o/t “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Thoughts?

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu]pinyington.com… It might constitute trademark infringement, but I promise to run the fake news pinyington.com off of a server in China.[/quote]

It would be a week, maybe two, before CAR would be citing your content as proof that we are all wrong.[/quote]

You’re a real nutcase, Pri. I’ve been here for over 10 years, so this should be easy for you…show us ONE single post where I linked to a source that gave false information. You have to prove that it was false by linking to an equally trustworthy source (or better) that proves my source/information wrong.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think she even knows who Tyler Durden is.

[zk]

[quote=zk]
[to gogogosandiego:]I assure you you’re wasting your time and effort

It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict she will respond with more nonsense and a complete inability to see anything she’s wrong about [/quote]

Pretty much everything she’s said since then has been that prediction coming true, but here it is in a nutshell:

[quote=CA renter] So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

In CA Renter’s world, she’s twisted everything around so that these are the only options. The option where you’re making solid points – and she is wrong – does not exist.

Fascinating.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

Your claim that my “attempts to discredit me and pass me off as a troll are pathetic and typical,” would indicate that you know me already and have debated me in the past since you used the word “typical.” So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

Here’s a perfect example of how you twist things around to fit the idea that you’re right, even when you’re not.

You want to believe that gogo can’t be right (and therefore you wrong) so you want to discredit him. So you say (and, apparently, believe) that gogo’s claim – that you trying to discredit him and pass him off as a troll is typical – is evidence that he’s already debated you (and therefore he’s an alter ego). Anybody else who reads that claim of gogo’s (who has said he’s read this site for years) can see that his point is that it’s typical of you to try to discredit / pass off as a troll somebody who disagrees with you. Not to discredit and pass off him in particular as a troll. Not normally that important a distinction, but in this case, it’s a way for you to discredit him by trying to show that he’s an alter ego. I’m not sure how being an alter ego would make his points any less valid, but that’s not the point. The point is that you think it does, and therefore you want to believe it. And therefore you don’t see how you’ve misapplied logic. If you’ve got that 99th percentile IQ that you claim (and I have no reason to doubt that – high-IQ (which is different from smart) people can have believe-crazy-things issues and they can have seeing-when-they’re-wrong issues), then missing that bit of logic probably isn’t due to lack of intelligence. It’s probably due to yet another desperate attempt to not be wrong (in this case by discrediting the other person).

Fascinating.

[gogogosandiego]

1. “Protests in 2008 that got absolutely zero news coverage” – Nope!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092517

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The public backlash against the Bush administration’s proposal to use tax dollars to bailout Wall Street spilled into the streets Thursday.

“People all over the country are up in arms about
this,” said David Elliot, a spokesman for grassroots advocacy group UsAction. “Our members are livid, and they’re hitting the streets.”

Do you have a specific example of “thousands of people in the streets” that you feel wasn’t covered?

The Piggington thread you posted was a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The minute the Tea party got any traction it shifted to anti-tax and other predetermined causes which was its specific intent all along.

2. Now it’s “vested interests” and only sometimes the government? Before it was “the media is controlled by the government”.

Those people who tell reporters “what to say” are called editors. Do I need to explain the training, experience and education that is typical of a copy editor at a large paper?

Here is an example of the editorial direction provided at Zerohedge: “Despite holding itself out as a town crier for market angst, transcripts from Zero Hedge internal chat sessions provided by Lokey reveal a focus on Web traffic by the Durdens. Headlines are debated and a relentless publishing schedule maintained to keep readers sated. Lokey said the emphasis on profit—and what he considered political bias at the site—motivated him to quit.

Despite the compensation, he contends that he left because he disagreed with the site’s editorial vision. “Reality checks are great. But Zero Hedge ceased to serve that public service years ago,” Lokey wrote. “They care what generates page views. Clicks. Money.”

Lokey, who said he wrote much of the site’s political content, claimed there was pressure to frame issues in a way he felt was disingenuous. “I tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no room for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft,”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

IIRC it was the NYT that broke the NSA illegal wiretapping story. There are literally 1000’s of other examples of outlets like the Times and WSJ breaking stories that “threaten powerful interests”.

Journalists at real news outlets like the WSJ and NYT are not threatened with criminal charges if they report on certain topics. The NYT and WSJ are not biased in what they say.

