But neither of them claimed these were the official unemployment figures. Both were stating YOUTH unemployment, which I think every sane person knows is a different figure and it's entirely possible for it to vastly differ from the national figure - which includes all the not-yet-retired baby-boomers and all the thirty-somethings and forty-somethings.
The numbers stated by Sanders and Trump also contradict the BLS numbers for youth unemployment by a wide margin.
Losing credibility with the alt-right is really not something I would be concerned about - it should be a badge of honour if a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists think you aren't credible - because the things they DO find credible are crazy conspiracy theories.
This statement may have been insightful, when alt-right readers were a small, noisy minority. Allow me to remind you that this 'basket of deplorables', or whatever you call them here, just won the presidential election, and right wing nutcases pour into high ranking offices and functions like it's a bath tub drain.
Allow me to also remind you that according to Reuters, which is not exactly an alt-right news outlet, main stream media enjoy credibility with about 30% of US people, and that many people turn to facebook news feeds intentionally and exactly, because they trust shared breitbart news stories more than New York Times or CNN. The MSM narrative of "we are liberal, modern and left wing, therefore we are correct at all times, so we have no need to prove this to right wing imbeciles" no longer works with the general public.
The simple fact is - after actually reading both articles I completely agree with those scores.
Sanders' statement may not have been literally wrong, but it was used in an intentionally misleading way. And Sanders' statement is only correct, when it comes with an explanation such as that offered by politifact, which it didn't come with originally. Stated in isolation it is meant to be interpreted as a number comparable to BLS numbers, which it clearly isn't. In conjunction these two numbers together with politifact's judgment made the fact checking crews vulnerable to dismissal and ridicule by alt-right sites, thereby making them widely ineffective in reaching alt-right minds and hearts when Trump's campaign blurted out gross falsehoods.
The trump campaign gave no indication of where it got the figure - politifact made a sincere effort to see if there was anything that could support it, found something that came sort of close but assessed that the figure really wasn't a valid representation.
Trump's campaign didn't bother with arguing their case with politifact, instead they trashed politifact in their loyal news outlets, and thereby avoided not only the debate about these unemployment numbers, but exposure of all other falsehoods put forward by Trump and his campaign. You may not endorse this strategy, but hell, did it work!
You do realize that this example could be entirely reasonable right ? 51 and 50 are MASSIVELY different figures.
LIterally the difference is higher than the entire official unemployment number for the whole COUNTRY.
Both numbers are much, much further away from official BLS statistics numbers than they are apart from each other, so there is a good chance that both numbers are vastly overstated. Every college student, who does some work on the side, is likely included in both these numbers, although no reasonable person would include them in a credible unemployment statistic.
Allow me to tell you, why both Sanders' and Trump's number is dangerously wrong: people got BLS statistics for years, and learned to correlate these numbers with their real world experience, as in '10% unemployment means x amount of felonies committed per block and year, y% of shops closing due to lack of customers, z amount of less disposable income because wages come down'.
If someone then puts out a much higher number based on totally different assumptions, which both Trump and Sanders did, people will interpret this number as a huge lingering problem. Guess what, both candidates tried to achieve exactly this when they stated these numbers, create excessive alarm in their audience in order to further their own political agenda.
Politifact could have pointed this out, and could have put both numbers into the myth bag, instead they put on their 'Bernie can say nothing wrong' hat and created a discrepancy, which the whole alt-right media cluster wrote about. Instead of dealing with the fallout from this, main stream media still blathered about 'the necessity of fact checking', when fact checking had already lost every trace of credibility in alt-right circles.
An example commonly quoted in alt-right media is Bernie Sander's vs. Donald Trump's number for unemployment among African-American youths. Bernie Sanders claimed "over 51%", and that number was confirmed as "Mostly True" by fact checking site politifact.com. Trump's very similar sounding statement "59%", however, was judged as "Mostly False" by the same site.
Obviously there are differences in wording between Sander's and Trump's statements, which may make one statement more trustworthy than the other one, but the overall impression remains, that fact checking is not always done in a neutral way. As a result, alt-right media had a free path to discredit all fact checking sites, making the important task of fact checking mostly irrelevant and ineffective in these circles.
Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.
So, as a result, it basically becomes a dumping ground for all this crap.
Thus, when examples are pointed out to them, all they can do is nix the examples.
Wikileaks has withstood countless efforts to get their site offline, sometime by dedicated groups and/or state sponsored actors. You may remember how all hell broke loose with cablegate, including DDOS and Senator Lieberman's call to Amazon. Calling Wikileaks incompetent at security is completely ridiculous.
I bet that the whole thing went down like this: author of this backchannel article wanted to rag on Wikileaks for their dissemination of personal details, and wanted to bring up email #117 as prime example (medical bill!!) and got infected herself for lack of security competence. Author then contacted some security outfit to perform a security evaluation, security outfit performed a simple virus scan. Author then cooked up a click bait article, how Wikileaks is out there to recklessly infect everyone with malware.
Let's face it: Wikileaks is plenty competent securitywise, as evidenced by their very presence for so many years. They expect their readers, especially professional journalists scouring their site to bring at least a moderate skill set to the table, and Mrs. Upson apparently failed miserably.
Riyadh al-Adhadh is not some random raghead insurgent whom Laura suddenly decided to fund. He was the primary focus of her film 'My Country, My Country', so little surprise that she was in contact with him and supported him. He was jailed for months on false terrorism charges, and apparently still served as Baghdad Provincial Council Chairman last year.
Evidently she knew him better than the whole bunch of all-seing, all-scanning, all-collecting, "we need to listen to your granny or we can't catch the terrorists" three letter agencies together. We should all sit down and weep in despair, if this wire transfer is still the reason for the ongoing harassment Laura on every single flight.
*** Yes, he did flee. The claim that Assange was "free to go" as promulgated by Björn Hurtig, a former attorney of Assange's. He tried that same line in court and got smacked down by the judge for trying to deceive the court, and then got an official reprimand from the Swedish Bar Association.
I can't confirm or deny your claim here, but the link you provide doesn't confirm it either:
Riddle was referring to testimony in which Hurtig had said he had been unable to contact Assange last year when he was sought by Swedish prosecutors for questioning.
Nothing is said about whether Assange was free to leave Sweden or not, but a court order banning you from leaving the country usually means you hand over your passport. Since the UK is not part of the Schengen Area, he would have needed a passport to enter the UK from Sweden.
IIRC, AWS ditched wikileaks.org like a hot potatoe after a simple phone call by some US official. Of all the services suggested here, AWS would probably be the last service one should look at for this purpose.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken