|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2017 : 22:15:43 [Permalink]
|
And now they're using 'alternative facts'. Holy shit-faced mother of god, can they get any more disgusting?
They seem to think that their thoughts and statements can create reality; if they think it, it will be, if they say it, it's true.
They don't reside in the real world. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2017 : 10:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Of course the Narcissist-in-Chief requires "alternative facts."
As Stephen Colbert pointed out, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2017 : 12:51:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I really thought Trump would lose and all his supporters would complain about it being rigged and we would laugh at them. But the exact opposite has happened and no one is laughing. |
I'm laughing my f****** ass off.
I feel really sorry for my friends living in USA... But the US public has spoken and they got what they deserved. (not what they desperately need)
I read two Swedish psychologists making a heart-felt argument that Donald Trump isn't a narcissistic megalomaniac. Or having other mental pathologies.
But they managed to convince me that Trumps mental development is on par with a 10 year old child.
And judging from his Tweets about media not portraying him in the light he want to be cast; a real cry-baby.
The potential for comedy looks endless. It's time to renew my subscription for The Daily Show. I miss Jon Stewart, but the new guy is promising, I'm told.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2017 : 22:06:24 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ, there are no legitimate claims of rigging of the election, but gerrymandering and influence by the Russians is a fact.
Mr. Mabuse, I recommend John Oliver (I see him with my subscription on hbonow.com), and Real Time with Bill Maher also on HBO (I'm very annoyed with Maher regarding vaccines, though he seems to finally be coming around...maybe, yet it is a funny and entertaining show with guests and panels across the political spectrum).
|
| Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 01/23/2017 22:07:54 |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2017 : 12:04:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
And now they're using 'alternative facts'. Holy shit-faced mother of god, can they get any more disgusting?
They seem to think that their thoughts and statements can create reality; if they think it, it will be, if they say it, it's true.
They don't reside in the real world.
|
It's funny. I have been thinking this same thing for the last 8 years. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2017 : 12:06:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
On fire for Christ, there are no legitimate claims of rigging of the election, but gerrymandering and influence by the Russians is a fact.
Mr. Mabuse, I recommend John Oliver (I see him with my subscription on hbonow.com), and Real Time with Bill Maher also on HBO (I'm very annoyed with Maher regarding vaccines, though he seems to finally be coming around...maybe, yet it is a funny and entertaining show with guests and panels across the political spectrum).
|
How did the Russians influence the election?, How much affect did it have? It seems the DNC did actual tampering when they promoted Clinton over Sanders. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2017 : 14:56:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
It seems the DNC did actual tampering when they promoted Clinton over Sanders. |
No, "influencing" is not "tampering," and there is no right to a primary. The parties can nominate whoever they wish, however they wish. If there are problems with the selection method, that's an internal problem for the party, and nothing like "tampering with the election," or even "influencing" it.
Because Bernie could have made an independent run. Probably would have split the Democrats far worse than Nader did in 2000, and thus handed the election to Trump, which is probably why he didn't.
I still don't get why the Democrats let him into the primary at all. Was it to try to get the real lefties into the party, hoping they'd stay once Bernie got booted? I mean, he said that he knew he had no chance to win the nomination from day one, so he must have gotten something else out of it. A chance to have a hand in crafting the platform, maybe? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2017 : 14:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Originally posted by The Rat
And now they're using 'alternative facts'. Holy shit-faced mother of god, can they get any more disgusting?
They seem to think that their thoughts and statements can create reality; if they think it, it will be, if they say it, it's true.
They don't reside in the real world.
|
It's funny. I have been thinking this same thing for the last 8 years. |
Can you come up with an example as egregious as Spicer's claims about the inaugural crowd and Conway's spinning of Spicer's lies as "alternative facts," but from the left?
