Steve Bannon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 05:23 PM)samhain Wrote: You don't think the repeated efforts to push a theory about 3-4 million illegal votes is false propaganda?  Or Conway calling their own information "alternative facts"?  

I'd say anyone who watched Stephen Miller's interview yesterday would have a tough time arguing that this isn't an administration with authoritarian designs.  Fortunately they are failing in a major way at demonstrating the authority that they think they posess.

No, because it is true that Illegals voted, the exact number is what is debatable.

Alternative Facts? So it's ok for the Media to use "Alternative Facts" by showing pics of Trumps inauguration that were false? Was it the size of Obama's? probably not, however it was ranked 5th most watched on TV by Nielson (30.8 Mil), this does not include the people that used their phones and watched live as well. There were many live stream options that were available for Trump that were not available for Obama. So it could very well have been the most watched. Twitter Livestream (6.8 Mil). Reagan holds the record at 41.8 mil viewership. So it's not really a stretch to say most viewed. I watched it on my phone as well and I didn't use Twitter.

(02-13-2017, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you might be missing from the comparisons that people understanding of the topic are doing is that you are thinking of the end result and comparing what you see in authoritarian regimes with what we see now. What most of the serious and legitimate critiques have been arguing is that the language used, the propaganda, the interactions with the media, the "alternative facts", these things are reminiscent of the early days of authoritarian regimes. What we see from Trump and his administration are behaviors that are exhibited by authoritarian regimes when they gain power.

This is the difference between opinions about the administration and what we can point to using evidence. If you see someone say that Trump and his ilk are fascists or they are authoritarians, that is an opinion. But when someone says that if you compare the behaviors of this administration to administrations that were gaining power to become authoritarian regimes you can see come commonalities and that is concerning, that is something different and instead of it being dismissed because there was a trigger word that caused you to just feel your beliefs are being attacked (something that actually happens when discussing these sorts of things, phrasing matters), it would be good to set down the MAGA glasses and read it with an attempt at objectivity. Not saying it will change your mind, or even that it should, just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to help your understanding.

(See above explanation).

Since you want to throw terms around, how about this one: Godwin's Law.

Calling/comparing Trump to whatever despicable human leader/government style you dislike, is nothing more than another way of saying "I don't like him".

Attacking his policies is different, that we can discuss. But once idiots revert to using Godwin's law, there is no point in discussing it further with them.