Just to check how far are we going to go into totalitarianism this time: what's your opinion on 'alternative facts'?

Just to check how far are we going to go into totalitarianism this time: what's your opinion on 'alternative facts'?

>implying they aren't lies

The innovative thing here isn't politicians lying. It's politicians labelling the lies of rival politicians "alternative facts". The neologism creates the illusion that lying wasn't always deeply ingrained in the fabric of democratic politics. It's a very clever, highly manipulative piece of PR, which the Trump team have completely fallen for.

Bump

Yes. Of course we had Bill Clinton's 'misspeaking' which was the very same, but at least his neologism acknowledges that the previous statement was wrong in some way. What disturbs me is someone trying to make the public believe (and quite successfully, I fear) that the truth is up to what you want to believe in.

Bump

Bumps

Buump

"Alternative facts", more like alternative reality. What a joke

Bups

Weaseling and sliming his way out of uncomfortable truths, trying to cover up obvious facts with bullshit made-up phrases instead of either admitting them or countering with facts of his own, well...

It almost sounds like a... regular, standard-issue, double-faced, third-tier politician. Notice the distinct lack of Trumpfags posting.

Indeed. A much reasonable justification would be saying 'it's because my supporters are unemployed and have no money to travel'. Would've been a great comeback.

But indeed. Where are all the alt-righters now? I'm having to bump this thread like crazy. At least this is a little bit reassuring, because if there was a throng of people defending those statements, that would be appalling and catastrophic. I feel somewhat relieved.

Obama was a pretty major totalitarian since you couldn't say shit about him w/o being labeled as "racist". So IMO, we kinda stepped down on that level.

alt-facts for the alt-right

I'll have to acknowledge there are many SJWs who are insane and just won't listen. But nevertheless, it's the SJWs' fault. Obama himself and his team weren't the ones doing the crazy speaking (not that I can remember, at least).

And notice another difference: labelling people to discredit them is newspeak, questioning the truth is doublethink. Which is creepier imo.

Good lord. Top comment. You earned my respect.

This.
This board is so fucking delusional it hurts to look at. Trump is an embarrassment.

/thread

I'm still waiting for the goddamn alt-right to show up

Bumpp

...

He is only an embarrassment to you because you care about the opinion of lesser people. Now fuck off

Trumps audience was almost entirely white.

So it had more actual people than Obama had.

It will continue to get worse now that a pathalogical liar has been sworn in as president and there are hordes of idiots who would defend their dear leader even when the facts are right in front of them.

Sad girls being sad. PMS is sad. Calm down, girls. Talk about mass hysteria. Cheer up and be more like Trump's daughters. Look how happy they are. Wouldn't you like to be like that girls? Calm and happy?

> MAGA!

Could be. But that isn't the point. The point is they talked about 'alternative facts' instead of saying rational things as you did.

...

Read

It's perhaps not that bad as you fear. News reports chop off parts when they quote. With the full quote you often see that whoever was quoted qualified things in a way that would leave the door open for later backing out of a mistake. For example the Spicer view about OP's picture, in that sentence from the press conference he had alluded to adding things like Internet video stream traffic to the numbers he wanted to talk about. That part of the sentence was cut from the quote. I guess there's a chance he was technically correct if you don't just count people watching in-person or on TV as the Internet-use should have developed a bunch of the last four or eight years because of for example smartphones.

Or with that "pussy-gate" story, it's often treated as talk about sexual assault, but with the full quote you can argue that the whole recording was really about consensual relations, was about gold-diggers basically, not about assaulting women. Arguing this hinges on just two or three words in the whole record, so you can easily quote to mislead if you want to.