The literal definition of fake news propaganda

[hollodero]

(01-10-2019, 09:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Keep it up...  Trump may just win 2020 by an even bigger landslide.

Do people really care that much about deeds like that? From a singular guy in a local news station? Symptomatic for what exactly?

Also. More or less every other night Sean Hannity can talk all kinds of deep space conspiracies, how the FBI is deeply corrupted, all in bed with evil Hillary, who is occasionally accused of being a killer and whatnot. Spiteful commentary, disguised as news. And after Hannity the next one, hour for hour.
Why does the outrage about that not give the left a "landslide"?

...sometimes portions of conservatives seem so easily enraged and offended and triggered. Usually those who project the loudest. Shouting liberal crybabies and then feeling deeply offended by just about anything that comes in handy.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm of course not referring to you, and your assumption might even be correct. But that still seems pathetic, somehow.

[fredtoast]

There have been multiple cases of videos being edited to change the actual content of what a speaker said. While what happened in this case was improper it is not the "literal definition of fake news propaganda". It did not effect anything he said or change the context or meaning of any part of his speech.

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2019, 06:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: Why does the outrage about that not give the left a "landslide"?

It is insane.  Trump just flat out lied about his campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall and not a single Trump supporter cares.

Instead they think voters will be swayed by a doctored video of Trump licking his lips.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-11-2019, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is insane.  Trump just flat out lied about his campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall and not a single Trump supporter cares.

This statement is silly.  No one with an IQ approaching room temperature thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall (I'm sure you won't be able to resist the obvious retort here).  There are numerous other ways to get the money.  Regardless, not being able to get Mexico to directly pay would not be a "flat out lie".  In any event, I think the main point for them was getting the wall built.

Quote:Instead they think voters will be swayed by a doctored video of Trump licking his lips.

So it doesn't concern you that a news outlet is deliberately doctoring footage of the POTUS for political purposes?  That's disconcerting to say the least.

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is silly.  No one with an IQ approaching room temperature thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall (I'm sure you won't be able to resist the obvious retort here).  There are numerous other ways to get the money.  Regardless, not being able to get Mexico to directly pay would not be a "flat out lie".  In any event, I think the main point for them was getting the wall built.

He straight up said they would pay for it directly. It is a lie.

[GMDino]

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is silly.  No one with an IQ approaching room temperature thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall (I'm sure you won't be able to resist the obvious retort here).  There are numerous other ways to get the money.  Regardless, not being able to get Mexico to directly pay would not be a "flat out lie".  In any event, I think the main point for them was getting the wall built.

We posted this in another thread about the wall (there are alot of them) but he did indeed suggest they should pay directly:

(01-10-2019, 10:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-claims-mexico-pay-wall-check/story?id=60290146

Trump claimed today that he never said Mexico would pay us for the wall by "writing a check" and instead it would be paid for by savings on trade deals. His campaign literally called for Mexico to pay the US a one time $5-10b payment for the wall.

From the article:

Quote:In a two-page memo posted on its website , the Trump campaign outlined how he and his administration would compel Mexico to pay for the wall: rewrite financial laws so that "no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States," preventing Mexico from collecting approximately $24 billion in remittances, or ask Mexico to make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion for the wall.

So he did suggest it. Whether his supporters and those who feel that have to defend him all understood the other two options remains a question.

His denial of ever suggesting it is a lie.

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is silly.  No one with an IQ approaching room temperature thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall

But that is exactly what he said.  A "one time $5 to $10 Billion payment" are his exact words.  Now he is lying and claiming he never said that.

And his followers are blindly buying that lie while claiming a video that did not change a single word or context of his speech is "fake news propaganda".

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So it doesn't concern you that a news outlet is deliberately doctoring footage of the POTUS for political purposes?  That's disconcerting to say the least.

Yes it does concern me.  I already said it was improper.

(01-11-2019, 12:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: While what happened in this case was improper it is not the "literal definition of fake news propaganda". 

I just don't see how the right can claim such a minor indiscretion will lead to a landslide victory for a man who lies about everything.

Why the hell should voters be more concerned about a video of the president licking his lips more that the President telling flat out lies? 

[hollodero]

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is silly.  No one with an IQ approaching room temperature thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall (I'm sure you won't be able to resist the obvious retort here).

He could. I can't. Because indeed, many folks on these Trump rallies don't fulfil that requirement. And when they shouted Mexico will pay for the wall enthusiastically and repeatedly, they didn't think about some indirect way via "better trade deals" and such. Remittance fees (that was a Trump plan back then) was too high a concept for most.

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Regardless, not being able to get Mexico to directly pay would not be a "flat out lie".

I don't know, that's a Trump friendly perspective, but fair enough. Trump does flat out lie all the time though. About things small and big. At some point, the assertion that Trump is lieing permanently can no longer be seen as partisan or offensive or a smear.

(01-11-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So it doesn't concern you that a news outlet is deliberately doctoring footage of the POTUS for political purposes?  That's disconcerting to say the least.

A display of fake disconcern? The rhetorical tricks were less cheap once. It's not about endorsing that silly action, not at all. But about putting it in perspective.

[*bfine32*]

I have never seen such insolence over a campaign promise that a candidate was unable to keep.

Is it possible to lie about something that has not yet happened? Or is it simply unable to fulfill a promise.

I know saying he "lied" makes it look worse, but surely we're better than that around here..........aren't we?

[hollodero]

(01-11-2019, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never seen such insolence over a campaign promise that a candidate was unable to keep.

