PDA

View Full Version : New York Times Defends Trump Article After James Comey Calls it “Not True”



Doug_M
06-09-2017, 07:43 PM
So the anonymous sources were just so much fake news after all. Huh. I'm surprised, I thought for sure the NYT could be trusted. (that's sarcasm to be absolutely clear)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/09/nyt-defends-trump-article-comey-calls-not-true/

New York Times Defends Trump Article After James Comey Calls it “Not True”

by Adam Shaw9 Jun 2017345

At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey was asked about a story that featured in the Times on Valentine’s Day — “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”.

The story opened:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

However, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) asked about the article at the hearing,

“Okay, so again,” Risch said. “So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?”

“In the main, it was not true,” Comey replied, before accusing the Times reporting team of not knowing what it was talking about. “Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t. The challenge — I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information… [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don’t really now what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”

“And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic,” Comey said. “We just have to leave it there.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, (R-AR), followed up, asking Comey if the story was “almost entirely wrong.’ Comey said yes.

The Times immediately tweeted that it was “looking into” Comey’s statements.

Eventually the Times published a report and support of its article late Thursday, noting that Comey did not say what it was about the article that was false. However, it had some ideas what Comey may have disputed:

One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

Another possibility, the Times said, was that he may have disagreed with the paper’s description of the evidence for the contacts with Russia — the Times said authorities had relied on “phone records and intercepted calls” to gain evidence.

However, the Times noted that the reporters’ sources had stood by their accounts, and also pointed to subsequent reporting that it said backed up some of the claims made in the Feb. 14 article.

sltoronto
06-09-2017, 09:29 PM
How about this possibility - they were not Russians but Martians?

btabin
06-09-2017, 11:24 PM
Breitbart calling another media outlet "fake news". Sure don't see the irony in that.

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 04:49 AM
Breitbart calling another media outlet "fake news". Sure don't see the irony in that.

Would you like me to quote Comey's testimony from another source? Hang on...

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 04:52 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/08/in-the-main-it-was-not-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/?utm_term=.a200dd75de67

‘In the main, it was not true’: Comey denounces New York Times story

Play Video 1:30

Comey: 'I can't go explaining' information leaked to media


Former FBI director James B. Comey described his frustration with classified information leaked to the media, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 8 at the Capitol. (Photo: Matt McClain / The Washington Post/Reuters)

In his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey said that a controversial New York Times story in February about alleged contacts between Trump intimates and Russian officials was bogus. “In the main, it was not true,” he said.

“The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it,” said Comey during questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho). “And we don’t call the press and say, ‘Hey, you got that thing wrong.’ ”

[CNN succumbs to its own Comey hype]

The comments from Comey revive a rather heated media-politics brushfire from the very early days of the Trump administration. Published amid the ouster of then-national security adviser Michael Flynn over his statements about contacts with Russia, the Feb. 14 New York Times story contained ordnance. The opening sentence: “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” Though the story said that officials had found no evidence of collusion by Trump associates with Russia, it alleged that the intercepted communications “alarmed” U.S. officials because it overlapped with Trump’s complimentary comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

One of the people picked up on the surveillance, reported the New York Times, was Paul Manafort, who served for a time as Trump’s presidential campaign chairman. Manafort called the reporting “absurd.” A correction added on the day of publication read, “An earlier version of this article misstated the number of people (in addition to Paul Manafort) whom the F.B.I. has examined. It is at least three, not at least four.” And the newspaper acknowledged the limitations of its reporting: “The officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself,” noted the story.

Lack of detail notwithstanding, the story shook the White House. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told “Fox News Sunday,” “The New York Times put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically, you know, some treasonous type of accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you and I have been approved to say this — that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there’s nothing to it.”

Not only that: CNN reported that the White House had asked top FBI personnel to rebut the New York Times piece, perhaps by speaking to reporters on background — even though the White House at the time was denouncing anonymous sources. The FBI declined to do so at the time.

Attacks from folks such as Priebus prompted New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet to issue this defense: “The Times had numerous sources confirming this story. Attacking it does not make it less true.”

