Huffington Post deletes articles questioning Hillary's health, fires writers

[awesome31312]

SUNDAY, August 28, 2016

The notoriously pro-Clinton propaganda outlet Huffington Post fired a writer on Sunday, August 28, 2016 after deleting two of his articles that were questioning Hillary Clinton's health.

This move came in just a few days after another writer had his termination for the same reason.

David Seaman, former writer, had published an article titled “Hillary Clinton’s Health is Superb (Aside From Seizures, Lesions, Adrenaline Pens).”. The article was going viral, trending in third place in just a few hours before an abrupt deletion without notice.

The two writers voiced their complaints on social media, through the Twitter platform.



David Seaman writes:

"Screenshot- both of my posts on @HuffingtonPost deleted, without reason or notice. Both mentioned #HillarysHealth"
(Source: https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/770121591434932224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

He further wrote:

"I can confirm my @HuffingtonPost account is done. IS THIS CHINA? DO PEOPLE NOT HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS?"

You may view the original article that was deleted via Google webcache by clicking here


===========================================================================

Personal comments: Well, sorry to hear about your loss buddy, but you can join me on being a MSM reject turned social media activist!  Welcome to the clan

Also, the writer seems to be a "YouTuber, researcher, and cryptocurrency enthusiast". Heh, me too.

[coinzat]

this is how freedom of speech works. :-D   you will have it only if you have the power and the money to protect you from the side you are talking about.

[awesome31312]

this is how freedom of speech works. :-D   you will have it only if you have the power and the money to protect you from the side you are talking about.

The whole story is so messed up. Huffington Post is to Hillary Clinton like North Korea is to Kim Jong Un.

[xhomerx10]

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole.
He's right to be afraid but not for his reasons.  He should be afraid he'll be unable to land another writing gig... anywhere #Orwellianmyass

[awesome31312]

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole.
He's right to be afraid but not for his reasons.  He should be afraid he'll be unable to land another writing gig... anywhere #Orwellianmyass

Criticism of Hillary Clinton is not right leaning political rhetoric, because Hillary is right winged. Also, the article was not poorly written, it fared quite well on their website before it was taken down actually. Also, if he were fired "with cause", the standard procedure is to give a written notice of their decision to remove the article, and to terminate employment. The way he was terminated was very clandestine. He was just doing his job, reporting on a potential presidential candidate's health concerns, as Huffington Post had similarly done in 2008 regarding John McCain (You'll be using the phrase "double standards" a lot when it comes to liberalism).

Also, as for your statement about being "unable to land another writing gig", he has already landed a temporary contract with PrisonPlanet.

Just curious, why defend an obvious fascist on a forum like Bitcointalk?

[BADecker]

Just curious, why defend an obvious fascist on a forum like Bitcointalk?

If we could get a bunch of fascists to use Bitcoin, the price would skyrocket.   

[awesome31312]

Just curious, why defend an obvious fascist on a forum like Bitcointalk?

If we could get a bunch of fascists to use Bitcoin, the price would skyrocket.   

Donald Trump already has his own alt-coin

[xhomerx10]

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole.
He's right to be afraid but not for his reasons.  He should be afraid he'll be unable to land another writing gig... anywhere #Orwellianmyass

Criticism of Hillary Clinton is not right leaning political rhetoric, because Hillary is right winged. Also, the article was not poorly written, it fared quite well on their website before it was taken down actually. Also, if he were fired "with cause", the standard procedure is to give a written notice of their decision to remove the article, and to terminate employment. The way he was terminated was very clandestine. He was just doing his job, reporting on a potential presidential candidate's health concerns, as Huffington Post had similarly done in 2008 regarding John McCain (You'll be using the phrase "double standards" a lot when it comes to liberalism).

Also, as for your statement about being "unable to land another writing gig", he has already landed a temporary contract with PrisonPlanet.

Just curious, why defend an obvious fascist on a forum like Bitcointalk?

 I didn't defend anyone.  The article IS political rhetoric AND it sucked ass.  It was a cheeky opinion piece (aside from lesions, siezure and adrenaline pens).  Also, Hillary is a democrat ergo left-wing.  You are simply wrong on that point. 
 If he was doing his job, he would not have lost his contract.  He was not an employee of Huffington Post; merely a contributor so it's dead easy to get rid of him.  Sure Alex Jones will give him a chance at PrisonPlanet but when he doesn't pass muster Alex will turf him as well.  Alex doesn't have much interest in crypto currency - what else can Seaman write about?

