id
stringlengths 4
7
| query
stringlengths 166
33.3k
| answer
stringclasses 3
values | choices
sequencelengths 3
3
| gold
int64 0
2
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
FMD2000 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: This past week saw one of the most colorful debates regarding the CNN and US mainstream media meltdown over the Russia-gate conspiracy.CrossTalk says: Trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low. But no one should be surprised and the media has itself to blame. This sad state of affairs is a self-inflicted wound and actually a conscious business model. The media no longer has an interest in reporting news media today propagates ideology. Host Peter Lavele is CrossTalking with guests Eric Alterman (Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress), Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire), and Lionel (Lionel Media). Watch:. READ MORE CNN FAKE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire CNN FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2001 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: During another one of his seemingly made-up-as-he-goes stump speeches, Donald Trump attacked President Obama s environmental agenda while zeroing in on his own hair. Trump blamed Obama for banning Trump s brand of hairspray.You can t use hairspray, because hairspray is going to affect the ozone. I m trying to figure out, let s see, I m in my room in New York City, and I wanna put a little spray so that I can [gestures like his combing his hair]. Right? But I hear they don t want me to use hairspray. They want me to use the pump, because the other one which I really like better than going like bing bing bing. Then it comes out in big globs, like oh my God, I gotta take a shower again, my hair s all screwed up. Right? I wanna use hairspray. They say don t use hairspray, it s bad for the ozone. So I m sitting in this concealed apartment this concealed unit, you know, I really do live in a very nice apartment, right? But it s sealed! It s beautiful. I don t think anything gets out. And I m not supposed to be using hairspray.Trump went on to criticize Obama for traveling around the world in Air Force One, leaving a huge carbon footprint not realizing, of course, that Obama as well as Al Gore, by the way, buys carbon offsets to compensate for the pollution created by their various modes of transportation. And even if he didn t, the president requires Air Force One to do his job. Likewise, the Defense Department has noted on numerous occasions the national security threat posed by the climate crisis. Would Trump blame the military for using fossil fuels in their vehicles? I certainly hope not.But back to Trump s hair. Aerosol hairspray using chlorofluorocarbons were discontinued in the 1970s, long before Obama was inaugurated. All new non-CFC aerosol hairspray is readily available in stores, but it doesn t contain any ozone-depleting chemicals any more. Meanwhile, the hole in the ozone is closing, and is expected to disappear by the end of the 21st Century. Trump doesn t know this or if he does, he s lying to his people, assuming they re too dumb to know about something that ended in the 1970s. Featured image via video screen grab. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2002 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: This copy of the Antifa Manual, that is used by the George Soros funded, violent, anti-American, anti free-speech radical group, was allegedly found on the Evergreen College campus. The content of this manual is disturbing and should be read by every American, so we understand what we are up against. It helps to explain why these groups call our President and his supporters Hitler or racists or homophobes. It s not that Trump or his supporters are any of these things, it s just part of a campaign to humiliate and shut down any opposition to radicals whose ultimate goal is a one world order and the destruction of capitalism in America. This manual gives every day Americans a look into the mind of a leftist radical who hates America and everything Americans stand for. They clearly have no regard for free-speech and are willing to use any means necessary, including deceit, outright lies and of course, violence to achieve their ultimate goals of a New World Order.This page explains how Antifa members are to use name-calling as a means to create a culture of tolerance. When all else fails, compare someone to Hitler. Next they discuss how to use ones minority status, and to remember that you are Black first and American second. or Gay/Lesbian first and American third and so on.It s important to gain control of the media through any means necessary.Some major media conglomerates are swinging to our side, but they have not gone far enough.It s no coincidence that CNN just published a fluff piece on Antifa today: Unmasking the leftist Antifa movementThe CNN piece was clearly written to shed a sympathetic light on the violent group that s been caught attacking and harming so many innocent Americans, many of them were harmed by Antifa for defending free speech and/or our President Donald J. Trump.Look for the leftist media to kick it into high gear when it comes to defending the violence perpetrated on innocent Americans by the violent Antifa group. More of these soft pieces on the radical Antifa group are sure to be popping up over the next several months.If you are seeking positions of power in the media, be sure to obfuscate and hide your true intentions on the various social media platforms.Use social media as a baton to slap down anyone who hold fascist viewpoints. Call them racist, homophobic, misogynistic. Create an echo chamber around you.The next step is to threaten the livelihood of anyone who dares speak out against our agenda.The pro-abortion page: This page talks about how white people are able to afford to have their fetuses aborted, while people of color have little choice but to keep a baby to term.And finally, the ultimate goal is a New World Order and a New World Government where hatred and bigotry no longer exist. Imagine, if Antifa could figure out a way through George Soros funded activity, to shut down the rights of every American using violence and hatred at tools, their dream might just be possible until they wake up and realize of course, that most Americans don t hate this country and aren t interested in Antifa s special brand of violence and chaos. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2003 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did Travis Kelce Post Expletive About Trump on X? Claim summaries: The Kansas City Chiefs football player allegedly criticized the former president's comments on NATO.
contextual information: On Feb. 12, 2024, a screenshot claimed to show a post from Travis Kelce's official X account that said, "How about this: I'll keep playing American football and Donald Trump can keep sucking Russian d***." The screenshotted post was an apparent response to former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that he had once threatened to encourage Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO allies. screenshot suggesting Shared by X account @FaithRubPol, the screenshot had the caption, "Travis Kelce SLAMS Trump over his NATO comments." (Screenshot via X) The above screenshot is fake and was shared by an account that describes itself as satirical in nature. As such, we rate it as "Labeled Satire." describes The X account @FaithRubPol's description states: "Most of the images we share are parodies." The screenshot also has the label "Parody by Back Rub." description We also found no evidence on Kelce's official account that he ever made such a statement. Furthermore, the account handle in the screenshot does not belong to Kelce. Kelce's real X account is @tkelce, while the screenshot shows the handle @tkelpe. @tkelce During a campaign rally on Feb. 10, 2024, Trump generated controversy when he said he would "encourage" Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO member states. He suggested he would not abide by the alliance's collective-defense clause which states that if an ally is attacked it is considered an attack on all members if that ally was not meeting defense spending obligations. said He cited a conversation from his time as president with an unnamed world leader: cited One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay, you're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened." "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills." In sum, the above post is satirical in nature and completely fake. For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Haberman, Maggie, and Jonathan Swan. "G.O.P. Officials, Once Critical, Stand by Trump After NATO Comments." The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2024. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/trump-nato-republicans.html.Accessed 13 Feb. 2024. Knutson, Jacob. "How Trump's NATO Comments Escalate His Disdain for America's Allies." Axios, 12 Feb. 2024, https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history. Accessed 13 Feb. 2024.
| 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2004 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: So much winning! Were going to be winning so much, you re going to be sick of winning! -Candidate Donald J. TrumpPresident Donald Trump hailed the opening Thursday of a new coal mine as proof deregulation is helping bring jobs to the industry, even though plans for the mine s opening were made well before Trump s election.Corsa Coal Corp. will supply coal used in making steel and is expected to generate up to 100 full-time jobs. The company said it decided in August to open the Acosta mine 60 miles south of Pittsburgh after a steel industry boom drove up prices for metallurgical coal.Under a tent perched hundreds of feet above a freshly dug coal pit, about 200 miners, business leaders, and politicians celebrated amid the surge of enthusiasm for the industry. Mining headgear lay atop red, white, and blue table cloths labeled Make Coal Great Again. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said the mine was part of an effort to bring back jobs and industry to the state. Pennsylvania awarded a $3 million grant for the project. We have not always capitalized on our standing as one of the world s leaders in these resources, but we re changing that, Wolf said.Trump has made reversing the decades-long decline in coal mining the central tenet of his environmental policy, blaming federal regulations aimed at curbing planet-warming carbon emissions for job losses in the industry. Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have targeted laws that protected waterways from coal waste and required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants. About a dozen protesters chanted in opposition to the mine at the opening.Trump noted the impending opening of the mine last week during his speech announcing the nation s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. He said then he had hoped to attend the event; he participated via recorded video message, taking partial credit for the opening. One by one, we re eliminating the regulations that threaten your jobs, and that s one of the big reasons you re opening today: Less regulation, Trump said. We have withdrawn the United States from the horrendous Paris climate accord, something that would have put our country back decades and decades, we would have never allowed ourselves to be great again. Trump noted the impending opening of the mine last week during his speech announcing the nation s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. He said then he had hoped to attend the event; he participated via recorded video message, taking partial credit for the opening. One by one, we re eliminating the regulations that threaten your jobs, and that s one of the big reasons you re opening today: Less regulation, Trump said. We have withdrawn the United States from the horrendous Paris climate accord, something that would have put our country back decades and decades, we would have never allowed ourselves to be great again. For entire story: Mcall | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2005 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: On his way to the polls on election day, Michael Flynn pulled out his phone and took a video of himself saying his vote for Donald Trump was part of a larger fight against “the dishonesty and deceit of our government.†For Flynn, a retired U.S. Army three-star general and one of Trump’s closest advisers, it was another parting shot at an administration he thinks unfairly fired him from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in 2014 for telling hard truths about the war on Islamist extremism. Named on Thursday to become Trump’s national security adviser, Flynn is now poised for a second act in public life – and he has promised nothing short of an upheaval. “We just went through a revolution,†Flynn, 57, told a forum on Saturday. “This is probably the biggest election in our nation’s history, since bringing on George Washington when he decided not to be a king. That’s how important this is.†Flynn’s advocates say his experience battling radical Islamist militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with candor that has ruffled feathers in Washington more than once, makes him the kind of ally Trump needs on his national security team. David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who used to work with Flynn, praised his willingness to “speak truth to power and not politicize his answers.†“Mike Flynn is a straight shooter and a no-bullshit kind of guy. And that’s exactly what we need in terms of senior leaders giving advice to the national leadership,†Deptula said. His critics voice concerns about a management style that alienated some of his subordinates at DIA, a lumbering bureaucracy that Flynn sought to shake up. That’s an explanation some gave for why he was pushed into retirement. Flynn could not be reached for comment. Several former U.S. officials who worked closely with Flynn described him as extremely smart but a poor manager who advocated a precipitous overhaul of the DIA that ignited hostility and resistance from veteran intelligence officials. “Flynn understood that DIA was a mess,†one said. “But he telegraphed his intent for radical change in a way that he immediately created resistance to his ideas, no matter their merits.†Two other former officials also said they had concerns about Flynn’s management style, a potential liability in a White House job that requires coordinating U.S. policy and resolving disagreements among senior officials at different agencies. One of the officials said senior career DIA officials and other agency employees held Flynn responsible for an offensive “Dress for Success†presentation that was distributed to the workforce in January 2013. It recommended gender-specific fashion guidelines, urged people to “consider your body type†and said makeup made women “more attractive.â€Â   Flynn apologized for the presentation in a subsequent memo that said neither he nor the agency “condone this briefing.†Flynn’s policy views suggest he will take a more aggressive approach against Islamist militants. Former colleagues expect his effort to bolster America’s battle against jihadists to be shaped by his belief that the United States is losing a global war against Islamist extremism that may last for generations. In a new book Flynn co-authored, he prescribes a harder political line on Iran, including information warfare to expose shortcomings in Iran’s revolution. Like Trump, Flynn calls the 2003 invasion of Iraq a strategic blunder and says that energy should have been directed instead toward political support for opponents of Iran’s theocratic rulers. He shares Trump’s vision of warmer relations with Israel but also advocates stronger ties with Egypt, whose autocratic president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, ousted the Muslim Brotherhood and was the first world leader to congratulate Trump on his victory. Flynn’s appearances on Russia’s government-run broadcaster RT, particularly at a gala last year attended by President Vladimir Putin, have also raised eyebrows in military circles. However, he has also expressed skepticism about Moscow’s intentions | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2006 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: A delegation from Czechia arrived in Crimea. On the peninsula, visitors signed a number of investment documents with the leadership of the peninsula. Among other things, Czechia is going to develop the tourism industry in Crimea. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2007 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did Harrison Ford Really Improvise Han Solo's 'I Know' in 'The Empire Strikes Back'? Claim summaries: The pivotal line comes right before Han Solo is frozen in carbonite.
contextual information: On Nov. 20, 2021, Twitter user @delaneykingrox tweeted that film actor Harrison Ford improvised "I know" to Carrie Fisher's "I love you" in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back," just before his character, Han Solo, is frozen in carbonite. She also claimed that the originally scripted line for Solo to respond to Princess Leia was, "I love you too." tweeted frozen in carbonite claimed She tweeted the thread to talk about "on the nose" dialogue, which she defined as "communicating what is obvious to the audience with no subtly or subtext." tweeted There are a number of rumors out there about "The Empire Strikes Back" that aren't true. For example, there's the fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 that's received nearly 10 million views on YouTube. (A video with genuine audience reaction audio from 1980 does exist, but it only had several thousand views.) rumors fake audience reaction sound recording from 1980 As for this fact check, it's true that Ford improvised Solo's line, "I know," in "The Empire Strikes Back," and that the originally scripted line was, "I love you too." While many fans might debate that the trophy for the best line in the franchise would go to Darth Vader's "I am your father," there would perhaps also be a handful of people who would vote for Solo's "I know." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdlRmWd_R7AIn a 2011 sitdown with "Cowboys and Aliens" director Jon Favreau, Ford explained that he wasn't a fan of "I love you too," which was the original line in the "Empire Strikes Back" script from story creator George Lucas. Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan also drafted the screenplay. Lucas also served as an executive producer on the film but did not direct it. The film was directed by Irvin Kershner. directed In the interview, Ford called Lucas "a powerful producer at the time," after the success of "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." "George had artfully contrived for Han Solo to say, 'I love you too,'" Ford said. However, the actor called it a "lost opportunity" and told Favreau: "You want your badasses to be a badass until the end." On the set of the film, Ford said he asked a question of Lucas and perhaps other members of the cast and crew. "What's the last thing a woman wants to hear when she says, 'I love you'? She says 'I love you,' and I say... 'I know.'" said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xdWpo4bh8According to Ford, they shot one take with the line, "I love you too," but said it was "just for protection." That recording has never been made public. "We shot one just for protection where I spoke the line as written," Ford said. "And George, I think, this is fair enough to say, he went apeshit. He thought it was horrible and that it would get a bad laugh. So I was obliged to sit next to him when he tested it for the first screening. There was a laugh, but it was a laugh of recognition. And so, he generously let it stay in the movie." Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford in 1980's "Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back." (Photo by Lucasfilm/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images) In a separate interview that appeared to be recorded years before 2011, Kershner remembered that there were perhaps more takes with either the "I love you too" line or "I know," but didn't specify which one. remembered "We tried take after take after take. Nothing satisfied me," Kershner said. "And finally, I said, 'Harrison, don't think about it. Don't think about it. Let's shoot it. Ok, action.' And he dropped in and I said, 'cut.' I said, 'yeah, that's a great line. That's Han Solo.'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_tGKSnMUEIn sum, yes, Ford improvised Solo's "I know" that was spoken in response to Leia's "I love you" in "The Empire Strikes Back," an exchange that perhaps could be considered as a pivotal scene in one of the most beloved onscreen love stories of all time. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2008 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: A leader of the Christian charismatic movement has declared that the unprecedented resistance to U. S. President Donald Trump signals a deeper, spiritual battle that is taking place over America’s soul. [Lou Engle, the founder of several Christian ministries, has highlighted two recent events that give cause for concern to Christians: the Women’s March on Washington, with its close alliance with the U. S. abortion lobby, and recent calls to use witchcraft to “bind†and utterly destroy the president. In an essay in Charisma Magazine, the charismatic leader of “The Call†wrote that the Women’s March “was the first shot across the bow, heralding a revolutionary rise against the president of the United States,†and the fellow citizens who elected him. The March was also an uprising against “the foundational biblical truths upon which our nation was founded,†Engle said. “Soon after, the second shot was manifested publicly: an unprecedented global summons of witchcraft to curse President Trump, his Cabinet and all of those aligned with a biblical worldview,†Engle wrote. “Suddenly, the whole controversy was elevated to a global spiritual dimension, inaugurating a spiritual battle that cannot be won on the playing field of protests and political arguments. †“Only the church has the answer to this unprecedented manifestation of witchcraft. Spiritual strategy must be used to overcome this brazen challenge of the powers,†he said. Understanding fierce ideological battles in spiritual terms is no novelty for Christians. As Saint Paul wrote some 2, 000 years ago, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. †In this battle, Engle sees great cause for hope, since many Americans do not identify with the anger, extremism and above all visceral hate being directed toward the president and those who voted for him. “Hundreds of thousands of women watched the March, heard the vitriol and could not identify with the radical ideologies being expressed that would not acknowledge God’s Word and ways in the public controversy,†he wrote. “This new woman declared deep inside her heart, This is not my revolution. †Lou Engle is not alone in his analysis. Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput recently expressed his astonishment at the mainstream media’s ongoing war against Donald Trump. “It’s just amazing to me how hostile the press is to everything the president does,†Chaput told a radio talk show host last month. “I don’t want to be partisan in my comments here, but it seems to me if we are really serious about our common responsibilities, we support the president,†Chaput said, adding that good citizens should “wish him success rather than trying to undermine him. †As a way of joining in the spiritual battle, Engle has proposed three days of fasting and prayer for the nation, beginning on Wednesday, March 8. In what he is calling an “Esther fast,†in commemoration of the Jewish heroine Esther, Engle invites the nation to fast and pray for three days leading up to the Jewish deliverance feast of Purim, which begins this year on Saturday evening, March 11. Among the many intentions of this Lenten “Esther fast,†Engle proposes that Christians and all people of good will pray in particular for the overturning of the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which, together with Doe v. Bolton, struck down existing abortion laws and granted abortion on demand for the full nine months of pregnancy for the entire country. Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2009 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Was Walt Disney Frozen? Claim summaries: Half a century onwards, the rumor that Walt Disney's body was put in cryonic storage remains one of the most enduring legends about the entertainment giant.
contextual information: Walt Disney's health had been deteriorating for many months before he finally agreed to enter St. Joseph hospital in California on 2 November 1966, for tests concerning the pain in his leg and neck. Doctors discovered a walnut-sized spot on the x-ray of his left lung and advised immediate surgery. Disney left the hospital to attend to studio business for a few days, then re-entered St. Joseph on Sunday, November 6, for surgery the next day. During Monday morning's operation, doctors found his left lung to be cancerous and removed it. His oversized lymph nodes were an indication that Disney hadn't much longer to live. After two weeks of post-operative care, Disney was released from the hospital. He crossed the street to his studios and spent another ten days tending to studio business and visiting relatives before he grew too weak and had to return to St. Joseph on November 30. His health started to fail even more rapidly than expected, and drugs and cobalt treatments sapped what little strength he had left. Walt Disney died two weeks later when his circulatory system collapsed on the morning of December 15, 1966. In the decades since Walt Disney's death, the claim that he arranged for his body to be frozen has become ubiquitous. Nearly everyone familiar with the name 'Walt Disney' has heard the story that Disney's corpse is stored in a deep-freeze chamber somewhere -- directly under Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean" attraction is the most frequently mentioned site -- awaiting the day when science could repair the damage to his body and bring 'Uncle Walt' back to life. Was Walt Disney aware of the possibilities of life extension through cryogenics? He certainly could have been aware of the progress being made in cryogenics research. Numerous articles and books on hypothermia and the preservation of animal tissue through freezing appeared in both the scientific/medical and general press in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Anyone with an interest in the subject could easily have located this reading material, and even someone without a particular interest in the subject may have run across one or more articles on the topic in the general press. The subject of cryonics was further brought to the public's attention with the publication in 1964 of Robert C.W. Ettinger's book, The Prospect of Immortality. Ettinger's book, drawing on much of the available literature about cryonics, covered the practical, legal, ethical, and moral impact of freezing and reviving human beings. Ettinger, while admitting that science had as yet no way of reviving frozen human beings, was unflaggingly optimistic that a viable means of reanimation would eventually be found, telling his readers: The fact: At very low temperatures it is possible, right now, to preserve dead people with essentially no deterioration, indefinitely. The assumption: If civilization endures, medical science should eventually be able to repair almost any damage to the human body, including freezing damage and senile debility or other cause of death. Hence we need only arrange to have our bodies, after we die, stored in suitable freezers against the time when science may be able to help us. No matter what kills us, whether old age or disease, and even if freezing techniques are still crude when we die, sooner or later our friends of the future should be equal to the task of reviving and curing us. Given the prevalence of articles published about cryonics in the mid-1960's, and the relative popularity of Ettinger's book among science buffs (even if few of them had actually read it), it is certainly possible that Walt Disney was aware of the potentiality of cryonic storage of humans. Whatever the possibilities, however, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that Walt Disney was interested in, or had even heard of, cryonics. Documentation of Disney's alleged fascination with preserving or extending his life through cryonics did not appear until decades after his death, and what little information is available has predominantly been provided by some extremely questionable sources. Claims about Disney's interest come primarily from two of the more recent Disney biographies: Leonard Mosley's 1986 effort, Disney's World, and Marc Eliot's 1993 entry, Walt Disney -- Hollywood's Dark Prince. Both books have been largely discredited for containing numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions, rendering them rather untrustworthy as sources of reliable background material. Eliot's biography, which dwells unrelentingly on every salacious incident and rumor connected with Walt Disney's name, is fairly easy to dismiss. Charitably described as "speculative," it contains a single passage concerning Walt Disney's alleged interest in cryonics: Disney's growing preoccupation with his own mortality also led him to explore the science of cryogenics, the freezing of an aging or ill person until such time as the human body can be revived and restored to health. Disney often mused to Roy about the notion of perhaps having himself frozen, an idea which received ... indulgent nods from his brother ... Not surprisingly, the source behind this piece of information is nowhere to be found in Eliot's notes. And as there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics, Eliot's "source" was likely nothing more than repetition of rumor. Mosley's Disney's World is also rather long on rumor and short on facts. The book has been described as "poorly researched and filled with inaccuracies", a biography that seemed "to promote certain preset points of view, regardless of evidence". The same critique goes on to say, "One of its central themes, for example, is Disney's fascination with cryogenesis and the strong suggestion that his body was frozen following his death. It makes for titillating reading; however, few facts support Mosley's claims". Disney's World paints a picture of an anxious Walt Disney desperately searching for a way to spring back to life in order to prevent or correct the horrible mistakes his followers were bound to make in turning his EPCOT dream into reality: [T]he chief problem that troubled Walt was the length of time it might take the doctors to perfect the process. How long would it be before the surgical experts could bring a treated cadaver back to working life? To be brutally practical, could it be guaranteed, in fact, that he could be brought back in time to rectify the mistakes his successors would almost certainly start making at EPCOT the moment he was dead? Mosley's book is filled with repetitions of the claim that Walt Disney grew increasingly interested in cryonics as his health waned in late 1966, such as this paragraph: It was about this time that Walt Disney became acquainted with the experiments into the process known as cryogenesis, or what one newspaper termed "the freeze-drying of the human cadaver after death, for eventual resuscitation." Mosley's statements regarding Disney's belief in the feasibility of cryonics are somewhat difficult to take seriously, given that his book includes such ludicrously erroneous (or fabricated) statements as: The surgeons had taken away his diseased lung to examine it, and then were going to preserve it. Walt was pleased when he heard that. He knew enough about cryogenesis by now to be aware that it was important to hold onto all the organs -- just in case the surgeons needed to treat them before putting them back where they belonged. (Samples of tissue removed during cancer surgery are preserved in formaldehyde, a method of "preservation" which, while useful for microscopy studies, damages the tissue biologically. Organs removed from Disney by his surgeons could never be "put back where they belonged", no matter what the treatment.) Mosley provides no source for his statements, other than to assert that Disney's "closest colleagues and advisers" were "confident" that Walt Disney "eventually became convinced of cryogenesis as a viable medical process and was persuaded that, even in 1966, it was possible for a human being to have himself brought back to life after death". In fact, these "close colleagues" of Disney's turned out to be a few employees on the periphery of the Disney organization who had never spoken to Walt about cryonics, and were merely repeating the same decades-old rumor for Mosley's benefit. On the other hand, someone much closer to Walt Disney, his daughter, Diane wrote in 1972: "There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that my father, Walt Disney, wished to be frozen. I doubt that my father had ever heard of cryonics." Despite the persistent rumors, available documentation indicates that Walt Disney was in fact cremated. Although Disney's preferences regarding the disposal of his body are not public record(instructions or provisions for his funeral and burial were not included in his will), other publicly-available material is entirely consistent with the claim that he was cremated: will o Walt Disney publicly stated -- ten years before his death -- that he wished not to have a funeral. o Disney family members have confirmed that cremation was Walt's wish. o Disney's death certificate shows that he was cremated two days after his death. The name, license number, and signature of the enbalmer appearing on the death certificate are those of a real enbalmer who was employed at the Forest Lawn mortuary at the time. death certificate o A marked burial plot for Walt Disney (and other family members) can be found at the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale (the logical resting grounds for someone whose cremation was handled by Forest Lawn's mortuary), and court papers indicate that the Disney estate paid $40,000 to Forest Lawn for interment property. burial plot Since Disney's demise, several unmremarkable events and circumstances surrounding his life and death have been combined to try to establish a pattern of mystery and secrecy concerning the disposal of his body. All of these events, however, have straightforward, non-mysterious explanations: o "Disney had a long preoccupation with death"o "Disney had a neurotic fear of death" Statements concerning Disney's alleged preoccupation with death are generally attempts to sensationalize the topic by distorting the facts. Although he did worry about dying prematurely, Disney was not "obsessed with death". Supposedly having been told by a fortune-teller that he would die when he was thirty-five, Disney reportedly brooded about his inevitable demise during occasional bouts of depression, even after he had long passed the allegedly fatal age. Contemplating one's mortality is not an unusual behavior, and there is no evidence that Walt Disney did so to an excessive degree. William Poundstone quotes some ridiculous passages from Anthony Haden-Guest's The Paradise Program to try to establish Disney's preoccupation with death, detailing a "gruesome seven minute Mickey Mouse cartoon" made in 1933 in which "a mad scientist tries to cut off Pluto's head and put in on a chicken. The cartoon in question is The Mad Doctor, which was nothing more than humorous spoof of 1930's horror films. Even in the cartoon itself the "horrific" events are not portrayed as real: the whole episode turns out to be nothing more than a nightmare of Mickey's. Although Poundstone wrote that the film was pulled from the Rank film library in 1970, it has been readily available on home video releases since then. o "The news of Disney's death was deliberately delayed." This claim that the announcement of Walt Disney's death was deliberately withheld from the press for several hours has been made most persistently, presumably because Disney's aides would have needed time to furtively whisk his body away from the hospital to the secret cryogenic chamber before the presence of reporters made the task impossible to accomplish in privacy. Leonard Mosley's description of the event features some of more absurd stretches of truth made in this regard: And this is where the mystery begins. It was Walt himself who had asked Roy Disney to keep his illness secret, but the manner in which the world was apprised of his death remains surprising. In fact, it was not until hours after he was declared dead that an announcement was made. First came radio announcements, then a curt official notice informed the press and public that Walt Disney was no more. It added that there would be no funeral. He had already been cremated, the announcement said, and his ashes interred in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. Only immediate family members had been present. It is true that Disney's death was not officially announced to the press until several hours after it occurred at 9:30 AM on Thursday, December 15, 1966, but the reasons behind the delay were perfectly ordinary ones. First of all, Disney's death would not have been announced immediately under any circumstances: Several family members had to be notified before a public announcement could be made, and Disney studio executives had to be located and informed that the head of their organization had passed away before the information would be released to the press. Additionally, the gravity of Disney's illness had largely been kept a secret from the press, so there were no hordes of reporters crowding the hallways of St. Joseph Hospital, waiting for the inevitable announcement of his death. The reason for Disney's original hospitalization had been announced to the press as "treatment of an old neck injury received while playing polo," and when Disney re-entered the hospital for the final time two weeks before his death, the statement made to the press was that Disney was undergoing "a routine post-operative" checkup. Although it was certainly no secret that Disney was quite ill, the seriousness of his condition was not generally known. The extent to which the details of Walt Disney's illness were kept from the press are evidenced by the newspapers reports of his death, which stated that his left lung had been removed during an operation on November 21 (an error which Poundstone repeats in Big Secrets). That operation had actually taken place two weeks earlier; November 21 was the date of his original post-surgery release from the hospital. So, given that relatives and studio heads had to be notified before any statements about Disney's death were made to the press; that the media were not on a "Disney death watch," busily preparing obituaries and tributes; and that communications in 1966 were certainly slower than they are today, it is not at all surprising that official news of Disney's death did not reach the public until a few hours later. Mosley's other statements, about Disney's funeral and cremation, are just further examples of sloppy research on his part. Disney was not cremated until two days after his death; no press announcement made "hours after he was declared dead" claimed that he had already been cremated. o "The cause of Disney's demise was never formally announced." This statement is both inaccurate and irrelevant. The cause of Disney's death was initially announced as being "acute circulatory collapse," which meant simply that his heart had stopped beating. As facile as the official announcement may seem to those who know he "really" died of lung cancer, it does reflect the proximate cause of his death. This notion is borne out by the official death certificate, which lists "cardiac arrest" as the primary cause of death. The fact that cancer was what caused Disney's heart to give out was, medically, of secondary importance. death certificate Official statements released to the press after Disney's surgery (and before his death) had already revealed that a tumor had been found, necessitating the removal of a lung. Whether stated "officially" or not, it was quite clear to the public that Disney had died of lung cancer. In any case, what possible difference could it have made what Walt Disney died of? How could dissembling about the "real" cause of his death possibly have facilitated the goal of secretly storing his body in a cryonic chamber? o "Disney's funeral services were held in secret." Disney's funeral was not "secret"; rather, it was private, conducted quickly and quietly at the Little Church of the Flowers in Forest Lawn Cemetery, Glendale at 5:00 PM on Friday, December 16 (the day after his death). No announcement of the funeral was made until after it had taken place, no associates or executives from Disney Studios were invited, and only immediate family members were in attendance. Forest Lawn officials refused to disclose any details of the funeral or disposition of the body, stating only that "Mr. Disney's wishes were very specific and had been spelled out in great detail.". None of this secrecy surrounding Disney's funeral should be the least bit surprising to anyone, however. The biography The Story of Walt Disney (essentially an autobiography in which Disney's own words and thoughts were attributed to his daughter Diane), written a decade before Disney's death, noted that: [Walt] never goes to a funeral if he can help it. If he had to go to one it plunges him into a reverie which lasts for hours after he's home. At such times he says, 'When I'm dead I don't want a funeral. I want people to remember me alive.'" Is it so remarkable that a man who had an aversion to funerals -- and who had stated a ten years earlier that he didn't want a public funeral -- was sent off with a very quick and very private ceremony? If the clandestineness of the funeral had been intended to cover up the fact that Disney's body had already been deposited in liquid nitrogen at a secret facility, there were certainly better, less obvious ways of accomplishing the deception: Disney could have been given a simple closed-casket ceremony, with nobody the wiser. o "Disney specified the public was never to be told the location of his grave." Again, this claim is unsupported by any factual information and is not the least bit extraordinary. It is true that officials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park will not divulge the location of the Disney family plot. Many celebrities do request that the locations of their burial plots not be given out to visitors as a simple matter of privacy. The burial sites are not intended to be "secret," however; if they were, they wouldn't be marked and located on publicly-accessible grounds. Disney's plot was not, as Mosley claimed, "already filled with family ashes from which the public would always be barred." Disney's plot is far from obtrusive, but it is located in an unrestricted part of the park and marked with a plaque identifying its occupants; anyone who so desires is perfectly free to visit, leave flowers, take photographs, etc. The plot was certainly not "already filled with family ashes" at the time of Disney's interment, as for many it held the remains of only one other person: Ron Brown, a son-in-law who died the year after Disney did. In fact, according to the book Wills of the Rich and Famous, the interment property was not even chosen until September 19, 1967, making it rather difficult to believe that it could have been "already filled with family ashes." If Disney was not really frozen, then how and when did this rumor originate? The exact origins of the rumor are unknown, but at least one Disney publicist has suggested that the story was started by a group of Disney Studio animators who "had a bizarre sense of humor." The earliest known printed version of the rumor appeared in the magazine Ici Paris in 1969. Even if the origins of the story are unknown, it is certainly easy to see why the rumor is so believable. In the years immediately preceding his death, Disney was involved in a number of projects which cemented his image as a technical innovator in the public's mind. Disneyland attractions such as the monorail, the House of the Future, the Voyage to the Moon; the introduction of audio-animatronic figures at the 1964 World's Fair, and Disney's plans for his "community of tomorrow" (EPCOT) in Florida made it easy to believe Walt Disney was ahead of everyone else in his planning, even when it came to his death. When you consider that the first cryonic suspension took place just a month after Disney's death (Dr. James Bedford, a 73-year-old psychologist from Glendale, was suspended on January 12, 1967), it's not so far-fetched to imagine that Disney might have made similar arrangements. Adams, Cecil. More of The Straight Dope. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988. ISBN 0-345-35145-2 (pp. 331-333). Davis, Jeff. "Walt Disney Dies." Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. 15 December 1966 (p. 1). Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince. Seacaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group, 1993. Ettinger, Robert C.W. The Prospect of Immortality. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Jackson, Kathy Merlock. Walt Disney: A Bio-Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Pub. Group, 1993. ISBN 0-313-25898-8. Miller, Diane Disney. The Story of Walt Disney. New York: Holt, 1957. Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984. ISBN 0-14-007036-2. Mosley, Leonard. Disney's World. New York: Stein and Day, 1985. Nass, Herbert E. Wills of the Rich and Famous. New York: Warner, 1991. ISBN 0-446-39218-9. Poundstone, William. Big Secrets. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986. ISBN 0-395-45397-6 (pp. 219-224). Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976. ISBN 0-7868-6027-8. Trimborn, Harry. "Wizard of Fantasy Walt Disney Dies." Los Angeles Times. 16 December 1996 (p. 1). The Boston Globe. "Ask the Globe." 24 January 1992 (p. 20). Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. "Disney Rites Secret; As He Wished." 17 December 1966 (p. 1). Los Angeles Times. "Services for Walt Disney Held as He Asked -- For Family Only." 17 December 1966 (p. 1). The New York Times. "Walt Disney, 65, Dies on Coast; Founded an Empire on a Mouse." 16 December 1966 (p. 1). | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2010 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States.
contextual information: U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, spoke last month in support of creating an Emergency Trade Deficit Commission while expressing his hopes for congressional ratification of trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. "The world has changed," Brady said on the House floor on July 28. "It's not enough to simply buy American; we have to sell American, sell our products, goods, and services throughout this world." In fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners and do not provide a level playing field for the United States; that's why we push hard for those agreements. The 80 percent figure startled a reader who urged us to review it; we were happy to oblige. Some background: In June, the U.S. trade deficit reached nearly $50 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Exports in June totaled $150.5 billion, while imports amounted to $200.3 billion. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States has free-trade agreements—meaning neither country imposes trade restrictions such as tariffs—with 17 nations, which together account for 34 percent of U.S. imports and exports. The countries are Israel, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Bahrain, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Oman, and Peru. Through participation in the World Trade Organization, the United States has agreements permitting some restrictions with many nations. These include export powerhouses such as China, which, from January through June 2010, was the leading exporter to the United States, with $161 billion in exported goods, according to the Census Bureau. China was followed in the exports-to-USA category by Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Regarding Brady's more than 80 percent breakout, Joe Kafchinski, a bureau statistician, stated that from January through June, 13 percent of the nation's trade deficit involved countries that have free-trade agreements with the United States—meaning 87 percent of the deficit was with nations without such agreements. Next, we wondered about Brady's assertion that those agreements serve to level the playing field with other countries, trade-wise, and thus reduce the U.S. trade deficit. The National Association of Manufacturers claims that free-trade agreements ease the export of American goods: "Free trade agreements (FTAs) account for nearly one-half of U.S. manufactured goods exports," the association states on its website. They lower the price of consumer goods in the United States as well as the costs U.S. businesses pay for imported materials. Bilateral deals also open foreign markets to U.S. goods, increasing employment in those export sectors. The manufacturers note that the Census Bureau reports that over the past two years, U.S. manufacturers had a $50 billion surplus with their counterparts in FTA partner countries. Conversely, during the same time period, the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods with the rest of the world was an astounding $820 billion. Put another way, the group states that 95 percent of the nation's manufactured-goods deficit is with nations that do not have free-trade agreements with the United States. For labor's perspective, we contacted Jeff Vogt, a global economic policy specialist for the AFL-CIO. Vogt stated that China's 2001 entry into the WTO drove up the U.S. deficit with non-free-trade nations. Regardless of which countries account for the deficit, Vogt said, the imbalance is a problem because the domestic economy benefits more from exports than imports. Vogt shared a March 2010 report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, which focuses on the economic needs of low- and middle-income Americans. The report states that the U.S. trade deficit with China increased by $186 billion between 2001 and 2008. Rapidly growing imports of computer and electronic parts (including computers, parts, semiconductors, and audio-video equipment) accounted for more than 40 percent of the surge, the report says, with deficits in advanced technology products responsible for 27 percent of the U.S.-China deficit. Additionally, according to the report, the growth of the deficit contributed to the loss of 627,700 U.S. jobs in computer and electronic products, along with other hard-hit industrial sectors, including apparel and accessories (150,200 jobs), miscellaneous manufactured goods (136,900), and fabricated metal products (108,700). However, trade agreements are not the only factors behind the deficit with China. The report identifies a major cause as currency manipulation. Unlike other currencies, the Chinese yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar, giving Chinese-made goods an artificial price advantage overseas. In June 2010, China's central bank announced that it would allow the yuan to fluctuate more, but the value of the yuan has since increased by less than 1 percent, according to a news report posted online this week by FinanceAsia. Robert Scott, an economist at the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute in Washington, cautioned against presuming that free-trade agreements benefit the United States, stating that this depends in part on whether the other nation is as developed as the United States and has open markets. For instance, the U.S. runs a trade deficit with its free-trade neighbor Mexico, he noted, dominated by a flow of manufacturing plants to the less-developed country. Free-trade agreements, Scott argued, are designed to make the world safe for multinationals to outsource production indefinitely. In a July 1 article on the institute's website that criticized the proposed trade agreement with South Korea as foolish, Scott wrote: "History shows that such trade deals lead to rapidly growing trade deficits and job loss in the United States." Clearly, there is a difference of opinion on whether free-trade agreements are beneficial in relation to the growing U.S. trade deficit, as Brady asserts. However, the key statistic in Brady's statement holds true. In fact, he understates the share of our trade deficit with nations that do not have free-trade agreements with the U.S. We rate Brady's statement as Mostly True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2011 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Card for child support in Delaware. Claim summaries: A fake news story about a new Delaware "Child Support Card" hit the online world in January 2016.
contextual information: On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?" The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2012 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: This post was originally published on this site
A screenshot from “An Open Secret,” a 2015 documentary about pedophilia in the entertainment industry .
I’ve got some good news and some bad news.
Let’s start with the bad news: this is one of those unpleasant, disturbing articles that I sometimes write here at CDP. It deals with a topic that I wish didn’t exist to be reported. But reality is what it is, so we might as well face it head-on.
Which brings me to the good news: “The truth shall set you free.”
That teaching is, of course, from Jesus, found in the Gospel of Sty. John, and it is the torch that we will carry to brave the dark tunnels ahead. As bad as it is, the good news is that dragging perversion and corruption into the light is the only way to destroy them, and the only way to set others free from the corrupt.
In any case, here is what we know so far about “Twittergate,” according to a recent post by NorthCrane.com :
Several Twitter users [earlier this week] were reporting child pornography accounts and sending them to 0hour, an active member of Anonymous. The Anonymous user, @0hour , was retweeting them and tagging Twitter, FBI and Disney. The YouTube user, notsafeforjerk, is providing up-to-date reports on #Twittergate .
Just some of the Twitter accounts exposed for posting child-sex content
[embedded content]
I can’t understand this man’s accent well at all, but your mileage may vary.
Not surprisingly, a few hours later, “0hour got his account suspended”–and it’s not the first time his account has been suspended–yet, very disturbingly, “many of the child pornography accounts remained active, despite the child pornography being publicly displayed on the Twitter accounts.”
No comment.
I know of one Twitter user whose account has been banned 11 times (and counting) in the last few weeks, and once three times in the same day, because he consistently tweets about the Podesta pedo ring, #pizzagate , spirit cooking, the Clinton Foundation’s human trafficking baggage, and so on. (He is able to restore his account almost immediately, however, because he uses Keybase, which, provides proof of his identity so Twitter readmits him under a different handle/name.)
At this point, the Twitter gods are either malicious for allowing such content to remain public, or too apathetic and incompetent to do anything about it, which, in terms of public harm, is just as bad.
The North Crane article ends on this note: “As more people become involved in the manhunt, the scope of horror increases.”
Sadly, this is truer than the author might have realized.
Hold fast to those torches, dear readers; we’re going farther down the tunnel.
+ + +
The reason Twitter may be “asleep at the wheel” during this #Twittergate storm is that Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, may very well be involved in the pedophilia underworld inhabited by the rich, the famous, and the powerful in Obama’s America.
The “blueprint” for the esoteric “spirit cooking” rituals that were exposed in the weeks before election day is Marina Abramovic’s 1996 cookbook of the same name. ****
Ten years later, Dorsey gave a nod to the ritual in this tweet :
Making “pasta” and “Satanic” allusions are key elements/codes in Spirit Cooking.
As the replies indicate, this tweet was unearthed within the last day, and has a disturbing significance in light of the larger Podesta ring.
