Alternative Facts

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You will notice that Obama never spent an instant on something as trivial and inane as attendance.

Trump the 3 year old still cannot LET IT FUCKING GO. The lack of maturity on his part is pathetic.... bickering about attendance a full week after the inauguration.... now that is true class. This is important to him? Why? WHY? WHY?!!!?!?!!!

plus he really didn't feel a need to brag 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump has had his fill of the media who was clearly in cahoots with Clinton.

Are you just trying to fool yourself, or other people? The media broadcast right wing spin formulated from Russian hacking efforts, Comey's bullshit & Trump's astounding bullshit as if it were all God's honest truth.

 

[Jhhnn]

They sure as hell changed their tune when the facts came to light...you're either incredibly dishonest or live under a rock. So, which is it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-give-news-briefing/?utm_term=.1e873f539b6c

Spicer merely obfuscates.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Spicer merely obfuscates.

No...if anyone is obfuscating, it's you. There was no "double down" once the facts became known as you claimed...there was no reassertion of a 1-1.5mm crowd size...that's a bald-faced horseshit lie.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you just trying to fool yourself, or other people? The media broadcast right wing spin formulated from Russian hacking efforts, Comey's bullshit & Trump's astounding bullshit as if it were all God's honest truth.

Coverage of events outside their control means nothing. Did you not read the Wikileaks emails showing her collusion with the media or hear about the media leaks of at least 3 debate questions to her? Did you not know that Mark Leibovich (NYT) was giving Clinton's staff veto power over what he wrote about her. The MSM was shown to be profoundly biased during this election and your denial is ridiculous beyond measure.

 

[IronWing]

IronWing is clearly not abandoning his claim and is now doubling down (64% is essentially the same as 2/3)...so is he now lying per the standard you previously set, or is he somehow still just merely mistaken?

BTW, still waiting for your response to #107.

Your "analysis" is highly dubious. Polifact says 28%. I linked their analysis...did you not read it?

The politifact analysis contains the same breakdown of the ARRA law provided by wiki as I linked above. Continuing the Bush tax cuts was a stimulus measure also authorized by the same Congress and if we are going to discuss federal stimulus it is, IMHO, important to look at the entire stimulus package.

 

[fskimospy]

Coverage of events outside their control means nothing. Did you not read the Wikileaks emails showing her collusion with the media or hear about the media leaks of at least 3 debate questions for her?

The debate questions that were 'leaked' were between her and Sanders, not her and Trump. Are you trying to claim the media was biased AGAINST the left?

Did you not know that Mark Leibovich (NYT) was giving Clinton's staff veto power over what he wrote about her. The MSM was shown to be profoundly biased during this election and your denial is ridiculous.

This is called seeking input and happens with access journalists on a constant basis for both parties. The fact that you would think that was indicative of bias is just showing how biased you are.

Anyone who can look at how the media covered Clinton during this election with wall to wall email server reporting, and faux scandal mongering at the Clinton Foundation, etc, which frequently got more reporting than ACTUAL scandals at the Trump Foundation, Trump University, etc, and conclude that the media was biased in her favor... well... just wow.

Now we're in an alternative facts world.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The debate questions that were 'leaked' were between her and Sanders, not her and Trump. Are you trying to claim the media was biased AGAINST the left?

Speaking of alternative facts, I didn't say the debate questions were leaked to her for the Trump debates...although it wouldn't surprise me one iota if some were indeed leaked and we just never found out about it. Quite an unusual relationship she has going with MSM wouldn't you say? But hey, I get it that you could care care less...after all, it was for a noble cause.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The politifact analysis contains the same breakdown of the ARRA law provided by wiki as I linked above. Continuing the Bush tax cuts was a stimulus measure also authorized by the same Congress and if we are going to discuss federal stimulus it is, IMHO, important to look at the entire stimulus package.

Read the end of the Politifact fact check I cited ffs. I'm not going to spend any more time with your nonsense.

 

[IronWing]

I'm not going to spend any more time with your nonsense.

I accept your apology.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I accept your apology.

Dude, you seem to love alternative facts. Reality is calling and it says that your 64% number is complete horseshit (the number is the 36% with the AMT extension considered as a tax cut and 28% without such consideration). You're wrong, deal with it ffs.

Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/

Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus "tax cuts" is a stretch.

Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:

"AMT is something those people never expect to pay," he said. "It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money."

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because "the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand."

So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.

So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True.​

 

[IronWing]

Dude, you seem to love alternate facts. Reality says you're wrong and your 64% number is horseshit...deal with it ffs.

I explained my analysis, you chose to ignore it. <shrug>

 

[Jhhnn]

No...if anyone is obfuscating, it's you. There was no "double down" once the facts became known as you claimed...there was no reassertion of a 1-1.5mm crowd size...that's a bald-faced horseshit lie.

The facts were known before Spicer even opened his mouth.

 

[Jhhnn]

The debate questions that were 'leaked' were between her and Sanders, not her and Trump. Are you trying to claim the media was biased AGAINST the left?



This is called seeking input and happens with access journalists on a constant basis for both parties. The fact that you would think that was indicative of bias is just showing how biased you are.