Things have changed. Before, White House officials — a crew known to blast the media for often specious and baseless reasons — were blasting the story. Now a straight-shooting former FBI director is blasting the story. In addition, Comey confirmed Risch’s contentions that the former FBI director responded to the New York Times story by checking with his intelligence sources and informing lawmakers that it wasn’t accurate.

We’ve asked the New York Times for a fresh response. A New York Times spokesperson tells the Erik Wemple Blog, “As we have said previously, we believe in the accuracy of our reporting. Our reporters are currently looking into Mr. Comey’s statement about our story and we plan to report back as soon as we can.”

UPDATE: The New York Times has provided a new statement on this matter:

The New York Times has published an examination of Mr. Comey’s statements today, which reviews our previous coverage and found no evidence that any prior reporting was inaccurate. In fact, subsequent reporting by The Times and other media outlets has verified our reporting as the story makes clear.

Neither the F.B.I., nor Mr. Comey would comment or elaborate on what Mr. Comey believes to be incorrect. Should they provide more information, we would review that as well.

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 05:06 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/08/media/new-york-times-james-comey/index.html

Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony on Thursday backed up some of the anonymous-sourced news reports about the FBI, but Comey took exception to one specific New York Times story from February.

"In the main, it was not true," Comey told the Senate Intelligence Commitee, disputing a February 14 story titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

Comey's comment was part of a broader media critique. But The Times shot back a few hours after his testimony, saying it has found "no evidence that any prior reporting was inaccurate."

Comey never specified what portions of the story were supposedly wrong.

In a statement, The Times said, "Neither the F.B.I., nor Mr. Comey would comment or elaborate on what Mr. Comey believes to be incorrect. Should they provide more information, we would review that as well."

At issue is the reliability of anonymous sources and the judgment of news organizations who report information from these sources.

Media critics, particularly pro-Trump voices on the right, have been skeptical and sometimes downright hostile toward news outlets that have relied on anonymous sources for information about ongoing probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The news organizations say they have to protect their sources in some situations.

But journalists have occasionally been led astray by sources, resulting in corrections or clarifications to stories.

The Times article on February 14 had new details about Trump campaign officials having "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election."

It was attributed to "four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified."

The story evidently set off alarm bells in Washington. Sen. James Risch, Republican of Idaho, said at Thursday's hearing that Comey talked with some lawmakers shortly after the story came out and told them the story was off-base.

Risch said: "You sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the -- this is not factual. Do you recall that?"

"Yes," Comey confirmed.

"In the main, it was not true," Comey added. "And, again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge -- and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information -- is that people talking about it often don't really know what's going on. And those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it. And we don't call the press to say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic.' We just have to leave it there."

Before the hearing even ended, some conservative media commentators were using Comey's comments to disparage The Times story as "fake news."

Related: Pro-Trump media claims vindication in Comey hearing

Later in the day, the Republican National Committee circulated a message to reporters titled "The New York Times Has Some Explaining To Do."

The Times published a detailed followup around 5 p.m. on Thursday.

It noted that "multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times's article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump's advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence."

Part of the dispute might be about the definition of Russian "intelligence officers."

CNN published a similar report about communication during the campaign between advisers close to Trump and Russians known to U.S. intelligence. CNN stands by the story.

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 05:10 AM
Or how about the NYT itself? Good enough for you? Though they seem confused by the term "in the main" and double-down. But hey, I wouldn't expect anything less from such a pillar of journalism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-new-york-times-article-russia.html

Comey Disputes New York Times Article About Russia Investigation

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZOJUNE 8, 2017


James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. During the hearing, he disputed a New York Times article about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials: “in the main, it was not true.” Al Drago/The New York Times
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on Thursday disputed an article that appeared in February in The New York Times about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials.

Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

The article was the first to reveal direct contacts between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the election — contacts that are now at the heart of F.B.I. and congressional investigations. Multiple news outlets have since published accounts that support the main elements of The Times’s article, including information about phone calls and in-person meetings between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russians, some believed to be connected to Russian intelligence.

Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on June 8, 2017. Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »
One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

Last year, for example, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. Law enforcement officials believed the Russian government was trying to recruit Mr. Page as a foreign agent.

A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with at least one suspected intelligence officer during two trips he took to Russia last year, although it is unclear whether Mr. Page knew about the identity or the motivations of the Russian.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Page has repeatedly declined to say whom he met and spoke with during one of the trips, to Moscow last summer. He has described them only as “mostly scholars.”