At this point, a natural objection is to shrug this off as a weird possible aspect of one CEO’s life.
Unfortunately, Dorsey’s strange affinity for the pedo world belongs of a larger context. The 2015 documentary An Open Secret was directed by Amy Berg, and “exposes how pedophiles operate in Hollywood and cover up their crimes.” In addition, Berg’s 2006 documentary on the Catholic Church’s cover-up of pedophilia/pederasty, Deliver Us from Evil , was nominated for an Oscar.
The Hollywood Reporter has described the film as “A sober look at…the sexual exploitation of teenage boys in the entertainment industry by the older men who can make or break their careers…. [W]ith any luck it will encourage other victims to speak up, and enlighten the parents of showbiz aspirants about the industry’s dangers.”
Several journalists are included in the film. One journalist said his story documenting the sexual crimes committed by top Hollywood figures was censored.
Berg said she could not find any company willing to distribute her film until Rocky Mountain Pictures, the distributor behind such ground-breaking conservative-oriented documentaries as Obama 2016 , stepped up to release An Open Secret in various cities this summer.
The film identifies a pedophile ring led by a convicted sex offender named Marc Collins-Rector, who had ties to the rich and famous in Hollywood. Collins-Rector established an Internet-based TV company called Digital Entertainment Network (DEN).
Bad news: this is real.
Good news: they can’t hide anymore.
One blogger hit the nail on the head when he says that for years conservatives,
have tried to argue why their positions on a given issue were better than the liberal positions pushed by the entertainment industry. … But to be persuaded about the whole sweep of their criticisms, you’d have to evaluate every argument…..
A far more efficient use of time, money, and energy is not to attack all the myriad weirdnesses that Hollywood produces, but to attack the source from which they spring . If what produced them is rotten, polluted, and corrupted, the average person is willing to believe that the fruits themselves are rotten, polluted, and corrupted.
As such, he argues, the DoJ under President Trump ought to attack the Hollywood perverts and “blow the lid off of a similar culture of pedophilia among the DC Establishment insiders.” Because even if our culture is growing more and more tolerant of degradation and immorality, “there’s still one taboo left that everyone recoils in disgust at, and it’s pedophilia.”
More good news: The truth shall set you free–to fight the darkness.
Share this article to inform and encourage your friends and family! Related | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2013 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Is this a picture of valueless currency found in the drainage systems of Venezuela? Claim summaries: The disastrous economic situation in Venezuela can't be summed up in a single image.
contextual information: In late March 2019, a photograph supposedly showing piles of "worthless" currency thrown into gutters in Venezuela circulated on social media, attached to comments blaming socialism for the phenomenon behind the striking visual. One popular posting on Facebook was captioned, "This is a street in Venezuela. That's money in the gutter. It's worthless. Welcome to socialism.": Facebook This is a genuine photograph of worthless money dumped in the gutter of a Venezuelan street. However, the accompanying caption presents an oversimplification of the series of events that led to this currency's worthlessness and its discarding by Venezuelan residents. The economic collapse in Venezuela that began in 2013 is a complex matter which can't be attributed to any single factor. News outlets such as Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Fox News have cited a wide range of issues that led to the country's current economic crisis, including plunging oil prices, government corruption, political unrest, and socialist policies. That brew of unfavorable economic conditions has spawned massive hyperinflation which has greatly devalued Venezuela's currency, as the Washington Post reported in January 2018: Bloomberg New York Times Fox News reported Hyperinflation is disorienting. Five or six years ago, 500 bolivars wouldve bought you a meal for two with wine at the best restaurant in Caracas. As late as early last year, they wouldve bought you at least a cup of coffee. At the end of 2016, they still bought you a cup of caf con leche, at least. Today, they buy you essentially nothing ... well, except for 132 gallons of the worlds most extravagantly subsidized gasoline. Although hyperinflation has indeed caused the bolivar to become all but worthless, the caption on this viral photograph is a bit misleading. The money shown lying in the gutter in this picture is Venezuela's old currency, the Bolvar Fuerte, which was replaced by a new form of currency, the Bolivar Soberano, in August 2018. When the Bolivar Soberano was introduced, Bolvar Fuerte currency in amounts less than 1,000 ceased to be legal tender, and Bolivar Fuerte currency in all amounts was completely withdrawn on 5 December 2018. Hence the discarded money seen here was literally worthless not because it had no value, because it had been completely replaced by a newer currency and was no longer legal tender. Here's an excerpt from a CNN report about the switch in currencies: CNN Venezuela issued a new currency in an attempt to bolster its crumbling economy as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation could hit one million percent this year. The move, part of a dramatic raft of measures aimed at halting runaway hyperinflation, comes as thousands of Venezuelans continue to flee across the border into neighboring countries amid food and medicine shortages, political turmoil and soaring crime rates. In a tweet posted following the unveiling of Venezuela's new currency, the country's president Nicolas Maduro hailed the recovery package as a "revolutionary formula." The new "Bolivar Soberano" currency is worth 100,000 "old" Bolivares. "We found the revolutionary formula that puts work in the center of the general re-adjustment of society, based on the production of goods and the value of salary. With that, we're gonna put to rest forever the perverse model that dollarized the prices in the country," tweeted Venezuela's 55-year-old leader. "I call on the people to defend -- conscientiously -- the adjustment of the prices on street," Maduro later said in another tweet. A bank holiday was declared, with banks remaining closed as the new currency took effect. The rebranded currency, which has five fewer zeroes than the country's previous currency and will be pegged to a cryptocurrency called the Petro, is intended to simplify transactions. The viral photograph was likely taken on 11 March 2019 and showed the aftermath of looting at a bank in the town of Merida. Local news outlet Maduradas.com compiled several other photographs of the incident and reported that the perpetrators had discarded the old money on the streets and even lit some of it on fire (translated via Google): Maduradas.com TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles (+Fotos) Este lunes 11 de marzo, encapuchados saquearon la agencia del banco Bicentenario en la avenida 3, de Glorias Patrias, en el estado Mrida. El hecho fue confirmado por el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional Williams Dvila, as como por el corresponsal de El Nacional en el estado Mrida, Leonardo Len. A travs de la red social Twitter, informaron que los ciudadanos esparcieron montones de billetes de viejo cono monetario en las calles, los cuales despus fueron incendiados. TERRIBLE! Hooded (vandals) sacked the bank Bicentenario in Merida and scattered bolivars of the old currency through the streets (+ Photos) On Monday, March 11, hooded (vandals) sacked the Bicentenario bank agency on Avenue 3, Glorias Patrias, in the state of Merida. The fact was confirmed by the deputy of the National Assembly Williams Dvila, as well as by the correspondent of El Nacional in the state of Mrida, Leonardo Len. Through the social network Twitter, they reported that citizens scattered piles of old money bills in the streets, which were then set on fire. Venezuelan journalists and social media users shared several other photographs of the scene: Ayer se produjo el saqueo de un banco bicentenario en la ciudad de Mrida, en las cercanas de la plaza Glorias Patrias. Los saqueadores incendiaron una pila de bolvares adems de dejar muchos billetes por el suelo. pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo Descifrando la Guerra (@descifraguerra) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019 TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos,#12Mar,#solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos #12Mar #solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF EntornoInteligente (@ENTORNOi) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019 #MeridaBanco Bicentenario en Merida fue robado, slo haban billetes del viejo cono monetario que terminaron tapizando las calles del centro de la ciudadVenezuela es realismo magico y tragicoSarai Suarez pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70 #Merida pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70 Nellie B. Izarza ? ???? (@myteks) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019 In short, the "money in gutters" image shown above captured an older and now invalid form of currency that was tossed aside after the looting of a bank, and not usable currency discarded by citizens because it had been made next to worthless due to "socialism." Sterling, Joe. "Venezuela Issues New Currency, Amid Hyperinflation and Social Turmoil."
CNN. 23 August 2018. Toro, Franciso. "In Venezuela, Money Has Stopped Working."
The Washington Post. 17 January 2018. Llorente, Elizabeth. "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
Fox News. 4 April 2019. The New York Times. "The Crisis in Venezuela Was Years in the Making. Heres How It Happened."
23 January 2019. Martin, Eric and Patricia Laya. "What Broke Venezuela's Economy and What Could Fix It."
Bloomberg. 9 March 2019. Maduradas.com. "TERRIBLE! Encapuchados Saquearon Banco Bicentenario en Mrida y Esparcieron Bolvares Del Viejo Cono Monetario Por Las Calles (+Fotos)."
12 March 2019. El Nacional. "Billetes Inferiores a 1.000 Bolvares No Tendrn Valor a Partir del 20A."
14 August 2018. 2001.com.ve. "Bolvar Fuerte Circular Hasta el Mircoles 5 de Diciembre."
Accessed 5 April 2019. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2014 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Islamic State is building up its defenses in a pocket of territory on the Syrian-Iraqi frontier, the U.S.-led coalition said on Friday, in an anticipation of assaults by Syrian and Iraqi forces aiming to snuff out the jihadists last stronghold. Iraq launched an offensive on Thursday to capture the last Iraqi territory held by Islamic State, the areas of Rawa and al-Qaim, a town just over the border from the Syrian town of Albu Kamal, which is also held by the jihadists. Right now, we are seeing the buildup of (IS) defenses in both al-Qaim and in Albu Kamal, Colonel Ryan Dillon told Reuters by phone, adding that Islamic State s leadership had shifted to Albu Kamal from towns deeper into Syria. Albu Kamal is in the crosshairs of both the U.S.-led coalition and the Syrian government and its Iranian-backed militia allies. Pro-Damascus forces, who are also backed by the Russian air force, said on Thursday they would march on the town having driven IS out of a base some 70 km (40 miles) away. Dillon said Albu Kamal was definitely a target for the coalition but said it would be up to the leadership of the coalition s Syrian allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to take the decision on a ground assault. The SDF s priority for now was to shore up its control over the al-Omar oil field, Syria s largest, which was captured from IS on Sunday, he said. Right now, we have to consolidate that area in and around Omar oilfield and the area that led up to it to make sure that that area is secure, and then it ll be the SDF leadership decision if they can allocate the right resource to adequately push into Albu Kamal, he said. Assisted by the coalition, the SDF is fighting IS on the eastern banks of the Euphrates, whereas the Syrian army and its allies, supported by Russian air power, is largely fighting on the western banks of the river. Dillon said IS fighters were now much different fighters from the ones the U.S.-led coalition fought leading up to the battle for Mosul, the Iraqi city recaptured from IS in June. We have not seen this fight to the death that we saw in Mosul, and I think it is attributed much to their morale, he said. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2015 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Patrick Henningsen 21st Century WireThis week another toxic revelation dripped from the Chilcot Report.According to top British SAS officers, US commander Stanley McChrystal s counter-insurgency black-ops featured a program of relentless violence designed to speed up the process of political cleansing and the so-called reconstruction of Iraq.What is so interesting here, is the Chilcot s choice of language, including the term Latin American-style death squads , which by default implies the United States government was party to war crimes in Central America during the 1980 s a claim which has always been strenuously denied in public, even though the general public and academia recognizes this to be a self-evident fact of America s long-running ugly history of intervention in that region.The Independent report reveals the level of sheer depravity by US command: The mission was an extraordinary set-up: inside the command centre The Machine was the Death Star , on the walls of which were banks of television screens, Kill TV , running live pictures of action taking place and surveillance footage in real time from which suspects could be picked out for future arrest or elimination. The Independent also detailed how reckless and violent practices by the US military caused noticeable divisions and splits between joint US-UK command structures and operations, including political tension between British military command.Through the newly created Office of Special Plans , neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith rolled out their own sub-layer to the US controlled shadow government in Iraq, including the establishment of the Iraqi De Baathification Council which, under the supervision of then US Viceroy Paul Bremer, began dismantling the Iraqi military, security and intelligence agency infrastructures of President Saddam Hussein. And so began the process of the Pentagon s de-Baathification process in Iraq, immediately followed by a hive of violent Gangs and Counter-gangs created by the US and UK covert military and intelligence apparatuses. Front and center in this effort were US operatives John Negroponte and his understudy at the time, Robert Ford, who was later dispatched as US Ambassador to Syria in the run-up to the Syrian Conflict which began in 2011.The legacy of this destructive policy still lingers in Iraq and now in Syria. This unquestionably spawned ISIS and many other terrorist factions in both Iraq and Syria. Only last week, Iraq saw its most deadly car bomb ever, a questionable sectarian attack (a narrative not challenged by the western and international press) which killed 200 innocent civilians, and injured many more. GLADIO REDUX: A map of every car bomb in Baghdad since the US-UK invasion in 2003 (Source: Twitter)Prof Michel Chossudovsky explains this same highly disturbing pattern that generally follows every US intervention overseas, be it overt or covert: The recruitment of death squads is part of a well established US military-intelligence agenda. There is a long and gruesome US history of covert funding and support of terror brigades and targeted assassinations going back to the Vietnam war. As government forces continue to confront the self-proclaimed Free Syrian Army (FSA), the historical roots of the West s covert war on Syria which has resulted in countless atrocities must be fully revealed. Once again, we can see the revelation of the US-UK method of not simply instigating wars, but facilitating dirty wars not only overseas, but also at home, as in the case of Operation GLADIO and numerous other false flag events admittedly staged in North America.As 21WIRE will demonstrate in subsequent reports, this latest Chilcot revelation is only the tip of a much larger, covert iceberg RTHowever, kill or capture operations in and around Baghdad, launched from the Balad base 50 miles (80km) north of the city, were a key if little known chapter in Britain s shadow war, the Independent reports.Despite killing or taking as prisoner up to 3,500 insurgents, the mission against the Sunni insurgency caused deep rifts to the point where a senior commander, himself ex-SAS, demanded to know why the UK Special Forces were helping to run Latin American-style death squads? The mission, under now-famed US General Stanley McChrystal, involved a shift from searching for apparently non-existent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to man-hunting.Antagonism over the tactics led to UK troops being banned from some operations and a UK SAS commander lodging a complaint with US authorities for talking about British involvement in operations. Another SAS colonel was also ostracized from his regiment after serving under McCrystal.Chilcot does sketch out some of the details of the growing rift, though his report appears to leave out direct references to Special Forces operations. US and UK strategies had, in effect, been on different courses since the UK decision to focus its attention on MND (SE) [Multi-National Division South East, the British run zone] in 2003.As result of this decision, the UK had acquired distinctly different priorities from the US, the 2.6-million-word report argues.It says the UK was then only marginally involved in the central tasks of stabilizing the Iraqi government in Baghdad and managing sectarian divisions, while it had come to see its main task in Basra as one of keeping the situation calm while building the case for withdrawal. From that point on, it appears, the US became increasingly concerned that a wavering UK was chiefly focused on getting out of the unpopular war in the best order it could and as soon as possible.In 2006, a former SAS soldier blew the whistle on some of the tactics used in and around Baghdad. Ben Griffin was later gagged by the UK courts for talking about his experiences, but before he was silenced told the Telegraph, The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective. The Americans were doing things like chucking farmers into Abu Ghraib [the notorious prison in Baghdad where US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees] or handing them over to the Iraqi authorities, knowing full well they were going to be tortured, he said at the time.It may be of note that the SAS commander s reference to Latin American-style deaths squads appears to ignore the fact that at time of the Iraq war, in July 2003, the UK was itself stepping up training of Colombian paramilitary forces.Commenting on the revelations at the time, human rights NGO Amnesty International warned the Colombian government has not implemented the UN human rights recommendations and military assistance only gives a green light to the army to carry on as before. Support our work by Subscribing and becoming a Member @21WIRE.TV | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2016 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Do COVID-19 Vaccines Make You Infertile? Claim summaries: Here are the facts behind claims of impotency, placenta issues, and swollen testicles.
contextual information: Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.
On Sept. 13, 2021, rapper Nicki Minaj told her roughly 23 million Twitter followers that she knew of someone who supposedly got vaccinated against COVID-19 and then became impotent with swollen testicles. This claim fueled news stories and social media chatter about a long-standing rumor: that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to infertility in both men and women. However, that was not true. As of this writing, medical institutions ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine were aggressively attempting to combat false messages like Minaj's regarding infertility and the alleged impact of vaccinations on reproductive systems, a process on which we elaborate below.
For people with female reproductive organs, the false theory stems from inoculations' real impact on recipients' immune systems. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, for example, use mRNA technology to train people's immune systems to produce antibodies that can fight the virus that causes COVID-19, technically called SARS-CoV-2. "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies," the CDC states.
Some people erroneously believe that those vaccine-produced antibodies could somehow mistake the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein for syncytin-1, a different type of cellular formation that helps develop placentas and is vital for successful pregnancies. They operate under the false argument that the two proteins (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and placenta protein) appear similar and, therefore, the inoculation's technology could easily confuse the two. However, as biochemist Edward Nirenberg explained in a December 2020 blog post, the formulas of molecules (called amino acids) that make the two proteins have very few similarities. For one, the SARS-CoV-2 strand is shorter than the placenta protein: The former has 1,273 amino acids, while the latter has 538, as reported by India's National Magazine Frontline.
"There is no plausible reason—no medical or scientific mechanism—for this vaccine to interact with a woman's reproductive organs or have any interaction with an egg that's been released or fertilized," family medicine doctor Laura Morris said in a news bulletin by University of Missouri Health Care (MU Health Care). "For your immune system to get mixed up and attack the placental protein would be like you mistaking an elephant for an alley cat because they're both gray. There is one small similarity, but the overall construction of the protein is so completely different; your immune system is way too smart to be confused by that."
Considering those biological facts, no reputable research has found that COVID-19 vaccines complicate pregnancies or make it harder for women to conceive when studying the inoculations' impact on recipients' bodies. The CDC stated on its website, as of this writing, that during clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as Victoria Male, a researcher of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, summarized in the British Medical Journal. At assisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates were also similar between the two groups.
Meanwhile, it was true that tens of thousands of people reported changes to their menstrual cycle or unexpected bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, as reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC. However, there was no evidence to link those menstrual changes to the vaccine recipients' fertility. Rather, the possible side effect appeared to be physical proof of how people's immune systems were responding to the vaccines—much like how some people have experienced a fever, chills, or headache after the shots.
Additionally, as Male wrote in the British Medical Journal, most people who reported the possible side effect said it was temporary and their cycles returned to normal the following month: "Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA [Pfizer and Moderna] and adenovirus vectored COVID-19 vaccines [Johnson & Johnson], suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes. Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption."
Male and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) were calling for more research into the potential connection between menstrual changes and the vaccinations. While the possible side effect was largely "short-lived" and unrelated to fertility, Male wrote, understanding its full scope could help alleviate concerns among young women who falsely believe that the vaccinations could hurt their chances of future pregnancy. "Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears," Male stated.
All of this said, experts in reproductive health recommend vaccinations for everyone who's thinking about becoming pregnant, already with child, or breastfeeding—just like the rest of the population (over the age of 12). For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) said in a joint statement: "As experts in reproductive health, we continue to recommend that the vaccine be available to pregnant individuals. We also assure patients that there is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility. While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely."
Furthermore, medical experts say people who know they're pregnant should get the shots as soon as possible. That population faces a higher risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 compared to everyone else. "We have no logical reason to believe that the vaccine impacts fertility in any way, but we have plenty of evidence that pregnant individuals who become sick with COVID-19 get sicker, on average, than non-pregnant individuals," Cecilia Stuopis, the medical director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical, said in an update.
Also, aside from COVID-19's attack on pregnant people's respiratory systems, evidence suggests the virus may be linked to potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, according to the MIT Medical update. The Mayo Clinic highlighted research that indicated pregnant women with COVID-19 were more likely to have premature births, cesarean deliveries, or babies that need neonatal care. "If you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant, contracting COVID-19 is almost certainly more dangerous than getting vaccinated," Stuopis said.
Now, let's pivot to sperm. As of this writing, reputable medical institutions, including the CDC, were refuting rumors about male infertility by pointing to a study at the University of Miami in which researchers recruited 45 healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 with no underlying reproductive issues. The researchers examined the characteristics of their sperm, including the amount of sperm and how they moved, before and after the men received the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. In conclusion, the study stated: "No man became azoospermic after the vaccine," or unable to produce sperm.
Meanwhile, Ranjith Ramasamy, the director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the university, highlighted evidence that suggests the virus—not its vaccinations—can affect sperm counts and cause impotency. He worked on a study, for example, that examined penile tissue samples from two men who had COVID-19 and found blood vessel damage that would make it hard for blood to enter the penis for an erection. "Interestingly, the male reproductive organs have been found to be vulnerable in moderate to severe illness, leading to reports of erectile dysfunction and orchitis," a condition that can result in swollen testicles, according to a summary by Ramasamy and other researchers.
Additionally, "the risk of infertility and erectile dysfunction increases with the severity of an infection," Daniel Nassau, a urologist at the university, told Frontline. The impact of COVID-19 infections aside, there was no scientific support for Minaj's claim that the vaccines—the technology that aims to combat the virus—caused impotency or orchitis among people with male reproductive systems. "We've never seen that," Ramasamy told The Associated Press. Ashley Winter, a urologist specializing in sexual dysfunction at Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, also emphasized in an interview with that news outlet that there was no evidence to substantiate any concerns over the vaccinations' potential threat to male fertility. "On a population level, hundreds of millions of men have gotten this vaccine, and there's no study showing reduced erectile function in men who have been vaccinated," she said. "Fundamentally, we just have no study linking the vaccine to either swollen testicles or erectile dysfunction." | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2017 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton had a couple of really enthusiastic supporters show up at her Buena Park, California rally on Wednesday. In fact, they were so enthusiastic she had to stop her security team from throwing them out of the event because they decided to remove their shirts.As security moved to escort the shirtless men out of her rally, one of them yelled, Hillary, they re kicking us out because we don t have our shirts on. They re making us leave because we don t have shirts on. A laughing Clinton responded by asking security to stop and saying: Well, you know what? As long as they don t take anything else off. You know, you gotta make split decisions that s what leadership is all about. We are a big diverse country. OK, where was I? I gotta admit, it is a little distracting standing up here looking at them. So I m gonna look over this way, and I m gonna look over that way. I m gonna look back there. It was a great moment for Clinton to show off the sense of humor a lot of people do not realize she has. The right wing often accuses her of being an Ice Queen, but she is actually very funny. Her response also highlighted the vast differences between her campaign and that of Republican nominee Donald Trump. The GOP candidate s rallies are filled with violence and hate, while Clinton s is filled with positivity. It s like night and day.Watch:Featured image via video screenshot | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2018 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Try as they may, Republicans have just not figured out how to connect with younger generations. They ve locked down a good portion of older white America, but it seems millennials just really don t want much of anything to do with them.However, in an attempt to try to appeal to this younger vote in an election year, the House Republicans decided they would join Snapchat, the infamous social app that deletes what is sent shortly after sending it. It s hugely popular among younger Americans, so they thought they d give a whirl.One problem, though. The man who they used in the GIF to advertise their Snapchat campaign was NOT happy they used him.How do you do fellow kids? House GOP will Snapchat the #SOTU https://t.co/5Tv5hb0GjP #SNAPoftheUnion pic.twitter.com/xc4XF3fmuR mcbc (@mcbc) January 12, 2016You see, the man in the House GOP s #SnapOfTheUnion campaign is none other than HitFix writer Louis Virtel who also happens to be openly gay. The GIF highlights a moment he snapped his fingers while appearing on Jeopardy last May.Here s Virtel s reaction to being used by the GOP: Hey, GOP! Your candidates are horrifying garbage who ve done nothing for LGBT rights. Don t use my image. GOP, I think every day about closeted gay kids who want to kill themselves because their parents are ignorant, fearful Republicans. Dear GOP: The reason people liked my snap was because it defied regressive, homophobic, scary-ass losers like you. My image is STILL on the odious GOP site. In lieu of flowers, please donate to CAROL s Best Picture campaign. Hey, GOP! Your candidates are horrifying garbage who've done nothing for LGBT rights. Don't use my image. https://t.co/N1zddPOeZR Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) January 12, 2016Dear @GOP: The reason people liked my snap was because it defied regressive, homophobic, scary-ass losers like you. https://t.co/N1zddPOeZR Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) January 12, 2016My image is STILL on the odious @GOP site. In lieu of flowers, please donate to CAROL's Best Picture campaign. https://t.co/N1zddPOeZR Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) January 13, 2016Well done! Way to tell them, Louis!Too bad that GIF is still up on their website, and they are clearly either too stupid or too pompous to take it down. Likely both.The GOP will never catch the clue that younger generations just DO NOT like them for their blatantly derogatory actions taken against not only the gay community, but against nearly every minority in existence. They need to realize, hopefully sooner rather than later, that they are myopic in their views and archaic in their policy. They also need to learn how to make sure the people they are using in their campaigns are on board with being used. However, it s clear they just don t care.Featured image: GOP.gov | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2019 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did a Retired Postman Father Over 1,300 Illegitimate Children? Claim summaries: Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense.
contextual information: On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website even those based on real people areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites: The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2020 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Whether it s climate change, Obamacare, prosecuting Hillary Clinton (for what?), building a wall, or draining the swamp, one thing is certain: Donald Trump has made it clear he has no problem going back on his word.And now he s walking back one of the core promises of his campaign: NAFTA. The Hill reports Trump will not rip up NAFTA, contrary to his promises on the campaign trail:Anthony Scaramucci, a senior advisor on the Trump transition team, told a group of business leaders convened at a bipartisan meeting by the group No Labels that President-elect Donald Trump is a free-trader who is looking to make trade deals more fair, not scrap them. I don t think we re looking to rip up NAFTA as much as we are looking to right-size it and make it fairer, Scaramucci said Monday. He s got a great relationship, by the way, with the Mexican president. They talk regularly, referring to Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pe a Nieto.Scaramucci said part of his role with Trump s economic team has been to study the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).While campaigning, Trump said he would terminate the deal. It was the worst deal EVER and needed to be entirely renegotiated from the ground up. What happened to that, Trump?Populist leaders on the left, such as Bernie Sanders, have been critical of NAFTA as well, so it s unlikely this will be the last Trump hears of it:Since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants in this country have been shut down and we have lost over 4.7 million decent paying manufacturing jobs. NAFTA has led to the loss of nearly 700,000 jobs. PNTR with China has led to the loss of 2.7 million jobs. Our trade agreement with South Korea has led to the loss of about 75,000 jobs. While bad trade agreements are not the only reason why manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have declined, they are an important factor. Many labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups pushed back against NAFTA, arguing that it would create a push-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards. The concern that the deal would undermine national sovereignty was a big one (as is currently the case with the TPP). As described by public advocacy group Public Citizen, NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies .Donald Trump has absolutely no interest in fulfilling any of his promises to the working class. Instead, he s giving away favors to the rich while the worst elements of the GOP step into power.Read more:Featured image via Spencer Platt/Getty Images | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2021 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Since rejoining Russia in a democratic referendum in 2014, Crimea has become a rapidly developing region with a fast-growing economy.
In particular, revenues are consistently growing; unemployment has been cut threefold; the free economic zone established in 2015 significantly contributes to economic growth; and a record number of tourists visited the peninsula in 2017-18. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2022 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Was El Paso One of the 'Most Dangerous Cities' in U.S. Before a Border Fence Was Built? Claim summaries: What did make a difference was a flood of Border Patrol agents, who began Operation Hold the Line in 1993.
contextual information: On 5 February 2019, President Donald Trump delivered the annual State of the Union address and made an appeal in his ongoing effort to deliver on a campaign promise to build a border wall. In his speech, President Trump stated that the city of El Paso, Texas, "used to have extremely high rates of violent crime one of the highest in the country, and [was] considered one of our nations most dangerous cities. Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities." stated Following that remark, El Paso Mayor Dee Margo took to Twitter to dispute its accuracy: El Paso was NEVER one of the MOST dangerous cities in the US. Weve had a fence for 10 years and it has impacted illegal immigration and curbed criminal activity. It is NOT the sole deterrent. Law enforcement in our community continues to keep us safe #SOTU #SOTU Mayor Dee Margo (@mayor_margo) February 6, 2019 February 6, 2019 We looked at crime data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) to weigh which public official's statements were accurate. The FBI's UCR project compiles and analyzes data from "more than 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program." UCR project Crime data do not support the president's claim either that El Paso was one of the country's "most dangerous cities" or that the barrier built between El Paso and Juarez, Mexico, had the effect of dramatically reducing crime on the U.S. side of the border. Instead, UCR data show that violent crime in El Paso generally followed a national trend. It spiked to its highest level in 30 years in the early 1990s and has steadily declined since. The following graph compares crime data from the El Paso Police Department with nationwide figures from 1985 to 2015. Source: Uniform Crime Report. online In 2018, US News & World Report ranked El Paso number 11 in "best places to retire," citing in part the community's relative safety and thriving economy. This ranking was not new, as El Paso had regularly been ranked one of the country's safest cities for its population size going as far back as 2005 -- three years before the border fence there was built. ranked far back Construction on the barrier between El Paso and Juarez began in 2008 under President George W. Bush and was completed in 2009 as part of a larger border security plan known as "Operation Hold the Line" which was launched in 1993. UCR data drawn from the El Paso Police Department shows that violent crime, already trending downward, continued to drop fairly consistently in the five years leading up to fence construction, from a high of 6,109 incidents in 1993 to an all-time low in 2006 of 2,422: Source: Uniform Crime Report. Source: Uniform Crime Report. KDBC El Paso's violent crime was at its peak in 1992. What did make a difference was a flood of Border Patrol agents, who began Operation Hold the Line in 1993. Hundreds of agents were stationed every few feet along the border. Violent crime in El Paso drastically reduced in the years following. We've played a big part of that, said Border Patrol Sector Chief Aaron Hull. We can't determine whether crime in El Paso fell as a result of increased Border Patrol presence, the dynamic that caused crime to drop nationwide, or some combination of both. But what can be determined from crime data is that over the previous three decades, border wall construction hadn't shown a positive impact on reducing violent crime in that community, and El Paso was far and away not one of the most dangerous cities in America. The 2019 State of the Union wasn't the first instance during which the Trump administration made this false claim, and it wasn't the first time that claim had been debunked. In their own fact check, the El Paso Times reported that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had also promoted the claim, along with White House press secretary Sarah Sanders: been debunked reported promoted In January 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted Ask El Paso, Texas (now one of Americas safest cities) across the border from Juarez, Mexico (one of the worlds most dangerous) if a wall works." She linked to an opinion piece published in the New York Post that was titled This town is proof that Trumps wall can work. The piece, written by a conservative political commentator based in Washington, D.C., argued that El Pasos border fence is the reason for the city's low crime rate and decreased illegal border crossings. At the time, local leaders rejected the article's findings and argued that it did not mention the police-community relations and cooperation between law enforcement agencies that contributed to the city's safety before border fencing was put in place. On the 2016 campaign trail, Donald Trump promised supporters that if elected, he would build a border wall that Mexico would pay for. As time went by and it became clear Mexico would not finance the construction of such a wall, Trump waffled on how it would be funded, resulting in the longest partial shutdown of the federal government in U.S. history when he and Congressional Democrats reached an impasse over the issue. waffled Mekelburg, Madlin. "Fact Check State of the Union: Trump Says El Paso Among Most Dangerous Cities Until Fence."
El Paso Times. 5 February 2019. Mekelburg, Madlin. "Did Construction of a Border Fence Cut Down on Crime Rates in El Paso?"
El Paso Times. 10 January 2019. Curtis, Genevieve. "Border Fence Didn't Make El Paso Safer From Violent Crimes."
KDBC-TV. 6 February 2019. Timmons, Patrick. "Low Crime in El Paso Predates 'Wall'; Smugglers Are U.S. Citizens."
UPI. 17 January 2019. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2023 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Food Stamp participation hits 10 year low.
contextual information: Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps, has been declining for the past several years, largely due to an improving economy. President Donald Trump referred to the decline in a July 9 tweet, mentioning a right-wing media outlet that published an article about the 10-year low just hours before. "Food Stamp participation hits 10-year low. Wow!" @OANN, Trump wrote. The White House and Trump campaign did not provide a comment. SNAP benefits are food vouchers issued by the government to eligible participants and families with no or low income. While the federal government oversees the program, benefits are administered monthly at the state level. When comparing SNAP participation over the past 10 years, the best approach is to examine the percentage of the U.S. population participating in the program, said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. It's preferable to use the percentage of the population rather than a simple count because the U.S. population is growing. She pointed to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Since April 2009, the only month that had a lower participation percentage was February 2019. There were unusual circumstances—a government shutdown—that affected the February numbers. The general decline in SNAP benefits is likely due to the very low level of unemployment and gradually rising wages, said Michael Wiseman, a professor of public policy at George Washington University. Due to a government shutdown, February 2019 had the lowest participation percentage; only 2.22% of people received SNAP benefits. As the record-breaking shutdown lasted from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, most February benefits were distributed in January to ensure SNAP recipients would receive their February 2019 benefits in a timely manner, according to the USDA. The number of SNAP participants largely depends on the economy, said Brynne Keith-Jennings, a senior research analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Experts noted that policy changes haven't had significant long-term effects on the decline in participation—that's how strongly tied SNAP is to the economy. Because of the Great Recession, SNAP benefits were expanded at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009 as a counter-recession effort, Wiseman said. The expansion was eliminated in 2013, so the 2009 Recovery Act had short-term, if any, effects, Keith-Jennings added. Another part of the 2009 stimulus was suspending a three-month limit on SNAP participation for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents. States with high unemployment rates have the ability to waive the limit, at least for now. The Trump administration has proposed tightening standards for permitting relief from time limits, Wiseman said. In my judgment, time limits on Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents, while questionable policy, are not the driving factor behind the slowdown of SNAP enrollment. A proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture would make it more difficult for states to waive the three-month limit. If the USDA rule is approved, an estimated 755,000 people would no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits, according to a USDA estimate that is part of the proposed rule. However, even if it's approved, the economy would still have a larger effect on overall trends in SNAP participation due to the relatively small size of this population among SNAP participants, Keith-Jennings said. Our ruling: Trump tweeted, "Food Stamp participation hits 10-year low." He's correct. The abnormally low SNAP participation in February 2019 was due to benefits for that month being distributed in January 2019 because of a government shutdown. We rate this True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2024 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Does 'Forrest Gump' Plot Include These Inconsistencies? Claim summaries: We carefully reviewed scenes of the 1994 film for holes in its storyline.
