Democrats Skimming Money from Hurricane Relief Donations
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
14 Oct 2018, 5:43 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
I think fake news articles/articles from propaganda websites shouldn't be allowed to be posted in the news and current events forum.
What's "fake" and what's "propaganda" is subjective, is it not. To the Left, Fox is fake; to the Right, WashPo is fake. How 'bout if the deciding factor is reached by each user, themselves----just like deciding what TV show to watch, or changing the channel----they can click-on / read it, or skip it; that way no one's dictating what people can and can't post.
You can probable argue what could be considered propaganda, but fake news is easy to define: it is news that is easily disprovable lies. If it's not factual it's fake news. Facts are not subjective. There are no "alternative facts"--there are just provable facts, the kind supported by evidence and reality.
I feel about news outlets what I feel about books----if they were all facts, all-the-time, Man would not have had to invent the term "Revised Edition" (or, in the case of news outlets, the retraction). Don't get me wrong, I love books, and read / listen to the news; but, I know better than to take everything I read, at face value.
Here you go:
https://ivn.us/2016/11/21/25-fake-news- ... eam-media/
All of these outlets----including Fox and a couple of British outlets----have presented their stories as "factual", have been posted on this site as evidence, and proof of what was real ("reality"), only to be found to be "alternative facts"; usually lies that whatever organization prints, cuz it follows-along with their agenda. Remember Time who put a picture on their cover of a little girl, supposedly separated from her mother----she wasn't; someone found and talked to her family member, who said it was untrue----but they didn't care when they were told they were wrong, because all they wanted to do was make President Trump look bad; and, it served it's purpose, cuz idiots all over the country, believed their story.
The point, is: Who's to say which outlet is printing facts? Again, some Republicans will swear that what Fox says, is facts; and, some Democrats will swear that what, say, the NYTimes says, is fact.
For further clarity, consult Ezra's post.
_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
14 Oct 2018, 6:39 pm
Piobaire wrote:
Shocking, and it's from Forbes:
Quote:
And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.
All of this seems to defy federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors. It also raises larger questions about the Trump family dynamics and whether Eric and his brother, Don Jr., can be truly independent of their father.
Especially since the person who specifically commanded that the for-profit Trump Organization start billing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the nonprofit Eric Trump Foundation, according to two people directly involved, was none other than the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.
All of this seems to defy federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors. It also raises larger questions about the Trump family dynamics and whether Eric and his brother, Don Jr., can be truly independent of their father.
Especially since the person who specifically commanded that the for-profit Trump Organization start billing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the nonprofit Eric Trump Foundation, according to two people directly involved, was none other than the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.
14 Oct 2018, 10:49 pm
Campin_Cat wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
I think fake news articles/articles from propaganda websites shouldn't be allowed to be posted in the news and current events forum.
What's "fake" and what's "propaganda" is subjective, is it not. To the Left, Fox is fake; to the Right, WashPo is fake. How 'bout if the deciding factor is reached by each user, themselves----just like deciding what TV show to watch, or changing the channel----they can click-on / read it, or skip it; that way no one's dictating what people can and can't post.
You can probable argue what could be considered propaganda, but fake news is easy to define: it is news that is easily disprovable lies. If it's not factual it's fake news. Facts are not subjective. There are no "alternative facts"--there are just provable facts, the kind supported by evidence and reality.
I feel about news outlets what I feel about books----if they were all facts, all-the-time, Man would not have had to invent the term "Revised Edition" (or, in the case of news outlets, the retraction). Don't get me wrong, I love books, and read / listen to the news; but, I know better than to take everything I read, at face value.
Here you go:
https://ivn.us/2016/11/21/25-fake-news- ... eam-media/
All of these outlets----including Fox and a couple of British outlets----have presented their stories as "factual", have been posted on this site as evidence, and proof of what was real ("reality"), only to be found to be "alternative facts"; usually lies that whatever organization prints, cuz it follows-along with their agenda. Remember Time who put a picture on their cover of a little girl, supposedly separated from her mother----she wasn't; someone found and talked to her family member, who said it was untrue----but they didn't care when they were told they were wrong, because all they wanted to do was make President Trump look bad; and, it served it's purpose, cuz idiots all over the country, believed their story.
The point, is: Who's to say which outlet is printing facts? Again, some Republicans will swear that what Fox says, is facts; and, some Democrats will swear that what, say, the NYTimes says, is fact.
For further clarity, consult Ezra's post.
Thanks.
There's also of course the spin factor and the not telling the whole story factor.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| money money money |
31 Mar 2024, 4:32 pm |
| Living On Less Money |
29 Apr 2024, 11:02 pm |
| Obsession about money |
24 May 2024, 7:33 pm |
| Earning money online |
16 May 2024, 2:10 pm |