3. That’s what the Fed did. It warned. It raised rates when the economy started to slow. .75 and 1.00 are not “tiny” increases. The consensus opinion about the cause of the housing bubble was lax lending standards. Not low rates.

4. Russia selectively released information to make HRC look bad. There is no argument about this. If you don’t see the issue here you are clearly deluded as to what Democracy is and what’s important.

Yes, HRC moved to the left because of Bernie in an attempt to gather those votes. Bernie certainly had some odd or unusual ideas which is why he wasn’t a serious candidate. By attempting to run as a Democrat against HRC and inject populist policies into the debate he likely harmed the party.

No one is trying to start a war with Russia. Russia has been the aggressor for the last several years in Eastern Europe. We are simply countering that.

5. Trumps victory was not obvious to anyone. If it had been it would have been widely reported on.

6. “Unprecedented….with the possible exception of NAFTA”. The TPP is far larger than NAFTA and has far more parties (countries) so the complexity and need for secrecy is far greater. Can you elaborate on the coverage of NAFTA vs. TPP? Or do you just not understand the proliferation of the internet and other mediums in the last 20 years? (Hint: whatever the next “free trade agreement” is the same types of people will tell you the secrecy is “unprecedented” – with absolutely no evidence to such, same as now – and you’ll believe it).

Corporations didn’t have more say in the TPP than politicians. Corps and politicians had negotiators appointed on their behalf. As also did labor unions, environmental groups and others. If the MSM had done this: “letting people know about the trade deal and how our own politicians weren’t allowed to participate in, or even know the details about, these negotiations until after the agreement was drawn up” they wouldn’t be doing their job of reporting facts as that is exactly how the deal was to be negotiated, as all other trade deals have been negotiated.

It is clear that you think your opinions are newsworthy and that if they aren’t being promoted there is some grand conspiracy.

As for fast track, do you think it’s prudent for something that was negotiated for several years with multiple other countries (with us as the lead) to be derailed by our (or any other countries) Congress over party lines or special interests? They could certainly deny it under fast track if they chose as any other countries government can do.

I really don’t want to digress here because I know it will draw another longwinded, non-factual rant from you but here goes anyway! The TPP, while nowhere near perfect, would have been a good deal for us by legitimizing and leveling the field for trade THAT ALREADY OCCURS between countries using the same principles that govern other trade agreements. The populist uprising keyed by Bernie and Trump will be bad for our economy and our place in the world in this regard. If you don’t understand this or just blanket think “free trade” is a bad thing you are uninformed.

7. I see you still don’t understand what actually occurred with that bill.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-signs-christmas-bill-making-alternative-media-illegal/

Are you now admitting that ZH is “sensationalized” (that would be a step in the right direction for you)?

I’ve never “debated” you in the past and this is not a debate. Your behavior in this topic is very typical as I have observed it for years.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=zk]
[to gogogosandiego:]I assure you you’re wasting your time and effort

It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict she will respond with more nonsense and a complete inability to see anything she’s wrong about [/quote]

Pretty much everything she’s said since then has been that prediction coming true, but here it is in a nutshell:

[quote=CA renter] So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

In CA Renter’s world, she’s twisted everything around so that these are the only options. The option where you’re making solid points – and she is wrong – does not exist.

Fascinating.[/quote]

What’s fascinating is that you posted this:

[quote=zk]Just like somehow you’re not wrong about Obama signing the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law.[/quote]

…and then went on to insist that you are right, and that I’m the one who has a problem admitting when I’m wrong. Have you printed out the other thread and presented it to a psychologist yet? You’re in desperate need of help, zk.

It’s your binary thinking that has got you in such a pickle. Life is more complex, and things tend to exist on a spectrum. Open your mind and stop worrying about whether someone else tells you if you’re right or wrong. Just focus on the facts instead of name-calling, and you’ll be far better off.

[CA renter]

1.) That’s all you could find? Where are the pictures of the protests? The numbers of protestors? I saw nothing on any of the MSM TV channels, and nothing in the the newspapers. If you google “September 2008 Wall Street protests,” or even “September 2008 protests,” that CNN/Money online article is the only one that comes up. There were thousands of people on the street, and that’s all we got. Compare that to the much smaller anti-Trump protests that got immediate, and very broad, coverage after the election. Why do you think that is?

2.) The media is controlled by both the government and corporate interests. The government is “corporate interests.” If you haven’t figured that out yet, you need to start doing your homework. These corporate interests are the primary vested interests in our poliltical-economic world.

