Fake News

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here we go again.

Amodei on Trump impeachment inquiry: ‘Let’s put it through the process and see what happens’

Quote

Rep. Mark Amodei supports the House’s inquiry into whether President Donald Trump should be impeached, but is withholding judgment on whether Trump has crossed the legal line. 

That was yesterday in one publication--The Nevada Independent, but then echoed all over the legacy news media.

Now today in Breitbart:

Exclusive—Rep. Mark Amodei Does Not Support Impeachment Inquiry Despite Fake News Claims
 

Quote

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), Nevada’s only Republican U.S. House member, confirmed to Breitbart News on Saturday afternoon in an exclusive phone interview that media and leftist claims that he supports an “impeachment inquiry” are inaccurate: he does not support an “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump.

. . .

He just wishes the national media would have done a little more research before getting this story so badly wrong by falsely saying he supports an impeachment inquiry into Trump. He noted that when the Access Hollywood tapes came out in the 2016 election, he actually publicly defended Trump—and has been a longtime supporter of the president and the White House.

He should have called the national media reporters scumbags.

Imagine what the fake news media is going to do with deep fakes once they become easy to make.

Michael

[Peter]

What ever happened to The Muck Raker Journalists who went after really bad people? They may have been explosive in their search for rotten scoundrels but they did not go after good people. They did not lie. They did not create fake news. Even the journalistic term "smear" was reserved for people who deserved being exposed. Now it seems they are Nazi propogandists.    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was looking at some of the news programs this morning and a very odd thought occurred to me.

I became aware of the fact that I wasn't tuning in for the substance. I already know the anti-Trumpers are running another fraud and making everyone talk about impeachment, but that's a big fat nothing-burger distraction. In practical terms, the best result they can hope for is to watch the Senate kill their efforts. So what's the point?

I was tuning in to study the way men and women who have sold out talk and act. Sometimes I laugh at the more idiotic idiots (like the lady who says--and believes it can happen--that we have to impeach both President Trump and Vice President Pence so Nancy Pelosi can become president  ), but mostly I tune in to study these grown and educated adults with totally corrupted souls.

Do you remember old circuses and carnivals that had two-headed ladies, geeks (guys who bit the heads off live chickens or snakes), and all kinds of grotesque humans? People paid to see that. And once inside the tent, they couldn't take your eyes off it. That's the state of mind and spirit I am in when I watch the legacy news these days (with a few exceptions). But instead of looking at deformed bodies, I am looking at deformed souls.

How can they treat lies that they know are lies, that fool no one, as serious topics of discussion and dress up to do it at that?

I do not ever want to become something like that.

It gives me the creeps.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

They are paid to do what they do.

--Brant

and going with the flow

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Do you really think they are different than what came out in the New York Times today?

Free Speech Is Killing Us

Quote

Using “free speech” as a cop-out is just as intellectually dishonest and just as morally bankrupt.

. . .

Free speech is a bedrock value in this country. But it isn’t the only one. Like all values, it must be held in tension with others, such as equality, safety and robust democratic participation. 

So sayeth the power luster to the NPC's of America:

 

I think TV press and the print press are all doing the same thing on purpose, lying and manipulating on purpose in order to subjugate people (not to themselves, but to the people they worship), and they have all corrupted their souls.

I also believe they did that they got money for it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The NYT is being bankrolled by Carlos Sim (sp).

--Brant

or was--but there's always another billionaire sugar daddy waiting in the wings to pay that whore

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

Don't foget that Tim is a leftie. Moderate left, but still leftie.

Good question.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Fun (if obvious) 'deep fake' video ...

 

[Peter]

Thanks William. That is the best impressionist I have ever seen. I had my wife watch it after me and she knew who was being "done" almost every time. I missed Morgan Freeman but the second time I figured it out. Duh.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More shit on the fake news media going down next week.

Here's some of the pre-release hype.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike Cernovich is not happy with the fake news media right now.

I agree with Mike.

Michael

[Peter]

ABC News just listed the bastard's crimes. He was truly evil, and died too soon . . . he should have suffered. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm listing this here in Fake News because the mainstream press breathlessly pushed each of these boneheaded campaign (generally saying "the walls are closing in" on Trump.)

Julie Kelly Lists All of Adam Schiff’s Failed Attempts to Get Trump

Quote

RUSH: Julie Kelly writing in American Greatness now has the timeline. And I want to share the highlights of this piece with you because this — and I’m gonna link to this at RushLimbaugh.com. It’s called “The Impeachment Schiff Show,” and it’s from American Greatness. It’s their website.

. . .

