Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Jul 2017 22:52 UTC
In the News

No. Mr Astley did not rework his song. An artist called Mario Klingemann did, using clever software. The video is a particularly obvious example of generated media, which uses quick and basic techniques. More sophisticated technology is on the verge of being able to generate credible video and audio of anyone saying anything. This is down to progress in an artificial intelligence (AI) technique called machine learning, which allows for the generation of imagery and audio. One particular set-up, known as a generative adversarial network (GAN), works by setting a piece of software (the generative network) to make repeated attempts to create images that look real, while a separate piece of software (the adversarial network) is set up in opposition. The adversary looks at the generated images and judges whether they are "real", which is measured by similarity to those in the generative software's training database. In trying to fool the adversary, the generative software learns from its errors. Generated images currently require vast computing power, and only work at low resolution. For now.

People aren't even intelligent enough to spot obviously fake nonsense written stories, and those were enough to have an impact on the US elections. The current US president managed to "win" the elections by spouting an endless barrage of obvious lies, and the entire Brexit campaign was built on a web of obvious deceit and dishonesty.

Now imagine adding fake video into the mix where anyone can be made to say anything.

Order by: Score:
Comment by Licaon_Kter
by Licaon_Kter on Sun 16th Jul 2017 23:14 UTC
Licaon_Kter
Member since:
2010-03-19

https://lyrebird.ai/demo

Yep, pretty scary stuff...

Oh wait, you mean that "grab them by the..." was fake?

:D

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Licaon_Kter
by sukru on Sun 16th Jul 2017 23:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by Licaon_Kter"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Add virtual lip sync, and we have full circle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yq67CjDqvw

Reply Score: 3

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Mon 17th Jul 2017 01:19 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Both sides in the presidential election lied and cheated. Just look how Bernie Sanders got cheated by Hillary.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by judgen
by jerkofalltrades on Mon 17th Jul 2017 01:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
jerkofalltrades Member since:
2012-12-11

Right but it's not the fact that they cheated Bernie every one is paying attention to, we have 24 hour news agencies spinning nonsense about who extracted the truth.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by judgen
by grat on Mon 17th Jul 2017 05:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Both sides in the presidential election lied and cheated. Just look how Bernie Sanders got cheated by Hillary.


Yes-- That's exactly what Trump, Putin and the folks at Cambridge Analytica wanted you to focus on.

Not the issues, like whether Trump has any qualities that might qualify him to run a bake sale, not whether Clinton would have been a better president than Trump-- they wanted you to focus on the fact that Clinton screwed Sanders in the election.

And they almost certainly targeted you with anti-Hillary spam, based on the voter mailing lists they got from the DNC (unless you aren't registered to vote, in which case shut up and go away-- the adults are talking).

The Russian collusion is a side show-- important, but not nearly as important as the fact that a privately owned company run by a billionaire pulled off the mother of all social engineering operations on the 2016 election-- after proving the concept on Brexit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by Kochise on Mon 17th Jul 2017 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

And that citizens are lazy and do not fact check. Nor do "journalists".

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by unclefester on Mon 17th Jul 2017 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Not the issues, like whether Trump has any qualities that might qualify him to run a bake sale, not whether Clinton would have been a better president than Trump-- they wanted you to focus on the fact that Clinton screwed Sanders in the election.


Trump is the nephew of a leading MIT EE Professor and the brother of a Federal Appeals judge. His "stupidity" is nothing more than an act. If you watch any Trump interview from the 1980s you will see an intelligent and totally rational man in action.

The Russian collusion is a side show-- important, but not nearly as important as the fact that a privately owned company run by a billionaire pulled off the mother of all social engineering operations on the 2016 election-- after proving the concept on Brexit.


I guess you aren't aware that the US basically organised a coup in Ukraine to install a pro-Western stooge?

Edited 2017-07-17 08:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by grandmasterphp on Mon 17th Jul 2017 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
grandmasterphp Member since:
2017-05-15

SSHHH, don't let them know too much about RealPolitik

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by ilovebeer on Mon 17th Jul 2017 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So you believe all the idiotic statements, all the idiotic tweets, all the idiotic decisions, all the idiocy across the board ... it's all for show. And that having (presumably) intelligent family members somehow magically make Donald Trump one himself. That's what you actually believe? That's an extremely elaborate hoax you think he's pulling off. Wouldn't it be far easier and better serving to the citizens of the US, and the world in general, if he didn't put on this "show" and didn't hide his vast knowledge & intelligence?