So, owning a site that generates revenue is, in itself, evidence of what? Your precious WSJ and NYT are also revenue-driven. Yes, they are biased. Where in the world did you get the idea that they weren’t? Are you trying to say that Paul Krugman isn’t biased, or that the WSJ doesn’t present stories from a business/economic-right perspective?

For the record, the fact that a media outlet is biased doesn’t mean that they are not presenting facts. It only means that they tend to highlight certain perspectives, while downplaying or ignoring other perspectives. Nearly all media outlets are biased in some way these days.

3.) The Fed started raising rates **two years** after Greenspan acknowledged the “irrational exuberance.” This was after they decreased rates an even further .75 pts in 1998! They raised rates in 1999-2000 by .25 pts at a time, with the exception of one .5 pt increase — those are tiny increments, especially when view against the rate at which interest rates tend to be lowered.

And low rates were the cause of lax lending standards. As rates are lowered, investors move further out on the risk curve in order to boost gains. That’s the reason the Fed lowers interest rates when the economy is slow. It was widely understood that low rates caused the credit/housing bubble, so why do you think they are doing it again, and at an even more aggressive rate?

It’s obvious that you don’t understand how monetary policy and the Fed work.

4.) Russia (or whomever it was, because there is still no evidence that Russia did it) exposed the corruption, collusion, and fraud, they did not engage in it. Are you saying that we didn’t have a right to know about the fraud? Why is the government more focused on going after the whistle-blower instead of pursuing the actual fraud? As you’ve said: If you don’t see the issue here you are clearly deluded as to what Democracy is and what’s important.

5.) Trump’s victory was very obvious to those who knew what was going on. Again, the polls were very clear, as well. Only the ignorant masses who got their spoon-fed propaganda from the HRC-biased MSM didn’t know about it. It was obvious shortly after he entered the race.

6.) Yes, corporations had more say than the politicians. Only a tiny group of politicians, including Hillary, who falsely claimed during the election to be ignorant of the inner workings of the TPP, knew what was in it. And very few representatives had any say about what went into the document. No, corporations have no business writing our trade deals. Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.

You appear to be clueless about the TPP, too. One of the most dangerous components of this deal is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision which would have given corporations power over sovereign governments. Like hell that would be good for us…or anyone, other than corporations.

http://www.citizen.org/tppinvestment

Fair trade that takes into account labor and environmental protections is generally good, but “free trade” is not. You are the one who’s uninformed about how our trade policies impact various populations and the environment.

7.) Yes, I understand exactly what occurred with that bill. This is the first item from your linked Snopes article:

“WHAT’S TRUE: On 23 December 2016, President Obama signed a Defense Department appropriations bill with a provision establishing an interagency office to identify and combat foreign propaganda.

WHAT’S FALSE: The provision is aimed at countering foreign sources of disinformation and does not apply to American independent or alternative media.”

and this…

“Note that according to its authors, the legislation was conceived not to clamp down on alternative news sources within the U.S., but rather to protect the “freedom of the marketplace of ideas on the international stage.” Note also that as written into the NDAA, the legislation’s provisions establish an inter-agency body “to track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies,” and to develop “procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States.”‘

This is what’s in the overly-broad bill:

“(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the team described in paragraph (1) from engaging in any form of communication or medium, either directly or indirectly, or coordinating with any other department or agency of the United States Government, a State government, or any other public or private organization or institution because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to activities or communications of the team under this subsection, or based on a presumption of such exposure.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3274/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Countering+Disinformation+and+Propaganda+Act%22%5D%7D&r=1

Any information sources with an anti-U.S. bias that get traction here or abroad can be labeled as “foreign propaganda” or “disinformation,” and can be monitored and “countered” as a result of this bill. Do you seriously not see the dangers in this?

Again, who is the arbiter of what constitutes “foreign propaganda”? That’s what makes this dangerous.

8.) You didn’t address this, “gogogosandiego”:

[quote=CA renter]
…You claim that you’ve been reading this site for years, yet you created a new ID nine days after this thread was started, presumably because you wanted to object to my linking to a ZH article about the propaganda bill that was recently passed. For the record, Zero Hedge has been mentioned many times on this site over the years; some of these posts were even more “sensationalized” than what I posted, which was a factual piece about the legislation…where were you then?

