Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Fake News

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fake News

    After a devastating election cycle and polls that show that 7 out of 10 people distrust them, the Main Stream Media and left wing social media outlets have resorted to a new tactic to censor anything that is opposed to their opinion. News sites that report stories unfavorable to liberals have to be "fake news" sites. Of course there are many real stories out there that the MSM does not want you to hear about and that they do not cover. When one of the so called Fake News sites covers these stories, it makes the MSM look bad. The misuse of the H1b visa system is and example of this. Employers bring in H1b visa employees at a lower cost than existing employees and force existing employees to train them to take over their jobs. Google and Facebook are major users of H1b visa employees and they have a vested interest in this story not reaching the light of day. When a Fake News site publishes this fact, it endangers their bottom line. Google and Face Book have both initiated efforts to keep Fake News sites from benefiting from ad revenue linked to their sites.

    When liberals can't control the conversation one way, they attempt to shut the conversation down.

  • #2
    The democratic party along with the GOP are neoliberal. That must be understood first in order to make sense of it. Then you have a separate deal within the neoliberal democratic party that are obsessed with social issues, to a point of it being a mental affliction.

    There is a revolt building against neoliberal, here, in Europe, and the reaction against neoliberal globalization which seeks to bottom out wages globally is not covered by MSM nor FOX in any significant manner. These reactions can be either a move to the right or to the left. This is what happens when you turn economies over to the most powerful lobby in the world, big banking.

    All of MSM supports this neoliberalism. Then the liberal MSM also supports modern liberalism, so there are two things at work here, which corrupt the media. Not a single network ever covered the devastation of globalization on those that labor for wages. That should illustrate what the media is, as 6 big corporations now own all of the big media in this nation. So, the same people that used gov't to get globalization also own the media. This is the fascism of Mussolini. The world is owned and run by a small group of very rich people, the new robber barons. It will use modern liberalism, and modern conservatism in order to get what it wants. A good example is, neoliberalism wants open borders to depress wages as free trade depresses wages. They find people on the left who want to have open borders for philosophical reasons, and they use people on the right who want open borders because it is pro business. So when both the left and the right want it, we have open borders. These neoliberal globalists are very clever. Same goes for free trade. The left wants to give the poor overseas our jobs, and the right want it too, but for different reasons. Now throw in the media. No wonder the media has not covered what open borders free trade is doing to people who must work for their bread. This is causing disruption here, in Europe. We got trump, the UK got Brexit, France is looking to elect a right winger, Spain is in political turmoil, Italy, and others. All in reaction to neoliberalism open borders free trade and the depression of wages which is what open borders free trade does.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      The left wants to give the poor overseas our jobs...
      What makes them "ours"?

      ?


      • #4
        I don't think you quite understand what fake news is.
        Fake news isn't that it's unfavourable to one side or the other it's that it's easily proven to be completely false and this was seen in record numbers during this election because people are getting news from Facebook which is completely unfiltered.
        If you can't work out why fake news is a problem then I'm not sure what to add as it's pretty bloody obvious why it's a bad thing for everyone.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37983571

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
          I don't think you quite understand what fake news is.
          Fake news isn't that it's unfavourable to one side or the other it's that it's easily proven to be completely false and this was seen in record numbers during this election because people are getting news from Facebook which is completely unfiltered.
          If you can't work out why fake news is a problem then I'm not sure what to add as it's pretty bloody obvious why it's a bad thing for everyone.
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37983571
          Yes, but what saintly individual do you put in charge of declaring news real or fake. Certainly not Mark Zuckerberg or one of his algorithms.

          The problem of a 24hr news cycle and several cable channels is that they have to fill the time with lots of commentators who each get to speculate on what might happen, and each of those speculations have a small chance of happening, but nevertheless becomes a headline to article that no one will read, but a few individuals, well within their 1st amendment right, will share, and the idea will spread. Both sides do it, but only one side tries to censor it when they lose. I guarantee you that this would not be an issue if Hillary won.

          ?


          • #6
            Do you seriously need an explanation of how news can and is verified though various sources versus fake news that can be proven to be untrue?
            News or pictures spread by Bob down the road don't have the same level of trustworthiness as news from a reputable news organisation who can get cross checked by other such outlets throughout the world. Is that really that hard to understand?
            If a news story can easily be proven to be false it's pretty obvious it's fake news and yes it would indeed still be an issue if She won in fact I'd argue it would be a bigger issue than it is now as Republicans are desperately trying to buyr and discredit this idea and you being the good follower you are are falling for their speel hook line and sinker.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              Do you seriously need an explanation of how news can and is verified though various sources versus fake news that can be proven to be untrue?
              News or pictures spread by Bob down the road don't have the same level of trustworthiness as news from a reputable news organisation who can get cross checked by other such outlets throughout the world. Is that really that hard to understand?
              If a news story can easily be proven to be false it's pretty obvious it's fake news and yes it would indeed still be an issue if She won in fact I'd argue it would be a bigger issue than it is now as Republicans are desperately trying to buyr and discredit this idea and you being the good follower you are are falling for their speel hook line and sinker.
              Do you not understand that most of the so called fake news is emanating from the so called "reputable" news organizations, because there isn't enough voices calling them out on it? The mainstream media has lost all credibility because all they do is report spin, half truths, no truths, and innuendo, until they have just as much credibility as Bob down the road. Is that really that hard to understand?