“Russian election collusion –” big zero. “– porn star payoffs, income tax evasion, obstruction of justice, the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, the Charlottesville rally, the two Michaels (Avenatti and Cohen), Deutsche Bank, Alfa-Bank, and Orange Man Bad — Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) finally has Trump dead-to-rights: A quid pro quo without the quid, the pro, or the quo.”

Now, that paragraph recounts everything they’ve tried that has blown up on them. There was no Russian collusion. Stormy Daniels effort to get rid of Trump bombed. Then they said he evaded income tax payments and they got the Southern District of New York and the Manhattan DA on it. Big, fat zero. Obstruction of justice, big, fat zero. The Emoluments Clause, big, fat zero, 25th Amendment, gonna wear a wire, get Trump proving he’s insane, cabinet has to get rid of him, bombed. The Charlottesville rally where they said Trump was sympathetic to neo-Nazis, bombed!

Michael Avenatti with Stormy Daniels. Avenatti was gonna be the Democrat nominee, he was so hot! Then Michael Cohen. Remember all of these things? All of these things were treated exactly like the phone call with the president of Ukraine’s been treated. It’s my point. Every one of these things — the Russia collusion, Plan A. Porn star payoff, Plan B. Income tax evasion, Plan C. Obstruction of justice, Plan D. Emoluments clause, Plan E. The 25th Amendment, Plan F. Charlottesville, Plan G…and so on.

. . .

Now, interesting, Nancy Pelosi… This story is just now running. It’s from TheHill.com. The headline: “Pelosi Suggests Impeachment Could Expand Beyond Ukraine.” Oh, really! Now, why would that be? Why would it all of a sudden have to go beyond Ukraine? Could it be because Tim Morrison yesterday blew Bill Taylor out of the water? Could it be because everybody knows who the whistleblower is and knows what a partisan hack he is?

Could it be that Vindman is attached to the partisan hack which is attached to other partisan hacks? Could it be that the whole thing’s beginning to implode on them so now what’s gonna be next? You’re gonna go beyond Ukraine?

. . .

Adam Schiff has put together a series of lies that the media has helped pass off as fact, and the lies are really just exaggerated opinion. It’s all imploding because it isn’t real. Trump hasn’t done anything, and their effort to convince the American people he has was blown up when Trump releases the transcript.

So now here comes Pelosi, “Well, we might — we might even now have to go beyond Ukraine.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Wait a minute, Madam Pelosi. I thought Ukraine was it. Russia wasn’t it. Stormy Daniels wasn’t it. Avenatti wasn’t it. Blasey Ford wasn’t it. “B-b-b-but this was it! This was it. This was the gold mine. This was the end of Trump.” Now it’s not? Now it’s not? Now we gonna go back to the Mueller report, obstruction of justice, 11 counts? (Gasp!) Well, in one sense, with impeachment they can go anywhere they want, but follow ’em. If she’s already talking about going beyond Ukraine, what that means is that they may have to dump Ukraine. You should go into this weekend not watching the media and feeling pretty good about this...

Here's the article by Julie Kelly that Rush mentioned:

The Impeachment Schiff Show

It's really hard trying to find where ruling class part of the Democratic Party (and never-Trump elitist Republicans, for that matter) leaves off and the fake news mainstream media begins.

All any of them (including the fake news press) has been able to do against Trump up to now is fail, fail, fail, then fail some more, except when they manage the equivalent of scratching Turmp's armor, at which point they bare their chests in unison and try to yodel victory throughout the jungle like Tarzan, but, like a flock of parrots, all they can manage is to squawk out in cacophony, "The walls are closing in... the walls are closing in... the walls are closing in..."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a story I heard in Brazil that came from one of the deity religions down there.

A character exists out in reality that will end our lives, all of us. This character is individual to each of us and mostly different for each of us. But this character lives in the future, not in the present. I can't remember the name they gave, but the saying goes that this character will bring down the strongest warrior, the wisest man, the most powerful person, no matter how strong or wise or powerful, or how weak, the character is.

You, meaning you the reader, have one such character that is part of your story. He or she or it will kill you. You will most likely not see this character coming, nor your own death. What's more, once the time has come, you have no control over this. None.

All your future plans and dreams and achievements will be felled by such a character. It could be for the right reason, it could be for a trivial reason, it could be for no reason at all. The character that fells you could be a person, a disaster, or a disease. And you, yourself, might be this character if you commit suicide. 

This character will come for you and you will die. There is nothing you can do about it. You cannot stop it.

How's that for a thought to contemplate right before you go to sleep at night?

 

I believe a few of the fake news media got a whiff of this character recently. Nicholas Sandman has traces of this character, but he may be merely the forerunner and bring serious injury instead of death.

