Is alternative facts the new buzzword on the left or something?

---

Is alternative facts the new buzzword on the left or something?

Were you asleep for all of 2017?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It hasn't been common in my world. I've seen it like 5 times in the last few days in these threads. It definitely comes across as self-righteous buzzword.

---

It hasn't been common in my world. I've seen it like 5 times in the last few days in these threads. It definitely comes across as self-righteous buzzword.

The term was coined by (and used quite a bit by) Kellyanne Conway when defending statements by Trump and his staff that had been proven to be false.

Not a self-righteous buzzword, but merely one historical facet of Drumpf's ongoing attack on truth and journalistic integrity.

---

It hasn't been common in my world. I've seen it like 5 times in the last few days in these threads. It definitely comes across as self-righteous buzzword.

The term was coined by (and used quite a bit by) Kellyanne Conway when defending statements by Trump and his staff that had been proven to be false.

Not a self-righteous buzzword, but merely one historical facet of Drumpf's ongoing attack on truth and journalistic integrity.

Right.  From my perspective, Trump's press team needed to come out on the offensive, and they did.  But they picked the wrong issue.  They picked a fight about crowd size, which is easily mathematically provable in multiple ways.  They could have picked a fight about tone, or emotions, or priorities, or any number of fights they could have won or at least fought to a draw.  But they picked crowd size.  

That they thought crowdsourced summation could become a topic of debate was definitely a sign of coming attractions, though.  They went out the same way they went in.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ah, I think I remember that now. I knew I was picking up condescension, but I assumed it was a term invented by the left. Makes sense in that light, but it's been used a lot these last few days, so it kind of feels like a buzzword. Regardless of its origin, facts are only useful within context. Omission of facts is the same as lying. The problem I have with most of my lefty friends is that their media group is SO good at leaving out facts. However, unlike the right (who has the same problem), the left has a stranglehold on frequency illusion due to their diverse capture of media. The right has one or two large stations that repeat propaganda over and over, but the left, you see the same propaganda from many different sources, leading people to believe there is a much bigger consensus than there really is.

I am 100% certain I could find a conservative takedown of Ted Lieu's speech. Don't care to, but I'm certain of it. Even if all of the "facts" were correct in said takedown, it wouldn't take away anyone's sense of feeling that their side is correct because they can find more examples of it. I'd be tempted to look at his "facts" more closely to break it down, but it seems exhausting to do for something I don't care about.

---

Ah, I think I remember that now. I knew I was picking up condescension, but I assumed it was a term invented by the left. Makes sense in that light, but it's been used a lot these last few days, so it kind of feels like a buzzword. Regardless of its origin, facts are only useful within context. Omission of facts is the same as lying. The problem I have with most of my lefty friends is that their media group is SO good at leaving out facts. However, unlike the right (who has the same problem), the left has a stranglehold on frequency illusion due to their diverse capture of media. The right has one or two large stations that repeat propaganda over and over, but the left, you see the same propaganda from many different sources, leading people to believe there is a much bigger consensus than there really is.

I am 100% certain I could find a conservative takedown of Ted Lieu's speech. Don't care to, but I'm certain of it. Even if all of the "facts" were correct in said takedown, it wouldn't take away anyone's sense of feeling that their side is correct because they can find more examples of it. I'd be tempted to look at his "facts" more closely to break it down, but it seems exhausting to do for something I don't care about.

The people Lieu listed were a mixed bag.  Some of them, like Cohen and Stone, were convicted of hiding Trump's activities from investigators.  They perhaps hadn't done anything wrong until they started working for Trump.
Others, like Manafort, pretty clearly were already criminals before Trump came around, and they inserted themselves into Trump's orbit to get favors.

None of it really proves that Trump did anything illegal, but the large number of examples proves that Trump is a very poor manager of people, and a very poor judge of character.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

None of it really proves that Trump did anything illegal, but the large number of examples proves that Trump is a very poor manager of people, and a very poor judge of character.

It proves that politics attracts poor characters who are looking to get power and money. If the feds treated other administrations like they treated Trump, you would see the same or more criminals. You have the president and his family making millions off his position and yet nothing has been done about it.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Ah, I think I remember that now. I knew I was picking up condescension, but I assumed it was a term invented by the left. Makes sense in that light, but it's been used a lot these last few days, so it kind of feels like a buzzword. Regardless of its origin, facts are only useful within context. Omission of facts is the same as lying. The problem I have with most of my lefty friends is that their media group is SO good at leaving out facts. However, unlike the right (who has the same problem), the left has a stranglehold on frequency illusion due to their diverse capture of media. The right has one or two large stations that repeat propaganda over and over, but the left, you see the same propaganda from many different sources, leading people to believe there is a much bigger consensus than there really is.

