BS: The Alternative Facts Thread

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:00 AM

The real fact is that the whole world is under attack from Islamic Fundamentalist terror....It is a situation that we have never faced before, these people are mad they actually want to die...to be a   martyr...they despise anyone who is not of their religion...they commit the most cruel and vile acts. We must be aware and be prepared, for the worst is yet to come, before long we will be facing biological and chemical warfare perpetrated by a handful of lunatics.
How long do you think it would be before Western economies crumble if three or four people infected with some deadly infectious disease were set loose in London or New York......How many such teams could the caliphate muster?

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:19 AM

They say he referred to a documentary about Sweden's problems with immigrants.

Who exactly are "They"?? Whoever they are, they're WRONG - he excused his lie by refering to a fake news story that was on Fox "News"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

Norway of course has had a much, much more serious terrorist attack recently than any in Sweden. One that mysteriously did not make it onto Trump's list.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

Sory, should have included Ake in that last comment as he has just produced a link to terrorism in Sweden, as if it has something to do with Trump's false claim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:00 AM

They say he referred to a documentary about Sweden's problems with immigrants."
Nope
He said he was referring to criminal activity bu carefully placed it between two examples of terrorism
His supporters have subsequent;y claimed there has been a cover up by the Swedish authorities
He is a racist liar, as are the supporters who back him up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:42 AM

How do Trump's people explain what he said?

They say he referred to a documentary about Sweden's problems with immigrants.
There was such a documentary shown that night.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

Completely irrelevant to the matter in hand. If you have a point to make in defence of Trump's Sweden gaffe let's be having it. Links with no supporting comments are a waste of time and that one is particularly irritating.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:18 AM

terrorism in sweden

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: gillymor
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:20 AM

Make America Sick Again (a WaPo article)
Is there any discredited, crackpot theory this nincompoop won't buy into. I suppose we should have expected this from the guy who kick started his political career as prime mover behind the "Birther" movement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:07 AM

😂 Haha!

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:25 PM

Yeah, ya seen one foreign country, ya seen 'em all. Kinda like trees - ain't that right, Gipper?

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:22 PM

Sweden? Pakistan?

What's the difference, they're both foreign. This is just typical nitpicking.

I can see him getting Iran and Ireland mixed up before he's done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:33 AM

"Now Trump supporters are saying there's a huge media cover-up in Sweden. "
Yeah - 'course it has
And nobody tweets there, do they!!
This man is sick, sick, sick - and the silence from his supporters is just as sick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:18 AM

Now Trump supporters are saying there's a huge media cover-up in Sweden. The swallow Trump's line on the media hook, line and sinker and now simply invent a world to be outraged by and which enables their hate even more.

Shine on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Fossil
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 11:04 PM

"Last night in Sweden" now seems to be related to a discussion SCROTUS had seen on Fox News (where else?) in which a journalist Ami Horowitz, who had visited Sweden, claimed a link between rising crime and refugee admissions. But not related to any specific incident.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

Well, if you are DT, you could!

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Fossil
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:46 PM

Last night? Months ago? All same in Trump's mind. Have heard the Pakistan theory as well and it makes about as much sense! Time, space, distance, countries, all meaning-free. In the world of alt. reality, anything is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:39 PM

Sorry, fossil, but he specifically referred to 'last night in Sweden'. That can't be an attack several months ago. Then on the news tonight the case was being proposed that it referred to a general increase in crime level. That doesn't fit with "last night" either. The theory that he mixed up an attack in Pakistan seems most plausible but that would require admitting to making a mistake. It seems unlikely we will hear that from the White House. I'd put higher odds on a claim that the footage of him saying it is fabricated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Fossil
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 05:24 PM

The terrorist attack in Sweden was not exactly "non-existent". What it has turned out to be, in fact was a right-wing neo-Nazi attack by some skinheads - who have all now been arrested - on an immigrant centre. In referring to this one incident which happened several months ago, SCROTUS hasn't really made his case against immigration, except indirectly that the presence of immigrant centres tends to provoke backlashes from insecure white male idiots. Sweden remains unmoved otherwise and some economists are crediting the immigrant intake with the excellent economic results achieved by the country in recent weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

Trump fires up the crowd by lying to them in Florida, this time about a non-existent terrorist attack in Sweden.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