Or perhaps he really is the idiot he portrays because it isn't actually an act. The only thing he's mastered is the art of bullshit and as we all know, people love to buy into garbage as long as it comes in a half-convincing packaging.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by judgen
by grat on Mon 17th Jul 2017 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by judgen"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Trump is the nephew of a leading MIT EE Professor and the brother of a Federal Appeals judge. His "stupidity" is nothing more than an act. If you watch any Trump interview from the 1980s you will see an intelligent and totally rational man in action.


I find your lack of understanding of genetics disturbing. Further, while he may (or may not) have been intelligent in the 1980's, he's president 30+ years later, and hasn't displayed any particular brilliance since managing to go bankrupt off of his hotel and casino ventures.

I guess you aren't aware that the US basically organised a coup in Ukraine to install a pro-Western stooge?


Completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, regardless of veracity. Your equivalency isn't just false, it's meaningless in this context-- It's a bit like a murder suspect claiming innocence because the police officer shot someone else.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by judgen
by unclefester on Tue 18th Jul 2017 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by judgen"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I've got a research nasters in biotechnology. I guarantee I know far more about genetics than you do.

Politics is show business for ugly people. Most politicians, like actors, have a public persona and a privae one. Teddy Roosevelt was a sickly intellectual who pretended to be a tough guy. Kennedy was a sleazy moron who pretended to be an intellectual and Dubya was a privileged Ivy League insider who acted like a Texas yokel. Putin is a highly intelligent, multilingual lawyer and world class judoku - about as far from the KGB caricature as possible.

Trump is unusual because he shows his bad side in public and his good side in private. Those that know him well say he is charming and intelligent in private.

If you weren't completely ignorant of history you would be aware that Crimea has been Russian territory for over 400 years and that Russian claim on Eastern Crimea is just as strong and legitimate as the US claim on Teaxas or California.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by judgen
by _txf_ on Tue 18th Jul 2017 00:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by judgen"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17


Trump is unusual because he shows his bad side in public and his good side in private. Those that know him well say he is charming and intelligent in private.

lol

Given what we have heard from him when he didn't know he was being recorded completely disproves this.

Unless you're making the claim that all credible newspapers are completely 100% false in their reporting then this is a stupid stance. This is not even recent, there is a vast volume of reporting over decades that proves this.

The very notion that somebody would argue this makes their judgement questionable.

Edited 2017-07-18 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by judgen
by unclefester on Tue 18th Jul 2017 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by judgen"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You don't seem aware that 80-90% of Western journalists openly identify with the far left of politics.

Newspapers are in the business of confirmation bias. They simply tell their like-minded readers what they want to hear - that Trump is evil and stupid - and make no pretence of presenting a balanced story. [How many newspapers mentioned the fact that Trump was met by cheering crowds during his recent trip to Poland?]

AFAIK no mainstream newspaper journalist ever bothered to publicise JFKs womanising, mafia connections, apalling health, prescription drug abuse, total incompetence as the commander of PT109, lack of intellect or plagiarised speeches.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by grandmasterphp
by grandmasterphp on Mon 17th Jul 2017 09:54 UTC
grandmasterphp
Member since:
2017-05-15

Like it or not Trump won fair and square and ran a good campaign. He made sure he campaigned in the swing states, Clinton didn't. Clinton's campaign was terrible in comparison, she relied on a campaign of identity politics which as we all know didn't work.

With regards to brexit. It was pretty much a vote between those in the countryside that have been consistently screwed over by the EU and those in London. Most had already made up their minds well before any campaign started.

Edited 2017-07-17 10:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Mon 17th Jul 2017 15:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

grandmasterphp,

Like it or not Trump won fair and square and ran a good campaign. He made sure he campaigned in the swing states, Clinton didn't. Clinton's campaign was terrible in comparison, she relied on a campaign of identity politics which as we all know didn't work.



Well, there's no denying that Trump ran a terrible campaign too, especially among educated people. Hillary isn't relatable and it's quite apparent that trump's intellectual capacity is retarded. We can't forget that both candidates were extremely unpopular. Ultimately though trump won in the swing states that mattered.


This is nothing new, but arguably the electoral college is not fair because voters in red states count for more than voters in blue states. The democratic candidate has to overcome this bias. Obviously hillary won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC bias. Sucks for democrats, but those are the rules.