[Spendulus]

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole....

What exactly is your problem with writing such as this excerpt from the article.



Hillary Clinton: Stronger Together. How strong? Well, the great woman’s health is excellent, superb even. Her heart and mind one hundred thousand times stronger than the strongest beams of steel that built our great American cities more than a century ago. Her soul a shining exemplar of selflessness, service, and humility, her footing sound... wait, are we talking about the same person here?!

The same Hillary Clinton who recently became the latest unintentional star of YouTube, with a truly endless upload stream of videos purporting to show Hillary Clinton wildly seizing up when several reporters begin questioning her at once? Yes, the same Hillary Clinton who became the star of this Paul Joseph Watson video, attracting 3,554,177 views since it was uploaded on August 4th:

[BADecker]

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole....

What exactly is your problem with writing such as this excerpt from the article.



Hillary Clinton: Stronger Together. How strong? Well, the great woman’s health is excellent, superb even. Her heart and mind one hundred thousand times stronger than the strongest beams of steel that built our great American cities more than a century ago. Her soul a shining exemplar of selflessness, service, and humility, her footing sound... wait, are we talking about the same person here?!

The same Hillary Clinton who recently became the latest unintentional star of YouTube, with a truly endless upload stream of videos purporting to show Hillary Clinton wildly seizing up when several reporters begin questioning her at once? Yes, the same Hillary Clinton who became the star of this Paul Joseph Watson video, attracting 3,554,177 views since it was uploaded on August 4th:

People like comedy.   

[Masha Sha]

The huffington post editors room:



 

[awesome31312]

The huffington post editors room:



 

Wow, so much diversity. I guess this is what xhomerx10 means when he says it is a left winged news source. They simply do not hire black people.

Imagine that.  A left-wing news blog not wanting to publish right-leaning political rhetoric.
No doubt he was fired "with cause".  I read the article about Hillary's health and it was very poorly written; laced with immature hyperbole.
He's right to be afraid but not for his reasons.  He should be afraid he'll be unable to land another writing gig... anywhere #Orwellianmyass

Criticism of Hillary Clinton is not right leaning political rhetoric, because Hillary is right winged. Also, the article was not poorly written, it fared quite well on their website before it was taken down actually. Also, if he were fired "with cause", the standard procedure is to give a written notice of their decision to remove the article, and to terminate employment. The way he was terminated was very clandestine. He was just doing his job, reporting on a potential presidential candidate's health concerns, as Huffington Post had similarly done in 2008 regarding John McCain (You'll be using the phrase "double standards" a lot when it comes to liberalism).

Also, as for your statement about being "unable to land another writing gig", he has already landed a temporary contract with PrisonPlanet.

Just curious, why defend an obvious fascist on a forum like Bitcointalk?

 I didn't defend anyone.  The article IS political rhetoric AND it sucked ass.  It was a cheeky opinion piece (aside from lesions, siezure and adrenaline pens).  Also, Hillary is a democrat ergo left-wing.  You are simply wrong on that point. 
 If he was doing his job, he would not have lost his contract.  He was not an employee of Huffington Post; merely a contributor so it's dead easy to get rid of him.  Sure Alex Jones will give him a chance at PrisonPlanet but when he doesn't pass muster Alex will turf him as well.  Alex doesn't have much interest in crypto currency - what else can Seaman write about?

Hillary Clinton is not left wing. Her voting record supports my statement. Her campaign logo is an arrow pointing right, she got her influence from Barry Goldwater, who happened to vote against the Civil Rights Act.



In fact, in 1996, she claimed she was still proud of her conservative roots.

"I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don’t recognize this new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."

Barry Goldwater was a segregationist, meaning he supported policies which deemed the white man superior to all other races.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, referring to it as a "business opportunity". The war is considered to be a complete disaster by liberals and conservatives alike in modern times. She also has close ties with Henry Kissinger, who is notorious for his advocacy of the military industrial complex.

She also voted for legislation which bailed out Wall Street (ie intervention in the market, but beneficial to the 1%, which puts her in the Republican spot). While Bush signed TARP in 2008, Hillary Clinton was one of its advocates, voting for it to take effect.

Additionally, Hillary Clinton voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, then again to reauthorize it in 2006. Again, not very left winged. Then finally, she also voted for 2006 legislation to create a border fence between the US and Mexico. She has blamed the Mexican government for "pushing migration North" in a very Trumpish manner. Again, these are all signs that she is a right winged Republican, not a Democrat.