contextual information: In early 2021, Snopes became aware of online posts alleging narrative plot holes in the 1994 film "Forrest Gump," which American screenwriter Eric Roth created based on a novel with the same title. One Reddit thread, for example, debated the accuracy of a scene in the latter half of the movie in which the fictional protagonist, Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, received a letter from the computer software company, Apple. Reddit thread Additionally, a webpage on My Daily Magazine a digital hub of self-improvement tips and other content alleged Gump's famous cross-country run (which came after the Apple letter scene) spanned 1.5 years, based on other context clues, though Gump said he ran for more than three years. My Daily Magazine Below, we analyzed the legitimacy of those claims, which together asserted that the movie that mixed fictional characters and ideas with real events contained at least two plot holes. Before we proceed, let us note here: We requested an interview with Roth by reaching out to the Los Angeles-based talent company, called Creative Artists Agency, which represents the screenwriter, according to IMDB. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update this report when or if we receive one. Creative Artists Agency One Reddit user alleged: "Iconic 'Forrest Gump' Scene Has One Ridiculous Flaw No One Noticed | Forest Gump is set in 1975 and he got a letter from Apple, which wasn't founded until 1981." In other words, the post claimed Gump received a letter from the tech company before it was established. The Reddit post referenced a montage scene roughly one hour and 40 minutes into the movie, when Gump explained his life after working with "Lt. Dan" as a member of his platoon and later as shrimp boat partners. Gump narrates the scene: scene As Gump mentions the "fruit company," movie viewers saw him opening a letter addressed to him with Apple's retro rainbow logo and the title "Apple Computer, Inc." We took the below-displayed screenshot of the moment, via Amazon's digital rental version of the film: As you can see, the letter was dated Sept. 23, 1975. While the Reddit post claimed the computer manufacturing company was actually formed in 1981 which we learned was inaccurate based on evidence we outlined below we pieced together events showing when, exactly, college dropouts Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the company. As a 26-year-old engineering intern at Hewlett-Packard Company, or HP, Wozniak indeed developed a plan to build his own computer in 1975, after a New-Mexico-based tech firm announced the invention of the first-ever commercially successful microcomputer, the Altair 8800, the previous year, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Wozniak Encyclopedia Britannica Smithsonian National Museum of American History Wozniak initially pitched his design to his employer, historical records show. But after it expressed no interest in his idea, he teamed up with his former high-school classmate, 21-year-old Jobs, to act on his vision by piecing together equipment in Jobs' Silicon Valley garage. "Jobs and Wozniak named their company Apple," Britannica said. Portrait of American businessmen and engineers Steve Jobs (left) and Steve Wozniak in 1977. (Photo by Tom Munnecke/Getty Images) So while Wozniak first acted on a design that eventually led to the company's creation in 1975, Apple Computers, Inc, was not officially established until April 1, 1976, according to an arm of The Library of Congress that documents American business and economics, called Business Reference Services. Business Reference Services The underlying assertion of the Reddit post's claim was accurate: Jobs and Wozniak founded Apple after the date of Gump's letter. Additionally, Apple did not launch an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock which would have hypothetically allowed Lt. Dan to invest his and Gump's money in the tech company until December 12, 1980, according to EDN, a trade magazine for electrical design and engineering news. EDN "The shares sold out almost immediately and the IPO generated more capital than any IPO since Ford Motor Company in 1956," the magazine reported. "Instantly, about 300 millionaires were created, some 40 of which were Apple employees and investors." In sum, since the letter supposedly depicting Gump's stock investment in Apple was dated in fall 1975, and the fact that Jobs and Wozniak did not officially launch the company until the following spring and allowed public shareholding years after that, it was true to say the movie scene included a narrative plot hole. The original "Forrest Gump" novel by Vietnam veteran Winston Groom, which was published about eight years before the movie's release, did not reference Apple or "some kind of fruit company" in its storyline, based on our keyword search of the text. Winston Groom, In an October 2020 slideshow of "Interesting Facts About Forrest Gump," My Daily Magazine alleged of a roughly seven-minute sequence in the movie, depicting the long run by Gump: alleged seven-minute sequence Forrest Gump said that he was running for three years and two months. But he actually started running the day President Carter collapsed from heat in October 1, 1979, and ran until he got Jenny's letter the day President Regan's [sic] assassination attempt was all over the news. Between the first and the second event, only a year and a half had passed. Put another way, the webpage claimed Gump only ran for 1.5 years not three years and about two and a half months, like Gump claimed in his narration of the scene based on surrounding details of the film that depicted real historical events. (Note: Winston's novel did not include the famous cross-country run by Gump.) However, the movie's famous "run scene" began on Gump's front porch in the fictional town of Greenbow, Alabama. The character said "for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run." Within seconds, viewers saw Gump running past a business in which at least two men were watching a television news cast. The news program said in the background of Gump's narration: "President Carter, suffering from heat exhaustion, fell into the arms of ..." President Jimmy Carter indeed suffered from heat exhaustion while running a six-mile race in Maryland on Sept. 15, 1979, according to news archives obtained by Snopes. "The President was sweating excessively and had become weak and wobbly at the 4-mile point due to heat exhaustion," The New York Times reported two days later. "Carter fell to his knees and was given smelling salts." news archives reported While it was unclear whether the news anchor in in Forrest Gump was reporting on Carter's fall live or recapping the event days after it happened, the inclusion of the detail likely meant movie producers wanted viewers to believe Gump began his run in mid-September 1979. After passing the business, Gump's narration continued as images of him running past Alabama's state line to Mississippi, and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica, California, appeared on screen. He supposedly made the same multi-state trip multiple times, only stopping to sleep, eat, and use the bathroom. Then, at one point, movie viewers saw men inside a barbershop and people inside a cafe, including Gump's love interest Jenny Curran, watching TV news programs featuring Gump's run. One news anchor said he had been running for more than two years, which would put the date in mid-September 1981 or later, based on Carter's heat exhaustion episode. By the end of the montage, when he apparently stopped running and returned to Alabama, Gump claimed, "I had run for three years, two months, 14 days and 16 hours." Screenshot via Amazon's digital version of Forrest Gump. The movie's next scene showed a news program playing footage of President Ronald Reagan approaching a limousine and people ducking from gunshots. "Five or six gunshots were fired by an unknown, would-be assassin," a news anchor said, as Gump listened to the broadcast. "The president was shot in the chest." That detail again referenced a real-life event, the attempted assassination of Reagan in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 1981, according to news archives. The president was leaving a hotel speaking event when gunman John Hinkley Jr. opened fire, wounding Reagan and three administration officials. the attempted assassination John Hinkley Jr. Based on back-of-the-napkin math, only one year, six months and 15 days passed between Carter's collapse and Reagan's assassination attempt, proving the underlying claim of The Daily Magazine webpage true Gump's alleged timeframe for the run did not align with the actual timing of simultaneously-referenced historical events. According to ScreenCraft, an organization that aims to help aspiring screenwriters, cinematic storytellers should avoid such plot errors, big or small, that expose inconsistencies in characters' motivation or storylines. ScreenCraft "Even the best screenwriters make mistakes," wrote Ken Miyamoto, a ScreenCraft blogger and former Sony Pictures screenwriter. "The small ones are those that may slip by the average audience member." Ken Miyamoto | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2025 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Each week, Nate Cohn, The Upshot’s elections analyst, and Toni Monkovic, an Upshot editor, will discuss the 2016 race and post a lightly edited transcript of their written exchange. In trying to stop Donald Trump, Republicans could not turn to their superdelegates — because they didn’t exist. That may be the best argument for Democrats to keep such a body, and yet superdelegates have never seemed in so much danger. Bernie Sanders says he will campaign to win over superdelegates, despite their verdict against him on Monday night, then hopes to eliminate them in future elections. But first up in this week’s conversation, the big news from Monday: Hillary Clinton, with the help of those superdelegates, was declared the presumptive Democratic nominee. Toni According to your article late tonight (Monday) the Clinton team didn’t seem to want to have the clinching occur with the help of superdelegates. They would have preferred to win with votes in Tuesday’s elections. Nate Yeah, it’s hard to think of many worse ways for Hillary Clinton to get here. Here’s this historic moment — the first woman to win a major party nomination — and it catches everyone by surprise, and they have to downplay it. It feeds into the notion that the whole thing is rigged. Toni Bernie Sanders is going to feel enormous pressure to end this race. But a victory in California and maybe a few other states would be the ultimate rejoinder. It’s still possible. Besides California, he could easily win in North Dakota and South Dakota. And Montana, too? Nate I think he’s a very clear favorite in North Dakota, a caucus, and Montana, an open primary in the Mountain West. He’s a somewhat more modest favorite in South Dakota, but Clinton overperformed a bit in caucuses in neighboring Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wyoming, so I wouldn’t completely write off a Clinton win in a primary there. Next up would be New Mexico, but that’s both a diverse state and a closed primary. It’s a lot harder for him. Toni Any victory would be extra sweet for him, particularly California. After Tuesday, President Obama will lean on him. Others will lean on him. It’s purely a guess, but I think he keeps going to the convention. Nate I don’t think so, Toni. Did you see what he said tonight after the networks called the race for Clinton? Toni No. Too busy editing. I’ll look it up now. Nate You didn’t miss anything! He said nothing about it. That doesn’t sound like a candidate who is going to vigorously contest the outcome. Toni This is what I found, a news release. Nate Yes, but he gave a whole speech, and he didn’t mention it once. Toni So you think he’ll drop out. How does it play out? Nate To be clear, I have no inside information. I’m just saying that, if I had to bet, I’d say that he’ll concede sometime this week or at least before the D. C. primary (June 14). Update I just think there’s a lot of evidence coming together. Jeff Merkley’s comment. Sanders having his event at 1 a. m. which is after the California polls close and after Clinton clinches pledged delegates, but before he could plausibly lead in California, given the early vote. Toni Do you think a lot of his supporters would be ready for that? Nate Not the ones that tweet at me. Toni Ha. But they’re the ones who could vote for Jill Stein and help Trump win the election. Or maybe just vote for Trump? Nate They could. They say they will, at least on Twitter. I do think that some of them will be swayed by the likes of Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren and perhaps even Bernie himself. But not all — though I wonder how many of them would have voted for Obama. Toni I think almost all of them in 2008, but fewer in 2012 and fewer still as time went on and disillusionment set in. That’s one of the big questions remaining for this election: whether Sanders supporters put it behind them and eventually accept Clinton. The way it happened tonight may not help, but in the end, it may not matter. Trump could persuade Bernie supporters all by himself, and this week he seems to be doing a heck of a job. Nate Yeah, I think that’s probably right. And it is very hard to imagine how Trump is supposed to make inroads anywhere if he keeps up this pace, let alone among people who supported a Democratic socialist. Toni I still believe Bernie will fight at the convention about superdelegates. Let’s imagine that there were no superdelegates to start the campaign. That would have still left Sanders with his biggest problem. It wasn’t closed primaries, it wasn’t the media, it wasn’t superdelegates. (Not saying those played no role). It was that he was routed among black voters, who have played a hugely influential role in recent presidential campaigns. Nate I think that’s right. It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that Clinton and Sanders were basically tied among nonblack voters, and that Clinton then built her lead on a huge margin among black voters. It allowed her to sweep the South by a huge margin — margins that Sanders never really countered. Toni Some Sanders supporters have been asking for proportional representation of superdelegates tied to the popular vote in each state. But that essentially gets him nowhere, right? Nate Nowhere. In fact, I’d argue it would set him back: It would lock superdelegates into the results of the primaries. Keeping the superdelegates unbound gives him a case that he’s not completely eliminated until they’ve voted. There are all sorts of arguments about how the Democratic nominating process is problematic. The superdelegates have taken a lot of flak, and there’s a solid argument for it. But this race was not close, and it was not decided by technicalities in the rules. Toni Let me defend the concept of superdelegates for a moment. It’s also, in a way, a defense of expertise. If you’re a political pro, you’re more likely to know, for example, that Sanders’s edge over Clinton in polls against Donald Trump may not mean much. You’re also more likely to know the nuances of policy than the average person. A lot of people don’t realize this, but some are allowed to vote in primaries. Is it elitist to think that it’s more meaningful if Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and the Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison support Sanders — they are two of his superdelegates — than if most do? (I have no problem with voting, by the way). Nate Haha, well, why have elections at all then, Toni? Toni The bottom line is: Is there any value at all in having superdelegates? Nate I think so, and there are two big reasons. One is that they’re helpful in the event of a contested convention — say, a race where no candidate reached 50 percent of pledged delegates, something like what the Republicans would have faced if they had used proportional delegate rules like the Democrats. My instinct is that superdelegates probably have a better chance of coordinating a solution than a bunch of unaccountable and unacquainted delegates. The other is that they’re helpful if there’s good reason to believe the dynamics of the race have fundamentally changed. Imagine, for instance, that Barack Obama had been a badly damaged candidate after the Reverend Wright tapes were released — say he fell far behind in national polls, or he didn’t win any remaining contests, including the ones he was supposed to win, like North Carolina or Oregon. I think superdelegates would have been justified in siding with the results of the latter primaries. Toni Yes, superdelegates are more flexible than a lot of people might think. And an indictment of Hillary Clinton is not an impossibility. But now let me play devil’s advocate. I can also envision how the superdelegate system could become untenable. If Sanders had edged Clinton by, say, two pledged delegates, it’s conceivable that the superdelegates would have overturned that verdict by the voters. They could have cited things like popular vote totals or his reliance on caucus victories. In that event, you would have had an extraordinary mess (you think Sanders supporters are upset now? ). And it makes you wonder if the idea of superdelegates is sustainable in the long run. If something like that happened, it’s easy to imagine that superdelegates would be abolished for future elections. Nate So yes, I think that’s totally possible. But you could imagine ways around this problem. Maybe superdelegates need to be “triggered†— say, if no candidate earns a majority of delegates, or 52 percent of delegates, or something like that. Although that wouldn’t help in the event that there’s reason to think that the race had fundamentally changed since the early contests. But as it was, it was a little ridiculous that superdelegates still loomed over a race where a candidate was winning the popular vote by 14 or so percentage points. Toni Yes, it left Sanders in the awkward position of having railed against superdelegates and then basing the entire rest of his campaign on them. What’s your feeling on the possibility of a change in the superdelegate system at the convention? A compromise to cut them significantly could be a tool for Clinton to make peace with Sanders and his supporters. Elizabeth Warren, who is a superdelegate, has come out against superdelegates, so momentum seems to be building. But getting rid of them entirely wouldn’t be easy, right? Nate I don’t have a great sense of how likely it is that they’ll change the superdelegates, but they’ve probably been more trouble than they’ve been worth to the Democrats so far. It wouldn’t surprise me if people were willing to cut or reform them in some way. Toni Staying with California, Donald Trump has spent time campaigning there (in a state) instead of in battleground states. Is there a strategy buried in there somewhere? Or should it be called strategery? Nate I don’t think so. Can you even think of anything? Toni Not a thing. What does that say about his campaign advisers? Or probably he doesn’t listen to them. Nate Well, the reporting — including from The Times — indicates that the campaign is something of a mess right now, and that’s exactly how I’d describe their travel schedule. In recent weeks, Nate and Toni discussed claims from Sanders supporters that elections were rigged surveys showing Sanders outperforming Clinton in polling against Donald Trump and whether Elizabeth Warren could have defeated Clinton. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2026 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The leader of Germany s pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), a possible partner in Chancellor Angela Merkel s new government, has called for Russia to be invited to the next summit of the Group of Seven industrialized countries. The proposal met immediate resistance from Merkel s conservatives and the environmentalist Greens, throwing a possible wrench into already tricky negotiations about a three-way ruling coalition. FDP leader Christian Lindner told the Austrian newspaper Die Pressed that readmitting Russia to the Group of Eight could help ease tensions with Moscow. Russia was suspended from the group in 2014 after it annexed Ukraine s Crimea peninsula following an uprising in Kiev that toppled its pro-Moscow president. We cannot make all things dependent on the situation in Crimea, Lindner said, although he said Russia s violation of international law could not be accepted. But this is the most severe conflict and that s the last place we ll see progress, Lindner said. That s why I m in favor of intensifying dialogue | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2027 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Former U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that “cavalier†threats to start war on the Korean peninsula were “dangerous and short-sightedâ€, urging the United States to get all parties to the negotiating table. Clinton also called on China to take a “more outfront role†in enforcing sanctions against North Korea aimed at curbing its missile and nuclear development. “There is no need for us to be bellicose and aggressive (over North Korea),†Clinton told the World Knowledge Forum in the South Korean capital of Seoul, stressing the need for more pressure on North Korea and diplomacy to bring Pyongyang to talks. Tension between Pyongyang and Washington has soared following a series of weapons tests by North Korea and a string of increasingly bellicose exchanges between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “Picking fights with Kim Jong Un puts a smile on his face,†Clinton said, without mentioning Trump by name. Clinton also indirectly referred to Trump’s social media comments on North Korea, saying, “The insults on Twitter have benefited North Korea, I don’t think they’ve benefited the United Statesâ€. The war of words has seen Trump call the North Korean leader “little rocket man†on a suicide mission, and vow to destroy the country if it threatens the United States or its allies. In turn, the North called Trump “mentally deranged†and a “mad dogâ€. Talks between the adversaries have long been urged by China in particular, but Washington and its ally Japan have been reluctant while Pyongyang continues to pursue a goal of developing a nuclear-tipped missile to hit the United States. On Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan said the United States did not rule out the eventual possibility of direct talks with North Korea. The situation on the Korean peninsula was now touch-and-go point “and a nuclear war may break out any momentâ€, North Korea’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador Kim In Ryong had told a U.N. General Assembly committee on Monday. In Seoul, the vice foreign minister said on Wednesday South Korea was considering levying its own sanctions on the North, although no decision has been made yet. Clinton, a former U.S. secretary of state, said Washington’s allies have increasingly been expressing concern over the reliability of the United States, advising Washington to avoid becoming distracted with North Korean threats and be “as forcefully patient†as possible. Regarding China’s role in reining in North Korea, Clinton said Beijing would be better off trying to “tighten and absolutely enforce sanctions†against North Korea. North Korea’s relationship with its main ally and trading partner China have been strained by its rapid pursuit of weapons programs, with many of Pyongyang’s recent tests coinciding with major Chinese events. There had been fears that North Korea would conduct another test to coincide with the start of China’s five-yearly party congress on Wednesday. Instead, Pyongyang sent Beijing a congratulatory message. The central committee of the North’s ruling Workers’ Party of Korea said China had made “great progress in accomplishing the cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics†under the guidance of the Communist Party of China. “We are greatly pleased over this,†the party central committee said in the message carried by the official KCNA news agency, adding that it “sincerely wished†the China congress “satisfactory successâ€. Chinese President Xi Jinping did not mention North Korea in his more than three-hour-long address at the opening of a key Communist Party Congress. Clinton said retaliatory actions by China over the deployment of a U.S. anti-missile system in South Korea, which targeting the latter’s firms doing business in China, would be unnecessary had Beijing done a better job reining in the North. China says the powerful radar of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system could be used to pierce its territory, and has taken aim at South Korea’s businesses. South Korea and the United States have repeatedly told China that THAAD aims only to defend against North Korea’s missile threats. “The Chinese can’t have it both ways,†Clinton said. “They can’t do less than they could to tighten economic pressures on North Korea and same time discount the real threat South Korea and its citizens face.†| 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2028 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did CNN's Brooke Baldwin Say Military Veterans Can't Be Trusted with Authority? Claim summaries: The CNN newsperson supposedly proclaimed that local law enforcement shouldn't hire military veterans because they 'can't be trusted with authority.'
contextual information: In April 2015, a rumor started circulating online holding that CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin had said, "Don't hire veterans. They can't be trusted with authority": In later versions, this rumor was presented as Baldwin's having said, "Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority": Baldwin, however, never said this. The quote "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority" is a very loose paraphrase of a passage from her 28 April 2015 interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland about the importance of police training: "We talk about training, we talk about having officers. I was talking to the city councilman last week who was saying, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There's a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of these young people and I've been talking about them so much. A lot of young people and I love our nation's veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle." Baldwin's actual comment about how some veterans might not make good police officers because "some of them are coming back from war [and] they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle" was rather far from the claim that she had stated "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority." Still, many viewers (and many who didn't even see the interview) found Baldwin's words to be offensive. Shortly after the interview aired, Baldwin issued an apology via Twitter: apology Baldwin also clarified her comments and issued an on-air apology the following morning: apology "I absolutely misspoke. I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I've thought tremendously about this, and to our nation's veterans to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry." | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2029 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F. B. I. collected nearly 15, 000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release. As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. The F. B. I. discovered the roughly 14, 900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order. While the emails were not in the original trove of 55, 000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F. B. I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted. †Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless. †Under the likely timetable, the soonest the new emails would be released is October. The State Department released the original emails in monthly installments over nearly a year, through February, though it missed several deadlines as its staff and other agencies scrutinized the documents for classified information. Despite Mr. Comey’s conclusion that Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified information, he said last month that the F. B. I. would not recommend criminal charges against her, which finally seemed to ease the threat that her handling of emails has posed to her presidential campaign. But the prospect of further disclosures from Mrs. Clinton’s emails suggests that the issue will not be put to rest so easily. “Hillary Clinton seems incapable of telling the truth,†the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said in a statement. “The process for reviewing these emails needs to be expedited, public disclosure should begin before early voting starts, and the emails in question should be released in full before Election Day. †The Clinton campaign said Mrs. Clinton had turned over all the emails she had in her possession in 2014 to the State Department. “We are not sure what additional materials the Justice Department may have located,†said the campaign’s spokesman, Brian Fallon. “But if the State Department determines any of them to be then obviously we support those documents being released publicly as well. †A State Department spokesman, Mark C. Toner, said it would have to review the documents to determine which were personal or and whether any duplicated emails had already been released in response to lawsuits brought by the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, under the Freedom of Information Act. The group said that the 725 pages of documents it released Monday demonstrated efforts by the Clinton family foundation to leverage its influence with Mrs. Clinton. The emails, drawn from Ms. Abedin, included an appeal by Douglas Band, a Clinton Foundation executive, for Mrs. Clinton to meet with Bahrain’s crown prince, whose family had contributed millions of dollars to the foundation. “Good friend of ours,†Mr. Band wrote. Ms. Abedin, after expressing Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to schedule a meeting “until she knows how she will feel,†then wrote back to Mr. Band to offer the crown prince an appointment the next morning. She encouraged Mr. Band to let the prince know, “if you see him,†though she said the State Department had also contacted him through official channels. But Ms. Abedin expressed qualms when Mr. Band appealed to her to help arrange an interview in the British Embassy to get a visa for a member of the Wolverhampton Football Club, who had a criminal charge against him. Mr. Band was helping Casey Wasserman, a sports marketing executive who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Wasserman is a of a Mrs. Clinton will attend this week in Beverly Hills, Calif. “I get this now, makes me nervous to get involved but I’ll ask,†Ms. Abedin wrote. “Then don’t,†Mr. Band replied. Judicial Watch’s president, Tom Fitton, said the emails included 20 exchanges with Mrs. Clinton herself that were not among those her lawyers turned over to the State Department. The emails, he said, showed how Ms. Abedin served as a conduit between the department and the Clinton Foundation, citing the exchange over the crown prince’s meeting. “It is hard to tell where the State Department ended and where the Clinton Foundation began,†he said. “They were working hand in glove. †Under the process set by Judge Boasberg on Monday, the State Department will review the new emails and documents and present the court with a schedule for releasing them. Mr. Fitton said that process could begin in October, or could be delayed as the department reviews which are personal and which are . “The question is how many of those are truly personal,†he said. Separately, a prominent House Republican pressed the F. B. I. on Monday to explain why it had redacted emails and summaries of its interview with Mrs. Clinton, which it turned over to Congress last week. Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in an interview that nearly half the material was redacted, including “a lot of redactions for things that aren’t warranted. †He also said there were inconsistencies in the two copies of the documents that the F. B. I. submitted to Congress. In a letter to Mr. Comey on Monday, Mr. Chaffetz demanded that the F. B. I. explain its legal basis for the redactions and why the two copies were inconsistent. He said the F. B. I. should submit an unclassified version of its report, which presumably could be made public. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2030 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did a Survey Reveal That People Want a 'Gender Neutral' Santa Claus? Claim summaries: A survey by a graphic-design company may not accurately represent the views of the public at large.
contextual information: In mid-December 2018, a graphic design company conducted a survey asking respondents in the U.S. and U.K. how they might change the conceptualization of Santa Claus to "modernize" his image. Among the various responses were such suggestions as dressing Santa in skinny jeans and giving him an Amazon Prime membership. survey Among the survey questions, the GraphicSprings design company included one about whether Saint Nick should be a man, a woman, or "gender neutral." Many headlines reporting on the survey focused on respondents' expressing their preference for a gender-neutral or female Santa Claus, a scrutiny perhaps not surprising in the age of social media flame wars. What wasn't discussed, however, was an aspect of the story that was key, albeit boring: the survey's methodology. GraphicSprings described their survey methodology as follows: Respondents ranged from 18 to 65+ and were based in both the UK and US. We used Google surveys and gathered responses during October and November 2018. Suggestions on how to change Santa were gathered from an open survey of 400 respondents from both the UK and US. A selection of these suggestions were then voted on by over 4000 people across the UK and US, with the most popular visualised in our graphic. GraphicSprings didn't explain who made the "selection" of suggestions that were included in the larger survey, or why they were chosen. Furthermore, many of the news stories about the survey didn't review the survey or note that the questions presented to participants were leading ones. survey For example, survey-takers were asked "If you could 'rebrand' Santa for modern society, what gender would he be?" Participants were provided three answers from which they could choose -- male, female or gender-neutral: Writing for the Australian popular culture and news site Junkee, journalist Joseph Earp described the survey as a savvy but cruel tour de force in marketing that succeeded in raising GraphicSprings' media profile: Junkee The study was designed to generate a controversial result. Participants didnt come up with the idea to make Santa gender neutral: it was offered to them. The question wasnt: What would you do to modernise Santa?, or even What gender should Santa be? The question fed participants gender neutral as an answer. Thats a kind of bias that real studies, conducted by companies that arent just trying to mine some outrage, would have worked on eliminating. And its a kind of bias that GraphicSpring had a vested interest in not eliminating. They wanted an attention-grabbing result that would piss off boomers already convinced of the evils of PC culture, and they got it. In other words, the results of a viral survey designed by a company that specializes in making business cards and flyers probably was not intended to accurately measure public opinion. | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2031 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Robert Mugabe would have rejected the role of World Health Organization goodwill envoy had he been formally asked, his spokesman said on Tuesday, days after state media cheered the Zimbabwean president s appointment. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus named Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador on Wednesday at a conference in Uruguay that both men were attending. But the appointment was rescinded on Sunday following a backlash from Western donors, rights groups and opposition parties. Last Friday, the state-owned Herald celebrated the largely ceremonial appointment as a New feather in President s cap , adding that Mugabe, 93, had accepted the role. His spokesman told the same newspaper on Tuesday that Zimbabwe s sole leader since independence from Britain in 1980 had only heard about the appointment via the media. Had anything been put to the president ... (he) would have found such a request to be an awkward one, Charamba was quoted as saying, citing Zimbabwe s role as a tobacco producer. The WHO cannot take back what it never gave in the first place, and as far as he is concerned, all this hullabaloo over a non-appointment is in fact a non-event. Charamba did not respond to calls seeking further comment. Mugabe s critics were outraged by Tedros announcement, saying he was rewarding a man whose government had presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe s health system. In Geneva, WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier told a U.N. briefing that there were no fixed guidelines for appointing a WHO goodwill ambassador, but that the director-general or his deputies had the power to select them. On Tedros decision to rescind Mugabe s appointment, he said: I think in terms of transparency we were pretty good. A, it was tweeted and B it appeared on the website with the statements immediately. Charamba said the fact that Zimbabwe was a producer and exporter of tobacco, mostly to China, would have meant Mugabe campaigning against a crop that underpins the economy. Tobacco is Zimbabwe s single largest foreign currency earner, bringing in an average $800 million annually in the last four years, according to official data. To be seen to be playing goodwill ambassador in respect of an agency which has a well-defined stance on tobacco growing and tobacco selling, that would have been a contradiction, Charamba said. In other words, he was not going to oblige the invitation had it come his way anyway. A Western diplomat in Geneva told Reuters: It was a mistake, apparently there were no preparations or consultations. It seems the idea was cooked up in a small group in Uruguay. He acted quickly to rescind it, some would have waited. But it will be interesting to see what the damage is, the diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2032 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The fact of the matter is Kenya and the U.S. share so many values: common love for democracy, entrepreneurship, value for families these are some things that we share, Kenyatta said. But there are some things that we must admit we don t share. Our culture, our societies don t accept. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2033 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Deficit spending exploded during the Obama administration to $5.3 trillion over four years, compared to $2 trillion in eight years under President George W. Bush.
contextual information: Remember those nerdy charts that Ross Perot flashed during his third-party run for president in 1992? The Texas billionaire's visual aids warned of the perils of America's mounting government debt. Twenty years later, Wisconsin's junior U.S. Senator, Republican Ron Johnson, is taking a page from Perot as he acts as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and advocates for a spending slowdown. Explaining one of his digital charts during a Sept. 11, 2012 campaign stop in Sheboygan, Johnson criticized Obama for saying his administration's proposed Buffett Rule tax plan for million-dollar earners would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. "I haven't yet publicly called President Obama a liar," Johnson told his audience. "But I'm saying he lies. Slight diplomatic difference." Johnson stated that the Buffett Rule would raise just $5 billion a year. He is correct, as PolitiFact Ohio found in rating a claim by Sen. Rob Portman that it would bring in less than $5 billion per year... Enough to pay one week's interest on the national debt. Johnson's presentation uses a chart to contrast the Buffett Rule's revenue potential with the deficits accumulated under Obama (2009-2012) and over the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush (2001-2008). The chart shows deficits totaling $2 trillion in eight years under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama in just four years. A caption on the chart states that those deficits exploded during the Obama administration. Is Johnson right about the deficit numbers and their rapid growth? As backup, Johnson's campaign cited numbers from the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The figures show red-ink budgets in seven of eight years that coincide with Bush's term. The annual deficits totaled $820 billion in his first term and nearly $1.2 trillion in his second. Add them up, and there's the $2 trillion figure cited by Johnson. That same White House table shows four years of deficits for 2009-12, the time frame that coincides with the Obama era, ranging from $1.29 trillion to $1.4 trillion. The total, including estimated figures for 2012, is $5.33 trillion. That's nearly triple the Bush deficit figure in half the time. It seems simple, with the numbers and the trend matching up with Perot's, er, Johnson's chart. We wish it were that simple. But there is considerable disagreement in academic and political circles over how to assign responsibility to presidents for spending and deficits. Using the same table and a slightly different approach can put a somewhat different spin on the trend line—though we found no scenario under which the Bush-era deficits top those under Obama. Here's why. The big question any researcher faces is when to start and end the clock when looking at spending and deficits by presidents. It would be tidy to start the clock on Inauguration Day, but the federal budget year begins on Oct. 1. That means an incoming president inherits a budget in progress from his predecessor, though he often makes changes. That timing mismatch makes a pretty big difference, for example, in pinning deficit numbers on Bush and Obama. To wit: Democrat Bill Clinton's last budget, for fiscal 2001, resulted in a surplus of $128 billion—the last black-ink budget on record. But Johnson attributed that surplus to Bush, who entered office on Jan. 20, 2001. Johnson argues that once elected, the budget can be changed by the new president. Similarly, on the back end of the Bush years, Johnson assigns the eye-popping 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion entirely to Obama—even though Obama was working with Bush's last budget, which took effect in October 2008, during the final months of Bush's second term. That methodology becomes even more important when you consider that just before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was already projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the scorekeeping agency for Congress, as reported by PolitiFact. So, Johnson attributes the 2009 deficit entirely to Obama even though much of it was already anticipated before the Democrats' inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obama's economic stimulus plan). What about Johnson's methodology? We asked three experts who closely follow the budget, and each said there is no consensus on how to attribute the overlapping budget years. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said apportioning responsibility is really tricky. "Looking at what has happened—budget deficit-wise—during the Bush and the Obama presidencies doesn't tell the whole picture because of the differences in the fiscal year and the impacts of policies that were enacted prior to either of them assuming office," Ellis wrote in an email. Still, Ellis said he considered Johnson's numbers correct even if the presentation was simplistic. What's more, there are some extra complicating factors unique to the Bush-Obama changeover, such as how best to parcel out the deficit blame for such things as Bush's major tax cuts and Obama's more modest tax trims, two wars that overlap their presidencies, two recessions, a Wall Street bailout that each supported, and major new programs under each (Medicare prescription drugs, stimulus). The Great Recession of 2007-2009, which fueled deficits when tax collections fell, also overlapped the two presidencies. Jason Peuquet, research director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Johnson's numbers were defensible. He suggested looking at the increase in debt—as opposed to deficits—because it can be tracked to the day a president starts and ends a term. By that measure, we found a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bush's two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obama's single term. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there is no good answer to your question that is going to satisfy everyone. Our rating: Johnson's chart showed $2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama, and concluded that deficits exploded during the Obama administration. The numbers check out, but comparing presidents' budget records is not as simple as Johnson's chart suggests. For instance, Bush owns some debatable piece of the Obama deficits. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2034 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: PARIS — The first edition of Charlie Hebdo since terror attacks in Paris last week left 17 people dead sold out at newsstands across France shortly after going on sale Wednesday.
Residents in Paris formed lines at dawn and by mid-morning kiosks sported signs that said "No more Charlie Hebdo" and "Out of stock." Local French media reported scuffles broke out as people realized copies were selling quickly. A black market quickly developed, with copies selling on eBay for thousands of dollars. One auction ended Wednesday evening with a bid of $20,000.
"Normally they sit in a box in front of the kiosk and you just help yourself — and normally, the Charlie Hebdo box always has some copies in it," said Marie Dupont, 22, who was passing through Gare du Nord train station on her way to work in Paris.
Wednesday's 16-page issue of the satirical newspaper featured a cartoon on its cover depicting the prophet Mohammed. He is crying and holding a sign in his hands that says, "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") — a reference to the slogan adopted by anti-violence and free speech campaigners in the wake of the attacks. It is forbidden under Islam to show images depicting the prophet.
Three million copies were printed — 60,000 are usually published— and that may be extended to 5 million, local French media reported. It has been translated into six languages and is being distributed internationally for the first time.
A week ago, gunmen linked to radical Islam murdered eight staff members at the newspaper along with four other people. Five more people were killed in separate attacks on a policewoman Thursday and at a kosher supermarket Friday.
Benoit Redureau, a veterinarian in Paris, called the cover "cheeky" and also "very brave.'
"Their cover is militant, they don't let go, despite the pressure, despite the dead, they remain loyal to their (editorial) line, to their soul…to what we like about them," said Redureau.
Another Parisian, Yann Legall, 58, called the issue funny as well as sincere but also restrained.
"I wonder: did they refrain themselves? Did they go half-measure on this publication? They could have gone a lot further on this, when you have people who get executed like dogs, they could have done something more drastic, they could have been accusatory,'' Legall said.
On pages two and three of the newspaper Wednesday were drawings created by four cartoonists killed in the attack. One by Bernard "Tignous" Verlhac depicts two Muslim jihadists with one saying: "We shouldn't attack Charlie Hebdo people." The other replies: "(yeah), they will become martyrs and once in paradise, will steal all our virgins."
Distributors said they would try to get more copies by Thursday or even later Wednesday. Printer Messageries Lyonnaises de Presse decided to increase the print run following the fast depletion of stock, French daily Le Figaro reported.
"I feel very concerned over what happened (to Charlie Hebdo) and I want to read what the surviving journalists wrote this week," said Anne Brisson, 59, trying to get a copy. "Still, it's the type of collective craziness in which I don't want to take part — it's like suddenly there is no more sugar so everyone buys 10 kilograms of sugar for the next 10 years."
Fabrice Perticoz, 48, who was manning a Paris newsstand, echoed many others selling the magazine Wednesday when describing how people lined up at 6:15 a.m. for his 120 copies. "By 6:45, they were all sold out," he said.
At his stand, a woman begged. "Please keep one for me tomorrow, I pay for it, really," she said. But Perticoz refused to take her money. "It gets too complicated, I might forget," he said. "One man wanted to call the cops claiming I refused to sell to him."
The publication of Charlie Hebdo's controversial new cover comes as France's government was preparing tougher anti-terror laws. The French government announced Wednesday that 54 people had been detained in a crackdown on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.
Among those arrested was Dieudonne, a controversial but popular comic who defended terrorism in comments posted on Facebook earlier this week.
In Turkey, police searched trucks carrying the entire print run of the daily Cumhuriyet newspaper early Wednesday to make sure none of the newspapers reprinted cartoons from Charlie Hebdo that depicted the prophet Mohammed.
"When the police proceed to check in advance the copies without a clear decision of the court, I think it is an alarming procedure reflecting perfectly disproportional interference in press freedom in Turkey," said Erol Onderoglu, a Reporters Without Borders representative in Turkey.
In a separate development, al-Qaeda in Yemen on Wednesday reiterated claims of responsibility for the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
The group released a video in which Nasr al-Ansi, a top commander of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP as the branch is known, said the attack by Said and Chérif Kouachi on the Paris newspaper was in retaliation for insulting the prophet Mohammed.
The video was briefly available on YouTube before being taken down. Last week, the same group released a statement to the Associated Press in which it claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo killings.
In the video, Al-Ansi says France is part of the "party of Satan" and warns of further "tragedies and terror." Al-Ansi says Yemen's al-Qaeda branch "chose the target, laid out the plan and financed the operation."
Amedy Coulibaly, who held hostages at the Jewish supermarket, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a video released Sunday. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2035 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: ORLANDO, Fla. — Louis Omar was 20, worked at a Starbucks in a Target store, and lived to dance. Stanley Almodovar III, a pharmacy technician, had posted a Snapchat video of himself singing and laughing on his way to the Pulse nightclub on Saturday. Eric Ivan 36, nicknamed Shaki, had been married to his husband for about a year, worked at a Party City and a Sunglass Hut, and was entranced by interior design. The dead were mostly young, mostly Latino and mostly gay — though some were none of those and a fair number were straight men and women enjoying an evening of Latin music. And on Monday, when their names were read aloud in the auditorium of a senior center, the worst fears of their families came true as the roster of the victims of the Orlando attack became horribly real. Juan Ramon Guerrero was less than a month shy of his 23rdbirthday and in his third year at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. He was quiet and kind, his uncle Robert Guerrero, 51, recalled. Like other members of his Dominican family, he liked Latin music, which is why he went to Pulse on Saturday night. “He was not a party boy,†Mr. Guerrero said. The family found out that Juan had been hurt when someone saw him being carried out of the club and into an ambulance. Family members began a frantic search. Finally, a hospital confirmed the awful news. The bereft uncle, like so many other relatives, turned to Facebook to pour out his rage. “Once again the tentacles of death have touched our family, this time at the hands of a coward, a scoundrel, a disgusting human being without any scruples,†he wrote. Cesar Flores, who moved to the United States from Guatemala in 1984 to chase what he called the American dream, learned around 1 a. m. Monday that his only daughter, Mercedez Marisol Flores, 26, had died in the club along with a girlfriend, Amanda Alvear, 25. “She was my best, my only girl,†Mr. Flores, who has two sons, said quietly, with evident grief, outside the Beardall Senior Center, where he was to receive help with arrangements to receive his daughter’s body for burial. “She was a happy girl all the time, but now she’s gone. †The attacker, Mr. Flores said, should be forgiven. “I cannot hang on to that hate,†he said. “It’s not weapons that kill — it’s the heart. That kind of hate is in the blood. †As he spoke, two people nearby hugged each other for a long time and sobbed. From the front door of the building, a procession of relatives and friends emerged after the briefing, heads bowed. Each family was surrounded by a team of church volunteers in bright their hands linked to protect their charges from reporters’ questions. One woman, Eileen Villega, said the name of a family friend who had been in the nightclub, Angel L. 27, had not appeared on any of the lists of dead or injured. “His boyfriend is in the hospital, but he doesn’t appear anywhere,†she said. Later, after she had left, his name was indeed found listed among the dead. Orlando is a city that cannot be divorced from its tourist attractions, among them Disney World and Universal Studios, where some of the victims were employed. Xavier Emmanuel Serrano Rosado, 35, was the father of a young son and worked at DisneyLive! according to his Facebook page. The Atlanta reported that he had danced in the Atlanta Bachata Fest, a celebration of Latin dance and music. Luis S. Vielma, 22, worked on a Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios, and was mourned on Twitter by the author J. K. Rowling. He was also an emergency medical student at Seminole State College, whose president, E. Ann McGee, was among several college presidents who found themselves issuing statements of sorrow on Monday, a testimony to the youth lost in the rampage. “We are saddened by the tragic events this weekend, and the loss of one of our own,†Dr. McGee said. Shane Evan Tomlinson, who often sang with his band, Frequency, at Orlando’s Blue Martini nightclub, performed just hours before he was killed. Friends and fellow singers struggled to process the news of a charismatic life cut short. “We’re all really feeling that numbness right now, and just the shock,†said Deejay Young, who met Mr. Tomlinson in a gospel show at Epcot. “It could have been any one of us. †Jerald Arthur Wright, 31, was one of those Disney World cast members who seemed to never run out of energy for helping guests, and who, as a man whose family was from Ecuador, forged a particularly close bond with Latin American visitors. He was also straight, two friends who worked with Mr. Wright said. He had gone to Pulse on Saturday night to celebrate the birthday of a friend, Cory James Connell, 21, who was also killed. “It’s a great atmosphere,†said Jessica Weyl, 23, a friend who is also straight and goes to Pulse occasionally. “People aren’t judgmental. People aren’t feeling the need necessarily to impress each other. †She added, “At Pulse it’s just calm, cool, and collected. No one felt pressure to be anyone they weren’t. I’m straight and I love going there. My brother is gay and he loves going there. †Ms. Weyl had just finished training for a job in Tomorrowland when she met Mr. Wright. “He took me under his wing and kind of showed me everything,†she said. She turned to him for questions about Disney policies, but especially when she encountered a guest who spoke Spanish. “He really connected with a lot of guests — we do have a lot of South Americans come,†she said. “He connected especially to those people. †Mexico’s Foreign Ministry confirmed Monday that three Mexicans were among the dead. The Mexican Consulate in Orlando was working to determine if a fourth victim was of Mexican origin. President Enrique Peña Nieto said the tragedy’s origins lay in “expressions of hatred, of discrimination, of phobia against certain people. †Many Latinos in Orlando are of Puerto Rican descent. Edward Sotomayor Jr. 34, was among them. He was proud of his heritage, and had made it his life’s mission to open doors for gay travelers, especially in Latin America. As the national brand manager for ALandCHUCK. travel, an agency that caters to gay people, he organized what the company’s owner, Al Ferguson, called the gay cruise to Cuba. “He fell in love with Cuba,†Mr. Ferguson said. During the trip, in April, Mr. Sotomayor and Mr. Ferguson met with Mariela Castro, Raúl Castro’s daughter and a prominent gay rights activist there. The two men also posed in front of a poster left over from President Obama’s recent trip. On Sunday morning at Pulse, Mr. Sotomayor’s boyfriend of about three years had gone outside to put some things in his car when the shots broke out. Mr. Sotomayor texted him that he was hiding, but safe, and told him not to come back inside, Mr. Ferguson said. About 25 minutes later, he texted his boyfriend again, saying he was still hiding. That was the last message the boyfriend got. Mr. Ferguson said the boyfriend’s parents, who live in Mexico, do not know he is gay. “It’s a double catastrophe,†he said. “You face such horrible loss and then can’t share it. †| 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2036 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.
contextual information: After a Senate deal brought the 16-day government shutdown to a close, President Barack Obama wanted to make sure the impact of narrowly avoiding a default wasnt lost on the nation. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy, he said in apublic addressThursday. As proof, he offered up specific claims including, Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Obamas CEO statistic was accurate. The White Housepointed us to a recentBusiness Roundtable survey. Fifty percent of responding CEOs indicated that the ongoing disagreement in Washington over the 2014 budget and the debt ceiling is having a negative impact on their plans for hiring additional employees over the next six months, the report reads. On its face, thats in line with what Obama said, but we wanted to see how Business Roundtable acquired their results. They would not disclose their exact question wording to us. Their report notes, Responses were received from 134 member CEOs, 63 percent of the total Business Roundtable membership. Business Roundtables membership tends to be larger companies.Spokeswoman Amanda DeBard told us CEOs are invited based on revenue, industry and market capitalization, soits safe to say the poll responses dont reflect a random sample of U.S. businesses. Since Obama often speaks to the Business Roundtable, we wanted to see what his relationship with the group was like. University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis, who specializes in lobbying, said theres not much of a connection. Many of them have long-term relationships with government (simply because of their size and the governments size), but probably only a handful have any kind of even semi-close relationship with Obama, he said. We ran the poll results by another business group,the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Senior policy analyst Holly Wade said she saw a similar sentiment among the smaller business owners that the federation represents. In September, there were more small business owners that were feeling pessimistic about business conditions six months out, she said. There wasnt much opinion voiced about delaying employment specifically, though. But Wade said that could be because small businesses were already hiring less during the economic recovery compared to bigger corporations. Why would CEOs want to delay hiring? With another possible debt ceiling default looming Feb. 7, University of Maryland finance professor David Kass said its likely that a budget dealwill lead to tighter fiscal policy, which would slow down the economy and cause CEOs to put off hiring decisions for a few months. Another factor that would contribute to CEO anxiety is consumer behavior. While day-to-day spending probably wont change post-shutdown, consumers will likely postpone higher ticket purchases, like homes and cars. On the demand side, theres uncertainty on the consumers part, which in turn will have an impact on CEOs, Kass said. Theyre trying to predict their future sales and what the environment will look like. Its a lose-lose situation for everyone. In any case, Obama is trying to communicate that the shutdown had a significantfinancial impacton the nation, and hes not wrong there. Independent forecasts agree that the shutdown was a setback for the U.S. economy, though they differ on exact figures. Our ruling Obama said 50 percent of CEOs are delaying hiring due to the shutdown, which accurately cites the results of a poll sponsored by the Business Roundtable. The surveys limited sampling, though, means the responses arent necessarily representative of all U.S. businesses. But the idea that the shutdown affects how businesses think about hiring is more broadly applicable. Experts said its reasonable that CEOs would be hesitant to hire, given that uncertainty about government fiscal policy can affect consumer confidence. We rate Obama's claim Mostly True | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2037 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The Trump administration is nearing completion of new “Buy American†rules to make it easier to sell U.S.-made military drones overseas and compete against fast-growing Chinese and Israeli rivals, senior U.S. officials said. While President Donald Trump’s aides work on relaxing domestic regulations on drone sales to select allies, Washington will also seek to renegotiate a 1987 missile-control pact with the aim of loosening international restrictions on U.S. exports of unmanned aircraft, according to government and industry sources. At home, the U.S. administration is pressing ahead with its revamp of drone export policy under heavy pressure from American manufacturers and in defiance of human rights advocates who warn of the risk of fueling instability in hot spots including the Middle East and South Asia. The changes, part of a broader effort to overhaul U.S. arms export protocols, could be rolled out by the end of the year under a presidential policy decree, the administration officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The aim is to help U.S. drone makers, pioneers in remote-controlled aircraft that have become a centerpiece of counterterrorism strategy, reassert themselves in the overseas market where China, Israel and others often sell under less-cumbersome restrictions. Simplified export rules could easily generate thousands of jobs, but it’s too early to be more specific, said Remy Nathan, a lobbyist with the Aerospace Industry Association. The main beneficiaries would be top U.S. drone makers General Atomics, Boeing (BA.N), Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), Textron (TXT.N) and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N). “This will allow us to get in the game in a way that we’ve never been before,†said one senior U.S. official. Regulations are expected to be loosened especially on the sale of unarmed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drones, the most sophisticated of which carry high-resolution cameras and laser-guided targeting systems to aid missiles fired from warplanes, naval vessels or ground launchers. Deliberations have been more complicated, however, on how to alter export rules for missile-equipped drones like the Predator and Reaper. Hunter-killer drones, which have essentially changed the face of modern warfare, are increasingly in demand and U.S. models considered the most advanced. The push is not only part of Trump’s â€Buy American†agenda to boost U.S. business abroad but also reflects a more export-friendly approach to weapons sales that the administration sees as a way to wield influence with foreign partners, the senior official said. Under a draft of the new rules, a classified list of countries numbering in double digits would be given more of a fast-track treatment for military drone purchases, a second senior official said. The favored group would include some of Washington’s closest NATO allies and partners in the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance: Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, according to the industry source. Rachel Stohl, director of the conventional defense program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said if U.S. drone export rules become too lenient, they could give more governments with poor human rights records the means to “target their own civilians.†Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama, revised the policy for military drone exports in 2015. But U.S. manufacturers complained it was still too restrictive compared with main competitors China and Israel. U.S. drone makers are vying for a larger share of the global military drone market. Even before the coming changes, the Teal Group, a market research firm, has forecast sales will rise from $2.8 billion in 2016 to $9.4 billion in 2025. Linden Blue, CEO of privately held General Atomics, the U.S. leader in military drones, visited the White House recently to lobby for his industry, a person familiar with the discussions said. Among the U.S. changes will be a formal reinterpretation of the “presumption of denialâ€, a longstanding obstacle to most military drones sales, that would make it easier and faster to secure approval, the officials said. Britain, and only recently Italy, are the only countries that had been allowed to buy armed U.S. drones. A long-delayed $2 billion sale to India of General Atomics’ Guardian surveillance drones finally secured U.S. approval in June. But New Delhi’s request for armed drones has stalled. A major hurdle to expanded sales of the most powerful U.S. drones is the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR, a 1987 accord signed by the United States and 34 other countries, which set rules for the sale and purchase of missiles. It categorizes drones with a range greater than of 185 miles (300 km) and a payload above 1,100 pounds (500 kg) as cruise missiles, requiring extremely tight import/export controls. To gain an international stamp of approval for the relaxed U.S. export rules, U.S. officials want the MTCR renegotiated. State Department officials attending an annual meeting of the missile-control group in Dublin next week will present a “discussion paper†proposing that sales of drones – which did not exist when the agreement was created – be treated more leniently than the missile technology that the MTCR was designed to regulate, according to a U.S. official and industry sources. There is no guarantee of a consensus. Russia, which has NATO members along its borders, could resist such changes, the U.S. official said. China, which is not an MTCR signatory, has pushed ahead with drone sales to some countries with close ties to Washington, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, but which have failed to pass U.S. regulatory muster. Chinese models such as the CH-3 and CH-4 have been compared to the Reaper but are much cheaper. U.S. officials said Beijing sells them with few strings attached. The Chinese foreign ministry insists it takes a “cautious and responsible attitude†to military drone exports. Israel, which is outside the MTCR but has pledged to abide by it, competes with U.S. manufacturers on the basis of high-tech standards. But it will not sell to neighbors in the volatile Middle East. Israel sold $525 million worth of drones overseas in 2016, according defense ministry data. U.S. drone makers and their supporters within the administration contend that other countries are going to proliferate drones, so they should not be left behind. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2038 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: As the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Ben Franklin walked out of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall to find an anxious crowd. According to a diary entry recorded by James McHenry, a signatory to the Constitution, a woman from Philadelphia was the first to speak to Franklin.