Behold Sandman.

He looks like a pipsqueak.

Goliath, meet David:

UPDATE: All Three Nicholas Sandmann Lawsuits Against Liberal Media move Forward… WaPo, CNN, NBC

I bet they never saw him coming.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That character is death itself--or whatever you want to make of it--and  the story is logically and factually circular. It starts with conception.

--Brant

the Bidders et al. are on a Russian sleigh ride--and that is what they didn't see coming

"Of Living Death"

[Peter]

On the phone with CNN, MSNBC, all the other left wing tele-media gathering.

OK, staff. What headlines do we lead with? Billionaire Boys Club. The economy is roaring. Clash of the Titans. Bernie is burning. Elizabeth is churning. The economy is soaring.

Well, Che, we can’t go with the roaring, soaring because that would help the economy and help Trump.

Fidel? Do we run with the Trump/Bloomberg trashing or how wonderfully enlightened Eliza and Bernie are?   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At this point, should it really need a tweet from the President for the obvious to sink in?

But apparently, it does.

I've been bitching about anonymous news sources for years here on OL.

There are people, people right here in O-Land, who accept news based on anonymous sources as the equivalent of proven fact.

Here is one example by Onkar Ghate from a couple of months ago that I am going to get to one day. (I first saw it in a Facebook group about Ayn Rand here, which is given right now as a link reference for when I later dig into this mess.)

Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump

Ghate is an ARI dude. As he prances and preens in his article as a proponent of reason, he teaches us about the "anti-intellectual mentality" of Trump by regurgitating a slew of the fake news media talking points whole--most of which were supported (when published and since) by nothing but anonymous sources. In Ghate's article, he had no concern for truth, verification, etc., of anything if it was anti-Trump. 

And this crap is presented as what Ayn Rand would have thought. This is presented as the way Ayn Rand would have used her brain.

What an epistemological mess.

And, what's worse, Onkar Ghate is not a stupid man.

As an ARI insider, he, to me, in this article is proof that focus on Objectivism by itself does not guarantee that a person will use his or her mind to identify something correctly.

Before I do a real job on this article, here's one example of inexcusably sloppy sourcing by Ghate (and this example doesn't even rely on anonymous sources--it's just flat out false). I mean, I'm blasting the guy, so I have to let you, with at least one example from the article, that I have the goods and am not just trolling him.

Ghate said Trump whitewashed "the neo-Nazi demonstration in Charlottesville." That's Ghate's phrase in the article. It refers to Trump's statement in 2017 that he thought there were many fine people on both sides. Just a few seconds after he made that statement, he said: "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

The fake news media left that out as they ran a propaganda campaign in overdrive claiming he praised racists and neo-Nazis. But you can see a video clip of President Trump saying the words I quoted here, so anyone can see the transcript is correct. President Trump condemned the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, but the fake news press reported that he supported them or "whitewashed" them. And Ghate swallowed that crap whole without even thinking of looking it up.

As an aside, Scott Adams had a field day discussing this propaganda hoax. Here's just one discussion of his, among many, giving the transcript and all: The “Fine People” Hoax Funnel.

What do you call a culture where nobody minds that almost all political news sources are anonymous and the news is often presented in the mainstream as the exact opposite of what happened? The only new name I can come up with is Gossip Culture, but Fake News Media Culture works well, too.

That's what we are in.

And that includes the sanction of this Gossip Culture by the brainiacs of integrity at ARI since they rely on it, rather then on their own minds, for their facts. Ghate certainly did. And, like I said, there is plenty more where that came from--in Ghate's article alone.

I wonder what Ayn Rand would have thought about people using anonymous sources and false reporting--in her name--to back up an ongoing string of debunked claims...

I imagine she would have thought she was back in Communist Russia.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Ghate may be as he says an "expert" on Rand's philosophy, but doesn't say we shouldn't have elected Trump. That would have let Clinton and the left and deep state out of the bag.

Trump is a cultural warrior par excellent and we are in a cultural war. The left is being smashed in a way Rand could not, but she laid the intellectual foundations for Trump doing what he's doing. The left gave up all intellectual pretensions 50 years ago with the Vietnam War protests. They are power seekers and wielders and have always been so just below the now disintegrating surface.

As for Rand despising Trump: well, you can despise the past, not a non-existent future. Ghate's just ad h-ing him with a Rand club.

--Brant

maybe post-Trump we can go back into the world (after making the sign of the dollar) 

[Jon Letendre]

Ghate’s wallet is

spilling over with

Brainwasher Barney cash.