I am 100% certain I could find a conservative takedown of Ted Lieu's speech. Don't care to, but I'm certain of it. Even if all of the "facts" were correct in said takedown, it wouldn't take away anyone's sense of feeling that their side is correct because they can find more examples of it. I'd be tempted to look at his "facts" more closely to break it down, but it seems exhausting to do for something I don't care about.

The people Lieu listed were a mixed bag.  Some of them, like Cohen and Stone, were convicted of hiding Trump's activities from investigators.  They perhaps hadn't done anything wrong until they started working for Trump.
Others, like Manafort, pretty clearly were already criminals before Trump came around, and they inserted themselves into Trump's orbit to get favors.

None of it really proves that Trump did anything illegal, but the large number of examples proves that Trump is a very poor manager of people, and a very poor judge of character.

Add to that the mile-long list of people Trump hired for top positions, what he said about them when he hired them, and what he said about them when they left, which was the complete opposite of what he said about them when he hired them, and that just reinforces the fact that he is incompetent.  Because according to him, he hired a steady string of stupid and incompetent people.

---

The people Lieu listed were a mixed bag.  Some of them, like Cohen and Stone, were convicted of hiding Trump's activities from investigators.  They perhaps hadn't done anything wrong until they started working for Trump.
Others, like Manafort, pretty clearly were already criminals before Trump came around, and they inserted themselves into Trump's orbit to get favors.

None of it really proves that Trump did anything illegal, but the large number of examples proves that Trump is a very poor manager of people, and a very poor judge of character.

Add to that the mile-long list of people Trump hired for top positions, what he said about them when he hired them, and what he said about them when they left, which was the complete opposite of what he said about them when he hired them, and that just reinforces the fact that he is incompetent.  Because according to him, he hired a steady string of stupid and incompetent people.

Sure, but that's Trump's narcissism (not excusing it). He's going to do that with anyone. I think Trump should be accountable for his bad hires. That said, p_rushing has a valid point. Who do you hire? How do you show judicious discrimination in a world were narcissism and Machiavellianism and sociopathy are primary attributes? I don't think I could do it, especially not round 1. I would have to find out the hard way.

---

None of it really proves that Trump did anything illegal, but the large number of examples proves that Trump is a very poor manager of people, and a very poor judge of character.

It proves that politics attracts poor characters who are looking to get power and money. If the feds treated other administrations like they treated Trump, you would see the same or more criminals. You have the president and his family making millions off his position and yet nothing has been done about it.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I'm not saying you should feel good about Hunter Biden getting tapped for corporate board positions when he is totally unqualified.  Or Chelsea Clinton getting a c-suite job at a hedge fund right out of college. I get angry about that and so should you. 
However
If I was Hunter Biden, and I was offered that job, would I say no?
And if we really think it's wrong, should we try to make it illegal? Is that the society we want, where the kids and family of politicians have to live like monks basically?
We know Hunter Biden broke the law, but the crime doesn't seem to be related to any political decision his father made. Chelsea, we don't know what she does for that hedge fund, but as far as I know, Chelsea and the hedge fund have never been accused of anything illegal.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It proves that politics attracts poor characters who are looking to get power and money. If the feds treated other administrations like they treated Trump, you would see the same or more criminals. You have the president and his family making millions off his position and yet nothing has been done about it.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I'm not saying you should feel good about Hunter Biden getting tapped for corporate board positions when he is totally unqualified.  Or Chelsea Clinton getting a c-suite job at a hedge fund right out of college. I get angry about that and so should you. 
However
If I was Hunter Biden, and I was offered that job, would I say no?
And if we really think it's wrong, should we try to make it illegal? Is that the society we want, where the kids and family of politicians have to live like monks basically?

But these aren’t real jobs. They’re overt attempts at buying political influence. Do you honestly believe Hunter Biden arose early every day to don a suit and work at the office?

---

I'm not saying you should feel good about Hunter Biden getting tapped for corporate board positions when he is totally unqualified.  Or Chelsea Clinton getting a c-suite job at a hedge fund right out of college. I get angry about that and so should you. 
However
If I was Hunter Biden, and I was offered that job, would I say no?
And if we really think it's wrong, should we try to make it illegal? Is that the society we want, where the kids and family of politicians have to live like monks basically?

But these aren’t real jobs. They’re overt attempts at buying political influence. Do you honestly believe Hunter Biden arose early every day to don a suit and work at the office?

Of course I don't believe that.   I'm sure there were some formalities like some reports he had to file, some meetings he had to attend, but nothing that anyone with an MBA and 10 hours of free time a month couldn't have done for him.