During the transition, Jared Kushner, a senior aide, met privately with the head of a Russian bank with deep ties to Russian intelligence, seeking a direct line of communication to the Kremlin. The banker, Sergey N. Gorkov, is a graduate of Russia’s spy school.

Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime Trump adviser, exchanged Twitter messages last year with Guccifer 2.0, an online persona that authorities say was a front for Russian intelligence officials.

During the hearing, Mr. Comey said there were inaccuracies in many articles about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, a problem he attributed in part to anonymous sources discussing classified information.

btabin
06-10-2017, 05:49 AM
Would you like me to quote Comey's testimony from another source? Hang on...

Said nothing about Comey. Just stated the irony in Breitbart calling another organization "fake news" when they've knowingly put out their fair share of "fake news" as well. It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it's exactly that.

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 05:56 AM
Said nothing about Comey. Just stated the irony in Breitbart calling another organization "fake news" when they've knowing put out their fair share of "fake news" as well. It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it's exactly that.

Well people like to say Breitbart puts out fake news. But no one ever actually points out fake news on Breitbart. They just repeat what the MSM says. Why does the MSM say that? Because they are in competition with them.

I read news from a wide variety of sources. I read CBC and the Globe & Mail daily. I also read Breitbart daily. They aren't fake news. Biased to the right instead of left? Absolutely. But fake news? Hardly.

btabin
06-10-2017, 06:22 AM
Well people like to say Breitbart puts out fake news. But no one ever actually points out fake news on Breitbart. They just repeat what the MSM says. Why does the MSM say that? Because they are in competition with them.

I read news from a wide variety of sources. I read CBC and the Globe & Mail daily. I also read Breitbart daily. They aren't fake news. Biased to the right instead of left? Absolutely. But fake news? Hardly.

If pushing conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading information and falsehoods doesn't fit your definition of "fake news", I'd love to know what does. And people do point it out all the time, but some folk just refuse to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs.

And before you ask, yes, I do read Breitbart too and actually believe they serve a purpose when they publish the things that others are too chickenshit to. But to say they've never put out "fake news" of their own is just completely erroneous.

shortandlong
06-10-2017, 07:26 AM
Well people like to say Breitbart puts out fake news. But no one ever actually points out fake news on Breitbart. They just repeat what the MSM says. Why does the MSM say that? Because they are in competition with them.

I read news from a wide variety of sources. I read CBC and the Globe & Mail daily. I also read Breitbart daily. They aren't fake news. Biased to the right instead of left? Absolutely. But fake news? Hardly.
I trust brietbart more than the CBC or CNN , but never blindly trust any news source and a person with any brain should as well ...you seem to be on the right track

as naysayers...... funny you threw the glove down but nobody stepped up to prove you wrong.

reminds of when i was a kid in grade school .......you would have one wierdo running around going up to people and say "your yucky" and then wonder why nobody liked him I think one in particualar is a liberal MP now .


If pushing conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading information and falsehoods doesn't fit your definition of "fake news", I'd love to know what does. And people do point it out all the time, but some folk just refuse to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs.

Conspiracy theories like maybe our government is not working in the best interest of the Canadian people or the country?
have you noticed whats going on lately?

you got notley in alberta

you got wynne in ontario (basically going against any advice just to f_ck things up )

and you have trudeau calling us the the "First POSTNATIONAL state " imo thats fricken treason.....

read CNN or CBC lately? better yet just look at the reporting on the Canadian tire/isis incident ..........


And before you ask, yes, I do read Breitbart too and actually believe they serve a purpose when they publish the things that others are too chickenshit to. But to say they've never put out "fake news" of their own is just completely erroneous.

The difference is I think they try , whats known as the "main stream media " makes an effort to decieve and control and promote what people think. In the case of the CBC they use our tax dollars to do it.

BTW WRT to comey
HE ADMITTED TO LEAKING INFO ,
HE PURGERED HIMSELF (thats what i call it when your call to testify on two occaisons on a matter and do a complete 180 on the same questions! )

and he admitted to being a F_cking coward ! but in this society i see that maybe considered a virtue now

Doug_M
06-10-2017, 07:46 AM
If pushing conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading information and falsehoods doesn't fit your definition of "fake news", I'd love to know what does. And people do point it out all the time, but some folk just refuse to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs.