"Well, doctor,†she asked, “what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic,†Franklin famously replied. “If you can keep it."
Perhaps we cannot.
This reads like hyperbole. But is it? Consider, for a moment, the knife’s edge on which the republic rests. The election is 24 hours away. As I write this, Donald Trump is 1.8 points behind Hillary Clinton in the RealClearPolitics polling average. And here is what we know of Donald Trump.
He is a man who routinely praises dictators. Of Vladimir Putin, Trump said, "He's running his country, and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country." Of Kim Jong Un, Trump said, "You've got to give him credit. He goes in, he takes over, and he's the boss. It's incredible." Of Saddam Hussein, Trump said, "He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights."
It’s not just that Trump admires authoritarians; it’s that the thing he admires about them is their authoritarianism — their ability to dispense with niceties like a free press, due process, and political opposition.
Trump has promised — in public, and repeatedly — to bring this hammer to American governance. He stood in a nationally televised debate and vowed to jail his opponent if elected. He has proposed strengthening libel laws to make it easier to cow the press and antitrust laws to punish Jeff Bezos and Amazon for the Washington Post’s coverage of his candidacy. In a recent speech at Gettysburg meant to preview his first 100 days in office, Trump said he would sue all of the women who accused him of sexual assault.
During rallies, Trump has exhorted his followers to assault protestors, and has promised to pay their legal fees if their thuggery leads to arrest. He has warned that the only way he could lose the election would be if it is rigged, and has suggested he may refuse to concede.
And all this ignores his more basic flaws. He is cruel, lazy, and reckless. He knows nothing of policy and has not bothered to find anything out. He is easily baited, reliant on sycophants, and prone to conspiracy theories. He is a bigot who slimed an American-born judge for his Mexican heritage and a misogynist who boasted that his celebrity gave him license to commit sexual assault. He has cast doubt on America’s commitment to the NATO alliance and offhandedly encouraged Saudi Arabia and Japan to build nuclear weapons. His business is rife with conflicts of interest, and his campaign has been amateurish and poorly managed.
Here is the compliment I can pay Donald Trump, and I pay it with real gratitude: He never hid who he was. Perhaps he lacked the self-control, or the self-awareness. Whatever the reason, he never obscured his authoritarian tendencies, his will to power, his sexism, his greed, his dishonesty, his racism, his thirst for vengeance.
And he is still only 1.8 points behind.
It is likely, though not certain, that Hillary Clinton will win on Tuesday. But even if she does, here is what must be said of American politics in 2016: We came within inches of electing Donald J. Trump president of the United States of America. We did this even knowing exactly what he stood for, exactly what he had threatened to do, exactly what kind of man he was.
A narrow Trump loss is another way of saying a near Trump win. A 3-point victory for Clinton implies that if Trump were merely a bit more self-disciplined, if he had not bragged about sexual assault while wearing a microphone, if his opponent’s pneumonia had lingered a bit longer, America would be ruled by a cruel narcissist with authoritarian ambitions. It will mean that if unemployment were a few percentage points higher, if the man who murdered two police officers last week had been brown rather than white, if Trump’s odd-bedfellows alliance of Russian hackers and angry FBI agents had been a bit more effective, Trump would have won.
Perhaps, on Tuesday, we will dodge the bullet. But we will still need to understand how we came to be standing in front of a gun.
There is a comforting and popular explanation for Trump’s rise: He is the product of an extraordinary period of economic pain, demographic anxiety, and elite backlash. This argument holds that the condition of the country — or at least the condition of Trump’s supporters — is catastrophic, and Trump’s rise is a response to the suffering.
This is reassuring; it makes Trump into a kind of political natural disaster, a hurricane that relied on a rare alignment of winds and rains and warmth, a combination that occurs once in lifetime and can be forgotten once it’s been survived.
But there is nothing in polls of national attitudes, or indicators of economic health, that reveals this moment as uniquely fertile for the rise of a strongman. In 1992, when Pat Buchanan ran for president on a Trump-like platform, unemployment was higher, consumer confidence was lower, and Americans reported themselves more dissatisfied with the state of the country. But Buchanan lost handily.
And as we have learned more about Trump’s supporters, and have come to understand more about the year in which he rose, these explanations have grown more and more strained.
The belief that Trump is a predictable reaction to acute economic duress crumbled before the finding that his primary voters had a median household income of $72,000 — well above both the national average and that of Clinton supporters.
The idea that Trumpism arose as a response to a stalled economy collapsed as America experienced its longest sustained run of private sector job growth, and the highest single-year jump in median incomes, in modern history.
The idea that Trump was a reaction to failed trade deals and heavy competition from immigrants slammed into data showing support for him showed no relationship to lost manufacturing jobs and was strongest in areas without immigrant labor.
The idea that Trump is a reaction to historic disgust with American elites is at war with President Barack Obama’s approval ratings, which have risen above 50 percent and now match Ronald Reagan’s at this point in his presidency.
The reality is that the patterns of Trumpism, the trends of the US economy, and the polls measuring the American mood have stubbornly refused to fit the comforting theory that this is an extraordinary candidacy that could only emerge in an extraordinary moment. Indeed, if this were a period as thick with economic pain and anti-establishment sentiment as the pundits pretend, Trump’s victory would likely be assured.
Once you appreciate that fact, the lesson of Trumpism becomes much scarier: We are more vulnerable than we thought to reactionary strongmen. It can happen here.
To Americans of another era — particularly the founding era — it would seem bizarre that we are reaching so far, and straining so hard, to explain the popular appeal of a charismatic demagogue. As former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote:
The American political system is structured the way it is in part due to the founders’ fear of demagogues. It’s a reason why the American presidency is so weak, why the executive is checked by other branches, why the Senate’s members were originally selected by state legislators.
It is a credit to the long success of our political institutions that we think dangerous men can only win elections in far-off lands. And so it is the weakening of those institutions that demands our attention now.
Donald Trump’s nearness to the presidency rests on two separate accomplishments — or, if you prefer, two separate institutional failures — that are often conflated. The first is his victory in the Republican Party’s presidential primaries. The second is his consolidation of elite Republicans, and of the Republican-leaning electorate.
Trump won the GOP primaries with 13.8 million votes. The distance between those 13.8 million voters and the more than 60 million votes he is expected to receive tomorrow is vast, and was far from assured.
In 1972, for instance, George McGovern won the Democratic primary even though much of the Democratic Party viewed him with suspicion and even fear. Major Democratic interest groups, like the AFL-CIO, refused to endorse him in the general election, and top Democrats, including former governors of Florida, Texas, and Virginia, organized “Democrats for Nixon.†McGovern went on to lose with less than 40 percent of the vote, a dismal showing driven by Democrats who abandoned a nominee they considered unacceptable.
A similar path was possible for Trump. Elites within the Republican Party viewed him with horror. His primary opponents spoke of him in apocalyptic terms. Ted Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral," and "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen." Rick Perry said Trump’s candidacy was "a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded." Rand Paul said Trump is "a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president." Marco Rubio called him “dangerous,†and warned that we should not hand "the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual."
And then every single one of those Republicans endorsed Trump. Ted Cruz told Americans to vote for the pathological liar. Rick Perry urged people to elect the cancer on conservatism. Rand Paul backed the delusional narcissist. Marco Rubio campaigned to hand the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual.
The list goes on. Paul Ryan, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, has endorsed Trump, as has Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, and Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee. Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana, commiserated with Dan Senor, a former Bush appointee, over the fact that Trump was “unacceptable†— and then became his vice president.
With this kind of elite consolidation, it’s little wonder that Trump has managed to consolidate Republican-leaning voters behind him. The final NBC/WSJ poll of the election found that 82 percent of likely Republican voters were supporting Trump — precisely matching the 82 percent of likely Democratic voters supporting Clinton. Trump did not get McGoverned.
There are two analyses that must be made of this. The first is moral. There are many Republicans who honestly believe Trump will make a good, or at least adequate, president; their endorsement of his candidacy is perfectly honorable, even if I think it wrongheaded. But many of the Republicans mentioned here believe Trump is a threat to world peace and to fundamental norms, values, and institutions of American democracy; their endorsements of his candidacy will stain the rest of their careers, and if he is elected, and if the worst comes to pass, they will be remembered by history for their abandonment of country.
The second analysis that must be made is structural. And, believe it or not, that’s where things get scary.
Political scientist Julia Azari has written the single most important sentence for understanding both Trump’s rise and this dangerous era in American politics: “The defining characteristic of our moment is that parties are weak while partisanship is strong.â€
Here is the problem, in short: Parties, and particularly the Republican Party, can no longer control whom they nominate. But once they nominate someone — once they nominate anyone — that person is guaranteed the support of both the party’s elites and its voters. Unlike in McGovern’s day, when ticket splitting was common, any candidate able to win his party’s presidential primaries can now count on his party’s support, and so has a damn good chance of winning the presidency.
Political parties, and political party primaries, were traditionally bulwarks against demagogues rising in American politics — they were controlled by gatekeepers who acted as checks against charismatic demagogues. Donald Trump would never have made it through the convention horse-trading that used to drive nominations; he would never have survived a process that required support from party officials.
But in recent decades, we have slowly destroyed the ability of party officials to drive party primaries. What’s more, we have come to see party officials exercising influence as fundamentally illegitimate.
“Political scientists think of parties as the fundamental building blocks of democracy, and people think of them as the impediment to democracy,†says Hans Noel, a political scientist at Georgetown University. “In other systems, you wouldn’t even have primaries — the whole thing would happen at a party convention. But here, when the DNC makes choices that influence the outcome of a primary, that looks undemocratic.â€
The results have been stark. The reigning political science theory of primaries going into this election was known as “The Party Decides,†and it stated, basically, that party elites controlled primary outcomes by driving money, media attention, and endorsements.
No single idea has been as decisively wrecked by 2016 as that one. And when you examine the reasons for its failure, you see they are unlikely to end with Trump.
Money turned out to be much less important to winning primaries than anyone thought — just ask Jeb Bush, who spent $130 million only to be humiliated, even as Trump spent almost nothing to win. Moreover, the internet keeps making it easier to fundraise off an energized base — a dynamic that is empowering high-enthusiasm outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz and weakening party establishments and the big-dollar donors they control.
Similarly, parties used to drive media attention by signaling to reporters which candidates to take seriously. But that process, too, has been democratized — social media makes it easy to communicate with supporters directly and made it more valuable for audience-hungry media outlets to cover the candidates with intense fan bases that send stories viral across Facebook or Reddit. That, again, favors exciting outsiders with enthusiastic supporters over vetted establishment grinds.
But the primary resource party officials have when influencing primary elections is the trust of voters. That’s why endorsements are important, and have traditionally been predictive of the eventual winner: They represent party officials using the credibility they have built with their voters to persuade them of whom to vote for.
Trump didn’t have any Republican endorsements to speak of until he had already won a slew of primaries. But the void of official support arguably helping him — it was proof that he really was untouched and untainted by the unpopular GOP establishment. This represented the Republican Party failing at the most basic job of a political party: Helping its voters make good decisions. The GOP’s elites have so totally lost the faith of their base that their efforts to persuade Republican voters were ignored at best and counterproductive at worst.
But this also presents a puzzle: If partisans have lost so much faith in their party establishments, then why are they so much likelier to back whomever their party nominates? The answer, in short, is fear and loathing of the other party.
Since 1964, the American National Election Studies have been asking Republicans and Democrats to describe their feelings toward the other party on a scale that runs from cold and negative to warm and positive. In 1964, 31 percent of Republicans had cold, negative feelings toward the Democratic Party, and 32 percent of Democrats had cold, negative feelings toward the Republican Party. By 2012, that had risen to 77 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats.
Today, fully 45 percent of Republicans, and 41 percent of Democrats, believe the other party’s policies “threaten the nation’s well-being.†This fear is strongest among the most politically involved. Which makes sense: You're more likely to take an active interest in American politics if you think the stakes are high. But that means the people driving American politics — and particularly the people driving low-turnout party primaries — have the most apocalyptic view of the other side.
This is driven by the reality that the two parties have grown more ideologically distant from each other, and so the stakes of elections really have grown larger. In 1994, 34 percent of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat, and 30 percent of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today only 8 percent of Republicans are more liberal than the median Democrat, and only 6 percent of Democrats are more conservative than the median Republican.
And polarization begets polarization. The angrier and more fearful partisans are, the more of a market there is for media that makes them yet angrier and yet more fearful. It is no accident that the CEO of Breitbart News, a hyper-ideological conservative media outlet that specializes in scaring the hell out of its audience, is leading Trump’s campaign. One reason Trump has been able to consolidate Republican support is that Republican-leaning media has convinced itself, and its base, that the alternative to Trump is a criminal who belongs in jail. This offers a rationale for voting Republican even if you don’t particularly like your candidate: a majority of Trump voters say they are voting against Clinton rather than for Trump.
This raises the possibility that Trump’s support from Republicans is merely an artifact of Clinton’s unpopularity. I’m skeptical. Before they had convinced themselves Clinton is a criminal, many Republicans — led by Trump — convinced themselves Obama was born in Kenya and constitutionally ineligible to serve as president. And while those attacks were driving Obama’s popularity down, Clinton’s numbers were so high that it became fashionable to speculate over whether Obama needed to replace Joe Biden with Clinton to win reelection.
Clinton’s weaknesses are real, but her unpopularity among Republicans is structural — her four percent approval rating among Republicans isn’t so far off from the six percent Obama registered at the end of the 2012 election.
“We’ve got this online media where the profits are driven by controversy and clicks,†Sarah Rumpf, a former Breitbart writer, told Vox. “It’s just an activism problem in general, where it’s easier to fundraise and easier to get members when you can declare an emergency, when you can declare a crisis, when you can identify an enemy.â€
This helps explain the unified party support for Donald Trump. Republican officeholders are terrified that if they don’t support him, or are seen as in any way contributing to Clinton’s election, they’ll face the wrath of their conservative base and be defeated in the primary challenges that the Tea Party used to such devastating effect in 2010 and 2012. Paul Ryan got a taste of this after distancing himself from Trump after the release of the Access Hollywood tape: His popularity plummeted, and a majority of Republicans said they preferred to see Trump representing the party than Ryan.
So here, then, is the key failure point in modern American politics, and observing it in action requires looking no further than the Republican Party: Voters’ dislike of their own party has broken the primary process, but fear of the opposition has guaranteed unified party support to the nominee. That means whoever manages to win a flawed competition dominated by the angriest, most terrified partisans ends within spitting distance of the presidency.
Party primaries were traditionally bulwarks against demagogues rising in American politics. Now they are the method by which they will rise.
“The thing I keep coming back to is the Muslim ban,†says MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. “That was an actual policy he called for while running for president, and if you switched in Jews for Muslims, it was immediately clear what it was. And it wasn’t disqualifying. To me, that was so, so upsetting.â€
Hayes is the author of the book Twilight of the Elites, and he has spent a lot of time thinking about elite failures. And there were elite failures that led to Trump: the anger left over from the Iraq War, and from the financial crisis, is certainly part of his rise. But the other problem with elites this year is harder to talk about: They were underpowered.
“The gatekeepers have been extraordinarily diminished,†Hayes says. “The best example of this, to me, is the newspaper editorial page. It’s the ultimate old-school gatekeeper. I find it so remarkable that the Columbus Dispatch, USA Today, all these gatekeepers have come to the proper, correct conclusion on Trump, and said, ‘No fucking way!’ But no one cares. They don’t control the gate. They can lock the gate and someone can walk around it three feet down the fence.â€
Elites are often blamed for Trump’s rise — he is said to be the backlash to their failures, their corruption, their obliviousness, their self-dealing, their cosmopolitanism, their condescension. All that may be true, but past moments in American politics have also featured angry voters, out-of-touch elites, and social problems. Those moments, however, featured political and media gatekeepers with more power, and so Trump-like candidates were destroyed in primaries, or at conventions, or by a press that paid them little mind.
Now, however, traditional gatekeepers have neither the power nor the cultural capital to stop Trump-like candidates. And in the Republican Party, where the collapse of institutional authority is most severe and most dangerous, the aftermath of a Trump loss will further weaken the party’s center, as Trump’s supporters turn on the elites whose tepid backing, they will argue, doomed their candidate. Sean Hannity, for instance, has already called Paul Ryan a “saboteur,†and Breitbart published an article headlined “He’s with her: Inside Paul Ryan’s months-long campaign to elect Hillary Clinton president.’â€
It is hard to see how the Republican Party’s core institutions or top officials emerge strengthened if Trump loses narrowly, and it is likely that they will be effectively replaced, co-opted, or hollowed out if he wins.
Meanwhile, the social conditions that led to Trump — the rapid browning of America foremost among them — will persist and even accelerate. Already, nonwhites make up a majority of children under 3 years old. The country is on a fast path to becoming majority minority, and many white male voters will continue to perceive this change as a loss in both status and political power, which, in some ways, it is. Eventually, these conditions will run into a recession that brings with it much sharper economic pain.
This is not to say Republicans will always, or even routinely, nominate candidates as dangerous as Trump. Much had to go wrong for him to be nominated. But having been nominated, much will have to go right for the country not to elect him, and more will have to go right for it to not elect someone like him in the future. The lesson of this unnerving year is that less can be taken for granted than we thought — the American people are not immune to demagogues, and the American political system is too weakened to reliably stop them. America, like all the world’s other countries, is vulnerable to catastrophic political failure. It can happen here.
Trump will likely lose on Tuesday. But if he loses, it will be because he is a crude, undisciplined demagogue. The world also produces clever, disciplined demagogues. And they are the ones who truly threaten republics. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2039 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Is the Island from the Allstate TV Ad Real? Claim summaries: Perhaps a golf cart might suffice on an island this small.
contextual information: On Oct. 11, 2020, Allstate insurance company released a new television advertisement that showed a man going about his day on what turned out to be a tiny island. The aim of the commercial appeared to highlight a new payment option that allowed drivers to only pay for miles driven. This meant smaller bills for drivers who don't drive a lot. released The ad featured Babe Rainbow's "Morning Song." In the final shot, it was revealed that the man lived on a very small island. We found no shortage of tweets that asked if the island was real: "Morning Song." The island in the Allstate video is indeed real. It is Ona, located in Norway. RepublicWorld.com reported the news in October. reported Norway, Ona island lighthouse. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images) According to Fjords.com: "Ona is the name of the island community which consists of the two islands Ona and Husya. The two islands are connected with a small bridge." Fjords.com VisitNorway.com published a page with information for what tourists could expect when visiting the island: published Norway's southernmost living fishing village. The island serves as a year-round residence for 11 people and has a beauty that attracts travelers from far and near. Ona Fyr is a 15-meter high landmark built in 1865, located on the island's highest point, Onakalven. It is possible to go inside the lighthouse, and from the top, there is a fantastic view out over the sea and towards the mainland. You will also find the exclusive Ona Chocolate here, a small summer caf, two pottery workshops, a craft shop, a chapel, and a long, white sandy beach. The island is a peaceful place where you can enjoy the silence and tranquility. On the island, there are holiday homes located directly on the dock, and local suppliers offer a wide range of activities on-site, including various forms of fishing. While Ona is a real island, it appeared that the final shot of the Allstate advertisement might have been altered in editing to give the island a bit of a cleaner look. For instance, here is the view of the island from the end opposite the one shown in the Allstate advertisement: Ona, Norway. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images) A number of YouTube videos also showed that small patches of rock surround Ona, which did not appear in the Allstate video. For example, small patches of rock appeared here at 0:23, but not in the advertisement: number of YouTube videos appeared here at 0:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP5X-OxbUFI?t=23 Digitally altered or not, Ona appeared to be a quiet, lovely vacation destination for anyone visiting Norway in the future. Speaking of islands, we previously reported about a photograph of a purported "Violin Island" in Costa Rica. That picture first arrived in our inboxes in 2017. reported | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2040 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: The Debt Free America Act, also known as H.R. 4646, aims to eliminate national debt. Claim summaries: Is the Obama administration proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?
contextual information: Claim: The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax! WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit Unions, Mutual funds, Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open. https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them! While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out. I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary: The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions. The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee: is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself, languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous: Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support. Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it. The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191 Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?" The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated: 22 October 2013 | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2041 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The threat of losing power to a fierce leftwing rival next year is tempting Mexico s ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to enlist outside help for the first time in its nine-decade history. Corruption scandals, sluggish growth, failure to curb gang violence and persistent allegations of electoral fraud have seriously eroded the centrist party s already rocky reputation ahead of the July 2018 presidential election. That has opened the door to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist former mayor of Mexico City and twice runner-up for the presidency who has set the early pace with a relentless campaign against government corruption. The PRI s presidential hopefuls can begin registering on Dec. 3 and many officials believe Jose Antonio Meade, currently finance minister, will be chosen in a bid to detoxify its brand. A fixture in the Cabinet across two rival administrations, Meade has no formal party affiliation and has distinguished himself as a discreet and diplomatic public servant with a grasp of finance and economics matched by few in Mexico. More importantly, he has avoided the damaging scandals that have engulfed the PRI under President Enrique Pena Nieto, who cannot seek a second six-year term. Heriberto Galindo, a senior PRI politician, said Meade s probity and economic savvy make him an ideal choice at a time of nagging uncertainty for Mexico due to U.S. President Donald Trump s threats to ditch the NAFTA trade deal. The Mexican public s main social concerns are corruption and impunity, and Jose Antonio Meade has a reputation for being honorable and honest, and he is honorable and honest, Galindo said. That s why I think he should be the candidate. The PRI said on Thursday that the party s candidate would be elected by a national convention on Feb. 18. By then, the candidate may be obvious. CROSS-PARTY APPEAL Nearly a dozen PRI lawmakers, serving or former government officials consulted by Reuters said they believed Meade would most likely be chosen, pointing to his cross-party appeal. None forecast it would be the most prominent PRI contender, Interior Minister Miguel Angel Osorio Chong, who has failed to tame gang violence and was pilloried for the 2015 jail break of kingpin Joaquin El Chapo Guzman. Meade has been coy about whether he wants the presidency, and some PRI grandees caution the party might spring a surprise. Education Minister Aurelio Nuno, 39, Pena Nieto s former chief of staff and one of his closest allies, as well as health minister Jose Narro, are viewed as the most likely alternatives. Speculation over Meade intensified when the PRI changed its statutes in August to make it easier for outsiders to run, but Pena Nieto has sought to dispel talk of the finance minister. Polls show he would have work to do. Meade is not widely recognized by the public, and one survey this week by polling firm Buendia & Laredo put him 14 percentage points behind Lopez Obrador in a match-up with a third leading contender. However, PRI officials supportive of Meade believe he could persuade enough Mexicans opposed to Lopez Obrador to cast a so-called voto util (useful vote) and win. Much of that calculus, they argue, rests on Meade s ties to the center-right National Action Party (PAN), which ruled Mexico from 2000 to 2012 and has fought bitterly with Lopez Obrador. Entering government bureaucracy in the 1990s, Meade was by 2011 minister for energy, and later that year, finance. Many PAN lawmakers speak warmly of him and say that if the 2018 race became a choice between Lopez Obrador and Meade, they could back the latter. Yet the fact the PRI is considering somebody from outside its ranks shows the extent of the party s troubles, said Ernesto Cordero, a PAN senator who preceded Meade as finance minister. An October study by pollster Mitofsky showed that while the PRI slightly lagged the PAN and Lopez Obrador s MORENA party in terms of active support | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2042 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: EDITOR’s NOTE: This story was originally published on May 1. It has been updated to include the news that Pataki has announced his presidential campaign.
The tall man in a blazer burst into the Chipotle in the middle of the afternoon. He had a smile, a TV camera following him and the jovial air of a man who expects to be recognized.
“George Pataki, from New York,†he said, shaking hands with the first two diners he met. “We’re doing the non-Hillary tour. We’re actually saying ‘hi’ to people.â€
Then the tall man moved on, to quiz the next table about their food. (“Chicken burrito? I gotta try something new.â€) When he was gone, the first two diners wondered: Who was that? Do they not have Chipotle where he lives?
“It’s like, ‘Oh, I’m from New York,’ †said Aaron Lee, 22. “What are you doing here, then?â€
Officially, what George E. Pataki was doing was flirting — for the fourth time in 16 years — with the idea of running for president of the United States.
A few weeks ago, Pataki was in New Hampshire: raising money, and telling people that he was close, close, close to making a decision. “I’m strongly leaning toward making the run,†he told a radio station in New Hampshire.
This happened three times before. Every other time Pataki flirted with running, he didn’t [On Thursday, the Republican ex-governor of New York announced that this time, he is actually is running].
Spring is the flirting season in American politics: in the early part of this year, more than 20 politicians were officially “considering†or “exploring†a run for president. The key to understanding this strange every-four-years ritual is to understand that there are two kinds of flirting.
For the big-name candidates, the presidential flirt is a useful, temporary, legal dodge. They will run. They are essentially running already. But they don’t want to admit it yet, because that would bring on tighter fundraising rules.
For the others — particularly the eight or so who have fallen out of the political spotlight — the flirt can be an end in itself. It allows them to experience some of the most pleasant parts of a campaign: audiences, media attention, a chance to raise money. And then it lets them escape before they have to face the less-pleasant parts. Such as getting crushed.
This time, apparently, Pataki is ready to take that risk.
“I make a joke that every four years, there’s the Olympics, there’s the World Cup and I come to New Hampshire thinking about running for president,†Pataki told a crowd of 15 people during a speech at a Sea-Doo and snowmobile dealership in Laconia, N.H.
Nobody laughed. Then Pataki said this election was different: “This time, in all honesty, I see things differently.â€
Pataki, 69, has already lived a remarkable political life. The son of a postman, he unseated liberal icon Mario Cuomo (D) in a 1994 governor’s race — one of New York’s legendary upsets. Pataki then won second and third terms by large margins. He led New York through the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the rebuilding of Ground Zero.
But he has not held office since 2007. Since then, his political star has faded somewhat.
“Who is Bloomberg?†a “Jeopardy!†contestant said in January while looking at a photo of Pataki.
The category was “New York governors,†and the clue was “He took New York into the 21st century.â€
“No,†host Alex Trebek said. The other two contestants stared blankly at the same photo, without buzzing in, until time ran out.
Another sign: There used to be a museum about Pataki in his hometown of Peekskill, N.Y. It opened after he left office, complete with an exhibit where schoolkids could see Pataki’s gubernatorial desk.
Then, in 2013, it closed. Its leaders thought maybe more schoolkids would visit if it was a Web site.
“Basically, it would be like a monkey flying out of a unicorn’s [posterior]†if Pataki won the 2016 Republican nomination, said Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson. If Pataki got into the GOP primary, he would face obstacles that go far beyond his meager name recognition. He is pro-choice. He signed strict gun-control laws. He let state government spending grow rapidly.
In recent polls, his best showing has been 1 percent.
“Let’s just say a meteor strikes the first debate and kills everyone except Pataki, who is stuck in traffic. Let’s hypothesize for a moment,†Wilson said. He thought. No. It still wouldn’t be Pataki. They’d find somebody else.
But despite those long odds, Pataki came to New Hampshire last month for his eighth flirting-related visit since September. He later made a ninth.
“I know I can appeal — not just to Republicans and conservatives — but to independents and intelligent Democrats as well,†Pataki told an audience of eight College Republicans at the University of New Hampshire.
This is the heart of Pataki’s pitch to voters. He’s a Republican who won big in a blue state. He’s a reformer who would tame Washington’s bureaucracy. “I go there today, and it’s like I’m on an alien planet,†Pataki said of Washington. “They are an insular world. They talk a language you don’t understand.â€
In New Hampshire, Pataki’s crowds were not big. At the official opening of his super PAC’s office in Manchester, for instance, 25 people turned up. And one of them turned out to be an incognito staffer for Donald Trump. Think about that. If this was an intentional act of flirter-against-flirter espionage (which the Trump staffer denied), it might be the most pointless dirty trick in the history of American politics.
Nevertheless, wherever Pataki went, the crowds were pleasant and admiring.
“Under a Pataki administration,†one man asked him at a diner, how would Middle East policy change?
This is one of the things that makes flirting worthwhile: for an ex-politician, it is an unlocked door back into the American political arena.
That can mean new audiences for men used to audiences. The same College Republicans, for instance, had recently hosted a 2016 flirter whose odds are even longer than Pataki’s: former Virginia governor James Gilmore III (R). Gilmore left office in 2002.
“I mean, thank God for Wikipedia,†said UNH senior Elliot Gault, 22.
And the same kind of magic works on the news media. Before former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee (D) announced he was exploring a presidential run on April 9, The Washington Post had not quoted him about anything in nine months.
In the weeks after that, The Post quoted him eight times. Er, nine.
“Clinton is just too hawkish,†Chafee said in an interview, repeating his signature attack line on the Democratic front-runner, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The other great thing about flirting is the money. While you flirt, you can raise it. And if you don’t run, you can spend it anyway.
In 1999, for instance, Pataki flirted with a campaign, then gave up and endorsed George W. Bush. In 2007, he did it again. “I was very serious about it†that time, Pataki says now. “But: Mayor Giuliani.†The former New York City mayor was in the race, and Pataki didn’t think there was room for two New Yorkers. So he got out.
Both times, Pataki raised more than $1 million in donors’ money. Both times, the New York Times reported, Pataki spent it — giving to allied Republican candidates, paying for Pataki’s travels, and paying a circle of Pataki’s own advisers, strategists and fundraisers.
“I was very serious about it,†Pataki says. “But everywhere I went, people had committed to Mitt Romney.†He pulled the plug but still raised and spent more than $600,000 via a political nonprofit.
This year, Pataki is raising money again — for a super PAC called “We the People, Not Washington.†Among those leading the fundraising are several Pataki associates who got paid from the money he raised in past flirtations. Aides wouldn’t say how much he’d raised or spent this time.
“Because he was my friend, I wouldn’t feel cheated [if Pataki didn’t run]. I’m never one to say that a guy should be a suicide lunatic,†said Peter Kalikow, a New York real estate titan who donated to Pataki’s super PAC this year. In the last presidential cycle, Kalikow was a major backer of another long shot: pizza executive Herman Cain.
Pataki’s aides said they had a strategy ready if their man really got into the race. He’ll stand out in the debates with his genial wit and executive experience. Then he’ll surge in New Hampshire, by appealing to libertarian-leaning . . .
Perhaps we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
“When I heard the name, I was like, ‘Pataki. Pataki. Pataki.’ But I didn’t know that he was the mayor of New York,†Tony Coutee, 42, a crane operator who was at the second table Pataki visited in that Manchester Chipotle, said incorrectly. After Pataki left his table, Coutee said, “I Googled him and found out.â€
While the two of them were talking, Pataki was into a full-blown, campaign-style restaurant schmooze. He bumped elbows with the grill man. He walked back to greet employees in the walk-in cooler (“He just shook my hand and I said I didn’t want to be on camera, and he asked if I was on parole,†one said, bewildered.) Pataki went through the line and loudly asked if he could leave a tip.
Then he came back and sat down with Coutee and Soto. “I’m trying the chicken burrito,†Pataki told them.
The two men quickly got up to leave.
“Kinda normal,†Soto said of this only-in-flirting-season interaction, a pseudo-conversation with a pseudo-candidate, who never said what he was running for. “But abnormal.â€
Anu Narayanswamy in Washington contributed to this report. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2043 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn party hailed Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States, calling it a victory against “illegal immigration†and in favor of ethnically “clean†nations. Golden Dawn, Greece’s third-largest party, took its first seats in parliament in 2012 on a backlash against austerity policies in Greece, which has received three international bailouts since 2010. “This was a victory for the forces which oppose globalization, are fighting illegal migration and are in favor of clean ethnic states, in favor of self-sufficiency in the national economy,†a spokesman of the party said in a post on YouTube. “A great global change is starting, which will continue with nationalists prevailing in Austria, Marie LePen in France and Golden Dawn in Greece.†| 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2044 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: You know that feeling when you want to overthrow the oppressive federal government, but you can t afford it until that same oppressive federal government sends you your disability check? This right-wing patriot sure does!Among the thousands (upon thousands) of delusional anti-government comments the Bundy Ranch Facebook page has gotten in support of their violent takeover of a Oregon wildlife refuge to protest the punishment of convicted arsonists comes this gem from a bona fide right-wing nut job, who is chomping at the bit to grab his gun and join the cause if only he could afford it.You read that right, Daniel Brewer here can t spend the $300 he estimates he ll need to get to Oregon because the government hasn t sent him his disability check yet. Instead, he sends his prayers to the Oregon militia and instructs them to go down shooting in a firefight with law enforcement.First identified by blogger Jim Wright of Stonekettle.com, the comment perfectly illustrates the absurd delusional fantasy the anti-government extremists manage to live in. It may be fun to pretend you and your warm gun can take on the big bad government, but you like the benefits that same government gives you in this case, a literal check every month so you can get by.This isn t the first time we ve seen right-wingers confused about just what exactly it is they hate about the government. During the ugly healthcare debate, one of the most embarrassing rallying cries coming from those who opposed Obamacare was that the government should keep its hands out of medicare. Medicare, you may remember, is a government healthcare plan. President Obama himself mocked the sheer idiocy of these anti-government government users. He recounted a baffling letter he had received from one concerned woman no doubt told by Fox News that the government would ruin her health insurance who pleaded with him to not pass the ACA: I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, I don t want government-run health care. I don t want socialized medicine. And don t touch my Medicare.' Yikes.Our hapless anti-government militia sympathizer is, unsurprisingly, a conspiracy enthusiast as well. Scattered among pictures of his family, Brewer s Facebook page features dozens of right-wing memes and articles suggesting Muslims are imposing Sharia Law in America (they re not) and calls for Obama to resign (he isn t).The conclusion we can draw from this is clear: Many of the people who say they hate the government wouldn t know what to do without it. They don t want to pay taxes (who does?) and they don t like being told they can t do everything they want, but they sure do love the services gubmint gives them.Feature image via SBNation | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2045 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: NEWPORT, Wales — David Adams a painting business here. His leanings in the recent referendum to leave the European Union would seem obvious. Grants from the European Union have funded many of the projects he works on, including the former bank branch he was painting last week in this city in southern Wales. European Union funds also helped him hire apprentices, including his own son. And Wales gets back far more money from the European Union than it pays in. But many of the poorer places in Britain that receive the most aid from Europe also voted decisively to leave. Promises were made by the leaders of the Leave campaign that exiting the European Union would lead to a bonanza of money no longer being sent to Brussels, the seat of the European government. After the vote, they almost immediately retreated from those promises, leaving the future of aid programs funded by Europe in peril. Even some in Newport who knew what they stood to lose were conflicted over the vote. “We get more back than we put in,†said Mr. Adams, 52, leaning against his van in spattered white work pants. “What the money has done is made the infrastructure of Wales much better, everywhere’s much more accessible because of the road infrastructure, things like that. That’s where all the E. U. money’s gone. †Even so, he said he could not bring himself to support staying in the union and chose not to vote, because the issue of immigration held him back. “At the end of the day, we’re an island,†he explained. “We can take only so much population. †One of the looming questions after the “Brexit†vote is what happens to the money flowing into places like Wales. Nearly $400 million in multiyear apprenticeship funding programs alone are underway, among a list of European projects earmarked for Wales stretching to 2020. Another program, with a budget of more than $180 million, helps start new small businesses and finance existing ones. Others fund a range of programs including advancing women’s opportunities and projects on college campuses. Even so, 56 percent of voters in Newport voted to leave. One of the Leave movement’s core arguments was that Britain could keep money it now pays to Europe and use it for its own purposes. Boris Johnson, the former London mayor who was one of the campaign’s most visible leaders, even rode around on a bus with the false claim that Britain pays Europe £350 million a week painted on its side. (It’s more like £150 million, or about $197 million, a week, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.) The maneuver led the comedian John Oliver to refer to Mr. Johnson as “a man with both the look, and the economic insight, of from the Flintstones. †Britain as a whole paid about $9. 5 billion more annually into the European Union than it got back over the last according to the British treasury. After it leaves, it most likely will still have to pay money into the union to keep its trading privileges. And the aid coming back will cease. Many in the British Parliament insist on keeping some kind of access to the single market, the European system of rules and laws that seek to make trading among member states more seamless. But some vying to be the next prime minister have suggested Britain could operate outside the single market, though that could throw up myriad barriers to trade. But keeping access as an outsider costs money, as it does for nonmember states like Norway and Switzerland. Norway pays about 40 percent more per capita to gain access to the single market than Britain does now, according to data from the European Commission. A study by the House of Commons Library, which excluded European aid to private institutions like universities and businesses, found that Norway paid 17 percent less than Britain. Either way, Britain is unlikely to get more favorable terms than it already has. Part of the problem is that Norway and Switzerland are part of the Schengen Area, a travel zone. This kind of unfettered movement is exactly what many Leave voters detest. European leaders, hardly in a charitable mood, seem unlikely to do favors. “There will be no single market à la carte,†Donald Tusk, the European Council president, said this week, while Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said that access to the single market was contingent on basic principles including the free movement of people. Many areas in Britain favored with European aid are mired in poverty and voted in frustration. In Sunderland, a northeastern English city of once vibrant shipyards that has benefited from European aid, more than 61 percent backed the Leave campaign. The vote, though, has left the future of a local Nissan plant in doubt. Cornwall, Britain’s southwestern tip, also receives significant European funding, including money seen as crucial to the development of a British spaceport. Shortly after Cornwall voted to leave the union, the local council sought assurances that the funding that now comes from Europe would continue, although Britain would be hard pressed to make up the loss. Wales is one of the four nations that make up Britain, but the only one besides England to support a European exit. To outsiders, differences between Wales and England can seem subtle, beyond the Welsh language that accompanies English on its signs and its red dragon flag. Wales has lagged economically. Newport’s economic struggles were visible downtown, part of the reason it has been a recipient of so much aid. One pub advertised “all pints†for £1. 99, or about $2. 70, and there were a number of vacant storefronts, as well as a proliferation of charity stores, including one selling everything for £1. A curtain store asked to sign a petition to help fight an eviction notice. During a visit, it did not take long to determine the Leave campaign’s appeal for a number of residents. “I’m definitely not a racist,†said Thomas Reynolds, an retired construction worker. But he said he was “delighted†by the outcome. “Muslims don’t like Christians. I don’t want Muslims next to me, I prefer Christian. But they probably would think the same, so we’re on the same page. †Tom Fereday, 28, an unemployed office administrator and a supporter of the far right U. K. Independence Party, said he was uncomfortable with the growing Muslim population in the city’s Pillgwenlly neighborhood. “I’m happy to go through hard times if it means we get our national sovereignty back,†he said, adding, “To keep letting in thousands of Muslim migrants is just complete insanity. †The disquieting racism the referendum has inflamed was tangible when a small group of young white men were heard briefly hooting monkey sounds as they walked past a black man on a downtown street. But this was hardly a reflection of the whole city. “I’m disgusted that we voted out,†said Hilary Small, a retired medical secretary. Many voters, she said, simply were uninformed about the money the European Union sends to the region. “A lot of the Welsh people didn’t realize that,†she said. Dean Jeffery Beddis, 51, the heavily tattooed owner of Kriminal Records, a shop in a downtown arcade, said, “I don’t think people knew the consequences of their vote, to be honest. †“It’s a mixture of things, ignorance, lack of education, fear and just not knowing,†he said, denouncing the “fear mongering†of The Sun, a tabloid, before turning his fire to Boris Johnson and then Donald J. Trump. A rug with President John F. Kennedy’s image hung behind him. Russell Thomas, Mr. Adams’s partner in the painting business, did vote to stay in the union. “A lot of the subsidies now we think will be stopped,†he said. “It’s a devastating blow I think, but there we are. †| 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2046 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.
contextual information: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective, and cheaper for states to run. Under the Medicaid system, the rules are set in Washington, but much of the funding is managed in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 "Make Life Work" speech at a conservative think tank in Washington. Collectively, states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education. Cantor's staff informed us that this information came from a report published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, which detailed where states receive and spend their money. The study found that states planned to spend a total of $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of this amount, 39.8 percent would come from general fund revenues collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants, and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds. Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses. However, there is a caveat to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to the NASBO report. Therefore, Cantor is including as state expenses approximately $228 billion that the federal government allocates to the states for Medicaid. The picture changes if we examine only the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay from their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, receiving an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant second, with an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays. Experts we spoke to did not express a preference for one accounting method over the other. "We include both methods in our report," said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. "One reason we've been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. Another issue is that even though it's not all your money, you're still administering it." Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, noted that most health care industry analysts use the total figure cited by Cantor but acknowledge that it includes federal dollars. Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, stated that his organization tracks states' general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money. Our ruling: Cantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid comes from the federal government. We rate Cantor's statement True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2047 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Is the Jim Henson Company Making Labyrinth 2? Claim summaries: Is the Jim Henson Company producing a 'reboot' of, a sequel to, or a continuation of, 1986's 'Labyrinth'? The answer is unclear.
contextual information: Claim: The Jim Henson Company has announced development of a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth. Example: [Collected via email, November 2013] "Labyrinth 2 return of the goblin king is rumored to be released soon but I can't find a release date anywhere and it's floating around facebook like wild fire.. Is this a rumor? or can all of the Jim Henson lovers of the world get stoked about the upcoming Labyrinth 2?!" Origins: On 9 October 2014, a rumor began circulating via social media that the Jim Henson Company was working on Labyrinth 2, a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth. The rumor stemmed from an article published by Variety about Billy Crystal's joining the cast of another Jim Henson project, Which Witch. At the end of the article, author Davy McNary mentioned the Henson company also had several other projects in the works: article It's also working on a quartet of legacy titles in the Henson library a Fraggle Rock movie that's been in development at New Regency; a sequel to 1982's The Dark Crystal; a sequel to 1986's Labyrinth; and a movie based on the Emmet Otter character. Variety updated the article on 13 October 2014 to clarify the above-quoted sentence: Henson Co. is working on a project based on Labyrinth, but it is not a sequel. But that correction didn't kill the rumor, because in November 2014 a fake movie poster for Labyrinth 2 started circulating on the internet: That movie poster was a private mockup for the not-in-the-works Labyrinth 2 created by artist Ruben Ireland which went viral shortly after it was published by Slash Film on 11 November 2014 in an article titled "Cool Stuff: Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened." article In January 2016, Variety reported that Sony had closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce what was described as a Labyrinth "reboot" (rather than a sequel): Sony is developing a reboot of "Labyrinth," the final movie directed by Jim Henson, and has closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce the film with Sony's TriStar division. Lisa Henson of the Henson Co. will produce the project. "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-writer Nicole Perlman will write the script. The original musical fantasy movie, released in 1986, starred a 15-year-old Jennifer Connelly as the protagonist who has to navigate a maze to save her infant brother, who had been kidnapped by a goblin king played by David Bowie, who recorded five songs for the film. Tri-Star's Nicole Brown will oversee the new "Labyrinth" for the studio. However, EW then confusingly reported that "the new 'Labyrinth' film will be a sequel to the original, not a reboot." reported Shortly afterwards, screenwriter Nicole Perlman fostered even more uncertainty when she tweeted to say that "no one is remaking 'Labyrinth'" and suggested that a "continuation" of the film was in the works: Guys, please don't fall for all the clickbait. No one is remaking "Labyrinth." That movie is perfect as it is. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016 January 24, 2016 Labyrinth is my favorite film from childhood, so I share your concerns that any continuation of the world be handled with love and respect. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016 Henson Co & I started talking in late 2014, so the timing of these rumors is so upsetting. I would never seek to profit from Bowie's death. Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016 So what's next in the Labyrinth realm: a sequel, a reboot, or a continuation? The answer remains unclear. The original Labyrinth was something of a box office bust when it was released in 1986 but has built a cult following over the years thanks to Jim Henson's amazing puppetry and a flamboyant performance by the Goblin King, David Bowie: bust Last updated: 6 February 2016 Lussier, Germain. "Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened." Slash Film. 11 November 2014. McNary, David. "Billy Crystal Joins Henson Co.'s 'Which Witch.'" Variety. 9 October 2014. McNary, David. "Sony Rebooting Jim Henson's 'Labyrinth.'" Variety. 22 January 2016. | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2048 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: 47 percent of Americanscant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money.
contextual information: The economic struggles of ordinary Americans are getting a good airing this presidential season and a statistical finding from the Federal Reserve provides ammunition for a candidate in either party who wants to make the case that too many people have been left behind. Washington PostreporterHunter Schwarzplugged some Fed data into a little segment called By the numbers, in the newspapers June 8, 2015, edition: 47: The percentage of Americans who cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money, according to the Federal Reserve. The dollar figure caught our eye. It seemed surprisingly low. Other researchers have tried to gauge the financial vulnerability of American households to an economic setback, but typically, the amounts they test are much higher, in the thousands of dollars. We thought wed take a closer look. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Board began asking Americans how well theyre doing financially. In May, the Fedreleased the 2014 results. The questions ranged from retirement planning, to how people managed any student debt they might have, to whether they think their overall situation is headed up or down. To measure participants sense of financial vulnerability, the survey asked them to imagine they had an emergency expense that cost $400, and it asked them how they would cover it. The better-off group said they would use cash-on-hand or a credit card that they would pay off in a month. Others said they would use a credit card but take time to pay it off, or they might borrow from a family member or a pay-day loan company, or they might sell something. And some said there was no way they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. Across the more than 5,800 people who completed the online survey, 53 percent said they would be able to pay essentially immediately. That left 47 percent who said they could not. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent), the report said. Interestingly, making over $100,000 a year was no guarantee of security. About a quarter of the more affluent group said that at the very least, they would pay off the $400 over time. As this chart from the report shows, ethnicity and income strongly affected the ability to absorb a $400 outlay. Other studies George Washington University business professor Annamaria Lusardi and two colleagues (Daniel J. Schneider at Princeton University and Peter Tufano at Oxford University) conducteda similar surveyin the depths of the recession in 2009. Their study asked people how they would handle a sudden $2,000 bill that they had to pay in 30 days. About half the respondents said they would probably or certainly be unable to cope with such an emergency out of their own funds. Lusardi said she considers the results comparable. The Federal Reserve had a lower amount, but it had to be paid right away, she told PunditFact. We gave people more time, so I think the percentages are consistent. In fact, even with five years separating the surveys, it is the similarity in the responses that caught her eye. Lusardi said it is a sign of the recessions deep damage to the typical Americans balance sheet. Until recently, the labor market and wages have been stagnant, Lusardi said. In the recession, many families used up their reserves of liquidity. It takes a long time to reestablish a good financial situation. There are other indications that most Americans live with a limited financial cushion. When the government shutdown for two weeks in 2013, aUniversity of Michigan research teamtracked a hefty drop in household spending among government workers. Even though their paychecks were interrupted only a short time, households cut their outlays in half, and many delayed paying their mortgages and credit card bills. Some racked up high cost credit card debt that took them up to nine months to pay back. Lusardis 2009 research included a number of other western nations. For the record, the United States ranked sixth out of eight in residents saying they would certainly or probably be able to manage a sudden $2,000 bill. Rank/Country Percent able to cope Rank/Country Percent able to cope 1. Italy 80.1 5. Portugal 54.1 2. Netherlands 73.2 6. United States 50 3. Canada 71.7 7. Germany 49.4 4. France 62.8 8. United Kingdom 47.8 Our ruling Schwarz said 47 percent of Americans cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money. The only caveat here, and its a very minor one, is that figure represents the number of people who say they cant make that payment, based on a Federal Reserve Board survey. The Federal Reserve Board results are in line with a similar study and related research. We rate the claim True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2049 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: One of Donald Trump s strongest allies just turned against him and may have just cost herself a cabinet position in the process.It s a win-win really.Not only do we get to watch Sarah Palin slam Donald Trump for making a shitty deal, we get the satisfaction of knowing that he probably won t consider her for any cabinet post at all, including Secretary of Veterans Affairs.Earlier this week, Trump bragged that he was meeting with Carrier, a company in Indiana that was planning to send American jobs overseas. Well, Trump only saved nearly 1,000 jobs while more than 1,000 jobs were still sent to Mexico. Oh, and Carrier got a sweet deal for it, too. Taxpayers in Indiana will be giving Carrier $7 million to keep the smattering of jobs that are left. It s a very high price to pay and is a waste of taxpayer dollars that sets the stage for more companies to do the exact same thing in order to snag millions of taxpayer dollars. All they have to do is threaten to send jobs overseas and get Trump to negotiate to keep some of them.In short, Trump is an easy mark for companies to exploit. But Sarah Palin is NOT supportive of what Trump is doing.In an op-ed for Young Conservatives, Palin blasted Trump s bad deal with Carrier as crony capitalism that will doom the free market and the country. When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent, she wrote. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail. Politicians picking and choosing recipients of corporate welfare is railed against by fiscal conservatives, for it s a hallmark of corruption. And socialism A $20 trillion debt-ridden country can t afford this sinfully stupid practice, so vigilantly guard against its continuance, or we re doomed But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn t the answer.Trump s deal with Carrier was nothing more than a theatrical photo-op stunt designed to fool us into believing that he is saving American businesses. But he only did the exact opposite. Eventually, Carrier will threaten to send more jobs overseas and they will expect yet another government handout to be paid by taxpayers. It s free money for businesses. So businesses will likely take advantage of this and will decide to send jobs overseas in an effort to secure millions in taxpayer subsidies. It s windfall for corporations, but a costly disaster for taxpayers. Because now corporations will just hold jobs hostage and will demand taxpayer money in return for keeping just some of those jobs in the United States.Once again, Donald Trump is a loser who makes bad business deals, and this time he is dragging America down with him.Featured Image: Screenshot | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2050 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Posted on October 30, 2016 by DavidSwanson
Picture, if you will, video footage of vintage (early 2016) Donald Trump buffoonery with the CEO of CBS Leslie Moonves commenting on major media’s choice to give Trump vastly more air time than other candidates: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
That’s the introduction to a powerful critique of the U.S. media. A new film screens in New York and Los Angeles this week called All Governments Lie: Truth, Deception, and the Spirit of I.F. Stone .
The website AllGovernmentsLie.com has screening dates , a list of lies , and a list of good journalists who expose lies . The lists on the website are not identical to the content of the film, but there’s a good deal of overlap — enough to give you a sense of what this project is about.
I’d have made various changes and additions to the film. In particular, I’m tired of all the focus on Iraq 2003. This film touches on war lies since then, but still gives that one particular set of war lies prominence.
Still, this is a film that should be shown in cities, homes, and classrooms across the United States. It includes and is driven by Noam Chomsky’s analysis of how the media system is “rigged” without those doing the rigging believing they’ve done anything at all. It’s a survey of skullduggery by corporate media. It’s an introduction to numerous journalists far superior to the norm. And it’s an introduction to I.F. Stone. It includes footage of a presentation of the annual Izzy Award which goes to journalists acting in Stone’s tradition.
One of the lies listed in the film and on the website is that of the Gulf of Tonkin (non-)Incident. Anyone paying attention knows of it now as a war lie. And it was a transparent war lie at the time in a particular sense. That is: had the North Vietnamese really shot back at a U.S. ship off their coast, that would not have been any sort of legal, much less moral, justification for escalating a war. I’d love it if people could grasp that logic and apply it to the Black Sea, the Red Sea, and every other part of the earth today.
But the Gulf of Tonkin lies about Vietnamese aggression against the U.S. ships innocently patrolling and firing off the coast of Vietnam were not transparent to people with faith in the U.S. role of Global Policeman. Someone had to make the lies transparent. Someone had to document that in fact the Secretary of So-Called Defense and the President were lying. Sadly, nobody did that in the first 24 hours after the Congressional committee hearings, and that was all it took for Congress to hand the president a war.
And it was decades before White House transcripts came out and before the National Security Agency confessed, and additional years before former Secretary Robert McNamara did. Yet, those revelations simply confirmed what people paying attention knew. And they knew it because of I.F. Stone who just weeks after the (non-)incident published a four-page edition of his weekly newsletter exclusively about Tonkin.
Stone’s analysis is useful in looking at the incident or lack thereof this past month in the Red Sea off Yemen. And in fact it is to Yemen that Stone immediately turned on page 1 in 1964. The United Nations, including its U.S. ambassador, had recently condemned British attacks on Yemen that Britain defended as retaliatory. President Dwight Eisenhower had also warned the French against retaliatory attacks on Tunisia. And President Lyndon Johnson, even at the time of Tonkin, Stone notes, was warning Greece and Turkey not to engage in retaliatory attacks on each other.
Stone, who tended to look even at written laws that nobody else paid any heed to, pointed out that three of them banned these sorts of attacks: the League of Nations Covenant, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and the U.N. Charter. The latter two are still theoretically in place for the U.S. government.
The United States in Vietnam, Stone goes on to show, could not have been innocently attacked but itself admitted to having already sunk a number of Vietnamese boats. And indeed the U.S. ships, Stone reports, were in North Vietnamese waters and were there to assist South Vietnamese ships that were shelling two North Vietnamese islands. And in fact those ships had been supplied to South Vietnam by the U.S. military and the good old American tax payers.
Stone did not have access to closed committee hearings, but he hardly needed it. He considered the assertions made in speeches by the only two senators who voted against the war. And then he looked for any rejoinders by the chairmen of the committees. He found their denials to be non-denials and nonsensical. It made no sense that the U.S. ships simply happened to be randomly hanging around in the vicinity of the South Vietnamese ships. Stone didn’t believe it.
Stone also filled in the background information. The United States had been supporting guerrilla attacks on North Vietnam for years prior to the non-incident. And Stone raised numerous suspicions, including the question of why the U.S. ships had supposedly made sure they were out in international waters for the (non-)incident to (not) occur, and the question of why in the world Vietnam would take on the United States military (something nobody could explain, though Eugene McCarthy proposed that perhaps they had been bored).
Missing from the film and website of All Governments Lie is I.F. Stone’s work on lies about the outbreak of the Korean War. We’ve learned more since he wrote it, but seen little more insightful, relevant, or timely for our understanding of Korea and the world today. This entry was posted in General . Bookmark the permalink . | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2051 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Why American Surrogates Are in Demand for Chinese Families Kalee Thompson, Hollywood Reporter, November 4, 2016
The first time Dianna Barindelli carried a baby that wasn’t her own was in 2012. “We were done having kids, but I still wanted to be pregnant,” says the Modesto, Calif., stay-at-home mom, whose own daughters are 6 and 9. Barindelli signed up with the Center for Surrogate Parenting in Encino, one of the most exclusive surrogacy agencies in the world. In 2014, she matched with a Chinese couple. Unlike many agencies, CSP first shows parent applications to the surrogates, rather than the other way around. “It’s little things that you’ll connect with people over,” says Barindelli, who was attracted to pictures of the couple’s extended travels and their traditional wedding photos.
The embryo transfer took place in late 2014. Barindelli emailed the mom weekly, sending updates and ultrasound pictures with WeChat, an app that offers instantaneous translation. The intended parents (IPs) planned to be there for the birth, but the baby boy arrived two weeks early, 24 hours before they arrived. Says Barindelli: “I texted and made sure [the mom] was OK with him staying in my room. I cleared everything with her. I didn’t want her to feel bad that she wasn’t there.”
Barindelli, who used her surrogacy fees to set up a college fund for her girls, is pregnant again, this time with the baby, due Feb. 1, of a Taiwanese couple. She may not be done: Her first Chinese couple emailed her recently, soon after their son’s first birthday. They still have frozen embryos and hope that Barindelli, now 40, will carry their second child.
Commercial surrogacy is banned in most parts of the world, as well as in many U.S. states. Until recently, infertile couples, singles and gay would-be dads had a handful of options to turn to when it came to finding a surrogate, among them India, Thailand, Nepal and Mexico, where surrogacy services have cost a quarter of the $100,000 to $200,000 bill typical in the U.S. But in the past few years, those countries have started enforcing laws banning international surrogacy. Meanwhile, China–the world’s most populous country, with a growing wealthy elite and where some doctors believe infertility is more common than in the U.S.–lifted its decades-long one-child policy. The result is a soaring Chinese demand for U.S. surrogacy services, one that is flourishing particularly in California, with its culturally friendly enclaves, excellent physicians and favorable state laws that regard IPs as a baby’s legal parents even before birth, if proper court documents are filed. {snip}
{snip} Despite CSP’s Southern California location, 51 percent of its clients now are foreigners, up from 15 percent a decade ago. Rival agency Growing Generations (clients have included Sarah Jessica Parker and 30 Rock director Todd Holland) also sees half of its clients coming from overseas, as does Gifted Journeys, a boutique agency in Pasadena. At San Diego’s Expect Miracles Surrogacy, international clients account for 80 percent of IPs. And of foreigners participating in this permutation of California’s birth tourism, the number of Chinese IPs is growing the fastest, making up the most common single foreign nationality for many agencies right now.
{snip}
Most local agencies have a mix of Caucasian, Latina and African-American surrogates. “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had an Asian surrogate,” says Growing Generations’ Bergman. Multiple agency heads say Chinese IPs tend to strongly prefer a Caucasian surrogate. “People really have this fantasy because of a lot of the marketing that was done in China,” says Gifted Journey’s Wilson-Miller. “They have this picture of blond surrogates who look like movie stars carrying the baby with their traditional families.” {snip}
The concept of cross-race surrogacy can confound friends, family and associates of surrogates and IPs alike. In August, comedian GloZell Green, who is African-American, and her husband, also African-American, had a baby girl via a surrogate. “Our surrogate is a blue-eyed blonde,” the YouTube star told potential IPs gathered in a Culver City hotel in early October. People in her life “kept asking if the baby was going to be white.”
Surrogate selection aside, California has the added allure of numerous enclaves where families can be surrounded by Chinese speakers and businesses. “People from China can stay in Irvine, for example, and they have Chinese TV on their cable packages. Throughout California there are places they can go and shop and find stuff in Chinese. If they go to Kansas or Oklahoma? It’s total culture shock,” says Expect Miracles’ Anderson. {snip}
Of course, any baby born via surrogate in the U.S. has birthright citizenship. “The Chinese couples really like that because a lot of them want to come back and forth,” says Molly O’Brien, a fertility lawyer with offices in Torrance who frequently travels to China to participate in information sessions for would-be parents, often sponsored by doctors offices or assisted-reproduction agencies. “Maybe they eventually want that child to be able to go to college here.” Unlike the U.S., China forbids dual citizenship, and most American-born Chinese babies remain U.S. citizens. “Most Chinese couples just keep that American passport. It’s only if you want to use the government services that you’ve got to be Chinese,” says CSP’s Synesiou.
{snip} | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2052 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: NTEB Ads Privacy Policy Donald Trump Will Be 70 Years, 7 Months And 7 Days Old On First Full Day In Office As President On May 14, 2018, Israel will have been officially regathered, in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, for exactly 70 years. In 70 AD, Israel was destroyed by the Romans and the Temple stones toppled to the ground exactly as Jesus said it would happen. When you subtract 70 AD from 2018 AD, where does that leave you? It leaves you square in 1948 AD. Please pause here and allow that thought to sink in for a moment. by Geoffrey Grider November 3, 2016 God likes to orchestrate events relating to Israel around the number 70
“In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years , whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:2 (KJV)
People, you better buckle up because things are about to become unglued. For well over a year now, we here at NTEB have been telling you that Donald Trump is God’s man for the White House, and that Bible prophecy would be fulfilled in the process. Two very eye-opening articles you need to read are The Real Reason Why Donald Trump Was Chosen To Be The Republican Candidate For President and Why A Bible Believer Is Supporting Donald Trump For President Of The United States . I wrote those articles on May 4 and February 13, respectively. Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular are God’s time clock for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy
On our Sunday night radio show , which you can access here , we talked about Donald Trump, Bible prophecy and the coming global shaking. And believe me when I tell you it’s coming. In the 9th chapter of Daniel we see that he finally understands what Israel’s Babylonian captivity is all about by reading the prophecy Jeremiah had written. That was Daniel’s “a-ha!” moment.
“And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years . And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” Jeremiah 25:11,12 (KJV)
After digesting that bombshell , Daniel is then visited by the angel Gabriel who gives Daniel his own shocking prophecy of the Seventy Weeks Of Years. All of that prophecy has been fulfilled except the last week, or 7 year period, known as the time of Jacob’s trouble as found in the book of Jeremiah and mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24 as the time of “great tribulation”.
“Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.” Jeremiah 30:7 (KJV)
“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Matthew 24:21 (KJV)
On May 14, 2018, Israel will have been officially regathered , in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, for exactly 70 years. In 70 AD, Israel was destroyed by the Romans and the Temple stones toppled to the ground exactly as Jesus said it would happen. When you subtract 70 AD from 2018 AD, where does that leave you? It leaves you square in 1948 AD. Please pause here and allow that thought to sink in for a moment.
Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946. If you move ahead 70 years from that date, that brings you to June 14, 2016. Moving forward another seven months brings you to Jan. 14, 2017, and moving forward another seven days brings you to Jan. 21, 2017. This is happening in the year 5777 according to the Jewish calendar.
And if Donald Trump wins the election , Jan. 21 will be his first full day in office. Of course Trump would be inaugurated on Jan. 20, but he would only be president for part of that day. So that means that Donald Trump would be 70 years, seven months and seven days old on his first full day as president of the United States . Please pause here as well, and allow that thought to sink in for a moment.
All this brings us to our last point, and here it is. One of the many campaign promises that Donald Trump has made is that he will move the US Embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv, to its new location in Jerusalem in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 . By doing that, the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and thus set off the Psalm 83 War as found in the Bible.
“They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:” Psalm 83:4,5 (KJV)
For it is Jerusalem, what the Bible calls the “apple of God’s eye”, that the real battle will be fought over. Why do you think that the Palestinians have always rejected the so-called Two State Solution? Because that solution calls for Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to stay with Israel, and the Muslims will not stand for that. They want Jerusalem for the same reason that the Antichrist fights the Battle of Armageddon for it. Because Jerusalem is where Jesus returns to, and where He will rule from for a thousand years. Jerusalem is the reason for all the conflict, all the fighting, all the past wars, and the coming war.
“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” Zechariah 12:2,3 (KJV)
This election is going to usher in a time of amazing fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It is no coincidence of any kind that Donald Trump will be 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old on his first full day in office. It is not luck, fortune, happenstance or karma that he beat his 16 competitors for the nomination. As I have said for over a year now, Donald Trump is God’s man for “such a time as this”, and that we are living in the days of visible fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
As we started our radio show on this topic on this past Sunday night, do you know what the headline story on the Jerusalem Post website was? It was this: Ivanka Trump says her father will move US embassy to Jerusalem ‘100%’ if elected
If Donald Trump becomes President on Tuesday , as I believe with all my heart he will, then you better start thinking about the time of Jacob’s trouble beginning sometime on or around May of 2018. That means the Rapture of the Church will have to happen before that. Please pause here as well, and allow that thought to sink in for a moment.
Are YOU ready for what comes next? Because, brothers and sisters, it sure looks like it’s coming.
Geoffrey Grider NTEB is run by end times author and editor-in-chief Geoffrey Grider. Geoffrey runs a successful web design company, and is a full-time minister of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to running NOW THE END BEGINS, he has a dynamic street preaching outreach and tract ministry team in Saint Augustine, FL. NTEB #TRENDING | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2053 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Is the IRS confiscating the bank accounts of innocent Americans? Claim summaries: Is the IRS seizing the bank accounts of innocent Americans under civil forfeiture laws?
contextual information: Claim: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post. It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong. Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons. Is this true? Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins: On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions. Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S. Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law. Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same. The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement: Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated: 28 October 2014 Stillman, Sarah. "Taken." The New Yorker. 12 August 2013. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2054 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Venezuela s government and opposition will hold a round of talks in the Dominican Republic on Wednesday, France s foreign minister said on Tuesday, warning Caracas that it risked EU sanctions if it failed to engage in negotiations. Venezuela was convulsed for months by demonstrations against leftist President Nicolas Maduro, accused by critics of knocking the oil-rich country into its worst-ever economic crisis and bringing it to the brink of dictatorship. I was happy to learn that dialogue with the opposition would restart tomorrow in the Dominican Republic, Jean-Yves Le Drian said in a statement after meeting his Venezuelan counterpart, Jorge Arreaza Montserrat, in Paris. Venezuela s Democratic Unity Coalition said it would send a delegation to meet with Dominican President Danilo Medina to discuss the conditions under which dialogue could be held, but denied that any talks as such had begun. The invitation by (Medina) does NOT represent the start of a formal dialogue with the government, the coalition said in a statement. To begin serious negotiations, we demand immediate concrete actions that show true willingness to solve problems rather than to buy time. The statement reiterated long standing opposition demands including the release of political prisoners, respect for the opposition-run congress and measures to ease a crippling economic crisis. Le Drian said Wednesday s meeting would involve Medina and former Spanish Prime Minister Jos Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed his full support for the talks. The Secretary-General encourages the Venezuelan political actors to seize this opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to address the country s challenges through mediation and peaceful means, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. Maduro routinely calls for dialogue with the opposition, but his adversaries see dialogue as a stalling mechanism that burnishes the government s image without producing concrete results. In a televised broadcast on Tuesday evening, he voiced renewed support for dialogue and said he was sending Socialist Party heavyweight Jorge Rodriguez to represent the government in the Dominican Republic. A dialogue process brokered by Zapatero and backed by the Vatican in 2016 did little to advance opposition demands. Many Maduro critics believe opposition leaders were duped in that dialogue process, and have grown suspicious of Zapatero as an intermediary. Like fellow-EU member Spain a few days earlier, Le Drian also warned Arreaza that if the situation continued there would be consequences. I reminded him of the risk of European sanctions and the need to rapidly see evidence from Venezuela that it is ready to relaunch negotiations with the opposition and engage in a sincere and credible process, he said. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2055 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Britain has offered to pay much of what the European Union was demanding to settle a Brexit divorce bill , bringing the two sides close to agreement on a key obstacle to opening talks on a future free trade pact, EU sources said on Tuesday. The offer, which British newspapers valued at around 50 billion euros (44.3 billion pounds), reflected the bulk of outstanding EU demands that include London paying a share of post-Brexit EU spending on commitments made before Britain leaves in March 2019 as well as funding of EU staff pensions for decades to come. A British government official said they do not recognise this account of the talks going on ahead of a visit by Prime Minister Theresa May to Brussels this coming Monday. EU officials close to the negotiations stressed that work was still continuing ahead of May s talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and his chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier. But EU diplomats briefed on progress said the British offer was promising and that, on the financial settlement, the two sides were, as one said, close to a deal . Nonetheless, others cautioned that Britain had yet to make a fully committed offer and that essential agreement from the other 27 member states could not yet be taken for granted. The EU set the condition of significant progress on three key elements of a withdrawal treaty before it would accede to London s request for negotiations on a free trade pact that could keep business flowing after Brexit in 16 months. It set a deadline of Monday for that progress to be made if EU leaders were to give a green light at a summit on Dec. 14-15. On the issue of the rights of EU citizens in Britain, EU negotiators are still pressing Britain to accept that European judges should have a final say on enforcing those rights. If the financial settlement, which many British businesses have argued May should make in order to avoid a disruptive cliff edge departure from the single market, is forthcoming, the thorniest outstanding issue is that of the Irish border. Ireland remains the most difficult issue, a senior EU diplomat said after Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar avoided a disruptive snap election when his deputy resigned on Tuesday at the insistence of the party propping up his minority government. Britain has yet to satisfy EU | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2056 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: There are conflicting reports about why the outrageous Omarosa Manigault Newman is leaving her undefined job at the White House. It was first reported that she was escorted out of the White House by Secret Service after General Kelly had enough of her nonsense, and fired her. Omarosa appeared on Good Morning America the following day to refute those claims, saying she resigned from her job and was not fired or escorted out of the White House as reported. So who is Omarosa, and why is she such a polarizing figure? Does this 2006 video that just emerged offer any clues?A pop-culture polymath sent Page Six a link to Soul Sistahs, an ultra-camp, hyper-kitsch, uber-low-budget 10-minute sci-fi short film.While the plot is virtually incomprehensible, as far as we can tell it focuses on an intergalactic yenta in a housecoat who kidnaps Omarosa in an attempt to steal Donald Trump s hair as part of a difficult-to-understand get-rich-quick scheme.The mini-flick was made back in 2006 two years after Omarosa shot to fame on Trump s NBC show The Apprentice. In this vaguely Barbarella -inspired work, the aging villain drugs Omarosa by feeding her spiked cake, whereupon the red PVC-clad former director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison goes off on a motorcycle to steal the future president s hair in a showdown on top of a CGI-created Trump Tower.The film, which has been viewed a mere 6,000 times as our source put it: It s a cult classic. I m the cult was made by former In Touch Weekly photo director Michael Todd, tabloid veteran Matt Coppa and his brother Andrew Coppa. NYP | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2057 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: TAKING THE MICKEY: RT UK billboard campaign on London Underground pokes fun at US-led Russiagate campaign of hysteria.Philip Giraldi Unz ReviewSomehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has sent letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign agent by October 17th. The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions. This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.Sputnik, which is owned by a Russian government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg. Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.RT America, more television oriented than Sputnik, operates through two business entities: RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably comes from the Russian government.I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the Russians have been interfering in our democracy and have had it coming. If that assumption on my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain na vete while also constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant collateral damage that might be forthcoming.News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely, and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. America s self-described newspapers of record the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a lock on stories that are true. The Post has adopted the slogan Democracy Dies in Darkness while the Times proclaims The truth is more important now than ever, but anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January s report signed off on by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S. media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment. Well, they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times.Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia that he was pushed to ask questions at White House press briefings suggesting that Syria s Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg s reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted trying to influence opinion using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting stories where the facts have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S. (usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on RT International. To describe it as part of an influence campaign driven by a state-run propaganda machine has a kernel of truth but it is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government financed news service, including Voice of America. Governments only get into broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.Going after news outlets also invites retaliation against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or discredit the country s institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.And then there is the issue of the threat posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik. Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study suggesting that they have only 2.8 million actual weekly viewers. RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January. Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.So it seems to me that the United States moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian threat to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America s democratic process. One keeps reading or hearing how the American government has indisputable proof of Moscow s intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.***READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2058 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The Great Wall Street/Washington Con Job: Part 4 Of The Recovery Which Didn't Happen By David Stockman. During the last few days we have been debunking the notion that Imperial Washington's massive monetary and fiscal stimulus caused the so-called "recovery". To the contrary, it has actually poisoned the regenerative powers of American capitalism by causing capital and resources to flow out of the main street economy and into the speculative casinos of Wall Street. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2059 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: In January of 2016, the U.S. economy added 151,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.9%, the lowest it has been since February of 2008 as America dealt with the repercussions of the job-killing Bush Recession.Revisions also showed that 2015 was even better for jobs than initial reports had indicated.In terms of the revisions, today s report is the once-a-year report that revises every month from the previous calendar year. On this front, the news is also good: we previously believed the U.S. economy created 2.65 million jobs in 2015, but the new, final tally is 2.74 million.January was the 64th consecutive month of positive job growth the best stretch since 1939 and the 71st consecutive month in which we ve seen private-sector job growth, which is the longest on record.President Obama took the opportunity of the successful jobs report to make an appearance before reporters today, and noted that We should feel good about the progress we ve made and that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, while at the same time Americans were working and getting bigger paychecks. He also dinged Republicans, who have opposed the economic reforms proposed during his administration, and in fact have tried their best to slow down the recovery. Obama noted that the positive figures are Inconvenient for Republican stump speeches as their doom and despair tour plays in New Hampshire. I guess you cannot please everybody. He also pointed out that the right has not offered anything beyond rhetoric. Those who are running down the economy and adding to the anxiety don t seem to have any plausible, coherent recipe other than cut taxes for those who have been doing the very best in this economy and somehow magically, that s gonna make other folks feel good, Obama said. Or, alternatively they argue the reason you re feeling insecure is because immigrants, or poor people are taking more and more of your paycheck and that is just not true. The facts don t bear that out. MSNBC s Steve Benen released a chart showing the comparison between Obama s record on jobs and the situation he encountered when taking over for Bush. It gives an excellent picture of how far the economy has come, and a warning about what could be lost.US Unemployment: Bush vs ObamaFeatured image via YouTube | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2060 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Men whose prostate cancer comes back after surgery are more likely to survive if, along with the usual radiation, they also take drugs to block male hormones. The finding, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, comes from a study that experts say will help clarify treatment for many patients. After surgery to remove the prostate, more than 30 percent of men have a recurrence, and until now there has not been clear evidence about the best way to stop the disease from killing them. Most are given radiation, but prescribing drugs to counter the effects of male hormones has been inconsistent. The study, paid for by the National Cancer Institute, showed that among men who received radiation and hormonal treatment, 76. 3 percent were still alive after 12 years, compared to 71. 3 percent who had radiation alone. At 12 years, the men who had both treatments were also much less likely to have died from their prostate cancer — 5. 8 percent versus 13. 4 percent — or to have the cancer spread around their bodies — 14. 5 percent versus 23 percent. “This is a big deal,†said Dr. Ian M. Thompson Jr. of the Christus Santa Rosa Health System in San Antonio, who was not part of the study but wrote an editorial accompanying it. “There are so many things we do in prostate cancer that we don’t know if they make a big difference in survival. This is one of the things where now we can say for sure. †He added that he hoped the findings would change medical practice. The medical term for blocking male hormones is chemical castration, and the treatments can cause hot flashes, sexual problems and other side effects. So to put a man through it, said Dr. Anthony L. Zietman, an author of the study, “you’d better have some decent justification. †Dr. David F. Penson, the chairman of urologic surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said the study “gives more credence to the concept that you have to treat the whole patient,†rather than just irradiating the area where the cancer used to be. He said the idea of blocking hormones in men like those in the study was finding its way into medical practice. About 161, 360 new cases of prostate cancer and 26, 730 deaths are expected in the United States in 2017, according to the American Cancer Society. The average age at diagnosis is 66. Globally, there were 1. 1 million cases and 307, 000 deaths in 2012, the most recent data available from the World Health Organization. The study, begun in 1998 and led by Dr. William U. Shipley, a radiation oncologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, had an ambitious goal: to follow the patients long enough to find out whether treatment would affect their survival. Prostate cancer grows slowly, so it took well over a decade for answers to emerge. Researchers and patients from 150 sites in North America participated. The patients were 760 men who had their prostates removed for cancer that had not spread, but who then had a sign of recurrence — a rise in their blood levels of antigen, or PSA, a protein associated with prostate cancer. The men in the study had PSAs of 0. 2 to 4 nanograms per milliliter. “That’s just like the first wisp of smoke,†said Dr. Zietman, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. “There’ll be fire someday. †The fire might take five, 10 or 15 years to break out, but Dr. Zietman said, “Many are in their 50s or 60s, and will live long enough to get into trouble. †The traditional practice for a rising PSA after surgery has been to give radiation, which targets only the pelvis. The idea of the study was to add hormonal treatment, which might stop minute clumps of cancer that had spread to other parts of the body. All the men in the study had radiation for six and a half weeks. For two years, half also received a drug, bicalutamide, and the other half were given placebos. They were followed, on average, for about 13 years. “This is the first trial that’s shown, if you follow these patients long enough, there is a real difference,†Dr. Zietman said. “More people survive 15 years later. †Men who had more aggressive cancers — reflected by higher PSA readings after surgery and by the pathology and surgical reports on their tumors — had the most to gain from the treatment. The results do not mean that every man with a rising PSA after surgery should have hormone treatment, Dr. Zietman said. Men 75 or older may not need it, because they may die from other causes before the cancer can catch up with them. “But if they’re younger and with a longer life expectancy, treatment is reasonable,†he said. Bicalutamide causes men to develop breasts and potentially other problems, and the high dose given in the study is no longer used in the United States. Other drugs like Lupron have mostly taken its place, and may be even more effective, Dr. Zietman said. The study proved the concept that hormone blocking increases survival, he added, so other drugs that do the same thing should also help patients live longer. Another study in progress in Canada and Europe uses the newer drugs, and is trying to determine whether taking them for six months, rather than two years, might be enough. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2061 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Taiwan will increase future defense spending by two percent each year, President Tsai Ing-wen said during a visit to Hawaii where the United States expressed concern over a possible military imbalance in the Taiwan Straits, Taiwan media reported. In the event that Taiwan purchases arms from a foreign military, the island s defense spending could increase as much as three percent each year, and could possibly increase further using a special budget if significant purchase cases are made, Tsai said in remarks carried by official media on Monday. Tsai made the comments in response to U.S. concerns about a possible military imbalance in the Taiwan Strait expressed by Ambassador James Moriarty during a meeting. Tsai did not elaborate on when the increased defense spending would start. Tsai s comments were reflected by National Security Council deputy secretary-general Tsai Ming-yen, who recounted to official media the conversation between Tsai and Moriarty, who is chairman of the U.S. Mission in Taiwan, about expanding Taiwan s national defense policy. Moriarty had expressed concern about China s double-digit growth in defense investments in the last few years, and that Taiwan would need to address a possible military imbalance over the Taiwan Strait, deputy secretary-general Tsai recounted. President Tsai in turn replied Taiwan would develop a comprehensive plan in accordance with strategic needs, short-term needs, and long-term plans, to create defense forces on the island that would have reliable combat effectiveness . Tsai visited Hawaii at the weekend on her way to three of Taiwan s diplomatic allies in the Pacific, despite China, which considers Taiwan a wayward province, calling on the United States to stop the trip. Her trip comes about a week before U.S. President Donald Trump visits Asia. China has increased pressure on Taiwan since Tsai took office last year, suspecting she wants to push for formal independence. China has conducted more military drills around Taiwan and peeled away its few remaining diplomatic allies. Tsai described Taiwan-U.S. relations as being unprecedentedly friendly in comments released by Taiwan s presidential office on Monday. We are happy to see U.S. promises of peace and stability for the Asia-Pacific region, and from meetings with the United States understand the necessity to increase investment in defense, it quoted her as saying. The United States and Taiwan have not had formal diplomatic relations since Washington established ties with Beijing in 1979, but the United States is bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. Taiwan is well armed with mostly U.S.-made weapons but has been pushing for sales of more advanced equipment, such as fighter jets, to deal with what Taipei sees as a growing threat from China and its own rapidly modernizing armed forces. China has never renounced the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. It regularly calls Taiwan the most sensitive and important issue between it and the United States and has been upset by U.S. moves to expand military exchanges with Taiwan and continued U.S. arms sales to the island. Tsai s stopover in Hawaii included a tour of a Pearl Harbor memorial, a banquet with the overseas Taiwan community, and joint speeches with Moriarty, the chairman of the U.S. Mission in Taiwan, also known as the American Institute in Taiwan. It was her second U.S. visit this year. In January, Tsai stopped in Houston and San Francisco on her way to and from Latin America. Tsai moves on to visit the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands from Monday during a week-long trip and will stop over in the U.S. territory of Guam on her way back to Taiwan. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2062 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Share on Twitter
The Republican National Committee launched a new video advertisement Thursday hitting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on her support for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare.”
The 27-second video, which is part of a five-figure campaign on Facebook, details the recent developments surrounding increased healthcare premiums for individuals in certain states by reminding voters of Clinton's support for the landmark law.
The video, obtained by Independent Journal Review, also plays Clinton's quote taking credit for the Affordable Care Act's framework:
“Before it was called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare.”
In a statement, RNC chairman Reince Priebus said, “Hillary Clinton’s tone deaf promises to expand Obamacare will only mean a greater strain on the finances of many American families,” adding:
“Hillary Clinton has for years touted her own botched healthcare plans as the blueprint for this trainwreck of a law that was designed to fail, and the almost daily reports of skyrocketing premiums, disappearing options, and collapsing state exchanges will remain a reality if she is president.”
Obamacare's struggles have been a prominent focus for Republicans in many down-ballot races across the United States. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has touched on the issue as well, releasing a brief healthcare position paper .
Because of Clinton's role in the framework and selling of the Affordable Care Act, Priebus said that voters should reject Clinton.