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                Do you seriously need an explanation of how news can and is verified though various sources versus fake news that can be proven to be untrue?
                News or pictures spread by Bob down the road don't have the same level of trustworthiness as news from a reputable news organisation who can get cross checked by other such outlets throughout the world. Is that really that hard to understand?
                If a news story can easily be proven to be false it's pretty obvious it's fake news and yes it would indeed still be an issue if She won in fact I'd argue it would be a bigger issue than it is now as Republicans are desperately trying to buyr and discredit this idea and you being the good follower you are are falling for their speel hook line and sinker.
                The problem comes when liberals like Zuckerberg and Bezos and Page start to decide what is and what is not "fake news." For example, Breitbart has been declared by them as a fake news site as has the Blaze. Both present true stories that these people disagree with or don't want to see the light of day. If you simply read the MSM you would know little of the Clinton missing emails or their discovery on Weiner's computer for example.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  Do you seriously need an explanation of how news can and is verified though various sources versus fake news that can be proven to be untrue?
                  News or pictures spread by Bob down the road don't have the same level of trustworthiness as news from a reputable news organisation who can get cross checked by other such outlets throughout the world. Is that really that hard to understand?
                  If a news story can easily be proven to be false it's pretty obvious it's fake news and yes it would indeed still be an issue if She won in fact I'd argue it would be a bigger issue than it is now as Republicans are desperately trying to buyr and discredit this idea and you being the good follower you are are falling for their speel hook line and sinker.
                  The best place to hide a lie is between two truths. If you don't realize this is the standard operating procedure of the mainstream media, you really need to self-evaluate.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Here is a prime example of New York Times spin on a story:
                    Iraqis Welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS, but Fear It May Backfire

                    What they are really saying is Iraqis welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS but we hope it backfires and makes him look bad.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      How obvious does a mainstream media ploy have to be before even they have to point it out?;

                      But the recent outrage about fake news stories is not really about fake news. Its about something much more insidious: silencing news or opinion that is not left-leaning.

                      Established outlets like New York Magazine are circulating a blacklist of fake news websites to watch out for. Nearly all of the cited examples are conservative sites, and many like Breitbart News, Independent Journal Review, and Michelle Malkins Twitchy, are far from fake.

                      Breitbart News, for example, invests ample resources in hiring full time real reporters who produce unique and interesting content. Sure, liberals may not like some of Breitbarts headlines, but the sites hard news stories are substantive and factual.

                      The left-leaning mainstream media is losing readership and credibility by the day (Americans trust in the mass media dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history this September) and now theyre panicking. These outlets are provoking outrage to pressure Facebook into silencing conservative blogs and news sites, which have been conveniently labeled fake, because they see it as an opportunity to stomp out competition.

                      But mainstream outlets only have themselves to blame for their dwindling traffic, influence, and ability to control the political narrative. During the 2016, the mainstream media was flagrant in its bias. Donald Trump was attacked ad nauseum, while Clintons scandals were largely downplayed or given a free pass.
                      The media needs to get off their 'fake news' false narrative






                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Here is a prime example of New York Times spin on a story:
                        Iraqis Welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS, but Fear It May Backfire

                        What they are really saying is Iraqis welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS but we hope it backfires and makes him look bad.
                        I don't see a problem with this headline as Iraq has hardly been a great place to live for the last 100 years so if I lived there I'd also fear that any plan however well intention-ed (my spell checker has a hyphen in this and I'm sure that's wrong) may go tits-up.
                        Did you honestly expect Iraqi's to say they think the future is going to be fantastic whoever you voted for?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                          I don't see a problem with this headline as Iraq has hardly been a great place to live for the last 100 years so if I lived there I'd also fear that any plan however well intention-ed (my spell checker has a hyphen in this and I'm sure that's wrong) may go tits-up.
                          Did you honestly expect Iraqi's to say they think the future is going to be fantastic whoever you voted for?
                          There was absolutely no reason to add that last line. It was just their opinion and their spin on the story. They could just as easily have said "Iraqis welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS and remain hopeful. The negative "fear it may backfire" was just meant to put a negative on the story.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
                            How obvious does a mainstream media ploy have to be before even they have to point it out?;


                            The media needs to get off their 'fake news' false narrative





                            I think The Hill was one of the sites on the left wing's Fake News sites.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                              There was absolutely no reason to add that last line. It was just their opinion and their spin on the story. They could just as easily have said "Iraqis welcome Trumps Stance on ISIS and remain hopeful. The negative "fear it may backfire" was just meant to put a negative on the story.
                              Do you honestly think any plan has much chance success in Iraq at the moment?
                              Optimism is all well and good but I can see why people may fear the worst at all times and I'd imagine the headline would have been the same had Hillary won as she doesn't have a magic wand to sort the region either. Recent history tells us that betting on failure is likely a winning bet.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X