Another contributing factor is the political cycles. If you study US presidential history, it's extremely rare for a party win against the cycle and it's probably one of the best predictors of who will win. So for example, barrack obama was only able to win following a republican, he would not have been electable in an off cycle. For better or worse, it was the republican's turn to win.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by ilovebeer on Mon 17th Jul 2017 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by grandmasterphp"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Spot on. Unfortunately it needs to be spelled out to people who can't step back to see the bigger picture and instead get lost in the taglines and zingers.

Reply Score: 2

grandmasterphp Member since:
2017-05-15

Well, there's no denying that Trump ran a terrible campaign too, especially among educated people. Hillary isn't relatable and it's quite apparent that trump's intellectual capacity is retarded. We can't forget that both candidates were extremely unpopular. Ultimately though trump won in the swing states that mattered.


Trump spent a lot less money than Hillary and won by quite a large margin. So the facts don't mesh with your assertion it was terrible. The whole "Trump" is a dumbass I dunno how anyone can say with a straight face quite honestly.

This is nothing new, but arguably the electoral college is not fair because voters in red states count for more than voters in blue states. The democratic candidate has to overcome this bias. Obviously hillary won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC bias. Sucks for democrats, but those are the rules.


Yes but that is another discussion. The argument for the electoral college would be that those in "Red States" would likely never be represented as it would always be a democratic president if it was done by numbers.

Another contributing factor is the political cycles. If you study US presidential history, it's extremely rare for a party win against the cycle and it's probably one of the best predictors of who will win. So for example, barrack obama was only able to win following a republican, he would not have been electable in an off cycle. For better or worse, it was the republican's turn to win.


I dunno a lot of predictions put Bernie Winning against Trump if Bernie hadn't be shafted by his own party. Obviously we will never know. However it doesn't change the fact that Hillary's campaign was awful, also the democratic have split their supporter base because many that supported Sanders feel betrayed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Tue 18th Jul 2017 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

grandmasterphp,

Trump spent a lot less money than Hillary and won by quite a large margin. So the facts don't mesh with your assertion it was terrible. The whole "Trump" is a dumbass I dunno how anyone can say with a straight face quite honestly.


Keep in mind, bush jr. also won, even though he wasn't especially bright either. It's true her campaign raised more, his campaign raised $1B versus hillary's $1.4B, but being a TV celebrity also helped him get unparalleled airtime.


Yes but that is another discussion. The argument for the electoral college would be that those in "Red States" would likely never be represented as it would always be a democratic president if it was done by numbers.



There would still be two parties if everyone's vote counted equally, the politics would just have to align around the new center represented by a popular vote instead.


I dunno a lot of predictions put Bernie Winning against Trump if Bernie hadn't be shafted by his own party. Obviously we will never know. However it doesn't change the fact that Hillary's campaign was awful, also the democratic have split their supporter base because many that supported Sanders feel betrayed.


You are right, trump benefited from divisions in the democratic party. Don't know if you remember but something similar happened with ross perot taking substantial votes away from republicans and allowing bill clinton to win twice. If it weren't for perot, clinton probably didn't have the numbers to win a second term. If the democratic party doesn't stand unified, they could loose votes again in 2020.


I'm a large proponent of switching to a rank vote so that voters could vote for the candidates and parties they really want instead of feeling obliged to vote between candidates they dislike. Heck even trump himself was for voting reform... until he got elected. And of course that's the problem with politicians including trump, they do what's best for them instead of what's best for the country.

Edited 2017-07-18 00:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

grandmasterphp Member since:
2017-05-15

Keep in mind, bush jr. also won, even though he wasn't especially bright either. It's true her campaign raised more, his campaign raised $1B versus hillary's $1.4B, but being a TV celebrity also helped him get unparalleled airtime.


According to bloomberg he raised half of what she had:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campai...

There is this myth that George Bush was extremely stupid if you watch video years before he became president he comes across quite well. I suspect he was far past his prime.

There would still be two parties if everyone's vote counted equally, the politics would just have to align around the new center represented by a popular vote instead.


Most politics is around the centre. There isn't really anything approaching Right wing (David Cameron and Tony Blaire wasn't that politically different) in the UK and politics are generally being moved to the left in the anglosphere for quite a while. A lot of what is called right wing these days is simply slightly right of centre.