But should it be illegal for a politician's son to accept such a role?

Suppose Joe Biden was serious about avoiding any appearance of corruption.   He's not, but suppose he was.  He would tell his son, "hey, you can't take that job." And his son would say, "I'm a grown man, and I can." Now what? Is it Joe's fault? Does he now have to publicly disown his son?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In any case, if "their families all seem to become millionaires" is really the type of thing you mean when you talk about "the swamp" and "draining the swamp", how can Trump be anyone's hero for that?

Before Trump became President, his son in law had a semi legit real estate deal going with Qatari investors. While Trump was President, the cost estimates for the redevelopment went up and they parted ways. You win some, you lose some, apparently being the President's son in law doesn always help. But now, Kushner finds himself managing $2 billion in Saudi sovereign fund assets. To use one of Dan Savage's favorite phrases, "how'd that happen?"

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In any case, if "their families all seem to become millionaires" is really the type of thing you mean when you talk about "the swamp" and "draining the swamp", how can Trump be anyone's hero for that?

Before Trump became President, his son in law had a semi legit real estate deal going with Qatari investors.  While Trump was President, the cost estimates for the redevelopment went up and they parted ways.  You win some, you lose some, apparently being the President's son in law doesn always help.  But now, Kushner finds himself managing $2 billion in Saudi sovereign fund assets.  To use one of Dan Savage's favorite phrases, "how'd that happen?"

And that was after the people who advise the Saudi sovereign wealth fund told the Saudis that Jared Kushner has no particular expertise in managing funds of that sort.  But they handed him the money anyway.

---

I sure am glad none of my political views are leading me down a path of trying to diminish the integrity of "truth" and "facts" like so many on the right these days. It must be exhausting trying to spin that [BLEEP].

Instead I merely have to eschew baseless conspiracy theories, lies, and propaganda. Which are currently ever-present and easy to dismiss with well, you know, facts.

We could go on for days listing all the despicable things Trump has done over the past ten years, but I think the most deplorable thing of them all was that he campaigned so hard to convince 10's of millions of conservative voters that facts and truth don't matter and they could simply adopt "alternate facts" which he had by the boatload, ready to serve up.

Ah, I think I remember that now. I knew I was picking up condescension, but I assumed it was a term invented by the left. Makes sense in that light, but it's been used a lot these last few days, so it kind of feels like a buzzword. Regardless of its origin, facts are only useful within context. Omission of facts is the same as lying. The problem I have with most of my lefty friends is that their media group is SO good at leaving out facts. However, unlike the right (who has the same problem), the left has a stranglehold on frequency illusion due to their diverse capture of media. The right has one or two large stations that repeat propaganda over and over, but the left, you see the same propaganda from many different sources, leading people to believe there is a much bigger consensus than there really is.

I am 100% certain I could find a conservative takedown of Ted Lieu's speech. Don't care to, but I'm certain of it. Even if all of the "facts" were correct in said takedown, it wouldn't take away anyone's sense of feeling that their side is correct because they can find more examples of it. I'd be tempted to look at his "facts" more closely to break it down, but it seems exhausting to do for something I don't care about.

---

You should have. All of politics is exhausting right now, especially if you want to know the truth of anything. I would have to spend time learning about stuff I don't care about. That's textbook exhausting.

I can almost guarantee there's more to the story than what was presented by Ted Lieu. But I just don't care to break it down. It's rare that a politician tries to be unbiased and present information in an open and contextual way.

---

You should have. All of politics is exhausting right now, especially if you want to know the truth of anything. I would have to spend time learning about stuff I don't care about. That's textbook exhausting.

I can almost guarantee there's more to the story than what was presented by Ted Lieu. But I just don't care to break it down. It's rare that a politician tries to be unbiased and present information in an open and contextual way.

There are only two ways that Lieu's list might be deceptive.  One is if many folks in the orbit of prominent Democrats have been convicted of similar crimes recently, and the media chose not to cover those stories.
Two is that investigation and prosecution in this country, whether led by democrats or by Republicans, is choosing to ignore elite crimes by everyone except for people in Trump's orbit.
I don't think anyone believes the first possibility.
Many believe the second, because that's the one Trump and his followers sell us, but it's pretty obviously a joke if you think about it for more than 2 minutes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sure thing, pal. Just like they can't figure out who owns the coke. Epstein didn't kill himself.

---

Sure thing, pal. Just like they can't figure out who owns the coke. Epstein didn't kill himself.

I guess "they" are getting sloppy. 
I can meet you at the Jax Beach Margaritaville, if you rent the bulldozers.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.