As noted earlier, I linked to the ZH story because none of the mainstream media sources had mentioned it. I knew about the legislation from my own personal connections, and did not learn about it from ZH. But I like to include links to sources when I post something so that people can check it out for themselves. When others questioned the ZH story, I linked to other sources, including the site of the senator who co-authored this bill. I posted those other links prior to your obtaining this new user ID and going on your rant, so the legitimacy of the story was not in question (unless you are pri or zk…because some people still refuse to do any of their own research). So, did you oppose the exposure of this legislation, or the fact that ZH was used to corroborate the story (which was factual, BTW)? And why did you choose to speak out AFTER the other links were posted?

[/quote]

No, I don’t believe that you are some innocent random lurker of many years who’s just decided to sign up because of the ZH link. Your tone, writing style, accusations, and the timing of your ID and posts belie your claim.

[Anonymous]

Quick, somebody hire more trolls!

She’s too strong … we need reinforcements!

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]Quick, somebody hire more paid trolls!

She’s too strong … we need reinforcements![/quote]

Quick! Give Pri a clue!

[It’s so nice to see how you elevate discourse around here. /s]

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

Your claim that my “attempts to discredit me and pass me off as a troll are pathetic and typical,” would indicate that you know me already and have debated me in the past since you used the word “typical.” So, are you a disinformation troll, or are you Pri/zk’s alter ego?[/quote]

Here’s a perfect example of how you twist things around to fit the idea that you’re right, even when you’re not.

You want to believe that gogo can’t be right (and therefore you wrong) so you want to discredit him. So you say (and, apparently, believe) that gogo’s claim – that you trying to discredit him and pass him off as a troll is typical – is evidence that he’s already debated you (and therefore he’s an alter ego). Anybody else who reads that claim of gogo’s (who has said he’s read this site for years) can see that his point is that it’s typical of you to try to discredit / pass off as a troll somebody who disagrees with you. Not to discredit and pass off him in particular as a troll. Not normally that important a distinction, but in this case, it’s a way for you to discredit him by trying to show that he’s an alter ego. I’m not sure how being an alter ego would make his points any less valid, but that’s not the point. The point is that you think it does, and therefore you want to believe it. And therefore you don’t see how you’ve misapplied logic. If you’ve got that 99th percentile IQ that you claim (and I have no reason to doubt that – high-IQ (which is different from smart) people can have believe-crazy-things issues and they can have seeing-when-they’re-wrong issues), then missing that bit of logic probably isn’t due to lack of intelligence. It’s probably due to yet another desperate attempt to not be wrong (in this case by discrediting the other person).

Fascinating.[/quote]

zk, the only people I’ve accused of being trolls are Pri and phaster. It’s pretty obvious that they are trolls — they are the very definition of trolls. But I’ve used this term very rarely, so in order for “gogogosandiego” to know that this is “typical” of me (it’s not), would mean that he/she would have had to closely follow some of the most divisive, lengthy, off-topic threads on this site where Pri or phaster really got obnoxious with their ad hominem attacks and off-topic posts. I find that highly unlikely for a simple lurker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

But this new “gogogosandiego” is different. He/she is either an alter-ego, or is likely paid. I say this because we know for a fact that there has been a very heavy increase in the volume of spam and troll attacks, particularly regarding this “fake news” issue, on political sites. I say this as an admin on political pages/sites and as someone who’s been in regular contact with other admins about this topic.

[Anonymous]

You started a thread sourcing a fake news site about some nefarious government plot.

Not a single person has agreed with you that there is a concern, or even that your source is credible.

Who’s the troll?

[gogogosandiego]

1. Where were there thousands of people in the streets in 2008? Be specific. It was not “all I could find”. It took 10 seconds to find. To find actual reported articles 8 years later I’d probably have to use Lexus or something else better than google and I’m not going to do that unless you have some actual specifics because I don’t remotely remember people in the streets.

2. Paul Krugman writes on the editorial pages. He or any other opinion piece or personality has nothing to do with what I am explaining to you about how large, world renowned papers like the NYT and WSJ work. ZH is clickbait. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. The Fed raised and then lowered as the economic cycle dictated, not bc of the stock market. Rates are irrelevant to lending standards all things being equal. The loosening (and outright fraud within the system) of lending standards was the primary cause of the housing bubble.