You are right, trump benefited from divisions in the democratic party. Don't know if you remember but something similar happened with ross perot taking substantial votes away from republicans and allowing bill clinton to win twice. If it weren't for perot, clinton probably didn't have the numbers to win a second term. If the democratic party doesn't stand unified, they could loose votes again in 2020.


They won't win in 2020 because they are have doubled down on identity politics. Hillary pissed off a lot of people with her "basket of deplorables" and what I have seen from Democrats so far they haven't seen to have got the message that most people don't like identity politics.

Also her campaign team managed to get trolled by 4chan which was still the funniest part of the election.

4chan are still trolling them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpVGmi5Sbek

Edited 2017-07-18 03:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Tue 18th Jul 2017 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

grandmasterphp,

According to bloomberg he raised half of what she had:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campai.....


The washington post data generally agrees except for the fundrasing committees, which is significantly higher for both parties. It's possible bloomberg didn't have all the data in at the time it published:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campa...

Not to negate your point though, historically the democratic party does outspend the republican party. It could be because of the electoral college bias mentioned earlier.


To be honest campaigns have been disappointing all around. They should focus on solid plans that make our lives better, but instead they focus personal attacks that are designed to distract from the issues. Trump really showed aptitude for plan avoidance, dragging opponents through the mud, and getting television ratings, but that isn't enough to run the country. Without a solid plan the US risks becoming less relevant on the world stage.

There is this myth that George Bush was extremely stupid if you watch video years before he became president he comes across quite well. I suspect he was far past his prime.


...you could say the same about trump I guess, haha.

Reply Score: 2

grandmasterphp Member since:
2017-05-15

[quote]Trump really showed aptitude for plan avoidance, dragging opponents through the mud, and getting television ratings[/quote]

As for personal attacks, Trump had it from day one from pretty much everyone and some of the stuff that said was pretty disgusting tbh (especially those insinuating that he had some sort of incestuous relationship with his daughter).

You know what the real genius was, he managed to basically turn most of this around in his favour. e.g. He managed to get the more left wing media outlets to transmit an entire rally as he was going to say something about the birther conspiracy theory, which he left deliberately to after the rally and said one sentence saying that he didn't believe it was true anymore. He effectively got his whole rally televised without paying a penny.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Wed 19th Jul 2017 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

grandmasterphp,

As for personal attacks, Trump had it from day one from pretty much everyone and some of the stuff that said was pretty disgusting tbh (especially those insinuating that he had some sort of incestuous relationship with his daughter).


This has nothing to do with me or anyone else posting here. Go ahead and condemn personal attacks like that, but at least be consistent and condemn trump for doing it too!

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Dubya had a higher SAT score and a higher GPA than Al Gore. He was also a Harvard MBA and ANG fighter pilot. His IQ is most likely around 130.

If a Republican POTUS had a MIT PhD, a Fields Medal and unshared Nobel Prizes in Physics and Literature the press would still claim he was a moron.

Former conservative Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar is commonly portrayed as an idiot in the Australian press.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Tue 18th Jul 2017 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

unclefester,

If a Republican POTUS had a MIT PhD, a Fields Medal and unshared Nobel Prizes in Physics and Literature the press would still claim he was a moron.



Not at all, you've read me wrong. My criticisms aren't based on political parties, but rather their own actions.

Some republican principals can make a lot of sense, but there are too many unethical men running the party who are not acting in the interests of constituents (not entirely unlike the democratic party), and for this the middle class will suffer.

Edited 2017-07-18 06:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The reality is that virtually every President in history has been above average in intelligence and a handful have been highly intelligent. Almost all have had an IQ in the 120-140 range. In general their performance in the role was inversely proportional to their intellect.

However if you read the mainstream press you'd think that every Democrat has been a genius and every Republican has been a moron. There is even a hoax website that has claims Clinton had an IQ of 182 and GW Bush had an IQ of 91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by grandmasterphp
by Alfman on Tue 18th Jul 2017 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by grandmasterphp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

unclefester,

The reality is that virtually every President in history has been above average in intelligence and a handful have been highly intelligent. Almost all have had an IQ in the 120-140 range. In general their performance in the role was inversely proportional to their intellect.

However if you read the mainstream press you'd think that every Democrat has been a genius and every Republican has been a moron. There is even a hoax website that has claims Clinton had an IQ of 182 and GW Bush had an IQ of 91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax


Don't see what any of that has to do with me, to be honest. The "mainstream press" is not the reason trump looks dumb to many people. The reason trump looks dumb is because he never has a thorough plan, he certainly can't articulate one. When confronted over his lack of substance does he ever give a strong rebuttal? No he doesn't, he just lashes out like a bully and seemingly cannot make a convincing argument on it's own merit, preferring to pivot and blaming everyone else for everything.