[anthony]

On 12/6/2019 at 6:35 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

At this point, should it really need a tweet from the President for the obvious to sink in?

But apparently, it does.

I've been bitching about anonymous news sources for years here on OL.

There are people, people right here in O-Land, who accept news based on anonymous sources as the equivalent of proven fact.

Here is one example by Onkar Ghate from a couple of months ago that I am going to get to one day. (I first saw it in a Facebook group about Ayn Rand here, which is given right now as a link reference for when I later dig into this mess.)

Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump

Ghate is an ARI dude. As he prances and preens in his article as a proponent of reason, he teaches us about the "anti-intellectual mentality" of Trump by regurgitating a slew of the fake news media talking points whole--most of which were supported (when published and since) by nothing but anonymous sources. In Ghate's article, he had no concern for truth, verification, etc., of anything if it was anti-Trump. 

And this crap is presented as what Ayn Rand would have thought. This is presented as the way Ayn Rand would have used her brain.

What an epistemological mess.

And, what's worse, Onkar Ghate is not a stupid man.

As an ARI insider, he, to me, in this article is proof that focus on Objectivism by itself does not guarantee that a person will use his or her mind to identify something correctly.

 

I imagine she would have thought she was back in Communist Russia.

Michael

Michael, Ghate is not stupid, true. What's been irritating to me is that while ARI authors show their expertise when they mostly stick with pure Objectivist theories, and finding new ways to re-present them - they are singularly poor at applying theory to reality (or, as you say, applying reality to the ideas, rationalistically). And to top it off, prescribing their own judgments to other O'ists with Randian authority. 

Surely:  Identify the entire situation as it is as a conceptual whole. While also keeping high standards in mind, not what it ~should be~ in an imagined, future perfect world. Where's context? What is the hierarchy of values here? Do actions and positive results matter less than airy words, style or sweet delivery? (Kant's - the noble intention, above all - comes to mind) What is the moral character emerging under pressure (and  not the conventionally conformist 'character' - the public and media persona) of the actor(s)? This is after all, raw politics, and as it's been turning out, at its low-down dirtiest, anyone in and out of the US can see. One sees a sort of naivete when ARI Objectivists, going back to Peikoff, come down to the real world, so I'm not so certain there're other motives like financial gain/power involved. Maybe. But they do sound sincere. Perhaps it is all about making Objectivism "relevant". When you've ( I think it was Elan Journo, also generally a good thinker) predicted "a Trump dictatorship" - when hardly had he entered Office - and you now see you were wrong, damn, have the grace to admit your bad judgment and personal dislike in another article.

[ThatGuy]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

This is after all, raw politics, and as it's been turning out, at its low-down dirtiest, anyone in and out of the US can see. One sees a sort of naivete when ARI Objectivists, going back to Peikoff, come down to the real world,

This makes me think of the passages from Atlas Shrugged dealing with the Washington lobbyists, and how Rearden played the game for the sake of his business.

[Peter]

2 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

This makes me think of the passages from Atlas Shrugged dealing with the Washington lobbyists, and how Rearden played the game for the sake of his business.

To me the worst part would be dressing up to go to a cocktail party to mingle with that crowd.

Anthony wrote: What's been irritating to me is that while ARI authors show their expertise when they mostly stick with pure Objectivist theories, and finding new ways to re-present them - they are singularly poor at applying theory to reality (or, as you say, applying reality to the ideas, rationalistically). end quote

They remind me of the anarchists. Never happened unless you count lawlessness. Never gunna happen. Wishin’ and hopin’ ain’t gunna bring it to our hearts. The best Objectivists can hope for is politicians and movements like libertarianism that are grounded and even founded with a nod towards Ayn Rand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's been a while since I've posted on this thread.

Let's see how the fake news media is doing.

Below we have a major anchor of MSNBC and an Editorial Board Member of the New York Times trying to do math.

Man, that's just lame...

And here I thought the fake news media was fake because it was a bunch of toadies for evil power mongers.

Instead, these people are as dumb as a bowling ball on a pool table.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even after getting caught lying in front of the entire world and correcting himself, the CNN dude keeps yapping.

Unbelievable.

CNN needs to go out of business and stop polluting the news environment.

Lack of viewers isn't shutting it down so something fishy is bolstering it up. It costs money to run a new network that large, especially with so few viewer.

It's running at a loss in terms of normal revenues, so where is the money coming from? 

That source of funding is what needs to be shut down. Then let CNN compete on the free market.

I bet if that happened, a lot would change real fast. Either that or CNN would be closed real fast.

Michael

 

[merjet]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Lack of viewers isn't shutting it down   ...    It's running at a loss in terms of normal revenues

Evidence?