4. You don’t get it. You’re putting the cart WAY before the horse and you seem to think it’s OK for foreign countries to steal information from our government.

5. “Those who know what was going on”? You I suppose?

6. Prove that corps had more say that pols.

This is more or less what happened:

“Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.”

ISDS already exists in other trade agreements; I’ve already explained this to you. It’s not some boogie man that allows corps to just sue whomever they like for whatever they like.

7. You still don’t understand what happened with that bill.

8. I “oppose” sloppy, conspiracy based “reporting” that suggests Obama signed a anti free speech bill into law under the cover of Xmas.

You’re going to need to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. Actual, verifiable evidence. Not “I was there” or “I know” or “I was told”. That’s not how a “debate” works if you think we are debating.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

What’s fascinating is that you posted this:

[quote=zk]Just like somehow you’re not wrong about Obama signing the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law.

[/quote]
…and then went on to insist that you are right, and that I’m the one who has a problem admitting when I’m wrong. Have you printed out the other thread and presented it to a psychologist yet? You’re in desperate need of help, zk.
[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t “go on to insist that” I was right about that. I didn’t respond to that at all. So your claim that I’m in desperate need of help is based on yet another of your strange machinations where you find ways to discredit people that are not based in reality.
Technically, the bill he signed was not the bill you cited in the OP. It was the NDAA. Which does include an amended version of the bill you mentioned.

[quote=CA renter]

It’s your binary thinking that has got you in such a pickle.
[/quote]
The only one who thinks I’m in a pickle is you. And it’s your imagination.
[quote=CA renter]

Life is more complex, and things tend to exist on a spectrum. Open your mind and stop worrying about whether someone else tells you if you’re right or wrong.
[/quote]
Open my mind? Hilarious. You need to start paying more attention to when people tell you you’re wrong. If everyone thinks you’re wrong but you, you should try to figure out why that is.
[quote=CA renter]

Just focus on the facts instead of name-calling, and you’ll be far better off.
[/quote]

You continually accuse me of ad hominem attacks. I called you out on that on other threads, and you were never able to point them out. And you can’t point them out on this thread, either. Can you? Just one more technique you use when you’re wrong and need to discredit the other person. Accuse them of making ad hominem attacks, whether they have or not.

[quote=CA renter]

zk, the only people I’ve accused of being trolls are Pri and phaster. It’s pretty obvious that they are trolls — they are the very definition of trolls.
[/quote]
mixxalot is the definition of a troll. Trying desperately to get a reaction out of bg and me. That is what a troll does. Pointing out your mistakes does not come anywhere near the definition of a troll.

[CA renter]

ZK, you really need to look in the mirror. You’re projecting your weaknesses onto others.

[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]1. Where were there thousands of people in the streets in 2008? Be specific. It was not “all I could find”. It took 10 seconds to find. To find actual reported articles 8 years later I’d probably have to use Lexus or something else better than google and I’m not going to do that unless you have some actual specifics because I don’t remotely remember people in the streets.

2. Paul Krugman writes on the editorial pages. He or any other opinion piece or personality has nothing to do with what I am explaining to you about how large, world renowned papers like the NYT and WSJ work. ZH is clickbait. Nothing more, nothing less.

3. The Fed raised and then lowered as the economic cycle dictated, not bc of the stock market. Rates are irrelevant to lending standards all things being equal. The loosening (and outright fraud within the system) of lending standards was the primary cause of the housing bubble.

4. You don’t get it. You’re putting the cart WAY before the horse and you seem to think it’s OK for foreign countries to steal information from our government.

5. “Those who know what was going on”? You I suppose?

6. Prove that corps had more say that pols.

This is more or less what happened:

“Only the representatives of “We the People” should be involved, with input from corporate, environmental, and labor groups who are all given the same consideration.”

ISDS already exists in other trade agreements; I’ve already explained this to you. It’s not some boogie man that allows corps to just sue whomever they like for whatever they like.

7. You still don’t understand what happened with that bill.

8. I “oppose” sloppy, conspiracy based “reporting” that suggests Obama signed a anti free speech bill into law under the cover of Xmas.

You’re going to need to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. Actual, verifiable evidence. Not “I was there” or “I know” or “I was told”. That’s not how a “debate” works if you think we are debating.[/quote]

1.) Look at the video that I linked from the September 2008 protests. There were thousands of people in the streets. I was looking for news coverage at the time, and posted it on this site (the search function for Piggington is not working for me, but you can look it up). I specifically called out the fact that it was not being discussed in the media back in 2008. There was no more news coverage regarding that event in 2008 than there is now. Why do you think that is?