Sure he would claim to have an intelligent plan, the best and most intelligent plan even, but anyone who's looking for substance will see this is a man who's used to lying about how great he is to get his way. And I know trump supporters would like nothing more than to blame everyone else (like the media), but maybe they should take a moment to reflect and consider that their candidate really isn't as good as they wish he were.

Edited 2017-07-18 14:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Sanders was not shafted. That was made up bullshit. He lost the primary based on the votes he received just like Hillary lost in 2008 based on the votes she received.

Reply Score: 2

grandmasterphp Member since:
2017-05-15

Yes he was.

Reply Score: 1

v Apple Customer Support
by AppleSupport12 on Mon 17th Jul 2017 10:17 UTC
Old TV series "Mission Impossible"...
by dionicio on Mon 17th Jul 2017 14:22 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Used to display agents performing perfect voice and mask impersonations. Still not there, but media legitimacy is today an expert's field.

As said before, analog has a place ;) That 8mm film "Yeti" had to be performed...

AI is going to bring definitively new challenges to forensics.

Edited 2017-07-17 14:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

The New in these news is that AI is helping to "select" the best fakes among the fakes. It's bringing "expertize" to the mases. AI is the new shining tool -not only at finding crime- but also, to commit it.

Reply Score: 2

dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

AI being so organic, not being right or wrong, just better or worst fitted to the task. The issue of catching it on the mix becomes a hunch, a feeling -a matter of art-.

Feel personal uncomfort on this non asked intimacy with technology.

Reply Score: 2

Nothing really new here
by Dr.Cyber on Mon 17th Jul 2017 15:42 UTC
Dr.Cyber
Member since:
2017-06-17

They have been lying to us using fake images and fake video's on the mainstream media for decades. And now I am supposed to be worried about fake news from amateurs on the internet? People are going to believe what the elite wants them to anyway. If fake news on the internet from amateurs really was so powerful then the elite would just hire a few random actors, give them an authoritative position as scientist or some other authoritative job, and make them tell us whatever they want us to believe on the news, science shows, or something else like that. Most people would believe them based on their position of authority much like people in some religions believe their priests based on their authoritative position.

Contrary to popular belief, people have not outgrown ignorance and gullibility just because they have outgrown the church. They just replaced the church with another system of blind faith. You can see your new priests on news channels and science shows every day. It's the same trick in new clothes. A new blind faith system replaces the old one.
So really fake news is nothing new.

The only way to save people from fake news is to make people think for themselves so they can defend themselves against it. Censorship is useless, because it requires giving some entity the power to censor whatever it wants and if that entity consists of humans then it will most likely abuse that power to promote it's own fake news sooner or later.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nothing really new here
by cdude on Tue 18th Jul 2017 01:01 UTC in reply to "Nothing really new here"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Well nailed down.

Reply Score: 2

lol
by Tuishimi on Tue 18th Jul 2017 01:32 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Says the person who writes "I think android is a dead end, but I don't know why".

Reply Score: 3

Obama lip sync
by Adurbe on Tue 18th Jul 2017 08:27 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/12/scarily-convincing...

Take examples like this, where words are put into the mouth of the leader of a country in such a believable way, once posted on youtube (which is not vetted) then a generated video can quickly become viral. True or not, it can change perceptions, reinforce stereotypes, or worse. By the time it is "stopped" the damage is already done.

Edited 2017-07-18 08:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Obama lip sync
by dionicio on Tue 18th Jul 2017 14:19 UTC in reply to "Obama lip sync"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"By the time it is "stopped" the damage is already done. "

Few BIG actors have the resources to detect those "documents" on the wild. Even fewer have the resources to stop them.

We are living a global war on truths. This is WAR.

Reply Score: 2

bs
by icicle on Thu 20th Jul 2017 18:02 UTC
icicle
Member since:
2013-12-07

"The current US president managed to "win" the elections by spouting an endless barrage of obvious lies, and the entire Brexit campaign was built on a web of obvious deceit and dishonesty."

NOW THAT IS FAKE NEWS. WHAT UTTER BS!

Want proof?

What lies are you referring to?

What deceit are you referring to?

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. You're just parroting the mainstream media garbage.

Reply Score: 1