And before you ask, yes, I do read Breitbart too and actually believe they serve a purpose when they publish the things that others are too chickenshit to. But to say they've never put out "fake news" of their own is just completely erroneous.

So that would be no then. You, like so many others spout "Breitbart is fake news" but when push comes to shove there is NEVER an example given.

RangeBob
06-10-2017, 08:16 AM
Hillary said that Breitbart was fake news, and because they wrote things about her she didn't like if elected she was going to shut them down.
CNN was of two minds about that: the dangers of ignoring the First Amendment (their own throats next, what about the rest of the constitution and the Bill Of Rights), vs having the president wipe out the competition (business plan!).

dragons'n'unicorns
06-10-2017, 09:09 AM
How about this possibility - they were not Russians but Martians?

With the 10, 000 plus programming source code of data dump from stolen C.I.A.'s "toolbox", ...
Wikileaks Vault 7 C.I.A. Toolbox Dump [ https://wikileaks.org/vault7/ ]...

additionally between and with the Piece of Sheeit JewYork Times already knowing the capabilities...
[ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/opinion/the-truth-about-the-wikileaks-cia-cache.html ]
... and the Commuzionist Nonsense Network (((CNN)), constantly pinning their idiotic false news pseudo journalism, trash at best,..

It is beyond me how anyone can overlook the very fact that such 'hacks' can be, and or are, precisely programmed coded to have 'fingerprints' intended to 'look' like anyone whom the 'fingerprint' is intended to frame / implicate.

What's worse is the NSA's toolbox's, and the several know to not know shadow cyber security / espionage divisions / units working tirelessly everyday doing exactly this work.

Every country does it.
Including Canada, except Canada's methods are weaker and can and have been tracked domestically, along with the RCMP's, and CSEC/SEC, DND, "comms research division". < ( formally known, not existing, as )

IJ22
06-11-2017, 04:52 PM
Well people like to say Breitbart puts out fake news. But no one ever actually points out fake news on Breitbart. They just repeat what the MSM says. Why does the MSM say that? Because they are in competition with them.


Breitbart is not just fake news, it's extreme far alt-right white supremacist racist news! :)

Andrew Breitbart clip, just because....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YthG-MeKcbQ

Doug_M
06-11-2017, 05:39 PM
Breitbart is not just fake news, it's extreme far alt-right white supremacist racist news! :)

Don't forget anti-Semitic.

CLW .45
06-11-2017, 07:22 PM
If pushing conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading information and falsehoods doesn't fit your definition of "fake news", I'd love to know what does. And people do point it out all the time, but some folk just refuse to listen to anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs.

And before you ask, yes, I do read Breitbart too and actually believe they serve a purpose when they publish the things that others are too chickenshit to. But to say they've never put out "fake news" of their own is just completely erroneous.

Go ahead, give an example.

firemachine69
06-12-2017, 03:24 AM
Breitbart is not just fake news, it's extreme far alt-right white supremacist racist news! :)

Andrew Breitbart clip, just because....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YthG-MeKcbQ


His death is still extremely suspicious, especially if you consider that his coroner died shortly after as well. It's got all the tell-tale signs of CIA involvement.

killer kane
06-12-2017, 10:48 AM
His death is still extremely suspicious, especially if you consider that his coroner died shortly after as well. It's got all the tell-tale signs of CIA involvement.

Or Klinton,

dragons'n'unicorns
06-12-2017, 12:16 PM
Breitbart is not just fake news, it's extreme far alt-right white supremacist racist news! :)


http://i.imgur.com/9OtBvxO.jpg



Don't forget anti-Semitic.



anti-anti-semitic / semitism,... commonly known as counter semitic / semitism.

http://i.imgur.com/aDj9FHf.jpg


http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Counter-Semitism

en.rightpedia.info/w/Counter-Semitism



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


http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/128/693/35a8zyx.jpg?1306852503
http://i.imgur.com/E9Txnv3.gif

killer kane
06-12-2017, 08:18 PM
Except the nazis are leftists.

btabin
06-12-2017, 10:13 PM
So that would be no then. You, like so many others spout "Breitbart is fake news" but when push comes to shove there is NEVER an example given.


