sister of the religious right.
Again with the bullshit "left/right" distinction. I don't give a fuck. I call out anyone trying to trample free speech, and I don't care what team they play for. Which is why I don't think either side is more likely to make stupid claims. Both Hillary and Trump in this very election cycle have mocked the idea of free speech.
And people across the spectrum regularly seek to abuse the court system to silence people.
The fact that you keep talking about "left" this and that suggests you're not here for a real discussion but to play sportsball.
Actually, it is, because every time you bring up said election (or policy), the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton).
Uh, no. We've criticized both candidates pretty equally for saying stupid stuff.
You're not actually fooling anybody, Mike. Perhaps one day, you'll have your lips surgically removed from her asshole.
Can you present a single shred of evidence that I support Clinton? I don't recall ever saying anything supportive of her.
You seem to be one of those idiots who thinks that if you don't support Trump 100% you must support Hillary 100%. Go away, you're an idiot.
This site is not about politics. It's about policy and civil liberties and innovation. I criticize people from both parties equally when they say something or do something stupid. I don't give the slightest shit about the horse race tribalism that you seem to have bought into.
Can't the newspapers sue for declaratory relief for the legal threats?
For reasons that are too long to go into here, but which I discovered for very specific reasons -- courts frequently reject declaratory judgment filings in defamation cases. While they're considered fine in copyright cases, for some reasons, courts take a very different view of them in defamation cases. So it is *very rarely* a good idea to file for a declaratory judgment in a defamation case, and opens up some problematic results....
Mike, the number of documents involved isn't hundreds or thousands, it's potentially more than a million
No, you're wrong (again!). It's between 60,000 and 70,000 as confirmed by both Glenn Greenwald *and* James Clapper. The stories about 1.5 million were debunked. Those were all the documents he "touched" as *part of his job* when he was tasked with moving documents to a new system. Eventually even Clapper admitted Snowden actually took less than 100,000.
So, you should just admit that you're wrong here.
That isn't a narrow, focused piece of whistleblowing, that is data dumping the whole damn program and letting his selected media friends ransack through it looking for juicy tidbits.
Except that's not what happened. Will you admit to being misinformed? Doubtful.
That is way to wide of a scope to be just pointing out a problem, it was intended to f-ck up multiple programs and really screw the US solidly, and for an extended period of time.
And what has it actually screwed up?
So why is your answer to anyone willing to point out the obvious always a put down or an insult rather than a discussion?
It's not. You're lying. I'm calling you out on lying and I'm calling you out in particular, because you've been doing it on this site for years on end.
I think a million plus documents qualify as a data dump.
He didn't dump that many.
Just because we don't agree doesn't make my point a lie, but your saying so clearly looks like you are being defensive.
It's not that we disagree. It's that you're wrong. You're entitled to your own ignorant opinions, but not your own facts.
Re: Re: Yeah, of course... and they're lying through their teeth.
To be clear, all the companies mentioned in the PRISM (who are many of the same companies) denied it then too.
No. This is wrong. They denied what the initial Guardian & WaPo reports said -- that PRISM gave the NSA unfettered access to their backend systems. That turned out to be WRONG. The tech companies were correct and the original reporting was incorrect.