2.) The NYT is definitely more liberal in its bias. FYI, Krugman has been the face of the NYT’s left-leaning economic positions for years. Their choice of columnists reflects their views. The Op-Ed pages are usually the most widely read (and discussed in other media) pages of a newspaper. Whose opinions they place there matter greatly.

You can see here who their columnists are — the majority of them are liberal:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html?module=SectionsNav&action=click&version=BrowseTree&region=TopBar&contentCollection=Opinion%2FOp-Ed%20Columnists&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection#columnists

This is a history of the NYT’s presidential endorsements. It’s hardly neutral or unbiased.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?mtrref=topics.nytimes.com&gwh=093CE592D9A5C24D1DA46F103B187FD9&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

Today’s stories in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

The WSJ is economically on the right. That stands to reason, since they represent the insights and interests of the business community.

When a member of the WSJ’s editorial board endorsed Clinton, it was widely reported on because the WSJ has a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates. FTR, many Republican leaders endorsed Clinton over Trump because her economic positions during the campaign were to the right of Trump (free trade, immigration reform, etc.).

Here’s how it was reported in The Hill. So much for not using sensationalist writing.

“A member of The Wall Street Journal’s traditionally conservative editorial board has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, calling her “eminently sane” and bashing Republican nominee Donald Trump as the candidate of “white supremacists and swastika devotees.”’

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298648-wall-street-journal-editorial-board-member-endorses

Keep pretending that they are not biased if that’s what makes you feel better at night.

3.) The stock market and the economy were on fire when they dropped rates after 1996 when Greenspan noted the “irrational exuberance.” There was no reason to lower rates. The stock market affects the economy because people have more (unrealized) wealth, which prompts them to spend more. Since ~70% of our economy is based on consumption, this is a big deal.

Rates are not at all irrelevant to lending standards. Claiming this shows a terrific lack of understanding about monetary policy.

“We find that insurance companies, pension funds, and, in particular, structured- finance vehicles take higher credit risk when investors expect interest rates to remain low. Banks originate riskier loans that they tend to divest shortly after origination, thus appearing to accommodate other lenders’ investment choices. These results are consistent with a search for yield” by certain types of shadow banks and, to the extent that Federal Reserve policies affected longer-term rates, the results are also consistent with the presence of a risk-taking channel of monetary policy. Finally, we find that longer-term interest rates have only a modest effect on loan spreads.

[Text didn’t format correctly, so check the original document for accuracy. -CAR]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015068pap.pdf

4.) The Democratic Party is a private organization, it is not a governmental agency. Again, I don’t care how we get the relevant information and transparency. If our own system fails to provide transparency and hold people accountable, then other actors need to step in.

I want the government to investigate the actual fraud, not those who exposed it.

5.) Yes, those of us who were actively working on the ground knew what was going on and shook our heads at the contrived stories the MSM was making up about HRC being the presumptive nominee (she wouldn’t have been without the fraud), and then POTUS. Nobody who actually knew what was going on thought that HRC would win. Only those who followed the MSM’s propaganda and who lived in an echo chamber believed it (even her own people knew better…the fact that she was considered untrustworthy, unlikable, and unpopular was well known even among her most loyal insiders). Yes, I was actively involved in the presidential campaign, so knew what was going on.

6.) The fact that corporations are the ones who wrote most of the trade agreement shows that they had more power. Look up what our congressional representatives had to say about it.

7.) You’re the one who doesn’t understand what happened with that bill. The links and information regarding this legislation are posted throughout this thread.

8.) Apparently, anything that goes against your preconceived notions is “sloppy” reporting. The fact that this anti-free-speech bill passed under the radar isn’t a suggestion, it’s a fact.

You’re going to have to start presenting evidence for your claims if you’d like to continue. I’m the one who’s actually cited sources and links. For the record, those of us who were calling out the election fraud and DNC collusion were called “conspiracy theorists” and told that we were delusional (among other terms that were used to try to discredit us)…until Wikileaks proved us right. All too often, conspiracy theories are conspiracy facts. You’re painfully naive if you think that people in power aren’t working in concert to push an agenda that benefits themselves at the expense of others.

[Author]

Posts