I look at what the voting record is, I look at what they do, not just what they say. Because Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.

[xhomerx10]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

[awesome31312]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

You are quoting a website which is literally from the establishment. Her voting record would not place her as a liberal, only her speeches made in 2016 would. This does not even include paid speeches made to Wall St. executives.

[bryant.coleman]

No surprise there. It is almost certain that Hitlery will be elected as the POTUS this November. None of the mainstream media outlets are going to publish articles against her, with the exception of some fringe elements such as the Breitbart News Network. Once she is elected as the POTUS, the Clinton body count is going to increase exponentially. And many of the new additions are going to be journalists, who had written articles against her.

[xhomerx10]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

You are quoting a website which is literally from the establishment. Her voting record would not place her as a liberal, only her speeches made in 2016 would. This does not even include paid speeches made to Wall St. executives.

  The organization is stated to be non-partisan, non-profit and run by volunteers from various political stripes.  Since you don't like that source, I've e-mailed Alex Jones to see if he can give you a more unbiased opinion on Hillary's political leanings.
 I haven't been to any paid speeches by any of the candidates.

[awesome31312]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

You are quoting a website which is literally from the establishment. Her voting record would not place her as a liberal, only her speeches made in 2016 would. This does not even include paid speeches made to Wall St. executives.

  The organization is stated to be non-partisan, non-profit and run by volunteers from various political stripes.  Since you don't like that source, I've e-mailed Alex Jones to see if he can give you a more unbiased opinion on Hillary's political leanings.
 I haven't been to any paid speeches by any of the candidates.

Again, that source is relying only on her quotes from the 2016 election, which are not consistent with her voting record. In the end, it's the voting record that matters. You can claim to be all peace and freedom loving, but it won't matter if you don't follow through with your beliefs while in elected office.

[Masha Sha]

No surprise there. It is almost certain that Hitlery will be elected as the POTUS this November. None of the mainstream media outlets are going to publish articles against her, with the exception of some fringe elements such as the Breitbart News Network. Once she is elected as the POTUS, the Clinton body count is going to increase exponentially. And many of the new additions are going to be journalists, who had written articles against her.

In such an horrific event it would be a great idea for most of her opponents to leave the country... Better safe than sorry. I don't know how she planned "to silence" the alt-right or more honestly called the truth tellers, but I am sure it's gonna be ugly. With the unconditional support of the established media... Her victory would be the ultimate achievement of the biggest crime consortium.

[xhomerx10]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

You are quoting a website which is literally from the establishment. Her voting record would not place her as a liberal, only her speeches made in 2016 would. This does not even include paid speeches made to Wall St. executives.

  The organization is stated to be non-partisan, non-profit and run by volunteers from various political stripes.  Since you don't like that source, I've e-mailed Alex Jones to see if he can give you a more unbiased opinion on Hillary's political leanings.
 I haven't been to any paid speeches by any of the candidates.

Again, that source is relying only on her quotes from the 2016 election, which are not consistent with her voting record. In the end, it's the voting record that matters. You can claim to be all peace and freedom loving, but it won't matter if you don't follow through with your beliefs while in elected office.

 You didn't even look at the site you shithead!
The very first page has her voting record on the abortion issue back to 2003.  I'm done with this discussion!  I thought you were serious... my bad.

[awesome31312]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 This organization has put a lot more thought into the issues and implemented a scoring system for the candidates.  They place her as a hard-core liberal which is further left than I consider her.

@Masha Sha
 By left-wing I mean overtly liberal

You are quoting a website which is literally from the establishment. Her voting record would not place her as a liberal, only her speeches made in 2016 would. This does not even include paid speeches made to Wall St. executives.

  The organization is stated to be non-partisan, non-profit and run by volunteers from various political stripes.  Since you don't like that source, I've e-mailed Alex Jones to see if he can give you a more unbiased opinion on Hillary's political leanings.
 I haven't been to any paid speeches by any of the candidates.

Again, that source is relying only on her quotes from the 2016 election, which are not consistent with her voting record. In the end, it's the voting record that matters. You can claim to be all peace and freedom loving, but it won't matter if you don't follow through with your beliefs while in elected office.

 You didn't even look at the site you shithead!
The very first page has her voting revir on the abortion issue back to 2003.  I'm done with this discussion!  I thought you were serious... my bad.

I've already seen all the major candidates' pages on Ontheissues. As for you calling me a shithead: