Democratic Presidential Candidate Has A Plan To Combat Misinformation

quote Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled her plan to fight disinformation on the internet, pledging not to knowingly spread on social media false or manipulated news reports, images, audio and videos. “Disinformation erodes our democracy, and Democrats must have a plan to address it,” Warren said, noting President Trump has invited interference from foreign governments.

Cliff,
This post might qualify as one of those "dis-information" stories. I'm pretty sure she only means to apply this to news stories that go against her.

Rams

Warren is in favor of trying to limit the fake news? Wow, that is a good one. She who is less than 1/1000 Indian of any kind, who got a great Elite job as a Indian minority professor at Harvard, so that Harvard could be diverse. If that isn't living a lie I don't know what would qualify for a lie. She being one of the many Democrats who for 3 years now have been in a constant hissy fit over President Trump colluding with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary. And even after 30 some months of intensive research by 13 Democratic hit men, with the assistance of the Deep State turn coats in the FBI, the CIA and the DOJ, $30 plus millions of dollars spent and not a single thing to show for it. And yet she still repeats the Democratic lies.

She would want to control the news? How can anyone even think that would be a good idea?

quote Originally posted by MadMark: She who is less than 1/1000 Indian of any kind, who got a great Elite job as a Indian minority professor at Harvard, so that Harvard could be diverse. If that isn't living a lie I don't know what would qualify for a lie.

You might have noticed I changed her name. She also claimed she was fired for being pregnant, a lie. She also claimed her kids go to public schools, another lie.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: You might have noticed I changed her name. She also claimed she was fired for being pregnant, a lie. She also claimed her kids go to public schools, another lie.

Cliff,
Where's your sense of humor? She was just "channeling" all her tribal friends. She didn't think anyone else was listening...……

Rams

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Cliff, Where's your sense of humor?

Pinochio Hauntes speaks with forked tounge.

Ya know, 12 years ago when a dem 1st started to shove this carp up my azz it had a much more polite name.

It was called "being positive ", which means when I sell you a cup of carp with corn chunks and tell you it's chocolate ice cream with sprinkles, you have to agree with me or your not being positive.

Snopes says Warren is fake

Wait...……..

Sure is quiet on the Left Side. Where'd they go?

Rams

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Wait...…….. Sure is quiet on the Left Side. Where'd they go? Rams

Witness protection program.

I wouldn't say that the New York Times was a great "friend" of Hillary Clinton's, when it's all added up.

NYT published reports, week in and week out, during the FBI's investigation of Hillary's emails and email server "issues." They gave it a high news profile.

NYT reported it explicitly as a "criminal" investigation--Hillary didn't like that. She would rather it have been referred to as an investigation into certain "issues."

NYT paid a book publisher (or the author--whichever) for the right to publish material from a book--to serialize it.

NYT, a book--can you guess which book I have in mind--I think it's safe to say that Hillary did not like.

NYT, that was not a "Catch and Kill" kind of deal to suppress a story. NYT's publication of material from the book a "plus" for publicizing the book and boosting its sales.


If you can show these assertions to be inaccurate, or even not particularly accurate--just borderline--"knock yourself out."


Of course, this topic is about more than just that, but I think the New York Times, in particular, is dissed here (on Pennock's) in a way that blindly disregards its virtues.

There are "perfect" Presidential phone calls, but there are no perfect newspapers. Media's a different ball game. Apples and Alquejenjes.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-06-2020).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I wouldn't say that the New York Times was a great "friend" of Hillary Clinton's, when it's all added up. NYT published reports, week in and week out, during the FBI's investigation of Hillary's emails and email server "issues." They gave it a high news profile. NYT reported it explicitly as a "criminal" investigation--Hillary didn't like that. She would rather it have been referred to as an investigation into certain "issues." NYT paid a book publisher (or the author--whichever) for the right to publish material from a book--to serialize it. NYT, a book--can you guess which book I have in mind--I think it's safe to say that Hillary did not like. NYT, that was not a "Catch and Kill" kind of deal to suppress a story. NYT's publication of material from the book a "plus" for publicizing the book and boosting its sales. If you can show these assertions to be inaccurate, or even not particularly accurate--just borderline--"knock yourself out."Click to show Of course, this topic is about more than just that, but I think the New York Times, in particular, is dissed here (on Pennock's) in a way that blindly disregards its virtues. There are "perfect" Presidential phone calls, but there are no perfect newspapers. Media's a different ball game. Apples and Alquejenjes.

News is a capitalist business and maybe they also have a grudge against the Clintons.
I still say that I have not unfairly dissed them. There are more than one test for character.