"how can you defend the activities of the US security services after a lifetime of speaking against them?"
I'm not defending them, I am praising their actions here in relation to Trump, where you are choosing to use one of the few good things that have done to defend a dangerous monster.
How about explaining the unconstitutional and illegal actions of 'The Man Who Would Be King' instead?
Trump's actions are ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the court so, like the 'Angry Bird' that he is, he vents his tweeting fury on the "so-called" judges.
Is that your take on democracy?
Trump's team enlists the aid of an extremely aggressive foreign power which is engaged in a bloody, genocidal war, to win the Presidency
Is that your take on democracy?
Are we likely to see you using the term "democracy" as you do "liberal" to denigrate progressive people and ideas?
It's the logical path you are on to openly declaring your right-wing extremism.
I don't expect an honest response to any of these, but as I've said in the past - your silence speaks volumes.
Now - let's hear it for whistle-blowers who tell us what we have a right to know
Gawd bless 'em, every one, as Tom Cratchit was heard to remark!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 11:28 AM

Ake, like Trump, does it hurt your little feelings that whistle blowers are outing crimes so early in his administration? Good.

As federal employees they swore allegiance to The CONSTITUTION, not to the president. That gives them the moral high ground when it comes to bringing down a petty president who wants to play king.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:50 AM

how can you defend the activities of the US security services

Because, this time, they're defending the Constitution. Full stop.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:14 AM

Et tu Jim????   how can you defend the activities of the US security services after a lifetime of speaking against them?
Oh how soon they forget.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:08 AM

We have an interesting situation here in Ireland at present
The actions of an honest policeman in blowing the whistle on corrupt practices in Ireland's Guarda Siocorna has led to an unprecedented smear campaign by the force (involving untrue accusations of sexual assault), which has now to the setting up of an enquiry, the demands for the commissioner to stand aside, a call for a general election and the possible resignation of the Taoiseach, (Prime Minister)
Let's hope America has the courage to produce more whistleblowers
Give me whistle blowers over a secret society anytime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

I think it has to do with leaking classified information Jim.

But I'm not certain about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 08:09 AM

"Perhaps one of our US friends can explain if it is illegal for the security services to leak against the sitting President's administration?"
Moot point
If the subject of those leaks is disclosure of illegal, undemocratic and unconstitutional information, surely it is the duty of the security forces to pass on that information.
The President is not above the law nor the interests of the American people
Unverifies and uninformed leakers are not comparable
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM

Perhaps one of our US friends can explain if it is illegal for the security services to leak against the sitting President's administration?

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: gillymor
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:40 AM

"Donald Trump Loves Leaks. Except When He Doesn't"

To quote the Everly Brothers, or their songwriter, "So Sad to Watch Good Love Go Bad"

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:32 AM

Language can be terribly subtle, and word order is just as important as tense in terms of the framing the idea. But the reason it is important to emphasise the time order is that it clarifies who, if anyone is being hypocritical. The Democrat approach can be read as "We will treat you exactly as you treated us", where as the Trump order - I apologise for implying it was all Republicans - is "We insist on being treated better than we treated you".

Each individual leak is illegal, or it is not. I don't think we have any evidence which of the various leaks were ok, dubious or outright against the law, but I am confident there were a mix on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:23 AM

The difference is in the tenses "D", I made it clear by using the past tense which set of leaks came first. A bit clumsy I suppose, but amounting to the same thing at the end of the day.
Additionally. leaks from the security services against the President or his administration is a serious crime, I believe?

Looking again, the time line does matter, it is hypocrisy for the protesters to condemn leaks from an unverified source(hackers) yet applaud what they must know as a serious crime?

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 06:15 AM

More alternative facts from you, Teribus. Now I acknowledge that I'm guilty of breaching the intended spirit of this thread so that's my lot on that theme with you here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:41 AM

they gleefully applaud leaks from the security services against the Trump administration, yet screamed to high heaven when Wikileaks released the information on Democratic Party corruption and Mrs Clintons indiscretions

I have steered fairly clear of this thread, but there is quite a good 'alternative fact' in that sentence, because you have swapped the time order. Let's correct the time order first:

[Democrats] screamed to high heaven when Wikileaks released the information on Democratic Party corruption and Mrs Clintons indiscretions, yet they gleefully applaud leaks from the security services against the Trump administration

And now let's change the viewpoint of that exact scene:

[Republicans] gleefully applaud leaks when Wikileaks released the information on Democratic Party corruption and Mrs Clintons indiscretions, yet they scream to high heaven leaks from the security services against the Trump administration

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 05:05 AM

"Ehmmm Jom,"
You obviously have no intention of behaving like an adult
I wonder if any passing forum fairy has any better luck than I have in persuading you to do so before you fuck up another discussion
I am not interested in the "he hit me first" mentality - I left that behind fifty-odd years ago
Grow up and let's discuss subjects without your eternal ego tripping
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 04:26 AM

Ehmmm Jom, Shaw doesn't even have the manners to address his questions to the person he wants the answer from.