Really?
Even I know that Bush sr. raised taxes after saying he won't. I have heard Obama's "can keep your doctor" about a thousand times now. But in the case of Trump, it's not so much insolence over a broken promise. It's sheer bewilderment how Trump voters still back up his shutting down government over a wall that was supposed to be paid a different way.

(01-11-2019, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it possible to lie about something that has not yet happened? Or is it simply unable to fulfill a promise.

Maybe it wasn't so much a lie as it was a stupid hyperbole or a primitive slogan. OK. But Trump lies about everything, so benefit of alternative perspectives doesn't come into play any more. He even lies about conversations with leaders telling him to rake the forests or how former presidents told him not building a wall was a big mistake on their part and whatnot. He lies about everything, so.

(01-11-2019, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know saying he "lied" makes it look worse, but surely we're better than that around here..........aren't we?

No, I'm not. He is a liar, a repeated liar, a pathological liar and I don't feel I'm going out on a limb with that statement.

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2019, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never seen such insolence over a campaign promise that a candidate was unable to keep.

Is it possible to lie about something that has not yet happened? Or is it simply unable to fulfill a promise.

I know saying he "lied" makes it look worse, but surely we're better than that around here..........aren't we?

Is it a lie if he says "obviously I never said that" when he did say that?

[GMDino]

If Mexico is now going to pay for the wall due to the new trade bill...why is Trump still asking for the money?  Just wait until the billions and billions start coming in and build the wall.

Or do what he does/did in his private business and build it on credit and then promise to pay it back when the money starts flowing in for the "better" deal he made with Mexico and Canada.  (Sidenote: Will Canadian money ALSO be paying for the wall or will they keep that in a separate account?)

Also, DJT said "the wall will pay for itself" so even more reason to simply open the government and start building and pay later.

[*bfine32*]

(01-11-2019, 05:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it a lie if he says "obviously I never said that" when he did say that?

Yep that's a lie, because it's about something that already happened.

Now please extend me the courtesy of answering my question; as I did yours.

[*bfine32*]

(01-11-2019, 05:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. Really?
Even I know that Bush sr. raised taxes after saying he won't. I have heard Obama's "can keep your doctor" about a thousand times now. But in the case of Trump, it's not so much insolence over a broken promise. It's sheer bewilderment how Trump voters still back up his shutting down government over a wall that was supposed to be paid a different way.



2. Maybe it wasn't so much a lie as it was a stupid hyperbole or a primitive slogan. OK. But Trump lies about everything, so benefit of alternative perspectives doesn't come into play any more. He even lies about conversations with leaders telling him to rake the forests or how former presidents told him not building a wall was a big mistake on their part and whatnot. He lies about everything, so.



3. No, I'm not. He is a liar, a repeated liar, a pathological liar and I don't feel I'm going out on a limb with that statement.

1. Exactly and I consider them all to be campaign promises that could not be fulfilled. I just do not remember the same level of insolence and "he lied to you, how can you still support him rube?".

2. Sure he lies; however, even he cannot lie about the future. He can be wrong.

3. Nah, you'd just be going out on a limb to call this unfilled (to date) campaign promise a lie.

[hollodero]

(01-11-2019, 06:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Nah, you'd just be going out on a limb to call this unfilled (to date) campaign promise a lie.

Sure, that is my take. Mexico will pay for it was a lie to me. Now one could also say it's not that, merely a risky announcement, he meant to hold it, it didn't work, he's not at fault etc. - these would be the most Trump friendliest takes.
I always find it odd though (in this and in 1.000 other instances) how not-Trump supporters are supposed to choose the least nefarious possibility, no matter how likely, and base their assertion on that. I admittedly won't. When someone lies that often and that casually, demonstrably and obviously, I don't give him any benefit of the doubt, I call him a liar that says untruths all the time.

In that sense, sure it isn't about the wall alone. It's a symptom. Of Trump saying whatever works with a crowd without any regard of truth or feasibility. And that might also be why the "insolence" is so particularly high with things like these. Because it's so typical. (I wouldn't call it insolence though, but as I said, genuine bewilderment on how said crowd can still be so unequivocally behind him.)

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2019, 06:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep that's a lie, because it's about something that already happened.

Now please extend me the courtesy of answering my question; as I did yours.

Asking if we're better than that around here? The answer is no.

In all seriousness, I just think he's a dumbass for saying Mexico will pay for it. I think his lie is that he is trying to backpedal and say he never said that. I think some broken promises can be lies, but he was just ignorant about how these things work and thinks more of himself that he ought to, so I don't see this broken promise as a lie.

[6andcounting]

Why is everyone freaking out on here about a little variation?

I often said during rallies, with little variation, that “Mexico will pay for the Wall.” We have just signed a great new Trade Deal with Mexico. It is Billions of Dollars a year better than the very bad NAFTA deal which it replaces. The difference pays for Wall many times over!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2019

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2019, 08:18 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Why is everyone freaking out on here about a little variation?

I often said during rallies, with little variation, that “Mexico will pay for the Wall.” We have just signed a great new Trade Deal with Mexico. It is Billions of Dollars a year better than the very bad NAFTA deal which it replaces. The difference pays for Wall many times over!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2019

Yeah, that was already debunked a month ago. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/is-mexico-paying-for-the-wall-through-usmca/

[*bfine32*]

(01-11-2019, 08:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, that was already debunked a month ago. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/12/is-mexico-paying-for-the-wall-through-usmca/

It's nuanced. 

Where have I heard that before?