Go ahead, give an example.

Off the top of my head? Uh, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Obama's birth certificate, Obama supporting ISIS, Dortmund, climate change, contraceptives in water causing infertility, Friends of Hamas, Trump's phone being wiretapped, defamatory claims against Planned Parenthood, almost everything Milos Yiannopolous has published, and I'm sure much much more should I bother to actually take the time to search.

Again, I'm not bashing Breitbart per se, I actually like them, but to say they've never misled or posted false claims is just factually wrong. You guys are coming across like it's some "bastion of truth" when it's not. It has an agenda and won't hesitate to twist things to fit it, just like every other media outlet out there.

Doug_M
06-13-2017, 05:15 AM
Off the top of my head? Uh, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Obama's birth certificate, Obama supporting ISIS, Dortmund, climate change, contraceptives in water causing infertility, Friends of Hamas, Trump's phone being wiretapped, defamatory claims against Planned Parenthood, almost everything Milos Yiannopolous has published, and I'm sure much much more should I bother to actually take the time to search.

Again, I'm not bashing Breitbart per se, I actually like them, but to say they've never misled or posted false claims is just factually wrong. You guys are coming across like it's some "bastion of truth" when it's not. It has an agenda and won't hesitate to twist things to fit it, just like every other media outlet out there.

So again, that is a no. You are just posting topics. Covering a topic is not fake news. Breitbart wasn't involved in Pizzagate or ACORN. That was Andrew Breitbart, not breitbart.com. Climate change (anthropogenic) is not a scientific fact and there is no 97% consensus. Wikileaks released an email where Clinton spoke about Saudi Arabia supporting ISIS. Trump's campaign was surveilled. Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Essentially you are saying that you don't like their opinions or that their opinions are false and yours are right. I haven't been reading their site long enough to have "witnessed" the birther thing. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they didn't report it as fact but rather reported someone investigating an angle. And while it is a moot point now, while not a "birther" myself, I would certainly concede to a birther that there is more compelling evidence to support that than there is "Russian collusion" that every MSM outlet is running with now.

And by the way, I have never said Breitbart isn't biased. But the difference is there is a war against conservatism and the right. Anything right is now labelled right-wing or extreme right-wing or alt-right etc and demonized. Breitbart is under attack in this fashion simply because it is a successful voice on the right. Look at what is happening with conservative commentators at Fox with the left trying to shut them down (going after advertisers). Breitbart is painted as white nationalist anti-semite anti-lgbt etc etc and it just isn't true (except the nationalist, leaving off "white"). Look at the demonization of Bannon. Flat out lies. And you have bought into that. The MSM scoffs at the things you've listed in the first paragraph and you scoff at them too. Doesn't make them fake news in the slightest. Makes them a contrary voice.

Now the challenge, which you will fail at, is to CITE an article and point out falsehoods. You can't do it.

IJ22
06-13-2017, 08:17 AM
Off the top of my head? Uh, ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, Seth Rich, Pizzagate, Obama's birth certificate, Obama supporting ISIS, Dortmund, climate change, contraceptives in water causing infertility, Friends of Hamas, Trump's phone being wiretapped, defamatory claims against Planned Parenthood, almost everything Milos Yiannopolous has published, and I'm sure much much more should I bother to actually take the time to search.


No no, we're talking about fake news, not real news you don't like.

Scotlas
06-13-2017, 10:45 AM
Except the nazis are leftists.

Google changed the definition of fascism to the extreme right not long ago.

Swampdonkey
06-13-2017, 11:07 AM
Google changed the definition of fascism to the extreme right not long ago.

In the 30s, Fascism was "right". It believed in hierarchy, professional standing armies, low domestic taxation, religion, nationalism, property rights, free markets, individual renumeration.

Contrasting with "left" movements like Communism and Anarchism, which believe in the absence of any hierarchy or even order (Comrade), atheism, "People's Armies", absolute redistribution of wealth by the State, entirety of parenting by the State, globalism, a command economy, collectivism.

Left/Right wasn't divided by Authority/Liberty, Free Association/Civil Rights back then.