AP: Trump considering mobilizing National Guard as deportation force

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 11:52am

The White House is denying this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-national-guard-immigrants_us_58a71356e4b037d17d271bcb?

[Petralicious]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 12:00pm

#FAKENEWS

DRUDGE top headline that its fake,  

This goes to my earlier point about untrustly news media with a biased agenda.

It is why Trump goes around the media and attacks it. It worked on the campaign.  Not sure if it will work now, but hes all in. 
 

Updated On: 2/17/17 at 12:00 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 12:02pm

Is that even legal?

And I have no doubt such a memo exists, and that this policy was discussed. No doubt at all. 

[Kad]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 12:38pm

Petralicious said: "#FAKENEWS

DRUDGE top headline that its fake,  

This goes to my earlier point about untrustly news media with a biased agenda.

It is why Trump goes around the media and attacks it. It worked on the campaign.  Not sure if it will work now, but hes all in. 
"

So your source that the news is fake is another news source, one that has an extremely long history of extremely biased and sensational coverage?

 

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 12:43pm

The originating source for this story is the Associated Press.  I have no trouble deciding whether to believe the AP or the Trump administration.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:10pm

 

I think the AP might have been punked. SCROTUS & Co. are hell-bent on proving that the press is always wrong. They're upset about leaks, so they're gonna be leaking false news themselves. 

 

It's classic Soviet-style disinformation.

 

Updated On: 2/17/17 at 01:10 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:19pm

So your source that the news is fake is another news source, one that has an extremely long history of extremely biased and sensational coverage?

Right.  "Fake news" is commonly defined as news that is not considered to be following a conservative agenda or more specifically at times, the desires of Captain Creamsicle.  It really has little to do with fact or the media in general.  While the meme of #FAKENEWS is a recent conservative trend, the  concept has been around for a long time.  Pretending this is some recent issue that has risen to critical mass is an example of "fake news", though it won't be acknowledge as #FAKENEWS by the right, who conveniently ignore the moniker "Faux News" that has been around MUCH longer.  

Let's get something very clear.  Captain Creamsicle only attacks the media when they do not do and say what he wants at every given moment.  He is not interested in facts or factual reporting.  He never has been and never will be.  He is only interested in reports that favor him, with zero regard to truth or fact.  He has made that abundantly clear, most recently with his press conference.  

Updated On: 2/17/17 at 01:19 PM

[Petralicious]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:29pm

Mister Matt said: "ight.  "Fake news" is commonly defined as news that is not considered to be following a conservative agenda or more specifically at times, the desires of Captain Creamsicle.  It really has little to do with fact or the media in general.  While the meme of #FAKENEWS is a recent conservative trend, the  concept has been around for a long time.  Pretending this is some recent issue that has risen to critical mass is an example of "fake news", though it won't be acknowledge as #FAKENEWS by the right, who conveniently ignore the moniker "Faux News" that has been around MUCH longer.  

 

 

"Nice Try Matt butThe Clinton Campaign, and the DNC were the ones who made the phrase popular.  They used it as as one of the reasons they lost.  The FakeNews gathered on Facebook and Social Media. But the right has adopted it to great effect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html?_r=0

Updated On: 2/17/17 at 01:29 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:37pm

Trump & Co said they won't be mobilizing the National Guard.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't considered, and a proposal drawn up.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:49pm

I apologize.  I left out a word that further clarifies my post:

"Fake news" is now commonly defined as news that is not considered to be following a conservative agenda or more specifically at times, the desires of Captain Creamsicle. 

The right did indeed adopt it.  They redefined it in order to popularize it without regard to legitimacy.  The "great effect" you infer is in the right's liberal usage of "fake news" to define anything in the media that does not favor them, which is altering its meaning and therefore, not the same thing.  

The relatively recent trend of using "literally" as a word to mean the opposite of its definition is not what I would call using the word to "great effect", but I can see how you would consider the right's new usage of "fake news" to be something of "great effect".  That is a perfect example of the new definition of #FAKENEWS.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 1:52pm

Trump & Co said they won't be mobilizing the National Guard.

Even less reliable than the "Mainstream Media" or "fake news".

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 2:11pm

They are denying it, but there is indeed a memo from DHS that has Secretary Kelly's name on it, so it was at some point considered.

They are playing a game with the press though- the White House was asked for comment multiple times and declined, only to denounce the story as fake when published. It's really devious and will no doubt undermine the credibility of the media to his supporters even further. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 3:27pm

Petralicious said: "Nice Try Matt butThe Clinton Campaign, and the DNC were the ones who made the phrase popular.  They used it as as one of the reasons they lost.  The FakeNews gathered on Facebook and Social Media. But the right has adopted it to great effect."

Here are some things that were rightly called "fake news":

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/top-fake-news-of-2016?utm_term=.ieaaJmOZ50#.fbo13lXMo6

Using the same label to condemn all of CNN, or the media in general, is simply a lie. It is a scary, dishonest, and frankly evil ploy to make Trump's own lies be taken as the truth, because any media outlet that questions his claims are obviously fake.

Yes, I'm thinking some really scary thoughts these days. "Any means necessary" are words that cross my mind hundreds of times a day.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 3:56pm

The document in question does, in fact, exist.  So, the Trump administration told yet another lie when they flatly denied its existence.  The White House and DHS were both asked for comment by the AP before the story ran.  Both declined, then publicly denied it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-associated-press-national-guard_us_58a73fa6e4b045cd34c15611?5refy1klwjnu92j4i&

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 4:10pm

So, once again, not "FAKE NEWS" as Petra would want us to believe. 

[Kad]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 4:37pm

The recent term "fake news" is something that can be very easily defined, as it was referring to something very specific. kdogg posted a link with clear examples. Poorly composed sensationalist articles with clear partisan slants written to support an eye-catching headline, with no citation, often claimed to be written by untrackable authors and posted to fly-by-night sites with false credentials.

Actual news sources can certainly be wrong. It happens. That doesn't make them fake. The intention is not to generate fake things, but to report as accurately as possible at the time of writing.

And in this case, this story was not fake. It came from a document that actually exists and was released to a very credible news source, the AP.

The Trump administration did not want to comment on the document to the AP, thereby neither confirming nor denying anything, so the story ran. So now they can claim it's false, despite apparently being aware it was going to be reported. They could have easily told the AP "this was a draft, it was never really considered" (which is apparently the case). If they had, maybe the story would never have ran. Or it would've looked much different. But they didn't. Because right now, the only red meat Trump can throw to his base is his railing against those awful liars in the press.

In effect, they set it up to knock it down.

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/17/17 at 5:36pm

 

Just because it was released to the AP doesn't mean the AP should have run with it. That AP reporter was clearly "burned" by his or her source, just so the Trump Administration could claim a victory.

As was the custom with previous administrations, these documents are drafted by outside think tanks who are pushing for legislation. Most of them are tossed aside by the people they are submitted to. Whoever "leaked" this one was playing the AP reporter for a fool.