Anyone who can look at how the media covered Clinton during this election with wall to wall email server reporting, and faux scandal mongering at the Clinton Foundation, etc, which frequently got more reporting than ACTUAL scandals at the Trump Foundation, Trump University, etc, and conclude that the media was biased in her favor... well... just wow.

Now we're in an alternative facts world.

DSF went post-truth long before the phrase was coined.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The facts were known before Spicer even opened his mouth.

Do you have any proof that the WH was aware of all the relevant facts prior to the press briefing and have proof that they were deliberately lying? Everything I've seen indicates they were misinformed. So...in the very likely event you don't have facts to support your assertion of deliberate lying, please show some semblance of integrity and admit that just you're making up shit as you go along to suit your highly dishonest and extremely partisan narrative.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I explained my analysis, you chose to ignore it. <shrug>

Others simply don't find your analysis to be credible. Sorry.

 

[IronWing]

Others I simply don't find your analysis to be credible. Sorry.

Use the proper pronoun otherwise you take on airs of grandeur you clearly don't possess.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you have any proof that the WH was aware of all the relevant facts prior to the press briefing and have proof that they were deliberately lying? Everything I've seen indicates they were misinformed. So...in the very likely event you don't have facts that support your assertion of deliberate lying, please show some semblance of integrity and admit that just you're making up shit as you go along to suit your dishonest and extremely partisan narrative.

It's the job of the Prez & his staff to know the facts before shooting off their mouths. Everything we've seen indicates that was the situation & none other.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Use the proper pronoun otherwise you take on airs of grandeur you clearly don't possess.

So the Politifact analysis now escapes your acknowledgment as well as your comprehension. Got it. Rock on Garth.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's the job of the Prez & his staff to know the facts before shooting off their mouths. Everything we've seen indicates that was the situation & none other.

100% agree! They screwed up. But that's a far cry from saying they were deliberately lying. Surely you see this.

 

[IronWing]

So the Politifact analysis now escapes your acknowledgment as well as your comprehension. Got it. Rock on Garth.

Could you provide a link to evidence that politifact had reviewed my analysis and found it wanting? Stand on your own judgments; quit pussying out with appeals to imaginary authority.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Could you provide a link to evidence that politifact had reviewed my analysis and found it wanting? Stand on your own judgments; quit pussying out with appeals to imaginary authority.

Politifact is now an imaginary authority? I've personally found them to be generally trustworthy although I do admit I've have taken issue with some of their conclusions a couple times. Perhaps you can identify the flaw in their analysis.

 

[IronWing]

Politifact is now an imaginary authority? I've personally found them to be generally trustworthy although I do admit I've have taken issue with some of their conclusions a couple times. Perhaps you can identify the flaw in their analysis.

Politifact is real enough, but I suspect they have not reviewed my analysis and that you have simply imagined that they have. For some reason, you feel a need to appeal to authority (perhaps even you question your own judgment) and so create a fantasy world where politifact has reviewed my analysis and supports your conclusion. As to flaws in their analysis, I have found none. They decided not to credit the ATM adjustment as a tax cut whereas I (and wiki) did which lowered their tax cut percentage from 37% down to 28%. I also included the extension of the Bush tax cuts as stimulus where they did not. I'm not sure why you've chosen to ignore the explanations I have already provided. I suppose it doesn't fit your narrative and also diverts from the thread topic which is that Trump and his team are pathological liars.

 

[zinfamous]

100% agree! They screwed up. But that's a far cry from saying they were deliberately lying. Surely you see this.

They deliberately showed a photo, as their exhibit A, that was extremely and grossly inaccurately favorable to their argument. Any 8th grade student knows how perspective works. Giotto gave us this magic in the 15th century. This concept has been around.

If their (Trump's) argument was that "it looked like that to me!" then this would probably have blown over (that's how perspective works: of course! it looked YUUUGE to him). ...but they doubled down on calling it media lies and challenging the more valid data and what is actually a really simple tool in molecular biology: counting gigantic populations of things (cells) within a scaled image with defined landmarks. They ignored the actual relevant data and provided something that is so obviously and so deliberately misleading, that it insults even the most middling of intellects.

But still, some people bought it (you did).

And here's the thing: that's not the real fail. The fail is that this is being discussed. We all lose because of this thin-skinned infant that dropped his lolly during recess at day care.

 

[sdifox]

They deliberately showed a photo, as their exhibit A, that was extremely and grossly inaccurately favorable to their argument. Any 8th grade student knows how perspective works. Giotto gave us this magic in the 15th century. This concept has been around.

If their (Trump's) argument was that "it looked like that to me!" then this would probably have blown over (that's how perspective works: of course! it looked YUUUGE to him). ...but they doubled down on calling it media lies and challenging the more valid data and what is actually a really simple tool in molecular biology: counting gigantic populations of things (cells) within a scaled image with defined landmarks. They ignored the actual relevant data and provided something that is so obviously and so deliberately misleading, that it insults even the most middling of intellects.

But still, some people bought it (you did).

And here's the thing: that's not the real fail. The fail is that this is being discussed. We all lose because of this thin-skinned infant that dropped his lolly during recess at day care.

Science and math has no place in the Trump Administration