If both sides do it, this should be easy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2017 : 10:44:48 [Permalink]
|
Too articulate in comparison to Trump.
|
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2017 : 11:49:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
It seems the DNC did actual tampering when they promoted Clinton over Sanders. |
No, "influencing" is not "tampering," and there is no right to a primary. The parties can nominate whoever they wish, however they wish. If there are problems with the selection method, that's an internal problem for the party, and nothing like "tampering with the election," or even "influencing" it. |
It is a problem when the DNC outwardly acts like both candidates acceptable and that voters will decide on some of the electors, then does stuff like give Clinton debate questions ahead of time but not Sanders. In the end read the bylaws of the DNC and you will see they violated these bylaws by supporting Clinton over Sanders. The RNC hated Trump, but in the end they didn't do anything deceitful (maybe unethical) to try to stop him.
I still don't get why the Democrats let him into the primary at all. Was it to try to get the real lefties into the party, hoping they'd stay once Bernie got booted? I mean, he said that he knew he had no chance to win the nomination from day one, so he must have gotten something else out of it. A chance to have a hand in crafting the platform, maybe?
|
The bylaws state that the DNC is there to help any candidate that wants to be a democrat and support the democrat party. |
|
|
|
Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend
99 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2017 : 12:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Many of the Obama administration blamed the Benghazi attacks on the youtube video. Which was later sown to be false, it was a pre-planned attack and they new it at the time.
"We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,” H. Clinton
"What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful, very offensive video that has offended many people around the world,” Susan Rice
"We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack,” Jay Carney
LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?
OBAMA: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam --
LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2017 : 14:20:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
It is a problem when the DNC outwardly acts like both candidates acceptable and that voters will decide on some of the electors, then does stuff like give Clinton debate questions ahead of time but not Sanders. In the end read the bylaws of the DNC and you will see they violated these bylaws by supporting Clinton over Sanders. |
I know the DNC is corrupt. But no matter how corrupt their selection process is for picking their party's candidate, it doesn't amount to "influencing" or "tampering with" the election. All of the people who wanted to be the Democratic nominee were still free to run for President.
Don't forget that the primaries were not "the election."
| The RNC hated Trump, but in the end they didn't do anything deceitful (maybe unethical) to try to stop him. |
But that doesn't matter. They picked a candidate through some method, just like the DNC did. A private political party picking a person to support for a run for elected office is not "influencing" or "tampering with" the election, no matter how deceitful (or not) or ethical (or not) or corrupt (or not) the method of selection. If it were otherwise, then any party picking any single person to run for President would be "influencing" or "tampering with" the election.
| The bylaws state that the DNC is there to help any candidate that wants to be a democrat and support the democrat party. |
And as soon as the national convention was over, Bernie switched party affiliation back to "independent." That's not supporting the Democratic Party. Anyone with any sense could have seen that that's what was going to happen, so the DNC must have had some other reason for allowing Bernie to run. My previous hypothesis still seems the best to me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2017 : 14:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist
Many of the Obama administration blamed the Benghazi attacks on the youtube video. Which was later sown to be false, it was a pre-planned attack and they new it at the time. |
Seriously? There were protests (some quite violent) all over the world because of that video. The idea that the Benghazi attack began because of that video was at least plausible at the time. It took effort for the press to get to the truth.
No effort was required for Sean Spicer's remarks, however. Anyone who was paying attention knew he was lying the moment the words left his mouth:We do know a few things, so let's go through the facts. We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office... This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe. The bold parts above are what Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway characterized as "alternative facts." Anyone who watched the live feed knew that when Trump was sworn in, those areas weren't close to full. The areas closest to the Monument were nearly empty.
And then, less than 16 hours later, Conway threw Spicer even further under the bus he dived under by stating that (when she said it) Trump's audience size could neither be proved nor quantified. Therefore, less than 46 hours after his inauguration, we knew that either Trump's Counselor or his Press Secretary must have been lying. They couldn't have both been right.
And what I elided was an obvious apples-to-oranges comparison:We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama's last inaugural. Because first inaugurals are always comparable to second inaugurals.  Obama's first inaugural had 513,000 riders by 11 AM. Trump had 193,000 by the same time of day. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
President Trump