“The best way to hold Hillary Clinton and Democrats in Congress accountable for this mess is to elect Donald Trump president and return Republican majorities to the House and Senate so we can pass patient-centered healthcare reform that won’t cripple family budgets," he said. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2063 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Did Libertarian Candidate Jo Jorgensen Lose 40K Votes in 10 Minutes in Pennsylvania? Claim summaries: And if so, where did they go?
contextual information: Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here A viral post shared across multiple platforms has been used as evidence that U.S. presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen, who ran in the 2020 election on the Libertarian ticket, lost an implausible number of votes in an implausible amount of time. The sole evidence for the assertion comes from a pair of smartphone screen captures allegedly showing a Google search panel for Pennsylvania returns separated by 12 minutes. multiple platforms The images suggest that Jorgensen went from 89,025 when 56% of the vote had been counted to 46,987 when the count reached 59%. Snopes could not verify the origin or authenticity of the screenshot but it remains the only evidence in support of the assertion. At no point that we are aware of did Jorgensen ever have a reported number over 80,000 votes in the state. The shift from 56% reporting to 59% reporting occurred early in election night when in-person votes were being tallied. If it were a data entry error, as has been documented in other instances in this election, it would have represented the addition of votes, not the subtraction of them. At the time of this reporting (Nov. 6), with an estimated 99% of vote counted, the same Google widget shows Jorgensen with 77,091 votes. early instances Due to the lack of corroborating evidence, we rank this claim | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2064 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: REMEMBER BECKY GERRITSON OF ALABAMA WHOSE TEA PARTY GROUP WAS TARGETED BY THE IRS? SHE GAVE AN IMPASSIONED SPEECH TO CONGRESS. It seems the IRS hasn t changed its tune!The IRS has discovered more than 1 million Americans whose Social Security numbers were stolen by illegal immigrants, but officials never bothered to tell the taxpayers themselves, the agency s inspector general said in a withering new report released Tuesday. Investigators first alerted the IRS to the problem five years ago, but it s still not fixed, the inspector general said, and a pilot program meant to test a solution was canceled and fell woefully short anyway. As a result, most taxpayers don t learn that their identities have been stolen and their Social Security files may be screwed up. Taxpayers identified as victims of employment-related identity theft are not notified, the inspector general said. The report alarmed lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who were shocked that the IRS had gone for so long without fixing the issue. It is stunning that the IRS has chosen to aid and abet identity thieves for so long instead of protecting the innocent victims of the theft, said Sen. Daniel Coats, Indiana Republican.Victims numbers are stolen by illegal immigrants who need to give employers a valid Social Security number in order to get a job. Employers are prohibited from probing too deeply into numbers, even when they suspect fraud. But the IRS learns of the scam when the illegal immigrants file their taxes using a special Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) the agency doles out chiefly to illegal immigrants as a way of making sure they re paying taxes even if they re not supposed to be in the U.S. Between 2011 and 2015 the agency flagged nearly 1.1 million returns where someone appeared to have stolen a valid Social Security number, the inspector general said.Read more: WT | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2065 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The prepared written testimony that former FBI Director James Comey is set to deliver on Thursday morning vindicates President Donald Trump’s claim that he was told three times that he was not under investigation. [At the same time, the Comey testimony refutes reports by CNN and other outlets that Comey would dispute that claim. When Trump fired Comey, he wrote: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau. †As Zero Hedge noted Wednesday, CNN reported on Tuesday that Comey was “expected to refute Trump. †Citing an anonymous source, CNN reported that “Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation. †Zero Hedge adds that CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger, said: “Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so. †However, Comey acknowledges in his prepared testimony that he did, in fact, tell Trump three times that he was not under investigation: once in a meeting at Trump Tower on January 6 a second time during a dinner on January 27 (which CNN says was “more nuancedâ€) and a third time during a telephone conversation on March 30. On a fourth occasion, in a phone call on April 11, the president said that he was not under investigation, and was not corrected. CNN has now added a correction to the top of its story: CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published. Corey’s written testimony contradicts Trump’s account of events in one respect — namely, that Trump asked Comey for his “loyalty. †However, Comey’s prepared remarks add a new revelation, which is that Comey agreed to provide “honest loyalty. †He speculates that it is possible that he had a different understanding of that phrase than the president did. Joel B. Pollak is Senior at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential†people in news media in 2016. He is the of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2066 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Tweet Widget by Bryan K. Bullock
To read the foreign policy pages of the New York Times is to enter a world of whiteness. “Whites are the only ones who are presumed to have an opinion on such issues that is worth mentioning.” Although Black America is the nation’s most anti-imperial constituency, foreign policy is considered a white preserve. Blacks “serve the function we have always served: subjects of imperialism, scapegoats for repression, but not shapers of foreign policy.” Black American Anti-Imperialism: an Invisible Subject for the New York Times by Bryan K. Bullock
“From Vietnam through Iraq, African Americans have proved to be the group of Americans most opposed to U.S. military intervention.”
The October 4, 2016, issue of the New York Times , which contained the article, “Syrian War Magnifies Tension in America’s Global Mission,” is a case study in white supremacy. The article is framed from a totally white “conservative” and “liberal” frame, and completely ignores the perspective of African Americans, who, traditionally, and today, are consistently and overwhelmingly, anti-imperialism and who tend to identify with other Black and Brown people across the globe, including the Palestinians and Syrians.
The article purports to give “both sides” of the argument for U.S. intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations. The authors of the article give the impression that they are being “balanced” in giving the views of those who support America’s “mission” in the world and those who are “critical” of said “mission.” This false “balance” does not include the perspectives of any African American historians or critics of U.S. foreign policy, like Professor Gerald Horne, Bill Fletcher, Anthony Monteiro, Glen Ford or African (American) scholars like Horace Campbell. In fact, “both sides” of any debate in the U.S. regarding foreign policy, are both white “sides.” This is particularly true when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, where whites are the only ones who are presumed to either have an opinion on such issues, or one that is worth mentioning.
It is true that “both sides” could include Blacks who adhere to the Eurocentric, party-line views of the dominant U.S. narrators, say, Donna Brazile or Condoleezza Rice, or Blacks on the so-called “left,” but their views (still missing from this piece) are not a Black critique. It is a Eurocentric critique coming from a Black person, which is fundamentally different than an African American critique viewed through the lens of the African American experience. The ideas, views and critiques of Black thinkers are notoriously absent in the pages of the Times when it comes to foreign policy -- which proves that the writers, the editorial staff and the paper itself does not consider those views important. And in ignoring those critiques, it also ignores the historical critical analysis of the people who are and have been the subjects of U.S. foreign policy.
“The ideas, views and critiques of Black thinkers are notoriously absent in the pages of the Times when it comes to foreign policy.”
It also completely ignores the analysis of great Black historical thinkers like W.E.B. DuBois, Walter Rodney and Paul Robeson, Malcolm X, the late stage Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as the organizations they represented such as the Council on African Affairs (the CAA), the NAACP of the 1940’s, the African Liberation Support Committee, the Black Panther Party, The African Blood Brotherhood, the Organization of Afro-American Unity, Trans Africa, the U.S. Human Rights Network, the United Negro Improvement Association or the National Council of Black Lawyers, all of whom were deeply critical of America’s so-called mission in the world, especially as it related to African and Asian peoples, like Haitians, Congolese, Syrians, Yemenis and Palestinians. The critiques of these people are irrelevant to, not only the Times , but in truth, to the Democratic and Republican parties, the current incarnation of the NAACP, the Black Congressional Caucus, President Obama and most white liberal formations. However, this is not a reason to give the Times a pass. Even the use of the word “mission,” with the European habit of sending missionaries into Africa and the Americas to soften the people up with European religion before they were subdued by hard power, does not elicit irony on the part of the Times . The “white man’s burden” of “civilizing” the darker races of the world, through enslavement, destroying their religions, cultures, languages, colonizing their lands and resource and extracting their people and whisking them away to foreign lands to toil from birth to death for free, is just as important and essential a part of the history of “America’s Global Mission” as anything else mentioned in the piece.
The hand wringing of the mostly white imperialists on the “left” and on the right, regarding the proper way to engage in imperialism, is essentially what the piece presents. No other perspectives or voices are important or valid. Thus the perspectives of African American thinkers are only relevant in American discourse when it concerns “black” issues like police brutality, but not on international issues, although many black writers and thinkers would argue the two are connected. This is so even though the very presence people of African descent in America is a direct result of the United States’ foreign policy of capturing, importing and enslaving African people. This point is lost on white foreign policy writers. However, early Black thinkers were clear on this point. People like DuBois and Robeson, in the past, and contemporaries like Glen Ford, were/are, fiercely anti-imperialist.
“The perspectives of African American thinkers are only relevant in American discourse when it concerns ‘black’ issues like police brutality, but not on international issues.”
The white, imperialist presentation in the article excludes the ideas of Syrian Americans, Indigenous populations, Mexican and Puerto Rican Americans and Hawaiians, all of whom may have a totally different idea of America’s “obligation” in Syria. Penny M. Von Eschen notes in the book, Race Against Empire, Black Americans and Anticolonialism 1937-1957 , that “Objecting to U.S. support for South African and the European colonial powers, and increasingly challenging the notion that America was the legitimate leader of the ‘free world’ and therefore above censure, black Americans both criticized new directions in American foreign policy and attempted to use the United Nations as a forum in which to gain support for civil rights struggles in the United States.” African Americans are no less critical of America’s self-serving “mission” today as was then. African Americans were highly critical of the U.S.’s violent overthrow of the African nation of Libya, its aggressions toward Cuba in the 60’s and Venezuela in the Chavez era and today. We have not forgotten America’s refusal to recognize Haiti as an independent Black nation when it defeated the French. Nor are we unmindful of the U.S. invasion of Haiti in 1915 and its support of dictators of the Duvalier family, the coup of the Aristide government and the fact that President Obama tried to prevent Aristide from returning to Haiti.
Black thinkers on international issues are highly supportive of the Palestinian cause and troubled by the continued expansion of AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command, on the continent. This analysis is glaringly absent from mainstream media portrayals of America’s “duty” in the world. The Times article offers the view that, “Because many Americans see their foreign policy as a grand mission to make the world a better place, they tend to divide the world into heroes who support their ideals and villains who oppose them.” But which Americans are the writers talking about and whose “ideals” are represented in U.S. foreign policy. It is certain that the views of people like George Padmore, a leader in the Pan-African movement in the 40’s and 50’s, are not represented by this view. Padmore was clear that, “Empire and peace are incompatible.” Michael C. Dawson notes, in Blacks in and Out of the Left : “from Vietnam through Iraq, African Americans have proved to be the group of Americans most opposed to U.S. military intervention.” It is also purposely “forgotten” that the Black Panther Party was, following in the footsteps of their ideological predecessor, Malcolm X, staunchly anti-imperialist. As Eldridge Cleaver noted, the U.S. was “bankrolling and arming all of the oppressive regimes around the world.” One of the agenda items contained in the National Black Political Agenda, created in Gary, Indiana, in 1972 called for an end to the Vietnam War and the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Asia and Africa; the withdrawal of U.S. military, corporations, and communications facilities from southern Africa and the Third World; self-determination of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; an end to sanctions against Cuba and the closure of the American military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“African Americans were highly critical of the U.S.’s violent overthrow of the African nation of Libya, its aggressions toward Cuba in the 60’s and Venezuela in the Chavez era and today.”
Contemporary white American analysis of U.S. foreign excludes the historical reality that, in thinking of America’s support of so-called rebels in Syria and Libya , it is clear to African Americans that America never supported a single African liberation group in Africa. It is not lost on Black Americans that the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela were considered terrorists by the U.S. No African rebel movement seeking independence from the Dutch, British, French, German, Portuguese or Italian colonizers of African lands ever received a single drop of military support from Washington. The U.S. never supported the Mau Mau in Kenya, nor Frelimo in Mozambique, nor the ANC in South Africa, or any other revolutionary movement on the continent.
In fact, the contrary is true. From the coup against Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana to the assassination of Patrice Lumuumba in the Congo, to the capture of Nelson Mandela and to the support the racist apartheid system of South African and the murderous colonial regime in the former Rhodesia, the American government has consistently and forcefully opposed revolutionary movements in Africa and in fact supported their colonial oppressors. The only country to ever militarily support African liberation was Cuba, not the U.S. Regarding Mandela, (who the U.S. considered a terrorist) we heard him clearly when, in response to a request to condemn Fidel Castro, Yassar Arafat and Mommar Ghadifi, he said, your enemies are not necessarily our enemies. Indeed, not only did Castro send troops to aid the Angolans in defeating the South Africans, he also provided refuge for many African American freedom fighters, from Robert Williams to Assata Shakur. While the U.S. was infiltrating, surveilling and murdering Black political activists in the Black Panther Party, leaders of North Vietnam, China, Algeria and Cuba welcomed them as ambassadors of the African American community.
“It is clear to African Americans that America never supported a single African liberation group.”
Understanding this historical reality, Black thinkers are justifiably critical and suspicious of U.S. intentions in places like Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. The greatest thinkers in African American culture explicitly made the connection between the U.S. and European colonialism abroad, in places like Syria, as an extension of the domestic policy of treating African Americans as second class citizens – or, as some African American thinkers have argued, the domestic colonization of Black people. The genocide of the Native Americans resonates with Black Americans. Leaders from MLK, who connected America’s imperialism in Vietnam, and the tax dollars used to support it, to the lack of financial resources available to be used to build cities and provide a basic wage; to Malcolm, who traveled the globe making personal connections with African heads of state, including Nasser in Egypt. It was Malcolm who saw the historic opportunity of the Bandung Conference, where 29 Asian and African, post-colonial nations, met to discuss their own fates independent of colonial powers, including the U.S.
Black American support for anti-imperialist movements did not find a space in the Times’ analysis of Syria. The writers and editorial staff at the Times are oblivious to the histories of the Third World peoples living in their midst. Therefore, for Black people who understand this history, they recognize articles like the one published in the Times as imperial propaganda pieces for global white supremacy. Yet, the Times , in that regard, is no different than any other white American newspaper, magazine or news program or politician. They all (even, or especially, the Black ones) present a Eurocentric worldview that excludes the ideas, histories and analysis of its black population. We are irrelevant. We serve the function we have always served: subjects of imperialism, scapegoats for repression, but not shapers of foreign policy. Blacks can nominally participate in the American experience, but only so long as we stay in our place and as long as we support the “manifest destiny” of the global hegemon and not get in its way. We are cannon fodder for the imperialist wars abroad and casualties in the U.S. war on drugs and on poor Black life at home.
“Malcolm traveled the globe making personal connections with African heads of state, including Nasser in Egypt.”
The presence of a black face at the head of the empire has provided cover for U.S. imperialism in Africa and Asia, but it has not diminished the anti-imperialism of the black community. It has silenced the voices of the self-appointed black “leaders” and revealed them to be supporters of empire and oppression. The Times , too, or rather again, reveals itself as a supporter of the Pentagon by publishing an article that is short on true analysis of America’s support of terrorists in Syria, as well as presenting a limited, white supremacist parameter of debate. Although the African American tradition of anti-imperialism may not be important to the Times , it is a tradition that is still alive nonetheless. And neither the Black face of the empire, nor the white press in service to it, can diminish it. Our antagonism against imperialism may not be publicized in the pages of the Times , but it lives on in our continued support for amnesty for Assata Shakur, the release of all political prisoners from Leonard Peltier to Jalil Muntiquim and Oscar Rivera Lopez, to support for Palestinian self-determination, to opposition to the re-colonization of Africa by America’s Africa Command, to the growing support by Black athletes, young and old, of Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the National Anthem, to our opposition to all U.S. wars of aggression, including the ones in Libya and Syria. African Americans’ opposition to the U.S. supported aggression in Syria, masquerading as humanitarian support, is obviously irrelevant to the Times , but Malcolm X told us plainly years ago, that the media would have us thinking the good guy was the bad guy and vice versa. So whether, or even if, Assad is a “ruthless dictator,” the term the U.S. has used against everyone from Castro to Chavez, it does not therefore mean that African Americans agree that the U.S. has the right to support insurrection in Syria. We know imperialism is Euro-American, white, capitalist venture that is carried against “the darker nations,” not for them. Malcolm, Martin and Mandela taught us well. Attorney Bryan K. Bullock practices law in Merrillville, Indiana. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2067 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: 7. Emigre Super Bloc Part VII: Why Hillary Clinton Will Appoint Old World Nationalists to Cabinet Positions . Editor's Note If you learn nothing else from reading Eliason’s “Emigre” series, you should take away how interlinked world events truly are. When you add in the machinations of various intelligence agencies and national covert operations groups, tracing a thread through from point A to point B can become an epic journey. It is also a journey that leaves you wondering whose interests are being served? In answering that question, it becomes clear that the answer is much more likely a small, influential group than a nation state. Just look at the map of the countries involved in Syria’s “civil war,” and it becomes exceedingly clear that what is happening in Syria is anything but a civil war. It also casts a totally different light on Europe’s rejection of Syrian refugees. How cruel and mean spirited can you get than to be involved in the war that has displaced most of a nation’s population, and then close your borders to those displaced?
W hether you are for Hillary Clinton or against her, the problem with Hillary Clinton isn’t her lack of experience. Almost the entire political establishment is behind her. Throughout all the bumps and scandal in this whole election cycle, Republicans and former presidents are coming out of the woodwork supporting her. According to the LA Times she may well be one of the most experienced candidates in US history, even accounting for severe conflicts of interest inside the Clinton Foundation. Neither friend or foe doubt Hillary Clinton’s experience after 30 years in politics.
The problem is even Hillary Clinton’s friends say she has, is a history of acting without thinking, of making bad decisions. According to Neera Tanden : “Almost no one knows better than me that her instincts can be terrible.”
Does Hillary Clinton show bad instincts and terrible decision-making skills, and if she does, how will this affect the USA?
According to journalist Robert Parry “the people that will be taking senior positions and especially in foreign policy believe “This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East… Taken together, the studies and reports call for more aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.”One of the lead organizations revving up these military adventures and also counting on a big boost in military spending under President Clinton-45 is the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO that has been pushing for a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.”
The Atlantic Council is the think tank for the CEEC which is associated with NATO. The CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition) has only one goal. At the beginning of the presidential campaign they put out a small list of questions for the candidates to decide who they would support for the president.
The first question was essentially “Are you willing to go to war with Russia?” Hillary Clinton has answered that question and received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. Who is the CEEC?
The Central and Eastern European Coalition represent the various Central and Eastern European countries to the US government. What makes them special in an election is that they control a 20 million person strong bloc vote in key states across the country and sway elections by themselves. The price of a Clinton win is war with Russia.
If that seems a little too much to be believable, reconsider the Iraq war. All it took was for the Iraqi diaspora to develop strong ties with like-minded people f rom “ The Project for the New American Century” that wanted regime change in Iraq. Many of the people associated with the PNAC crossed over into the Bush administration . They pushed the invasion together.
Josh DeWind’s and Renata Segura’s paper Diaspora-Government Relations in Forging US-Foreign Policies utilized the following source to discuss the diaspora link to US-Iraqi relations:
Walt Vanderbush’s essay, “The Iraqi Diaspora and the US Invasion of Iraq” (chapter 9), traces the collaboration between leaders of the Iraqi diaspora and neoconservative Americans, many of them linked to the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to convince the US government to wage war and bring about “regime change” in Iraq… The INC claimed credit for placing 108 articles in the news media, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Times (of London), during a nine-month period before the war.”
It wasn’t terror, Osama, or even oil that the Iraq war was fought for. It was a guy named Ahmed Chalabi who was the only victor of the Iraq war.
American-emigre groups use their strategically settled populations in key battleground states, deep pockets, and unbridled political ambition to gain control over their home “old” countries. Even more insidious is the influence they exert over the United States to destroy old enemies.
Do we want senior cabinet and policy positions filled by people who think starting WWIII is a good goal? Let’s take a look at the make-up and politics of some of these.
Starting at the top let’s look at the Ukrainian emigres who lead the CEEC and the Atlantic Council. One thing anyone represented by the UCCA (Ukrainian Congressional Committee of America) or the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) has in common is Axis-political heritage and beliefs. The OUN is the political grouping of Ukrainian nationalists and it would vote for Adolf Hitler if he was running in a heartbeat.
Unless real Nazi political views (not neo-nazi) found a way to survive all these years with this group of people, the statement is just insulting. Anyone reading should be insulted because that level of offensiveness in a politically charged environment is wrong.
Nazism or Axis-Nazism are political beliefs and principles that structure a government the same as Republican or Democratic control would. The only difference is the “ism.” The “ism” means everything you do in your life revolves around your politic so it’s not just political or social guides or guidelines. It’s your lifestyle and everything wraps around it. Anything or anyone that goes against it is an enemy of the state, and it is personal.
From their own words in the Ukrainian Weekly, real, active political Nazi’s are alive, kickin’ and ready for a Clinton win! It is the sheer number of groups self-identifying as practicing real Nazi beliefs in the US gaining policy and cabinet positions under a Clinton win that is incredible.
The Ukrainian World Congress, with its affiliates in over 40 countries , and others work tirelessly in trying to keep Ukraine and the Ukrainian spirit front and center. “We have had a minister of finance, Natalka Jaresko, in the Cabinet. We now have Ulana Suprun as acting minister of health. We have many from the diaspora assisting with strategizing, reforming and supporting the overall cause. We have a highly successful program in Patriot Defence. We are out to change the way business is done. Unity to act when required has been the diaspora’s mantra – this cannot be disputed. As time moves on, we see that things take a natural course. We see that two wings of the OUN – (OUNb)Banderivtsi and (OUNm)Melnykivtsi – are working actively on the international level, working in partnership and currently are in strong negotiations about becoming a single entity again.”
With all you’ve heard about Stepan Bandera’s OUN since the Maidan coup in Ukraine, I’ll bet you didn’t know they call New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia home.
The UCCA and the UWC still celebrate their Nazi SS because they are still Axis-nazis. The OUN were the vile Holocaust murderers during and after WWII and their politics live on in their children today. This is no different from the children of other Waffen-SS leaders, or if Hitler had surviving children that stood up and ran other countries based in Hitler’s policy. These American kids are sent to Ukraine to learn how to copy and act like Stepan Bandera before they come back to America and get involved in policy making.
“ OUNb leader Ivan Kobasa also took responsibility of making sure the Ukrainian-Americans received the proper secondary education at Ukrainian nationalist schools (MAUP) in Ukraine. From the mid-2000’s enrollment in this educational system has skyrocketed. Today almost all members of the current Ukrainian government are graduates of this ideological system that was taught to them by “moderates” like David Duke (former head of the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S.) who is also a graduate of the MAUP system.”
While American media criticizes David Duke’s support for Donald Trump, they say nothing about Hillary’s strongest supporters hiring David Duke as a professor to teach their children college level history. Is Hillary Clinton too far right for David Duke? After all, he has no plans to conquer Russia.
When you look at her campaign coffers and the most active political activists supporting Hillary Clinton, many are groups whose politics are not republican or democrat, but old-world nationalist. They are spread across America and still idolize their Waffen SS heroes, literally. They have statues and holidays and children’s groups across America in cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago celebrating some of the vilest mass murderers in history. And they teach their children to idolize them and grow up using them as role models. They also bring up their children in the same political mold of ultra-nationalism.
Now they want an America that will do the same. Over the last 30 years, the old world nationalists have moved into media and policy positions to make this happen. If that wasn’t enough they control a 20 million person bloc vote in key states and swing states in important cities across America.
I am not using the word nazi as an insult, this isn’t neo-nazi or even a nazi revival. These groups have been the most extreme political activists in the USA over the last 50 years and are a continuation of what their parents were in the 1930’s. In their own words, they never assimilated into American culture. They assimilated the culture to them. In the words of the CIA, they are political animals. Today, their wagons are circled around a Hillary Clinton presidency.
The OUN were the guards at the Holocaust prison camps, Waffen SS, and volunteer brigades that were famous for torture and murder. In Ukraine, they killed over 3 million people and conducted the first act of Holocaust at Babi Yar.
The funny part, if there was one, is that with every fiber of your being, you want to argue against these facts. The OUN on the other hand featured at least one of my articles on their rise in American politics even though I called them devils. The fact they find me credible shouldn’t get lost on you.
When these good friends of Hillary Clinton from the CEEC start getting tapped for advisory posts, and cabinet positions through the Atlantic Council or Project for a New American Century, will they automatically become Democrats or Republicans?
Does America want a war with Russia so the losers of WWII can settle old scores?
For the first time, under a Clinton presidency, America will have unbridled Axis-nazis/old world nationalists/ nazis in most of the cabinet and policy positions. They are getting the positions because they are delivering donations, bloc votes, political propaganda, and hard activism in battleground states.
The results for the Clinton campaign in emigre dominated states is the same as it was when they first got together. Clinton is up by 11 points in important emigre bloc voting districts. …In last month’s heavily publicized Pennsylvania Senate race. Ukrainian and Baltic groups, protesting the administration’s attempts to prevent the break-up of the USSR, supported the Democratic candidate, Harris Wofford. This position contributed to the defeat of Dick Thornburgh, a former attorney general in the Bush administration….”The Ukrainian Weekly, December 8, 1991, No. 49, Vol. LIX
In a Ukraine Weekly interview with candidate Bill Clinton- “ For the last 40 years, many Ukrainians have been supporters of the Republican Party . However, Mr. Bush severely damaged his relations with Ukrainians with his “Chicken Kiev” speech, and by his unwillingness to see Ukraine’s point of view in disputes with Russia. How will your party seek to secure the goodwill of voters concerned by this issue?” … Clinton’s answer…“The Bush administration has had a spotty record abroad… including the president’s insulting warning against “suicidal nationalism” made before proindependence forces in Kiev in the summer of 1991 — and a failed economic record at home. We hope Ukrainian Americans will join our effort to put people first.” – Interview with Candidate Bill Clinton-Ukrainian Weekly Issue 43, 1992
In what has become the ultimate pay to play scheme, the Clinton’s gave over Ukraine to OUNb nationalists to run as they saw fit. This was payment for political support and bloc votes that won the 1992 elections for Bill Clinton. American citizens were given a country to run and represent in any manner they chose to do it.
According to Ukrainian nationalist scholar Taras Kuzio , the Axis-nazi political beliefs started to be taught to children in Ukraine after the OUNb took the reins. This was the preparation for what would become a nationalist coup in 2014 Ukraine.
This pattern follows the Clinton-NATO expansion and every CEE (Central and Eastern European) country freed by the Clintons followed suit. In Croatia, Croatian-Americans have more parliamentary seats and representation than any group from Croatia.
Other than American-emigre groups gaining rule and representing the “home country” in the US, there is only one other universal factor each of them revived. Axis- nazi politics and political views became normal in their home countries. In Croatia, they even revived the Waffen SS Battalions.
The people at the CEEC are behind the Atlantic Council and PNAC will be making the domestic and foreign policy decisions in a Clinton administration. While I would not call Hillary Clinton a Nazi, the people she surrounds herself with actively are. There is very little doubt that Victoria Nuland, a Ukrainian-American brought up in these beliefs will be Secretary of State under a Clinton Administration.
To get an understanding of what that means, the same people that are deciding Ukrainian domestic and foreign policy will be sending their people to those cabinet positions.
The one thing for sure is even publications that support her candidacy wonder about Hillary Clinton’s lack of judgment and surrounding herself with nationalist war-hawks that want war with Russia.
According to the WEEK : “At first, Obama went over the top of public opinion to avenge American honor against ISIS. Slowly, America’s mission has crept to include some form of regime change with the ouster of Assad. Now Clinton is selling the American people on greater military interventions so that the U.S. can challenge Putin. Clinton seems unable to distinguish between what is of vital interest to the Russians and peripheral interest to America. She combines this with her bias toward always taking action — of any sort, for good or ill. The combination is dangerous.”
The article ends in the hope that Clinton is once again lying. Both current president Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to sell America on the idea that there are moderates fighting a civil war in Syria. We are arming and training them. Are there moderates in Syria worth supporting? Do we have any business there to begin with? The article goes as far as stating the US is determined to overthrow every country that is friendly to Russia.
Right now Clinton wants to establish a no-fly-zone to protect her moderates. Who are they? US Special Forces on the ground are adamant that Clinton wants to give US military support to ISIS even if it means starting an open war with Russia.
“ Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’” “I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added.
Since 2014, Ukraine has fully supported al Nusra and at the beginning of the civil war pulled 200 ISIS fighters to the Ukrainian front lines. These fighters are jihadis from Crimea. They have also set up an ISIS training camp near Mariupol. Like all other volunteers, they don’t receive government support and rob to make a living.
Before this, the Kosovo example looms large. Does inviting indicted mass murderers and people preparing for illegal organ trade (crimes against humanity) trials to your national party convention as special guests qualify as good judgment? Does it showcase Hillary Clinton’s good instincts to be president?
Welcome to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Hillary Clinton’s special guest from Kosovo took time-out from preparing for his crimes against humanity case to give support and wish her well. “Invited as a guest to the 2016 Democratic National Convention is none other than Kadri Veseli, the Speaker of the Kosovo Assembly. Veseli is a former Kosovar Albanian leader of the KLA and its spy organization SHIK. He’s being indicted along with the current president of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci for small things like organ trafficking and crimes against humanity .’ The main witness against Clinton friends, Veseli and Thaci, is a man that was ordered to cut the heart out of another man that was begging for mercy. In a 1998 interview with the BBC , US special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard had this to say about Veseli and Thaci; “I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists.”
Clinton’s relationship with the Albanian and Kosovo killers stretches back to the Bill Clinton’s first election in 1992. During the campaign season the Clinton duo found out quickly how powerful the emigre national vote was in America. In one fell swoop, the Albanians and the KLA after them went from what the USA definitely recognized as Islamic terrorists to victims we were going to war for.
The Clinton humanitarian bombing in the Balkans drove victims into the waiting clutches of the KLA, and the spread of Islamic terrorism worldwide.
In what became her first executive decision, first lady, Hillary Clinton brow-beat the unwilling president Clinton into bombing the Balkans and creating a humanitarian catastrophe. Today, as a result of this, ISIS is setting up training camps in what is widely referred to as “Clinton country. “
“ On the territory of Kosovo and Metohija , the local police detained three militants of so-called “Islamic State” (a terrorist organization banned in Russia), is going to organize a series of terrorist attacks in Serbia.” Terrorists LIH (IGIL/ISIS) break through the Balkans to Western Europe March 2016.
Clinton’s jihadi bloc vote in America remains central to her winning this election along with the rest of the CEEC. Does America want people advising the president that openly support genocide like the Kosovars, Albanians, or Ukrainians?
Hillary Clinton is not an Islamist. Hillary Clinton is not a Nazi. But the question remains. Why is she surrounded by, and listening to, people that are? Is that her best judgment? GH Eliason Mr. Eliason l ives in Ukraine. He writes content and optimizes web based businesses across the globe for organic search results, technical issues, and design strategies. He is also a large project construction specialist. When Fukushima happened it became known that he was a locked high rad specialist with a penchant for climbing. He was paid to climb a reactor at a sister plant to Fukushima 3 because of a “million dollar mistake”. His now works in project safety. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2068 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: NYPD assaulting protestors, violent arrests happening on 50th st approachin 9th ave #NYPDKKK pic.twitter.com/cy4xsfT7Q9 Millions March NYC (@MillionsMarch) April 15, 2016 A LONE TRUMP SUPPORTER IS PUSHED THROUGH THE CROWD BY THE POLICE:Lone racist Trump supporter running away #HATEFREENYC #ShutDownTrump4Akai pic.twitter.com/4RuL9e7sZJ Millions March NYC (@MillionsMarch) April 14, 2016 PROTESTER CHANTS: EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE Protestors storming back entrance of Grand Hyatt NY #ShutDownTrump4Akai #HateFreeNYC pic.twitter.com/EfPu1p9hvs Millions March NYC (@MillionsMarch) April 14, 2016 THE NY STATE GOP GALA IS IN NYC TONIGHT and the paid protesters are out in force. We ll be reporting on anything important but here are a few pictures of the cast of characters at the protest:All you need to see to let you know that the Trump protests are NOT grassroots is the picture below but the last picture is a shocker (why would a Ted Cruz supporter hang with these protesters?): ILLEGAL ALIENS who say it s racist and hateful to want to have borders go figure Obama s Purple Army SEIU is marching with the socialists:A Ted Cruz supporter joins the communists and anarchists to protest Trump: | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2069 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: A citizenship crisis will loom over the Australian government for at least another two months after a court said on Thursday it would not begin hearings into the parliamentary eligibility of seven lawmakers until mid-October. Australia s parliament has been rocked by the revelation that the seven lawmakers, including the deputy prime minister and two other ministers in the coalition government, are dual citizens, meaning they are potentially ineligible to hold elected office. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull s center-right government holds just a one-seat majority in parliament and its popularity is sitting at six-month lows in opinion polls, meaning its future could rest on the outcome of the citizenship crisis. Turnbull s government had asked for an expedited ruling on the eligibility of the lawmakers, but Australia s High Court said on Thursday it would not begin the three-day hearing until Oct. 11. The delay means the crisis threatens to further erode support for Turnbull. The next national election is not due until 2019 but political analysts say prolonged poor poll results could encourage a leadership challenge. Turnbull needs to urgently remove the doubt around the credibility of his government, which has already caused him great harm, said Haydon Manning, a political science professor at Flinders University in South Australia. The High Court ruling also threatens to create a parliamentary impasse for Turnbull if his deputy, Barnaby Joyce, is disqualified. Joyce, the leader of the rural-based Nationals, the junior partner in the ruling coalition, has said he was a joint New Zealand citizen when he was elected last year. If Joyce is disqualified by the court over the citizenship rules, Turnbull would have to rely on the support of the often fractious independents in parliament to have any hope of passing legislation. The possible deadlock also threatens consumer sentiment, analysts said, a bad sign for Australia s somewhat sluggish economy. Turnbull brushed away any suggestions that the court could deliver a ruling that would doom his government. We are very, very confident that our members who have been caught up in this will be held by the court to be eligible to sit in the parliament and therefore eligible to be ministers, Turnbull told reporters in the rural town of Albury, 555 km (345 miles) south of Sydney. A 116-year-old law demands an elected lawmaker only have Australian citizenship, but some have discovered they hold dual citizenship by descent of a father being born in another country, such as neighboring New Zealand, or Britain or Italy. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2070 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: From Project Veritas :
Project Veritas Action has released the sixth video in a multi-part series that is sending shockwaves through the DNC and the Clinton campaign. In a new video released by Project Veritas Action, a PVA journalist exposes how his pay for play with Robert Creamer landed him a meeting with Bradley Beychock, the President of Media Matters For America, an organization that has been attacking James O’Keefe for years.
During the meeting, Beychock gave the PVA journalist a tour of their offices. He also proudly boasted about the Media Matters assault on conservative writer and political consultant Roger Stone.
WATCH:
Courtesy of Information Liberation Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. Share this: | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2071 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Texas has exceeded the national poverty rate since at least 1959.
contextual information: Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman. Not news? Well, Moorhead, executive director of the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy/Texas Impact, also wrote that according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Texas once again outstripped the national poverty rate in 2014, as we have done since at least 1959. Thats 56 years--a long time to be better at poverty. We wondered. To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959 31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures. Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty. Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison: SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015) Measuring poverty Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says. Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau. An experts look Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014. But Dillon and bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein told us that comparative year-by-year figures start only in 1980. Since 1980, Dillon summed up, the Texas poverty rate has generally bounced between 15 percent and 17 percent with a few exceptions. The fact that is it so consistent means that the rate of growth in the general population is basically on par with the rate of growth in the poor population. Sometimes they dont change at the same rate though, like after the recession, where the number of poor shot up but population growth was stable. This caused the poverty rate to increase. So the poverty rate is reflecting the interplay between total population change and poor population change, the latter of which is generally more affected by fluctuations in the economy. Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted. Dillon pointed out there were times the gap between poverty in Texas and the nation narrowed, including 2014. Broadly, he wrote, the gap grew through the 1980s until about 1988, at which point it peaked at a difference of 5 percentage points. Then the gap began to narrow, he wrote, expanding and contracting every few years until 2010 when it began to close. In 2014, Texas had a poverty rate 1.6 percentage points above the national rate, Dillon said. Thats the closest we have been to the national rate since 1984, when the gap was 1.3 percentage points. Several factors, Dillon said, explain why Texas has consistently had a bigger chunk of residents in poverty than the nation on average. The state is home to a larger foreign-born population than most states and is one of a few minority-majority states in that non-Hispanic whites make up a minority of the residents, he wrote. In comparison to their numbers, minority groups in Texas tend to be overrepresented among the poor. Education level is also strongly linked to poverty status, and Texas is the near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of the adult population with a high school degree, Dillon said. Finally, Texas has a higher percentage of children than most states and child poverty has been on the rise. Today, a quarter of Texas children live below the poverty line. Dillon said the narrowing gap between the Texas and national poverty rates might be explained by the state generally growing faster than most states due both to new births and migration from other places. As long as the mix of people moving to Texas are more likely to be above the poverty line than below it, this will drive the poverty rate down. Similarly, if births to non-poor families outpace those to poor families, this will also drive the rate down, Dillon wrote. Another indicator We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400. In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent. By phone, Moorhead agreed that using a standard measure of poverty across the country is insufficient to characterize the complexity of regional economies. But the SPM is a new measure too, she said, and rates havent been calculated retroactively to cover nearly all the years included in her Texas-U.S. comparison. Our ruling Moorhead said Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959. Available poverty rates for select years through 1979 and for 1980 through 2014 back up this statement. Yet poverty rates dont appear to be available for many earlier years. Also, a new supplemental poverty measure makes a case for the same share of Texans and Americans lately living in poverty provided regional differences in housing costs are factored in. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2072 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Rapper Killer Mike, will appear in front of a SOLD OUT audience at the prestigious MIT University today. Here s a clip from an interview with Jew hater and racist Louis Farrakhan:He s a follower and admirer of this racist Jew hater. He s clearly one of the most angry black men in the entertainment business. After watching this interview, you will better understand the mentality of the protestors on the streets who are getting in the faces of cops (of whom the majority are good men and women protecting and defending the citizens within their jurisdiction). It should be noted, that Killer Mike s dad was a police officer or dirty pig as he likes to call them.Killer Mike views rap as social activism, and never shies away from sharing his opinions on race and abuses of power. Whether he s condemning institutionalized corruption in Reagan or speaking out against police brutality with Run The Jewels Close Your Eyes, if Killer Mike thinks it s messed up, he s going to let you know.This Friday, April 24, MIT students will have the chance to hear how messed up race relations are, when Killer Mike delivers a lecture titled Race Relations in the U.S. at the school. According to the press release, he ll be talking about how current and advancing technology are shaping race relations. (We re guessing that he doesn t regard drone surveillance as a democratizing agent.) Chances are pretty good that Killer Mike will also be addressing the spate of well-publicized police shootings of young unarmed black men and their systemic social consequences.Here is an example of the most recent music video by Killer Mike. ****WARNING****Violence and strong language***Killer Mike s lecture is the second in MIT s new Hip-Hop Speaker Series, which opened with Young Guru. The series is the result of a collaboration between the Arts at MIT and TapTape, an MIT-based music startup. The series stated goal is to bring together leaders in hip-hop with leading faculty and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That s a perfect opportunity for a mathematics seminar featuring Dr. Octagon and Dr. Roman Bezrukavnikov, Professor of Algebraic Geometry.While Killer Mike s lecture certainly sounds intriguing, Friday s lecture is exclusively available to MIT students and is already sold out. But if you re jonesing to hear Killer Mike drop some heated words, there s always the extremely-NSFW Big Beast video, featuring Bun B and T.I.We were going to include the Big Beast video, but after viewing this disturbing video, which includes nudity, horrific acts of violence and an attempted rape scene, we decided against it. The driver in the video is wearing a Ronald Reagan mask because Killer Mike believes that all of the problems plaguing the black community are as a result of Ronald Reagan s presidency. Please feel free to view it (if you are an adult) and you can stomach it at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-RmM5py1cVia: AV Club | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2073 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Has Biden made a promise to remove the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Taxes? Claim summaries: For once, a viral Facebook post critical of a politician accurately articulated their past pronouncements.
contextual information: In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling a home inherited from their parents. The post, which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan, first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: "Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called 'stepped-up basis'? How does this affect you? When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at its current value. If you were to sell that house, you would only pay taxes on the gain from its current value and what it sells for. If Biden does away with 'stepped-up basis,' you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for it. If you decide to sell, you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like:
Current Policy
Inherited House at Current Value - $200,000
Sells for $205,000
Taxable income = $5,000
Taxes Due - 20% of $5,000 = $1,000
Profit to you = $204,000
Biden Policy
Inherited House at Original Purchase Price - $40,000
Sells for $205,000
Taxable income = $165,000
Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000
Profit to you = $172,000
If your parents had sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence. So much for helping the middle class get ahead. My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans don’t even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of additional tax dollars for the average person after inheritance! Wow, Google 'Biden stepped-up basis' and educate yourself because this is significant! Please share!
The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the 'stepped-up' basis for capital gains tax and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax burden for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million.
Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares or property: When people sell an asset for more than the price they paid for it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the asset's adjusted basis—generally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the asset's fair-market value at the time of the owner's death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the asset's value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the asset's value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax.
In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heir's basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when inherited, so no income tax is due on the sale, nor ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of the stepped-up basis.
During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that the plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt. Biden's policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who enter the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergraduate or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be funded through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign.
In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told potential donors: "I'm going to get rid of the bulk of Trump's $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that, but I'm going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis." On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): "The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be funded by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the 'Stepped-up Basis Loophole' as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28%."
Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only eliminating the stepped-up basis but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains—that is, profits from the sale of an asset owned for more than one year—for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: "As President, Biden will make healthcare a right by eliminating capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Biden's capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will ensure that those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy."
The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on an individual who inherits property from their parents before selling it. The tax burden for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2074 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Was there a contribution made by Home Depot to Herschel Walker's campaign? Claim summaries: The truth of the matter regarding Home Depot and Walker, a Georgia Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, wasn't as simple as it was presented by some news articles.
contextual information: On Oct. 7, 2022, a Twitter user named Nathalie Jacoby tweeted, "Will you join me in boycotting Home Depot for donating $1.75 MILLION to Herschel Walkers campaign?" Walker is a Republican U.S. Senate candidate for the state of Georgia. The tweet led several of our readers to email us about the matter. tweeted In the 2022 U.S. election, Walker was challenging U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat. Should Walker win the seat, it would potentially give Republicans a coveted Senate majority. The race brought with it a lot of rumors and news stories. One of the biggest rumors appeared to be about Walker purportedly encouraging a woman to have two abortions. However, for this fact check, we will only be looking into the claim about Home Depot. Walker encouraging a woman to have two abortions Home Depot responded to Jacoby's tweet by saying that the contribution in question came from the company's co-founder Bernie Marcus. responded We also reached out to the company to inquire about the matter. By email, a company spokesperson told us the following: "Thanks for reaching out. This isnt true. Home Depots PAC hasnt donated to Walkers or Warnocks campaigns. Our co-founder Bernie Marcus left Home Depot more than 20 years ago, and his views do not represent the company." It's true that Marcus retired from the company in 2002. However, despite what some readers may have read in other articles that appeared at the top of Google search results, that wasn't the full story. retired On the morning of Oct. 10, Judd Legum of the Popular Information blog reported that Home Depot PAC, a political action committee associated with the company, had donated funds to a Republican organization that funded ad spending for Walker's campaign. reported associated funded ad spending After reviewing Legum's reporting, we located expenditure records for Home Depot PAC that had been published on OpenSecrets.org. The website calls itself "the nation's premier research and government transparency group tracking money in politics and its effect on elections and policy." published The information on Open Secrets indicated the following: While there is no record of Home Depot directly donating to Walker's efforts to win the Senate seat, Home Depot PAC did provide funds to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). According to reporting from Politico that was published on Oct. 4, the NRSC was "splitting a new $8.5 million ad buy with the Walker campaign." National Republican Senatorial Committee reporting We contacted Legum by Twitter DM, who told us that the Federal Election Commission website, FEC.gov, also showed four key records related to Home Depot and NRSC. These records indicated that Home Depot PAC, shown on the website as The Home Depot Inc. Political Action Committee, had donated a combined $90,000 to the NRSC in late 2021 and early 2022. four key records Other large expenditures made by the Home Depot PAC in 2021 and 2022 also went to organizations that were associated with the Republican Party, according to the FEC website. Examples included $45,000 to the California Republican Party and $25,000 to the Georgians First Leadership Committee. Other large expenditures At the same time, Home Depot PAC also gave money in 2021 and 2022 to organizations that appeared to be led by Democrats. Examples included $60,000 to the California Legislative Black Caucus Policy Institute, $50,000 to the Los Angeles Delegation Foundation, $30,000 to the Women in Power PAC, and $25,000 to the Asian Pacific Islander Leadership PAC. Home Depot Note: Jacoby, the Twitter user, also previously tweeted in support of boycotting CNN, Chick-fil-A, Kanye West, and Hobby Lobby and MyPillow. CNN Chick-fil-A Kanye West Hobby Lobby and MyPillow Allison, Natalie, and Marianne Levine. Republicans Rally around Walkers Imperiled Candidacy. POLITICO, 4 Oct. 2022, https://www.politico.com/. Federal Election Commission. https://www.fec.gov/. Grace Meng Elected as New Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Leadership PAC. Capacleadership.Org, 13 Apr. 2016, https://www.capacleadership.org/. Home Depot. Twitter, https://twitter.com/homedepot/. Jacoby, Nathalie. Twitter, https://twitter.com/nathaliejacoby1/. Kamisar, Ben. Big Georgia Senate Ad Spending Shift Highlights a Novel Strategy. NBC News, 23 Sept. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/big-georgia-senate-ad-spending-shift-highlights-novel-strategy-rcna49125. Kempner, Matt. Home Depot Founders Reunite: $40M for Vets, 1st Responders Health. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 16 Feb. 2021. AJC.com, https://www.ajc.com/ajcjobs/home-depot-founders-reunite-40m-for-vets-1st-responders-health/WRWBASV6GREQTKUU56LWLXGGY4/. Koseff, Alexei. Women Target Seats Held by California Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment. The Sacramento Bee, 15 Feb. 2018, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article200150799.html. Legum, Judd. Who Is Really Financing Herschel Walkers Campaign? Popular Information, 10 Oct. 2022, https://popular.info/p/who-is-really-financing-herschel. Members. CLBCPI Foundation, https://cablackcaucus.org/members/. National Republican Senatorial Committee. https://www.nrsc.org/. NBCSL | California Legislative Black Caucus Elects New Leadership. 25 Aug. 2022, https://nbcsl.org/media-center/news/item/2376-california-legislative-black-caucus-elects-new-leadership.html. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/. Report: Walker Encouraged Woman to Have Second Abortion. The Associated Press, 8 Oct. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-herschel-walker-congress-government-and-politics-9d7d9c68a802169994b9db719d8256c0. Rosenhall, Laurel. The New Thing for California Politicians? Sweet Charity. CalMatters, 18 Feb. 2020, https://calmatters.org/projects/california-lawmaker-nonprofits-politics-charity-campaign-finance-foundation-dark-money/. Scribner, Herb. Home Depot Denies Donating over $1 Million to Herschel Walkers Campaign. Axios, 8 Oct. 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/10/08/home-depot-herschel-walker-georgia-donation. Werschkul, Ben. Home Depot Now the Biggest Corporate Donor to 2020 Election Objectors, Analysis Finds. Yahoo Finance, 25 Mar. 2022, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-depot-biggest-corporate-contributor-to-2020-election-objectors-analysis-finds-185705617.html. After this story was published, on Oct. 10, we added an email statement sent to us by Home Depot. | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2075 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Pakistan s ruling party on Tuesday re-elected ousted premier Nawaz Sharif as its leader, saying he was back with full force , a day after using its parliamentary majority to amend a law to allow him to re-take the job. Jafar Iqbal, who headed a five-member election body, said Sharif had been elected party president unopposed by the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz s (PML-N) central executive committee. Sharif resigned as prime minister in July after the Supreme Court disqualified him for not declaring a source of income. He was also forced to step down as president of PML-N, though he kept control of the party and installed Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, a loyalist, as prime minister. Sharif s re-election as party chief brings him back into the political fold, he said, contradicting those who thought he would no longer be relevant. There have been attempts again and again to exit me, but you will always keep giving me an entry again and again, Sharif told party workers after his election. I congratulate that you re bringing Nawaz Sharif back with full force. No one came forward to contest Sharif, Iqbal said amid clapping, thumping and slogans in support of Sharif in televised proceedings of the election in Islamabad. The former prime minister will lead the party for four years. Nawaz Sharif is the symbol of economic development in Pakistan, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal said in his address to the party members. Parliament amended a law on Monday to enable Sharif to re-take the PML-N leadership. Opposition lawmakers tore up paper copies of the Election Bill 2017, passed by the Senate last week, that allowed Sharif to become the party president again. The vote was more of a formality as PML-N has a vast majority. Sharif has appeared before an anti-corruption court and is expected to be indicted next week, along with three of his children. The veteran leader denies any wrongdoing and has alleged there was a conspiracy against him, with senior PML-N figures pointing fingers at elements of Pakistan s powerful military. The army denies playing a role. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2076 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: I Aborted My Baby — Because It Was a Boy Claim summaries: Rumor: A woman obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus.
contextual information: Claim: A woman named Lana obtained a late-term abortion because she learned she was carrying a male fetus. PROBABLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] This has been going viral in my Facebook feed lately, and some fairly reputable sources have started reporting on it, and I have been unable to verify any of the sources. The first time I saw it it was referenced in a scathing pro-life article that blanket stereotyped feminists based on it. The original article is very difficult to access from all the attention Could you please look into the validity of it? It has the air of being created for purely for shock value and attention, and for use with the purpose of supporting right wing politics. Origins: On 17 January 2015, the website Injustice Stories published an article purportedly article penned by a woman named Lana who claimed to have terminated her pregnancy at the five-month mark because she learned the fetus was male. Unnoticed at first, the claim about "Lana" and her questionable decision to obtain a late-term abortion achieved traction when sites such as Daily Caller and the Huffington Post published articles about it after taking the single-source story at face value (and apparently without any attempt at verification) in early February 2015. Daily Caller Huffington Post Both those publications' articles quoted portions of the original, which became increasingly difficult to access due to a traffic spike. Daily Caller paraphrased the original thusly: Lana, who only uses her first name, appears to be a child of privilege. She boasts of involvement in "fighting for women's rights" being all-consuming, "even to the point of eschewing a career." Yet that lack of a career hasn't stopped her from traveling to "many different places" to continue that "fight." She tells the story of a flight to an Occupy Wall Street event in San Francisco where she screamed "Assault" because the man sitting next to her said "B******* like you need to learn their place." Putting the unlikeliness of that exchange aside, Lana then demanded to be moved to another seat. That's when she was told the only empty seats were "both back in economy." At which point she demanded the man be moved. The encounter left her "having felt as though I had been verbally and emotionally raped." If the premise (which included an unemployed woman who traveled the world first class) didn't give one pause, the next portion might have. In the original post, the writer claimed she learned the sex of her unborn child via ultrasound, and after three days of soul searching opted to abort the pregnancy: By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn't bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. It didn't matter that I would be raising a son, he would still come into contact with boys, men, perhaps even the suit jockey who would inevitably twist his carefully constructed upbringing with their kindness. He would think "These men aren't so bad, why would mom say that they are holding me down?" Not all men are bad, my driver showed genuine concern for my well-being that day and I may have taken my anger out on him. That may have been uncalled for. But I knew what I had to do. A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body's betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn't see it that way. Missing from the account were any identifying details about the timeframe in which the purported abortion occurred, the general locality, or any other details or information regarding the procedure. In fact, the process of terminating a pregnancy after the twenty-week mark is far more complex and risky than a first-trimester abortion, and women who have experienced it are unlikely to describe it as "without a hitch." Inconsistencies aside, the site Injustice Stories was virtually unknown before the implausible story of Lana's abortion was published. That's probably because a domain lookup revealed the domain was registered on the same day Lana's story was posted. Furthermore, in order to read the entirety of the article, site visitors were forced to share the page on social media (which in turn boosted its visibility incrementally before it caught the eye of larger news sources). The tale's lack of plausibility, combined with the use of a brand-new site to publish it, indicated the account was likely a troll for pageviews, not a real-life account representing the sordid state of feminism. While many skeptical readers believed the hoax was aimed at promoting an anti-abortion agenda, it's also possible the site's purveyor fabricated the tale primarily to generate outrage-based clicks. Last updated: 10 February 2015 | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2077 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: 10 Views November 02, 2016 GOLD , KWN King World News
According to Investors Intelligence, here is the key to a turnaround in gold and silver!
Today Investors Intelligence issued an important note about gold, silver and the mining stocks: The Precious Metals Bullish % rallied 4.55% on Wednesday, reversing the P&F chart direction back to the upside for the first time since September. … IMPORTANT: To find out which company Doug Casey, Rick Rule and Sprott Asset Management are pounding the table on that already has a staggering 18.1 million ounces of gold that just added another massive deposit and is quickly being recognized as one of the greatest gold opportunities in the world – CLICK HERE OR BELOW: Sponsored
Investors Intelligence continues: The chart has pulled out of oversold and has a new status of Bull-alert. Investors should be looking to buy upside reassertion candidates (see chart below).
The PHLX Gold & Silver Index develops a bullish P&F breakout signal at 89 with a price objective of 102 and a stop loss at 83 (see chart below).
King World News note: Despite the post-Fed meeting intervention to suppress the gold, silver and mining share markets, when Investors Intelligence states, “Investors should be looking to buy upside reassertion candidates,” what they mean is that investors should be purchasing high-quality investments in the gold and silver sector. This includes top-tier mining stocks and associated gold and silver ETFs. Although the Philadelphia Gold & Silver (mining share) Index (XAU) closed below the key level of 89 after an intra-day surge above 92, it is still very close to the breakout noted by Investors Intelligence. It will be interesting to see if the sector picks up momentum in the coming days and weeks as that will trigger additional money flows into the sector.
***KWN has now released the remarkable audio interview with Nomi Prins CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE BELOW.
***ALSO RELEASED: With Gold Hitting $1,300, Look At Who Is Bullish CLICK HERE.
***KWN has also released Rick Rule’s timely audio interview CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE BELOW.
© 2015 by King World News®. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. However, linking directly to the articles is permitted and encouraged. About author | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2078 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Pope Francis made one of his most emotional anti-war addresses on Thursday, saying during a visit to a U.S. military cemetery that the world seemed to be headed into war perhaps bigger than any before. Francis said a Mass for several thousand people at the Sicily-Rome American Cemetery in the town of Nettuno, south of the Italian capital, on the day Roman Catholics commemorate their dead. The burial ground is the final resting place for 7,860 American soldiers who died in the liberation of southern Italy and Rome in 1943 and 1944. He walked slowly and alone amid the rows of low white headstones in the shape of crosses and Stars of David, gently resting a white rose on about a dozen and stopping to pray silently before saying the Mass. Please Lord, stop. No more wars. No more of these useless massacres, he said, speaking in hushed tones in an improvised homily. Francis said that remembering the many young people who died in World War Two was even more important today that the world once more is at war and is preparing to go even more forcefully into war. He did not elaborate but appeared to be referring to the possibility of nuclear war. As tensions between the United States and North Korea have increased in recent months, Francis has warned that a nuclear conflict would destroy a good part of humanity. Last April, he said a third country should try to mediate the dispute between Pyongyang and Washington to cool a situation that had become too hot . U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said North Korea will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen if it threatened the United States, will visit South Korea as part of a trip to Asia that starts on Friday. While Trump is in Asia, the pope will be hosting an international seminar at the Vatican that will urge the banning of nuclear weapons. The cemetery Mass was attended by U.S. Ambassador to Italy Lewis Eisenberg and the acting U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Louis Bono. If today is a day of hope, it is also a day of tears, the pope said. Humanity must not forget the tears of mothers and wives who lost husbands and sons in past wars. Humanity has not learned the lesson and seems that it does not want to learn it, he said, asking for prayers for the victims of today s conflicts, especially children. On his way back to the Vatican, Francis stopped to pray at the Ardeatine Caves, where in March, 1944 occupying Nazis killed 335 Italian men and boys as a reprisal for the killing of 33 German policemen by partisans. They were all shot in the back of the neck. The Germans blew up the caves in a vain attempt to try to hide the massacre. Seventy-five of the victims were Jews. He and Rome s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, each read a prayer. After walking past the tombs in the still dark caves, the pope wrote in the visitors book: This is the fruit of war: hate, death, vendetta. Forgive us Lord . (This version of the story was corrected to make clear that visits to cemetery and massacre site were separate events by moving original paragraph 8 to the bottom of the story) | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2079 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Is This Lev Parnas at a Family Birthday Party with Donald Trump? Claim summaries: While this photo is nearly 30 years old, the claim that it shows the business associate of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has only been around since January 2020.
contextual information: On Jan. 16, 2020, Lev Parnas, the American businessman who allegedly worked with U.S. President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the Ukraine to investigate the president's political rivals, appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" to tell his version of events that led to the president's impeachment. While Trump would later say "I dont know who this man is," the photographic record appears to tell a different story. The Rachel Maddow Show I dont know who this man is As Parnas' name moved from obscurity to infamy, photographs showing Parnas with various members of the Trump family, the Trump administration, and the president himself started to circulate on social media. While most of these images are genuine, some social media users attempted to strengthen the connection between Trump and Parnas by sharing a photograph that allegedly showed Parnas and Trump at a family birthday party when their children were young: photographs showing Parnas Trump family Trump administration president himself photograph The claim that the man in this photograph is Lev Parnas is not based on any credible information. This claim is based solely on the notion that the man in the photograph bears a passing resemblance to Parnas. However, Parnas' name was not attached to this picture until close to three decades after it was taken. And from what we can tell, Parnas is too young to be the man pictured here. This photograph was not taken at a party for "Lev's kid." It was actually taken in 1990 at a birthday party for Trump's son, Eric, who had just turned 6. The picture first received media attention in 2017 with the release of the book "Raising Trump" by Ivana Trump, the president's first wife. Raising Trump ABC News published this photograph in an article about the book with the caption: "Ivana Trump shares a family photo from Eric Trump's sixth birthday party at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1990." ABC News Here's the full photograph: Parnas was born in 1972 and would have been approximately 18 when this photograph was taken. The man in this photograph, however, appears to be much older than a teenager. By comparison, Donald Trump, who was born in 1946, was approximately 44 when this photograph was taken. born in 1972 Some social media users have pointed to a report in the New Yorker to bolster the claim that Parnas is indeed the man in this photograph. While the The New Yorker reported that Parnas started selling Trump Organization co-ops for Kings Highway Realty when he was 16, there's no indication that Parnas had a familiar relationship with the Trump family at that time. In fact, Parnas said that while he bumped into Trump occasionally at events in New York over the years, he didn't get to know the president until the 2016 presidential campaign (emphasis ours): The New Yorker Parnas soon became a regular at Trumps rallies and other gatherings. I started donating. We started to help raise money, he said. Gradually, Parnas said that he got to know other Trump donors, including Tommy Hicks, Jr., a private-equity investor in Texas who is close to Donald Trump, Jr. (Hicks has since become the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.)We became one big family, Parnas said. You got to understand, he didnt have a real campaign, a traditional campaign. It was make-it-up, you know. Like him or not, you understand what it is. It was more, like, you know, wed bump into each other constantly because it was all the same people, there were not that many of us. Parnas told me that he bumped into Trump plenty of times at events in New York over the years, but that they didnt get to know each other until the 2016 campaign. (Trump recently distanced himself from Parnas and [businessman Igor] Fruman, saying, I dont know those gentlemen. Now, its possible I have a picture with them, because I have a picture with everybody.) In sum, the claim that the above-displayed picture shows Parnas with the Trumps at a family birthday party in the 1990s is not supported by evidence. This claim is based solely on the notion that the pictured man and Parnas bear a passing resemblance to one another. However, Parnas was only 18 at the time this photograph was taken (while the pictured man looks much older), his name wasn't attached to this image until it became a political weapon 30 years later, and Parnas himself said that he didn't get to know Trump until 2015. Ward, Myah. "Trump Vigorously Denies Knowing Lev Parnas After Explosive Claims." Politico. 16 January 2020. Raymond, Adam. "Lev Parnas and His Powerful Republican Friends: A Photo Album." The Intelligencer. 16 January 2020. Baragona, Justin. "Don Jr. Admits Meeting Lev Parnas: I Thought He Was Israeli."
Daily Beast. 19 January 2020. Benen, Steve. "Why It's So Hard to Believe Trump's Denials About Lev Parnas." MSNBC. 17 January 2020. Blake, Aaron. "The Trump Team Keeps Denying it Knows Lev Parnas, Despite Growing Photographic Evidence."
Washington Post. 16 January 2020. Kindelan, Katie. "Ivana Trump Says She is 'First Lady.'"
ABC News. 9 October 2017. Smith, David and Andrew Roth. "Who is Lev Parnas? Soviet-Born Operator Thrust Into Trump Impeachment Scandal."
The Guardian. 16 January 2020. Primm, Katie. "Trump Lawyer Dismisses New Evidence, Including Photos of the President with Lev Parnas.'"
CBS News. 18 January 2020. Entous, Adam. "How Lev Parnas Became Part of the Trump Campaign's 'One Big Family.'"
New Yorker. 15 October 2019. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2080 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Does Amazon Station Paramedics at Hot Warehouses Rather Than Install Air Conditioning? Claim summaries: News accounts detailed the retail giant's controversial lack of air conditioning at uncomfortably hot fulfillment centers.
contextual information: On 15 August 2015, the New York Times published an in-depth, widely discussed piece about online retailing giant Amazon.com titled "Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace" (subtitled "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers to get them to achieve its ever-expanding ambitions"). The Times' article focused renewed attention on Amazon.com for its perennially controversial labor practices. An Allentown Morning Call article titled "Inside Amazon's Warehouse," written by Spencer Soper and published on 18 September 2011, had covered much of the same territory. Elmer Goris spent a year working in Amazon.com's Lehigh Valley warehouse, where books, CDs, and various other products are packed and shipped to customers who order from the world's largest online retailer. The 34-year-old Allentown resident, who has worked in warehouses for more than 10 years, said he quit in July because he was frustrated with the heat and the demands that he work mandatory overtime. Working conditions at the warehouse worsened earlier that year, especially during summer heat waves when temperatures soared above 100 degrees, he said. He felt light-headed and experienced leg cramps, symptoms he had never encountered in previous warehouse jobs. One hot day, Goris said, he saw a co-worker pass out at the water fountain. On other hot days, he witnessed paramedics bringing people out of the warehouse in wheelchairs and on stretchers. During summer heat waves, Amazon arranged to have paramedics parked in ambulances outside, ready to treat any workers who became dehydrated or suffered other forms of heat stress. Those who couldn't quickly cool off and return to work were sent home or taken out on stretchers and wheelchairs to be transported to area hospitals. New applicants were ready to begin work at any time. Clearly, interest in a 2015 exposé on Amazon's treatment of white-collar workers revived attention on a 2011 story about Amazon's blue-collar (often temporary) workers. The outcome of the overheated workers' scenario described in the above-quoted excerpt was also addressed in a Reuters op-ed published on 17 June 2015. Meanwhile, Amazon's treatment of warehouse workers has been under scrutiny since 2011, when an investigation by the Allentown Morning Call newspaper revealed what were quite literally sweatshop conditions. When summer temperatures exceeded 100 degrees inside the company's Breinigsville, Pennsylvania, warehouse, managers would not open the loading bay doors for fear of theft. Instead, they hired paramedics to wait outside in ambulances, ready to extract heat-stricken employees on stretchers and in wheelchairs, the investigation found. Workers also reported being pressured to meet ever-greater production targets, a strategy colloquially known as "management by stress." Amazon declined to answer the newspaper's specific questions about working conditions in the warehouse, but eight months after the story was released, company officials announced that they had spent $52 million to retrofit warehouses with air conditioning. The New York Times article also revisited that earlier controversy: In Amazon warehouses, employees are monitored by sophisticated electronic systems to ensure they are packing enough boxes every hour. The Morning Call reiterated that issue in a 17 August 2015 article: in the case of the Pennsylvania warehouse, after The Morning Call published an in-depth look at the appalling conditions, the company spent $52 million adding air conditioners there and at other facilities around the country. It had been mistreating low-wage workers who had few options, and it deserved to be shamed into changing its behavior. While Amazon was widely criticized in 2011 (and afterwards) for heat conditions in a Pennsylvania warehouse, the company has since installed air conditioning at that warehouse and several other facilities. | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2081 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The son of Malta s best-known investigative journalist said on Tuesday his mother had been killed by a car bomb because of her work exposing political corruption, as hundreds of people demonstrated to demand justice after her death. Daphne Caruana Galizia, who wrote about graft across Malta s political divides on her blog, died when explosives ripped through her car minutes after she left her home in the north of the island on Monday afternoon. Maltese authorities were waiting for the arrival of Dutch forensic experts and American FBI agents to help the investigations. My mother was assassinated because she stood between the rule of law and those who sought to violate it, like many strong journalists, Matthew Caruana Galizia said on Facebook. She was also targeted because she was the only person doing so, he added. He described rushing to the scene, only to find the burning car and her remains. Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who was accused of wrong-doing by Caruana Galizia earlier this year and had been suing her over some of her allegations, denounced her killing and pledged to track down those responsible. But a small group booed Muscat on Tuesday evening when he left his office, and the opposition is calling for him to resign. The prime minister and his government have been responsible for diminishing the rule of law in Malta, opposition leader Adrian Delia told Reuters. They have created an environment where people are afraid to speak out. On Tuesday afternoon, several hundred people demonstrated in front of the law courts demanding justice for Caruana Galizia s killers. The state did not defend Daphne, shouted Andrew Borg Cardona, addressing the crowd. He said those who accused her of going over the top with her investigations are all guilty . One woman carried a votive lamp with the murdered journalist s picture in it and another carried a sign that read Looks like we can t have freedom of speech but we want justice . Recently, Caruana Galizia had been following up leads from information in the so-called Panama Papers, a large collection of documents from an offshore law firm in the Central American nation that were leaked in 2015. She was tracing alleged links between Maltese officials and offshore banks and companies used as tax havens. Half an hour before the explosion, Caruana Galizia wrote on her blog: There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate. The European Commission told journalists it was horrified by the murder in the bloc s smallest state and called for justice. Spokesman Margaritis Schinas was asked if the Commission would open a procedure to check if Malta was meeting the EU s standards for the rule of law, a process now being applied to Poland over judicial reforms there. He replied: We never speculate on these questions. These are very serious subjects ... This is an outrageous act that happened, and what matters now is that justice will be brought. This is what we need to see. The killing near the village of Bidnija stunned the Mediterranean island. Authorities said it was the first murder of a journalist there. I saw a small explosion coming from the car and I panicked. A few seconds later, around three to four seconds, there was another, larger explosion, said resident Frans Sant, who was driving in the other direction. The car continued coming down the hill, skidding at high speed, full of fire. The car missed me by around 10 feet. I tried to help, but the fire was too much and the car ended up in the field, he told Reuters Television. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2082 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Donald Trump made this way too easy for George Takei.On Saturday morning, Trump lashed out at the cast of Hamilton because the audience booed Mike Pence before the play on Friday night, and the cast delivered a short message afterwards declaring their hope that he learned something from watching.First, Trump whined about so-called harassment, and complained about how this should not happen. Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2016Then he demanded an apology from the cast for somehow violating Pence s safe space.The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2016Trump was immediately mocked for his posts, but the award for best response goes to actor George Takei, who masterfully turned Trump s second Twitter post against him as a message from the nation.AMERICA must always be a safe and special place. The Trump administration has been very cruel to many good people. Apologize! https://t.co/ndavyD3su6 George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 19, 2016That s right. Trump is being a massive hypocrite as usual, and it came back to bite him on the ass.But Takei wasn t done.If Trump gets upset at a NY theater audience booing his VP, imagine what he ll feel like on inauguration when millions cry out against him. George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 19, 2016The Internet responds quickly pic.twitter.com/jhtb4BSDIe George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 19, 2016I wonder if Pence went to Hamilton to take our focus off the Trump University fraud settlement. This administration is morally bankrupt. George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) November 19, 2016For a year and half, Donald Trump has used offensive hate speech and divisive rhetoric. He has insulted just about every group in America, but he expects everyone to respect him and Pence now.They are pathetic and disgraceful and deserve all the ridicule they are getting from the American people.Featured Image: Wikimedia | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2083 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: It seems that in some ways at least, Congress doesn t quite know what to do with itself now that they ve got control of absolutely everything at the federal level. Senate Democrats seem to know that and have been using it to force Republicans to vote for things they might not otherwise vote for out of fear of pissing off their constituents.Last night, and into this morning, in fact, the Democrats of the Senate forced the GOP s hand on healthcare. No, they didn t force Republicans to admit they want to destroy Obamacare we already know that. They engaged in a vote-a-rama of sorts to force Republicans to vote to gut things that their constituents will hate. They forced Republicans to admit that they re perfectly fine gutting Medicare, Medicaid, mental healthcare, women s healthcare, and more.How did they do it? They engaged in a vote-a-rama, in which they presented a series of amendments to a budget resolution intended to allow Congress to repeal Obamacare with simple majorities in both houses.Every one of those amendments failed. Quelle surprise, though.Several Democrats in the Senate made a point of voicing their objections as they cast their no votes on the budget resolution measure. For instance, Sen. Claire McCaskill (R-Missouri) said, Because there is no replace, I vote no. The vote-a-rama lasted nearly seven hours, and included not only Democratic amendments to protect Medicare and Medicaid, but also, late Wednesday evening, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: Put this irresponsible and rushed repeal plan aside. Work with us Democrats on a way to improve health care in America, not put chaos in place of affordable care. Mitch McConnell, however, had his own statement to issue when the vote was complete: The Senate just took an important step toward repealing and replacing Obamacare by passing the resolution that provides the legislative tools necessary to actually repeal this failed law while we move ahead with smarter health care policies. Republicans have never actually been able to point to anything that proves the ACA (which, yes, is Obamacare) is a failed policy. Does it have problems? Yes. Name one thing that doesn t, though, especially a program this complex that s only in its fledgling years.But repealing Obamacare means so much more than just ending a so-called failed law. It means harming millions of people in pursuit of a political goal one that their constituents don t believe will hurt them because they literally think that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are two different things.Republicans don t care about collateral damage, though. They got their repeal measure through over and above the efforts of Democrats to stop it. But stopping it wasn t the Democrats only objective. They seemed to know that, if they couldn t stop this, they could either embarrass Republicans with their votes, or force them to admit to things they don t want to admit to.Photo of Chuck Schumer by Win McNamee/Getty Images. Photo of Mitch McConnell Zach Gibson/Getty Images | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2084 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Says people who signed recall petitions against Wisconsin state Sen. Jim Holperin received harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.
contextual information: Kim Simac, a Wisconsintea partyleader, took aim at state Sen.JimHolperinafter the Conover Democrat fled to Illinois in February 2011.Like 13 other Democratic senators, Holperin, who represents a North Woods district where Simac lives, spent three weeks in Illinois. The move delayed a vote on Republican Gov. Scott Walkers budget-repair bill, which curtails the collective bargaining power of most state and local government employees, although the bill eventually became law.Court challenges have kept the collective bargaining changes from taking effect. But the law, and the Democrats reaction to it, spurred a recall movement ofhistoric proportions. Campaigns were launched against all 16 state senators -- eight Democrats and eight Republicans -- who were eligible to be recalled.Simac, vice-chairwoman of theVilas County RepublicanPartyand founder of Christian values group calledNorthwoods Patriots,headedthe signature-collectingcampaignto recall Holperin,a first-termsenatorwho previously served 10 years in the state Assembly.On April 21, 2011, Simac submitted some 23,000 signatures to the Government Accountability Board, which has not completed its review. She has announcedplans to run againstHolperinif a recall election is set.Eight days after the petitions were filed, Simac issued anewsreleasethat claimed petition signers, are being subjected to harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.Lets see if thats what happened.When we asked Simac for evidence to back her claim, she asked people who received the calls to contact PolitiFact Wisconsin directly.We received calls from 17 people and e-mails from more than 30 others. We interviewed 10 of the people who called. Heres what we found: Those statements back the claim made by Simac.What did Holperin and the Democrats have to say about it?Holperin said he authorized the Wisconsin Democratic Party to call about 5,000 of the people who signed recall petitions against him.Graeme Zielinski, spokesman for the party, said the Minnesota telemarketing firm was hired to call people who signed petitions against Holperin and against two other Democrats who are facing possible recall elections.Holperin said he authorized the calls because, although petition circulators who worked under Simac were earnest, honest and friendly, more than a third of the 23,000 signatures were collected byKennedy Enterprises, a Colorado marketing and consulting firm hired by the Wisconsin Republican Party. Those petition circulators were often aggressive and misleading when they asked residents to sign petitions, Holperin said.According to Holperin, 534 petition signers -- about 10 percent of those who were called by the Minnesota telemarketing firm -- said they were given misleading information and that they asked to have their names removed from the petitions. He said that was the basis for acomplainthe filed with the Government Accountability Board challenging the petitions.Holperin provided ascriptthat he said the firm used in asking questions of people who signed recall petitions against him. The script shows that, among other things, callers were to: identify themselves as representing the Wisconsin Democratic Party; ask people whether they were aware their signatures appeared on a Holperin recall petition; and state that reports had been received that out-of-state paid circulators were misleading people about what they were being asked to sign.So, did we insinuate that foul play had occurred?, Holperin said. You bet we did, and we think we offered ample evidence that backs up our claim.Lets wrap up.Simac said people who signed Holperin recall petitions received harassing phone calls from out-of-state telemarketers claiming to represent the Democratic Party and insinuating foul play by petition circulators.Some people who received calls said they felt harassed even if they received just one call because they didnt expect to be questioned about signing a petition. The callers were employed by an out-of-state firm, they did identify themselves as representing the Wisconsin Democratic Party and did claim that petition circulators misled signers of the petitions.We rate Simacs claim as True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2085 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.
contextual information: On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States. SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying: For too long, weve watched as our factories have been closed and our jobs have been sent to other faraway lands. Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization. And youve seen that, youve heard about it -- 70,000. The World Trade Organization -- another one of our disasters. Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs. But how many factories? And were there other factors? Previous claim Trumps claim is nearly the same one he made a month earlier at a rally in Kentucky, when he said: Since China joined thats another beauty the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories. PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True. Heres what our colleagues found: The latest-available U.S. Census counts, for 2014, show the number of American factory establishments has dropped to below 300,000. The decrease since China joined the World Trade Organization was nearly 61,000, according to one Census tally, and more than 73,000 according to another. Some of that decline is due to Chinas becoming a bigger player in the world economy by joining the WTO, as our colleagues reported: Around the same time China joined the WTO, the United States gave China permanent normal trade relations status. Both of these actions removed significant barriers to trade and investment with China, basically putting them on an even playing field with the United States other trading partners. In the 16 years since, United States imports from China have quadrupled, in large part because production is so cheap there, making U.S.-based manufacturers less competitive. We found three significant economic studies from the past few years that all conclude increased free trade with China has had a negative impact on American manufacturing and jobs. At the same time, experts said the loss of factories was also brought on by other factors, including U.S. trade deficits with other parts of Asia and Europe; a slow recovery after the Great Recession; and increased manufacturing productivity in the United States. TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO. For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth. Our rating Trump said: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.The latest U.S. Census figures, for 2014, produced two counts: 73,000, which supports Trumps claim, and 61,000. And at least some of the losses can be attributed to increased trade with China. We rate the statement Mostly True. More Trump As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2086 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Dispensation Decoy Claim summaries:
contextual information: FACT CHECK Did the Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly release Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S.? Claim: The Obama administration deliberately and unexpectedly released Abdul Shalabi from detention at Guantanamo Bay while the news media were distracted by the Pope's visit to the U.S. : WHAT'S Guantanamo detainee Abdul Shalabi was repatriated to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the day on which Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C. WHAT'S Abdul Shalabi's release was sudden and unexpected, and it occurred under the radar of the news media due to coverage of the Pope's visit. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Rumor has it that while the pope was in DC that POTUS released Abdul Shalabi from Gitmo. Did Obama really release Abdul Shalabi will everyone was watching the pope in DC? Origins: Pope Francis' "Apostolic Journey to the United States of America" that began on 22 September 2015 marked the pontiff's first visit to the U.S. On 24 September 2015, the web site of former one-term congressman and conservative political commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbait headline of "While the Media Obsessed Over the Pope, Look What Obama Just Did" that asserted: While Pope Francis was in Washington smooching with the president and giving speeches about global warming, income inequality and the evils of capitalism (while being ominously silent about the persecution and slaughter of his Christian brethren around the world), the Obama administration released Abdul Shalabi from the Guantanamo Bay detainment center. That Shalabi was released yesterday as the country was focused on Pope Francis arrival in the United States could well be the administration's most blatant "Look, over theresquirrell!!" [sic] moment ever. The very idea that this man who worked side-by-side with Osama bin Laden can somehow be "rehabilitated" to no longer want to kill infidels, and, be rehabbed by the Muslim government of an Islamic nation is beyond laughable. What does Obama think hes going to do there now, train to become a valet? Take up needlepoint? Oh, I know, maybe open a bakery and make cakes for gay weddings. The excerpt quoted above suggests that Shalabi's release was unexpected and deliberately coordinated so as to go unnoticed during media coverage of Pope Francis' arrival in Washington D.C. However, Shalabi's release was neither unexpected, nor was it ignored by the media. A widely-reproduced Associated Press article published three months earlier had announced that Shalabi, who had been on a nine-year hunger strike, had been approved for release from Guantanamo by a government review board: article A prisoner who has been on a nine-year hunger strike to protest his confinement at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can now return to his native Saudi Arabia, a government review board said. The Periodic Review Board, which has been re-evaluating dozens of Guantanamo prisoners previously deemed too dangerous to release, said in a statement published on its website that Abdul Rahman Shalabi can be released to take part in a Saudi government rehabilitation program for militants and would be subject to monitoring afterward. Shalabi began a hunger strike in 2005. He and another prisoner, who since has been released, maintained the protest longer than any others held at the base. Court records show Shalabi occasionally consumed food but also dropped to as little as 101 pounds (46 kilograms). His lawyer told the review board in April [2015] that prison officials had fed him with a nasogastric tube daily for nine years. The U.S. now holds 116 men at Guantanamo, including 52 cleared for transfer or release. Similarly, an 8 August 2015 New York Post article reported that Shalabi was due to be released soon (partly to care for his mother): article Take detainee Abdul Shalabi. His lawyers in June pleaded that the former bin Laden bodyguard was sufficiently reformed and wanted only to reunite with his family in Saudi Arabia and take care of his ailing mother. The board subsequently agreed Shalabi was no longer a significant threat to the security of the United States, and rubber-stamped his release even though the al Qaeda operative conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed while plotting the 9/11 attacks from Karachi, Pakistan. Shalabi also was said to have trained at al Qaeda camps to participate in a suicide attack or deployment to the West. The UK newspaper The Guardian also reported on Shalabi's then-pending release on 13 August 2015, and the claim that "the media" ignored Shalabi's release in favor of Papal visit coverage conflicted with the 22 September 2015 publication in the New York Times of an article reporting that: reported Although a six-agency task force decided in 2009 that Mr. Shalabi was too dangerous to release, a parolelike panel called the Periodic Review Board, consisting of representatives from the same six agencies, decided in June [2015] that he could now be safely repatriated to Saudi Arabia. In a statement explaining its reasoning, the board said Mr. Shalabi had terrorist-related activities and connections in the past, but said it was confident that the Saudi governments rehabilitation program and its ability to monitor former detainees would mitigate the risks. The board also cited the fact that Mr. Shalabis nephew, who was repatriated from Guantnamo in President George W. Bushs second term and went through the Saudi rehabilitation program, has apparently lived quietly ever since. Mr. Shalabi appeared before the board at a hearing in April [2015]. He asked that his statements not be made public. But a lawyer helping to represent him, Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, told the board that he just wanted to settle down, get married and have a family of his own, and put the past behind him. The New York Times wasn't the only high-profile U.S. news outlet to cover Shalabi's release, as a 22 September 2015 Reuters piece also announced the imminent transfer of Shalabi to Saudi Arabia. piece As noted above, it was a review board comprising officials from several different military, legal, and intelligence agencies who recommended Shalabi's repatriation to Saudi Arabia, as explained on the Department of Defense Periodic Review Secretariat's web site: explained The Periodic Review Board (PRB) is a body comprised of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Staff; and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that will review whether continued detention of particular individuals held at Guantanamo remains necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. Articles published three months in advance of Shalabi's repatriation acknowledged that (despite his never having been charged with a crime) he had links to Osama bin Laden al-Qaida and had "not been cleared of wrongdoing": Shalabi, 39, was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo in January 2002. He was never charged with a crime but the government said he had been a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and had links to the external operations chief for al-Qaida, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is facing trial by military commission at Guantanamo. The board, which was created by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2011 as part of the effort to close the prison at Guantanamo, did not clear Shalabi of wrongdoing and said it "acknowledges the detainees past terrorist-related activities." So while it's true that Abdul Shalabi was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia on 22 September 2015, the formal decision to do so was made well in advance of the Pope's September 2015 visit to the U.S., and news of Shalabi's hearing, review, and release was reported by major news outlets (inside and outside the United States) both before and during the event. Last updated: 25 September 2015 First published: 25 September 2015 | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2087 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: WASHINGTON — Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task of rebuilding the party’s depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that the blueprint has already been chosen for them — by an incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump. Immediately after the November election, Democrats were divided over how to handle Mr. Trump, with one camp favoring confrontation and another backing a seemingly less risky approach of coaxing him to the center with offers of compromise. Now, spurred by explosive protests and a torrent of angry phone calls and emails from constituents — and outraged themselves by Mr. Trump’s swift moves to enact a agenda — Democrats have all but cast aside any notion of conciliation with the White House. Instead, they are mimicking the Republican approach of the last eight years — the “party of no†— and wagering that brash obstruction will pay similar dividends. Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, vice chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said there had been a “tornado of support†for resistance to Mr. Trump. Mr. Inslee, who backed a lawsuit against the president’s executive order banning refugee admissions and travel from seven countries, said Democrats intended to send a stern message to Mr. Trump during a conference of governors in the nation’s capital. “My belief is, we have to resist every way and everywhere, every time we can,†when Mr. Trump offends core American values, Mr. Inslee said. By undermining Mr. Trump across the board, he said, Democrats hope to split Republicans away from a president of their own party. “Ultimately, we’d like to have a few Republicans stand up to rein him in,†Mr. Inslee said. “The more air goes out of his balloon, the earlier and likelier that is to happen. †Yet Democrats acknowledge there is a wide gulf between the party’s desire to fight Mr. Trump and its power to thwart him, quietly worrying that the expectations of the party’s activist base may outpace what Democratic lawmakers can achieve. “They want us to impeach him immediately,†said Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky. “And of course we can’t do that by ourselves. †Some in the party also fret that a posture of unremitting hostility to the president could imperil lawmakers in red states that Mr. Trump won last year, or compromise efforts for Democrats to present themselves to moderate voters as an inoffensive alternative to the polarizing president. Rarely have Democrats been so weakened. Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress and 33 governorships, and they are preparing to install a fifth conservative, Neil M. Gorsuch, on the Supreme Court. Further, because of changes to Senate rules that were enacted under Democratic control, the party has been unable to block Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees from being confirmed by a simple majority vote. Democrats, in other words, have few instruments at the moment to wound Mr. Trump’s administration in the manner their core voters are demanding. Still, a mood of stiff opposition has taken hold on Capitol Hill, with Democrats besieged by constituents enraged by Mr. Trump’s actions — and lawmakers sharing their alarm. “We have to fight like hell to stop him and hopefully save our country,†said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, echoing the stakes liberal voters are giving voice to at crowded town hall meetings. Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, a Democrat up for in 2018, cautioned that loathing Mr. Trump, on its own, was not a governing strategy. He said he still hoped for compromise with Republicans on infrastructure funding and perhaps on a plan to improve or “repair†the Affordable Care Act. “There is this vitriol and dislike for our new president,†Mr. Carper said. “The challenge for us is to harness it in a productive way and a constructive way, and I think we will. †But Mr. Carper said the deliberations over Mr. Trump’s cabinet appointments had woken up Democrats, recalling that he had heard from thousands of voters about Scott Pruitt, Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and Betsy DeVos, his education secretary. Virtually every message expressed seething opposition, he said. At times, Democratic frustration with Mr. Trump has already flared well beyond the normal range of opposition discourse: In Virginia, Tom Perriello, a former congressman seeking his party’s nomination for governor, apologized after calling Mr. Trump’s election a “political and constitutional Sept. 11. †And in New Jersey, Phil Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs banker and ambassador to Germany, drew criticism in his campaign for governor after likening the current political moment in America to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Among Democrats, however, it is far from clear that the rhetoric of heated opposition is unwelcome. A survey published on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center found that nearly of Democrats said they were concerned the party would not do enough to oppose Mr. Trump only 20 percent were concerned Democrats would go too far in opposition. A handful of liberal groups have already sprung up threatening to wage primary challenges against incumbent Democrats whom they see as insufficiently militant against Mr. Trump, raising the prospect of the same internecine wars that plagued Republicans during President Barack Obama’s administration. In the race for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, which concludes with a vote in Atlanta on Saturday, the restive mood of liberal activists has buoyed a pair of insurgents, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. against the perceived Thomas E. Perez. Mr. Perez, who was Mr. Obama’s labor secretary, is still viewed as a favorite in the race, and he has been backed by former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. But he has struggled to dispel the impression that he is an anointed favorite of Washington power brokers. And Mr. Ellison and Mr. Buttigieg have continued to collect endorsements: Mr. Ellison won the support of Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights leader, on Tuesday, and Mr. Buttigieg was endorsed Wednesday by Howard Dean, the former party chairman who remains admired on the left. In a sign of how little heed Democrats are paying to traditional forces, Mr. Ellison remains viable despite being bluntly attacked as “an †by Haim Saban, one of the most prolific donors to the party and its candidates. Christine C. Quinn, a vice chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Committee, who was a prominent surrogate for Hillary Clinton last year, said she backed Mr. Ellison, who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, in part because of the forcefulness of his criticism of the White House. “This is not a normal Republican president, and these are not normal times,†said Ms. Quinn, a former speaker of the New York City Council. “This isn’t a time for polite parties anymore. This is a time to take a different posture of true aggressiveness. †Martin O’Malley, a former Maryland governor who has endorsed Mr. Buttigieg, said impatient Democrats might challenge even members of their own party in their enthusiasm to take on Mr. Trump. Mr. O’Malley said the party base plainly wanted leaders who would be “willing to fight the fight and where necessary filibuster and otherwise obstruct. †He said he expected younger, liberals to run against some Democratic incumbents as well as Republicans. “That’s a good thing, and it’s overdue,†he said. So far, the most prominent leaders of the Democratic Party’s activist wing, including Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have not encouraged challenges to sitting Democratic lawmakers who have accommodated Mr. Trump. Mr. Merkley, an ally of Mr. Sanders, suggested liberals seeking scalps would get no help from progressive senators if they try to unseat Democratic senators from conservative Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia, calling those lawmakers “perfectly suited to those states. †Two mayors in Democratic cities, however, have gotten a taste of what awaits those who do not bow completely to the demands of the forces: When Carolyn Goodman of Las Vegas, a Democrat turned independent, and Levar Stoney of Richmond, Va. a Democrat, resisted deeming their municipalities “sanctuary cities,†each was met with anger from supporters of expanding protection against deportation for undocumented immigrants. “They want change to happen overnight,†Mr. Stoney said of the newly energized activists. Nowhere is it more clear, however, that the protesters are leading the politicians than on Capitol Hill. Senate Democratic leaders had hoped to capitalize on Mr. Trump’s nomination of Tom Price as health secretary by assailing Republicans for wanting to trim Medicare, an issue Democrats aim to run on in 2018. But Mr. Price was vastly overshadowed by the nomination of Ms. DeVos, who galvanized the new activists like no other cabinet pick. “Part of what I think the Bernie campaign taught us, even the Trump campaign taught us, and now the resistance is teaching us, is just ditch the consultants and consult with your conscience and constituents first,†said Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, warning his fellow Democrats that “it’s a fool’s errand to try to plan this out like it’s a traditional political operation. †Mr. Merkley boasted that “we’re doing things in the Senate that are less conventional,†efforts he said were aimed at conveying to voters that “hey, we’re here and we’re fighting. †Those efforts have included tactics like walking out on nomination hearings and opposing even less controversial cabinet appointments, such as that of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the wife of the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell. The fear factor is real, said Adam Jentleson, a former Senate Democratic aide. Images of angry constituents jeering Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a reliable liberal from Rhode Island, at a town meeting in late January for supporting the selection of Mike Pompeo as C. I. A. director quickly circulated among other Democratic senators, he said. “It was †Mr. Jentleson said, “because it made clear that the base is not going to let them off the hook. †| 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2088 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: This random cop killing trend is almost like punishing every black man in America for the crimes Obama has committed against our nation. Most of us are smart enough to understand that you don t blame an entire group of people who are largely innocent of wrong doing, for a few bad apples. Now that Obama, Holder, Sharpton and DeBlasio have made blaming our law enforcement as a whole, for the crimes of a few, expect to see more of these hate crimes committed across America. This is a despicable new trend, and people need to start demanding those who started this war against our law enforcement are held accountable.Officials say they were warned a gunman was hunting cops in Ohio this weekend, and by Sunday evening they realized the terrible truth behind the warning when they found a bloody hat but no patrol car and no officer.Police say a woman in Danville called dispatch Sunday evening around 11:20 p.m. to warn them her ex-boyfriend, identified as 34-year-old Hershel Ray Jones III, was armed and looking to kill an officer, reports CBS affiliate WBNS-TV in Columbus.The woman said officers in the area of Danville, near Columbus, were in danger.Dispatchers frantically put out a call and failed to make contact with Danville Officer Thomas Cottrell. Deputies from the Knox County Sheriff s officer were dispatched, but all they turned up initially was a Cottrell s hat with blood on it, and nothing more.Their worst fears were later realized 20 minutes later when they Cottrell s body behind the Danville Municipal Building, clearly dead from gunshot wounds. His gun and patrol car had been stolen.He was the first officer killed in the state of Ohio in 2016, reports WBNS.Jones was tracked down a short while later, and spotted at 1:30 a.m. running out of a house. Police gave chase, and caught him near Danville Park. He has been named as the prime suspect in the murder.No charges have been announced yet.Via: CBS News | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2089 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage.
contextual information: Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman questioned Democrats who want to raise the federal minimum wage and offered a flurry of statistics to help make his point. Speaking Sunday on ABC'sThis Week, Portman suggested that raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage could force employers to cut jobs. If you want to deal with income inequality, the No. 1 way to do it is to get people to work. That's what all the statistics show. About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. Of that group, by the way, less than .3 of 1 percent of Americans are both under poverty -- under the line of poverty and on minimum wage. So it's a lot of young people. About 50 percent of them are between 16 and 24 years old. For a lot of them, it's a part-time job. So what you don't want to do is raise the minimum wage to the point that you're actually losing jobs. That exchange includes a bunch of different statistics, but here well be checking this one: About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. We wont get into the question of what this means for minimum-wage policy here; for now, well just look at the numbers. To do so, we turned to a study published by Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the federal governments official chronicler of employment and wage data -- titled, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012. It was released on Feb. 26, 2013. The study found that a little under 3.6 million workers were paid either at or below the federal minimum wage. (The study did not look at whether workers were paid higher minimum wage rates set by their state, as many states have done.) To determine the percentage,we looked at the number of Americans employed. That number ranged between about 133 million and 134 million during 2012. If you divide the two numbers, it turns out that, by the official statistics, roughly 2.6 percent of all American workers were earning the minimum wage in 2012. Thats slightly higher than Portman indicated, but his estimate was definitely in the ballpark. That said, we do see a few caveats, none of which strike us as particularly troublesome for the accuracy of his comment. Portman said 2 percent of Americans, but to be entirely accurate, he really should have said 2 percent ofworkers. To figure out the percentage of Americans earning the minimum wage, we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau, whichestimatedthat the U.S. population in 2012 was 313,914,040. That would mean that minimum-wage workers accounted for just over 1 percent of Americans. That said, dividing by the number of Americans would not be a very useful number -- it includes a lot of people who arent old enough to work or who have retired. Portman referred to people who get paid the minimum wage. Actually, the numbers he cited refer to Americans who either get paid the minimum wage or get paidless thanthe minimum wage. How can you get paid less than the minimum wage? The minimum-wage law actuallyexempts whole classes of workersfrom the $7.25 standard -- vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability. This is not a trivial population -- for 2012 at least, the number earning less than the minimum wage (about 2 million) actually exceeded the number who earned the minimum wage exactly (about 1.6 million). In addition, its worth noting that workers in tipped professions, such as wait staff, get a legal minimum wage thatswell below $7.25. By factoring in tips earned, the employer only has to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour. One other note: The BLS offers some words of caution about its data. It counted only minimum-wage workers who are actually paid by the hour. Salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded from the BLS analysis. BLS says the number of salaried workers earning at or below the minimum wage is probably modest, but the data is sufficiently opaque that the agency warns that the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. BLS also warns that this study is based on a sample, and samples are imperfect. Our ruling Portman said that about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. He didnt word the statement with complete accuracy; he would have been better off saying that, according to official statistics, about 2 percent of American workers get paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Still, his number is close to accurate, and his general point -- that workers who are paid the federal minimum-wage represent a small percentage of the entire working population -- is backed up by official data. We rate his claim Mostly True. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2090 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Major cities need to import yet more immigrant residents to replace the Americans fleeing from those cities’ crowded, and expensive districts, according to a Bloomberg article. [The government imports 1 million new legal immigrants per year, even as 4 million young Americans turn 18, but according to Bloomberg: Immigration to the U. S. has failed to make up for the number of residents leaving New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — the nation’s top three metropolitan areas. Chicago — beset by crime, economic and budgetary woes and high taxes — is the net exodus leader among 100 metro areas tracked by Bloomberg using Census Bureau data for the year through July 1, 2016. An average 245 local residents left the Windy City each day compared with the arrival of 71 foreigners. Census doesn’t inquire about a person’s citizenship status … For the nation’s third metropolitan area, foreign immigration “is the only offset we’ve got and it would be tragic to lose,†said Diane Swonk, chief executive and founder of DS Economics in Chicago. Rising government taxes, rental and housing prices in the cities help push ambitious young Americans towards southern cities, such as Dallas, Austin, Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta, and Charlotte. Some other coastal cities are also gaining population from arriving Americans, principally Seattle and Portland. But immigration is so high in Miami that it is pushing out Americans, just like in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. Young people are leaving the crowded cities, in part, because elite jobs and large immigrant populations combine to push up property prices and taxes, while also holding down the salaries and wages needed to start families. “In the New York metropolitan area, Manhattan prospers while old factory towns such as Paterson, New Jersey, and Waterbury, Connecticut, languish … While Los Angeles gained more than 54, 000 international migrants, it lost more than 87, 000 people due to domestic migration,†said Bloomberg. That is bad news for conservatives in those states because GOP candidates tend to sweep districts with where voters can afford to set up homes. Those trends were reflected in the 2016 election, where Trump won 26 of 27 states. As more Americans migrate southwards, they are likely to bring more voters to their new districts, which help offset the huge immigrant inflow of residents. Read the article here. Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC or email the author at NMunro@Breitbart. com, | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2091 | Task: Please determine whether the claim is 0. False, 1. True, or 2. Not Enough Information (NEI) based on contextual information, and provide an appropriate explanation.
The answer need to use the following format:
Prediction: [0. False, 1. True, or 2. NEI]
Explanation: [Explain why the above prediction was made]
Claim: Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama Claim summaries: Has the 'Salt Lake Tribune' endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election?
contextual information: Claim: The Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] I just a posting stating that the Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed Obama for President and I wonder if this could be true! Subject: STUNNING BLOW TO MITT ROMNEY - Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama Salt Lake Tribune endorses President Obama over Mitt Romney, who organized city's Olympics. Looking for the truth is this was even published or it is false Is this true? "Salt Lake City Tribune endorses Obama for re-election" Origins: Despite the significant ties Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has to Utah's Salt Lake City including his prominent membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is headquartered in that city), and his work as the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics it came as a surprise to many people that the Salt Lake Tribune, the highest-circulation daily newspaper in Utah, endorsed his opponent, Barack Obama, in the 2012 presidential contest. In a 19 October 2012 editorial entitled "Too Many Mitts," the Tribune cited the former Massachusetts governor's shifting positions on political issues and his refusal to provide specifics about his economic plans as its primary reasons for declining to endorse him for President: editorial From his embrace of the partys radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?" The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romneys next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear. More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out. [...] In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romneys domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust. Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first. The Tribune noted in a follow-up piece that their editorial endorsing Barack Obama "flooded the Trib's website and nearly logged an all-time high in unique visitors." Those who followed the 2008 presidential campaign closely might not have found the Salt Lake Tribune's endorsement of Barack Obama in 2012 too much of a surprise, as that newspaper endorsed him in the 2008 election as well. (Contrary to common misbelief, the Deseret News, not the Tribune, is the Salt Lake City newspaper that is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) endorsed Last updated: 24 October 2012 Means, Sean P. "Mythbusting Site Confirms It: Tribune Endorses Obama." The Salt Lake Tribune. 24 October 2012. The Salt Lake Tribune. "Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts." 19 October 2012. | 2 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 2 |
FMD2092 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: China s growing economic, political and diplomatic power means it is achieving an overwhelming advantage in bringing self-ruled Taiwan to heel, and time is on China s side, a senior official said in a comments published on Monday. Taiwan is one of China s most sensitive issues. Beijing has never renounced the use of force to bring what it considers a wayward province and sacred Chinese territory under its rule. Writing in the influential state-run newspaper the Study Times, Liu Junchuan, who heads the liaison office of China s policy-making Taiwan Affairs Office, said it was inevitable Taiwan would come under China s control. China s economic growth means its economy now far surpasses Taiwan s, and the trend would only continue, Liu wrote in the paper, which is published by the Central Party School that trains rising Communist Party officials. The swift development and massive changes in the mainland of the motherland are creating an increasingly strong attraction for the people of Taiwan, he said. The contrast in power across the Taiwan Strait will become wider and wider, and we will have a full, overwhelming strategic advantage over Taiwan, Liu added. The economic, political, social, cultural and military conditions for achieving the complete reunification of the motherland will become even more ample. The concepts of peaceful reunification and one country, two systems would become even more attractive to Taiwan s people and foreign forces will not be able to stop it, Liu said. The basic situation of the Taiwan Strait continuing to develop in a direction beneficial to us will not change, and time and momentum are on our side. China has long mooted taking Hong Kong s one country, two systems form of government, which is supposed to give Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, and applying it to Taiwan, though the people of the proudly democratic island have shown no interest in being ruled by the autocratic mainland. Taiwan says Beijing does not understand what democracy is and that only Taiwan s people can decide the island s future. Relations between Beijing and Taipei have soured since Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party won presidential elections last year, with China suspecting she wants to push for the island s formal independence. Tsai says she wants peace with China but will defend Taiwan s security and democracy. China has stepped up military drills around Taiwan and squeezed Taiwan s international space, siphoning off its few remaining diplomatic allies. Defeated Nationalist forces fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Chinese civil war to the Communists. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2093 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: 21st Century Wire says The US 2016 Presidential Election was a watershed point in 21st century western politics. With the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the near collapse of the Democratic Party, it seems that America s progressive left has lost the ability to relate to much of the working and the middle classes. During the Obama Administration, the party was taken over by the billionaire donor class ruled by Wall Street interests, Silicon Valley svengalis, and the unelected commissariate the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Their failed strategy of total reliance on identity politics at home, and backing Islamist extremism and a New Cold War with Russia abroad has spelled abject failure for the US electorate. Still, the vanguard of the progressive left is still in denial of these realities. However, a new shake-up on the left may already be underway.Last month, America s latest progressive icon, Bernie Sanders had this to say Sanders: "The Democratic Party is an absolute failure." (June 11, 2017)See also: https://t.co/cnrVTiKUnn pic.twitter.com/mJxrguyMyM WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) July 9, 2017While his candid depiction of a broken political party certainly rings true, it seems that Sanders is avoiding some of the more fundamental aspects of his party s rapid disintegration, namely the left s role in compromising America s reputation internationally by caving in to a largely Neoconservative and globalist foreign policy agenda, as author James Petras explains James Petras Information Clearing House Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning in the 1990 s progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation of the US s corporate for-profit medical system into a national Medicare For All public program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the far right.To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent decades.We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply involved.We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from retreat to surrender.We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives large-scale, long-term embrace of far-right ideology and practice.Progressives by Name and PostureProgressives purport to embrace progress , the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption and good governance, based on democratic procedures.Progressives prided themselves as appealing to reason, diplomacy and conciliation , not brute force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward the good society , free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust wars.Progressives in Historical PerspectiveIn the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.They denounced militarism in general but supported a series of wars to end all wars . Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and defended the Bill of Rights.Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the left wing of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil liberties.Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and electoral means to advance African American rights.Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970 s when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.The Retreat of the ProgressivesBy the late 1970 s the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war, civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their numbers were up, their caliber had declined, as they sought to fit in with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President s party.Without the pressure of the populist street the Progressives-turned-Democrats adapted to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took office. Yet the ability to influence the electoral rhetoric was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party, (their self-proclaimed boring from within strategy), they would capture the party membership, neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform the party into a vehicle for progressive changes .Upon their successful deep penetration the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable centrist Democrats. These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton DecadeProgressives adapted the crab strategy : Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of President Bill Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured Israel s victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction of Lebanon!Progressives followed Clinton s deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve s free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.Like a huge collective Monica Lewinsky robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton s vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector. When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats hard right policies.The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive s to temporarily trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested Bush s savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations infrastructure.Progressives embraced Israel s bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State. They supported Israel s bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state decrees by the Republican Administration.Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to SurrenderWhile Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly leveraged hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic Party campaign for Barack Obama, Wall Street s First Black President .Progressives had given up their quest to realign the Democratic Party from within : they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers for the election and re-election of the warmongering Peace Candidate Obama. After the election, Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives historical legacy.Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American s First Black President s bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet and empty.When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers, while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama s Presidential decision to protect and reward the mega-swindlers.Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate. The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when Obama s kill orders extended to the mistaken murder of his target s children and other family member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the first black American President when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi Continue this article at Information Clearing HouseREAD MORE POLICE STATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Police State FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2094 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: As the Democratic Party begins to unite and the GOP continues to implode, a shocking new poll just released shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by seven points in the state of Kansas.The poll shows that 43 percent of voters in the state prefer Clinton compared to 36 percent who support Trump while 21 percent remain undecided.Clinton s support from the socially conservative state comes as voters express mass dissatisfaction with the state s governor, Republican Sam Brownback (who was lasted to lose reelection in 2014), and the Legislature, which has majority Republican control.Kansas hasn t voted, nor majorly supported, a Democrat for president since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson swept the nation in a landslide election against Barry Goldwater.After Cruz crushed the Republican nominee in the state s caucus (48-23), pollsters for the Kansas Health Foundation said the disarray is helping Democrats, including Clinton, mount a formidable challenge to the state s solid red status. However, Kansas State University political science professor Patrick Miller is telling Democrats not to get too excited: That s a little bit better than (President Barack) Obama did. So if you assume also that Trump is toxic, Clinton hasn t closed the deal with Millennials yet, she probably has some room to grow. I think Clinton will do better than the average Democratic candidate. I don t think she ll win Kansas, but I think she ll probably get a few percent better than Obama. President Obama lost Kansas to Senator John McCain by 15 points, and to Mitt Romney by 22 points. However, one upside Democrats could have is Trump s constant flip-flopping on social issues. Kansans tend to vote based on social issues, as chronicled in Frank Thomas bestseller What s the Matter with Kansas? If Democrats played into Trump s past support of abortion rights, same-sex marriage rights and gun control advocacy, his support could be diminished amongst skeptical voters.While Trump promises to flip solid blue states like New York, Maryland, California and Pennsylvania, maybe he should worry about once solid red states like Kansas and Georgia.Featured image via Jessica Kourkounis | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2095 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: The Republican Party has always had a problem with racism. That s no accident; after all it was their racist Southern Strategy that got them the votes of racist white southerners once the Civil Rights Act was signed. Modern day Republicans like to point out that it was the Democrats who were the party of the Ku Klux Klan and other racists, but the parties switched sides once the Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, because Southern Democrats couldn t abide the idea of de-segregating the south and starting down the path of trying to kill racism as a matter of policy and practice as they knew it. That s how the racists wound up in the GOP, and the Democrats lost the South for a generation. It s also why, to this day, the GOP has such a hard time with minority voters. However, something amazing has happened to the Republican Party in this area with Donald Trump as its titular head. They have literally become the party of white supremacists and they aren t even trying to hide it anymore.Just a few years ago, no one would have thought this possible not even elected Republicans themselves. For instance, when notoriously racist Rep. Steve King ( R- Iowa) made his infamous comment about Mexican immigrants having calves the size of cantaloupes because they re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert, then- House Speaker John Boehner said, from a podium to the press that the comments were hateful, and offensive. There were also reports that Boehner said privately that King is an asshole for saying what he said.That was just three years ago in 2014. To compare, here in 2017, when King made a much worse remark the infamous and openly white nationalist we can t restore our civilization with somebody else s babies tweet current House Speaker Paul Ryan was tepid in his response, only saying that he is sure that Rep. King misspoke. To top it all off, King tweeted that in support of far-right Dutch candidate for high office Geert Wilders, who literally wants to outlaw the religion of Islam. Something tells me that if given the chance, Steve King would outlaw Islam in America.Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. https://t.co/4nxLipafWO Steve King (@SteveKingIA) March 12, 2017When King doubled down on the remarks, Speaker Ryan said nothing. Further, only a few GOP elected officials had the nerve to rebuke King almost all of them minorities. This is because these people know who their base is, who Donald Trump s base is, and they know they need the racists and white supremacists that helped propel Trump to the White House to get reelected.This is all perfectly in line with Trump s infamous call to ban Muslims from entering the nation, and of course, there was former New York Mayor and close Trump confidante Rudy Giuliani s admission that Trump asked him to put together a way for him to ban Muslims that would pass Constitutional muster:Then, we get to the Donald Trump campaign itself. Let s not forget Trump entered the political arena by trying to delegitimize the first Black president by spreading the racist lie that President Barack Obama was not born here, and forcing him to show his birth certificate in a show me your papers, boy, type of way. Even when Trump let his birtherism go, he still lied and said Hillary Clinton started it.Also, we all remember how long it took Trump to disavow David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan when Jake Tapper asked him about it. Only then did House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rebuke him. However, that was before Trump had secured the nomination, too. There was radio silence from GOP leadership on the open racism and anti-Semitism and misogyny of the Trump campaign unless they were cornered, as when #NeverTrump conservative radio host Charlie Sykes forced House Speaker Paul Ryan to answer for Trump s repeated retweets of anti-Semitic images.As for the Trump Administration itself there are no words for the level of bigotry allowed therein. First, we have Trump campaign CEO turned White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who ran the openly racist and anti-Semitic website Breitbart.com prior to joining Trump s campaign. Bannon is a literal white supremacist. He has said that one book that shapes his world view is a French novel called Camp of Saints, which fantasizes that immigrants conveniently of the black and brown variety are coming to destroy the white race. Every educated analysis of the novel reveals that it is virulently racist (this is a book that also happens to be a favorite of Steve King). Then, we have head speechwriter and immigration policy maker Stephen Miller, who shares this ideology and has for a long time; after all, this is a guy who spent his high school years harassing Latino students. Then, there is adviser Sebastian Gorka, who wore a medal from a Hungarian Nazi group to Trump s inauguration. The group said they were proud to see Gorka wearing the medal.Through all of these clearly white supremacist appointments, prominent GOP leaders have been silent. Nothing from House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, or any of the others. In fact, when asked about Bannon, Speaker Ryan only said he hadn t met him. Well, I haven t met David Duke either, but I let his past work inform my opinion of him. When McConnell was asked about Bannon, he was silent, then told the reporters in his office, It s great to be with you guys today. Then, aides rushed the reporters out before anyone could press further.What did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have to say today about Steve Bannon s appointment? Not much. pic.twitter.com/bPZ2UtRkxW The Last Word (@TheLastWord) November 16, 2016And let s not forget Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the guy who they all say isn t a racist but was deemed too racist to be confirmed to a federal judgeship by a GOP-controlled Senate in Ronald Reagan s administration in 1986. There s also White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer s saying that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler never used chemical weapons all while referring to Nazi death camps as Holocaust Centers. And there is the White House s engaging in Holocaust denial by omitting any mention of Jewish people from their Holocaust Remembrance Day statement. It turns out that this was deliberate, which is definite Holocaust denial because while other minorities died in the Holocaust as well, Hitler s Final Solution was to eradicate the Jewish people from the planet. In short, the Holocaust was specifically about Jews, and the White House is deliberately denying this. Here is video of their statements regarding their omission of the original purpose of the Holocaust, and why they deliberately omitted the mention of Jews:I could go on, but you get the picture. The GOP, in the past, had no issue rebuking open white nationalism. They do now because that is literally who they are. There are white supremacists working in the White House, and all throughout Trump s government. And the mainstream leadership of the Republican Party has absolutely no problem with that at all because the people with those same repugnant ideas are their base. This is who the GOP is.So, I implore you to look at all the evidence provided here and think if you are a Republican, but you abhor racism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy, why are you still a member of the GOP?Featured image via BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2096 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Posted on October 31, 2016 by Nathaniel Mauka
Congress overwhelmingly voted for the Patriot Act nearly 16 years ago, and our civil liberties have never been the same since. As if this singular bill, passed by George W. Bush, wasn’t invasive enough, allowing big banks to demand our internet data, and more — the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act ( CISA ) makes cyber-spying by the shadow government and the financial entities controlling it, a forgone conclusion.
As with most shadow government legislation, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is packed with hidden surveillance allowances. CISA was quietly passed to allow government to demand that private companies hand over personal information to them at will. It also allows companies to mine data, under the auspices of government-created urgency.
The mere fact that this act passed in late 2015 is monumental, since it has been before Congress in different forms for over a decade . The election seems to have offered the perfect cover, as Americans and activists were too busy arguing over Trump vs. Hillary.
Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government relations at the Electronic Transactions Association believes the value of sharing our personal data as a means to be alerted of ‘cyber threats’ outweighs any hazard to our civil liberties. Talbott states ,
“The value is that everyone can be alerted to cyber threats and take precautionary countermeasures before they materialize and spread,” he said. “Before CISA, corrective measures could be taken only after the cyber threat had done its damage. CISA allows each company to serve as an early warning system to the entire economy.”
Who exactly would be determining if someone is a ‘threat’ is the meat of the sandwich, though. CISA is ripe for abuse, just as the Patriot Act has been.
The Patriot Act has made it legal for law enforcement to spy on people, without probable cause – to enter their homes, or even to strip search them before they’ve been to court, had the opportunity to argue a case, or given ‘authorities’ a motive for this type of interrogation.
The stated purpose of the Patriot Act was to deter terrorist acts in the United States, but what do you do when the terrorists have already taken over your country? CISA simply expands the reach of a shadow government which has already been proven to reach beyond the boundaries of constitutional law.
More importantly, who specifically is CISA targeting? After multiple hackers have infiltrated computer systems at the White House , the State Department , the Pentagon , and the Office of Personnel Management, along with the Democratic National Committee , and numerous multinational banks run by the cabal, is the shadow government simply trying to create a stop-gap before their most elusive, yet damning information is made public?
CISA certainly will expand the reach of government surveillance on citizens as it has been conducted by the the National Security Agency (NSA) before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed it.
“I think this bill was meant to be a surveillance bill from the start,” said Justin Harvey, CSO of Fidelis Cybersecurity, adding that he is dubious that the stated intent of the bill – to use collective intelligence to warn of potential cyber attacks and possibly stop them before they occur – will result.
Under the guise of ‘sharing cyber threats’ CISA allows companies to wholesale-collect information that may not even be a threat – and then pass it along for government bodies to determine if it is, indeed a threat. If this sounds like circular logic – it is just the beginning of the odd verbiage within the bill. It’s justifications for entering every possible orifice for data-gathering are more confounded than an octopus in a straight jacket.
The government can already enter your personal property including your home, your body , your cell, and your computer , but now they will have a legal in-roads to declare you a cyber-threat, simply for sending an email . This begs the question – who is the real cyber-bully? CISA seems to be nothing more than a prevarication, covering the acts of an elite few who don’t want their secrets exposed.
Nathaniel Mauka is a researcher of the dark side of government and exopolitics, and a staff writer for Waking Times . This article ( Distracted by Election 2016, No-one Resisted the Deep State’s Patriot Act 2 ) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nathaniel Mauka and WakingTimes.com . It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio. Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. Share this: | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2097 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: President Donald Trump on Monday said he supports Utah Senator Orrin Hatch running for re-election next year, as speculation mounts that fellow Republican and frequent Trump critic Mitt Romney hopes to take the seat. Asked whether he was encouraging Hatch, who is the Senate president pro tempore and chairs its powerful Finance Committee, to run for re-election, Trump said “Yes.†While he and Hatch toured a Salt Lake City food pantry alongside leaders of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Trump sidestepped questions of whether he was trying to block Romney from running, saying only “He’s a good man.†Romney and Hatch are Mormons. | 1 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 1 |
FMD2098 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Turkey, Syria & Russia proving cooperation possible - Yasar Yakis, ex-Turkish FM Published time: 26 Oct, 2016 17:36 Edited time: 26 Oct, 2016 17:37 Get short URL Former Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis at the 13th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi © Nina Zotina / Sputnik Journalists, politicians and academicians have descended upon the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi for the 13th annual Valdai International Discussion Club at a time of deepening political fractures between Russia and the West.
RT spoke on the sidelines of the event with Yasar Yakis, former Foreign Minister of Turkey, for his opinion on a wide range of issues, including Russian sanctions and the ongoing Syrian conflict, which has driven a wedge between Russia and the US-led coalition.
Later in this section, RT also talks with Wolfgang Schussel, former Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria (2000-2007). Russia not to blame for Ukraine crisis and sanctions won't work (Op-Edge by John #Mearsheimer ) https://t.co/BlykHOfU4o #UChicago #Valdai — RT (@RT_com) 26 октября 2016 г.
RT: The Turkish–Russian relationship has had a lot of ups and downs over the last year or so. How do you see a future of the relationship particularly now with the regards to solving the Syria conflict, and now that the relationship appears to be at a better level than it was last year?
Yasar Yakis: I knew that the Syrian crisis may help the Turkish–Russian relations to improve, because there are areas of cooperation. So far, Turkey and Russia agreed to cooperate on several specific questions. Both during the visit of President Recep Erdogan to St. Petersburg, and also during the recent visit of President Putin to Istanbul.
Also at a later stage they talked on telephone to each other – I think it was exchange of concessions, if we may say so. Turkey was asked by Russia whether Turkey could mediate in order to persuade some of the opposition factions in Turkey to withdraw from Eastern Aleppo. If Turkey could do it, it would be a good service to Russia. And in exchange for it, I guess at least, Russia agreed to show understanding to the measures that Turkey is taking in the north of Syria in order to prevent the Kurdish factions to link the two Kurdish cantons. This is a new area of cooperation.
The third area of cooperation is more specific, in my opinion. Now with the Kurdish question in the North of Syria, becoming more important than whether Bashar Assad should remain [in power] or not, because Turkey’s position at the beginning was that first priority has to be given to Assad to step aside, whereas now the Kurdish question has become more important, and which also requires that territorial integrity of Syria has to be preserved. If the Kurds declare their independence or autonomy, then the Syrian territorial integrity will be jeopardized.
So Turkey is moving from: ‘Bashar Assad is going first’ to 'preservation of the territorial integrity of Syria' is a big step. At this point, Turkey’s national interest and the Syrian national interest are overlapping, they are coinciding. And Russia is also in favor of the preservation of the territorial integrity of Syria. These three countries can cooperate. Turkey has now a national interest in cooperating with Assad (…)
RT: There has been some discussion in the West about new sanctions being put on Russia, in particularity because of Aleppo. They have been rejected for the time being. Do you view sanctions as an effective measure of achieving foreign policy goals, or should dialogue always come first?
YY: Armed conflict is the worst thing. When armed could be avoided, the confrontation could be avoided by sanctions, it may be preferable; but no sanctions at all is the best. For the Aleppo question, the truth is not yet cleared out – who was wrong and why the ceasefire has collapsed etc. We do not know. We’re still waiting for a neutral body to find out what exactly happened in Aleppo and how the ceasefire collapsed. Before ignoring all these details, I don’t think that we should talk about the sanctions. And if possible the international community should not resort to sanctions, because it makes the tension in the international relations more acute. Tool to 'preserve the peace': #Valdai Club hosts intl speakers as tensions peak between Russia & West https://t.co/1pLwoD8HQZ — RT (@RT_com) 25 октября 2016 г.
RT next spoke with Wolfgang Schussel, former Federal Chancellor of the Republic of Austria (2000-2007).RT: A new round of sanctions against Russia was rejected for the time being. However, the old ones remain in place. How do you see the future of those relations between Russia and the EU? Do you expect the sanctions to be lifted anytime soon?
Wolfgang Schussel: I think the most important element was last week’s summit in Berlin with Chancellor Angela Merkel, President [Vladimir] Putin, President [Petro] Poroshenko, and President [Francois] Hollande to find solutions or a road map for Ukraine to extend the ceasefire in Syria, and to recreate a kind of a feeling that a military solution is not possible neither in Ukraine, nor in Syria, or Iraq. What is needed are trust-building measures; a road map to bring about those units who are fighting against each other; to extend the ceasefire; to create an element where the relevant global and regional partners are sitting at the same table and finding a solution. This is the most important thing. The sanctions are always symbols. The symbol will remain. I am sure there is no short-term solution for that, because the problems as such are not disappearing. What is needed today is a return to the good old, as we say it in German, ‘Realpolitik.’ The soft power, economic development, the economic assistance, and diplomacy. This is the most important thing.
RT: You mentioned the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. There are currently two operations going on: in Mosul – carried out by the Western-led coalition, and in Aleppo – by the Damascus government and Russia. While the first one is being praised in the western media, saying that any civilians killed in Mosul is just 'collateral damage,' whereas in Aleppo, Russia is being accused of actual war crimes repeatedly by Washington and some others. Why do you think there are such two different narratives here going with these two operations?
WS: The main difference in Mosul – everybody is fighting and united against ISIS. This is quite clear. This is the common enemy, because what ISIS did in the last three years was terrible. They expelled, tortured, and killed civilians, mostly all the Christians had to leave the country, a country where they lived for centuries. The oldest part of identity and the Christian communities were living in these parts. And all of these parts are destroyed by ISIS. I hope, and I am not an expert what is really going on in Mosul there will be as few as possible civil causalities.
In Aleppo, there are also radical parts, that is for sure, but also some other factors (...) I don’t deny the attempt of Russians to support President [Bashar] Assad – you can agree with that, or you can disagree. I think a military solution will not be possible in Syria. This is the difference with ISIS. In my opinion it is not helpful always to ask for regime change, but what is needed is to find a political solution to avoid civilian casualties. This is de facto today a very negative scenario.
RT: In around two weeks we’ll found out the result of the US presidential election. Regardless of which candidate ends up in the White House, how do you see relations between the triangle of Russia, the US, and the EU evolving? And how do you feel cooperation over the key issues, such as the Minsk agreements and Syria will change after November 8?
WS: First of all, I have seen a lot of very emotional election campaigns in American recent history – this is not the only one and not an outstanding one – this is a fight. This is a very personal fight, a very emotional fight. Whoever wins, foreign policy is more or less stringent and a continuous effort [for] all the major players: in America, in Russia, in Europe, in China. Everybody knows the problems, everybody knows the restrictions, the limits of power; nobody can act alone. I think what happens is the return to normal policy, to Realpolitik where the global players: America, Russia, China and Europe are sitting together, inviting also the regional partners to find cooperative ways, to find cooperation instead of confrontation. That is the only way. I think after the November elections, the Americans will return to normal business. The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
FMD2099 | Task: Please determine whether the text is 0. Fake or 1. True. Answer directly without explanations. Text: Media Bias Has Become Mental Illness Media Bias Has Become Mental Illness 31 am by Cliff Kincaid Leave a Comment 0
Accuracy in Media
Aware that their credibility is shot with the American people, the publisher and executive editor of The New York Times sent a “To our readers” note on Friday, saying, “we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.”
This was another way of saying, “Sorry, we blew it,” without being honest with readers.
Those familiar with the paper’s “journalism” understand this to be media bias. But Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and Dean Baquet were suggesting something else—that something had gone wrong and they don’t quite know what happened, but don’t worry because the Times will get back to its mission of reporting truthfully.
Beating around the bush, they said Trump’s victory was “the biggest political story of the year,” which had “reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night…”
The word “unexpected” means that the paper’s predictions were wrong.
Then they said that the paper’s newsroom had covered the campaign “with agility and creativity,” which are terms for incompetence and bias. Some people cling to the old-fashioned idea that a paper should report events objectively.
Pretending to reflect on the poor coverage, they finally got to the problem without saying so directly. They asked, “Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?” and “What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?”
In other words, Trump’s “sheer unconventionality” caused the paper to misreport what was happening. He had appealed to mysterious “forces and strains,” terms that apparently refer to the voters.
Sulzberger and Baquet insisted that the Times will “report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
In other words, they blew it during the 2016 campaign and will try to do better next time. But nothing is really changing at the paper. Nobody is being fired. And nobody is being hired who has an understanding of the conservative electorate.
The paper, they said, will “hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.”
But who will hold The New York Times accountable?
In a real howler, they then claimed, “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”
This is another indication that the paper is hopelessly liberal, and that nothing will really change.
The business as usual attitude was reflected in the front-page headline in the Times after Trump won: “Democrats, Students and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of a Trump Presidency.”
As Accuracy in Media Chairman Don Irvine noted , the headline was even funny to various MSNBC personalities, because it focused on the disappointment of liberals at Trump’s victory, rather than the victory itself.
Mark Halperin commented, “If a Democratic candidate who was thought to have a 10 percent chance of winning by The New York Times that ended up winning, and winning red states as Trump won blue states, I don’t think that would have been the headline. And I’ll just say again, the responsibility of journalists is to not report on their biases. It’s to go out and understand the country through the prism of the election and say, ‘Why are people feeling the way they’re feeling?’”
Of course, the Times was not alone.
Consider the story in Politico headlined , “Insiders: Clinton would crush Trump in November.” It began, “In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against Hillary Clinton in the general election.”
In a story headlined, “The Democrat Media Complex Will Never Understand What Happened Tuesday Night,” Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media commented that the talking heads want desperately to avoid the topic of the “overwhelming lack of political and intellectual diversity in their ranks,” but that the problem of their liberalism is compounded by their laziness.
This is a fact, as reflected in my analysis of Post “journalist” Dana Milbank, who got caught asking Democratic Party officials for help on an anti-Trump column.
For his part, Milbank crafted another anti-Trump column after the Trump victory, in the form of a letter to his daughter. “This is a sad day for our country,” he told her . “I want you to know that I did everything I could to prevent this from happening. My efforts and those of many others came up short.”
Those “many others” were in the media and the Democratic Party, for whom Milbank worked. Perhaps Post owner Jeff Bezos ought to ask the Democrats to pay Milbank’s salary.
Milbank told his daughter, “You are going to be okay.”
That’s more than what we can say about Milbank. He is not okay. He is more than just a lazy liberal who gets the Democratic Party to help write his columns. He is completely out of touch with the America he claims to be writing about.
Like those at the Times, Milbank and others at the Post will never change. They are elitists whose hatred for their fellow Americans borders on mental illness.
Like other liberals, they claim to be on a crusade for “the children,” in his case his daughter. It’s frankly despicable that he would use his kid as a political prop. She needs our prayers. Cliff Kincaid
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid . 0 | 0 | [
"0",
"1",
"2"
] | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.