Additionally Shaw does happen to be his correct name AFAIK.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM

"Shaw, if you can't be arsed to answer the questions"
If you can't be arsed to address people decently, why don'y to just fuck off?
Your obsessively ill-manned arrogance to everybody who disagrees with you has no place on a debating forum
You bring nothing to a debate other than your self-obsession
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 17 - 02:15 AM

Shaw, if you can't be arsed to answer the questions put to you by others, can you offer me any reason at all why people should answer yours? I cannot think of one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:10 PM

Give me the thread titles.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 06:02 PM

The homosexual "marriage" threads amounted to many thousands(there were several of them) and I ploughed a lone furrow on most of them, assisted by the few real liberals who inhabit this place and believe in freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

"......why this behaviour is allowed I cannot understand, when others are taken to task for trying to have an adult debate."

And some of us wonder why your lying behaviour is allowed. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which threads of "many thousands" of posts you influenced so much. I can't seem to find them. Before you start attacking other people you seriously need to clean up your own act. Just start by being truthful. We can deal with the rest of your issues later.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

No Greg, these words were uttered by someone much more intelligent and insightful than me. I was using them in a futile attempt at irony :0(

However we seem to manage to disagree all the time without resorting to misrepresentations or bad feeling.....when I say that I like your style , I mean it. Debate should be like that, leaving the personal stuff out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:31 PM

First, Ake, lets dispense with "alternative facts" and call the crap peddled by Twitler& the Trumpists what it is: LIES.

The thread never moved away from the constant stream of lies coming out of the mouth of Twitler and his wall-street corporate crony cabinet.

I you consider pointing out these lies for what they are is not "a full scale attack" on the president and calling the people pointing out these lies "sore losers" is just channeling the deranged five-year-old egomaniac that occasionally (when he's not holed up in one of his hotels or golf courses) occupies the White House.

Give over, already and remember that you are a self-confessed "Scottish Trump apologist, who knows F*** all about US politics".

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 05:00 PM

Try a "figure of speech" or "poetic license", normally used as a common way of making a point clearer. The impact the likes of Akenaton and Keith A have on threads is that they minute they rip your arguments to bits and challenge your contentions there is a group of at least six of you jump in spouting unadulterated bollocks, to use Steve Shaw's expression (By the way it's the bollocks that is Steve Shaw's expression - It is my opinion massively backed up with evidence that it is unadulterated bollocks.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 04:56 PM

Well, this started as an "Alternative Facts" thread, but within a few posts it had degenerated into a full scale attack on President Trump and his administration, just the usual bile from bad losers, they gleefully applaud leaks from the security services against the Trump administration, yet screamed to high heaven when Wikileaks released the information on Democratic Party corruption and Mrs Clintons indiscretions

The point being that when the thread moved away from a list of alternative facts and into attack mode, the way was clear for members who do not think that Donal-John is the devil incarnate to offer up their views.
I have no intention of trying to have threads closed, as could be seen from the Barthes thread where attacks by several members on myself interrupted the flow of the discussion and Bill asked for the thread to be closed.
On the Labour Party thread a group of people have been trying to have the discussion terminated by taking it off topic and chattering amongst themselves on matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Party......why this behaviour is allowed I cannot understand, when others are taken to task for trying to have an adult debate.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 12:17 PM

If you have such good eyesight, please show me the threads with the many thousands! 😅

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: gillymor
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 12:01 PM

Second what Acme said, this thread is too important to get closed due to the usual backbiting. Start your own Trump thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:39 AM

Steve Shaw - 17 Feb 17 - 11:13 AM

"My views generate a lot of traffic on this forum, some threads ran into many thousands of posts"

There ya go, Teribus. Wot he said.

Absolutely Shaw and here is how you responded to that post of Akenaton's

Steve Shaw - 16 Feb 17 - 06:18 PM

"So some threads that you instigated ran to "many thousands of posts"

Tell me Shaw where in the following does he mention threads that he has instigated?:

"My views generate a lot of traffic on this forum, some threads ran into many thousands of posts"

I ask Shaw because I have very good eyesight and I just simply cannot see any reference in that remark to the instigation of anything. I thought that you claimed to be an educated man - can't you read? Do you not understand plain English? Or do you have to "make stuff up" to pick a fight?

You have just been caught out ex-union activist, you are a Troll - to make a point you have to invent stuff - that Steve Shaw Spat thread of Stu's is a damned good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:31 AM

Well yes, that was mere nonsense. But on other occasions it's nonsense plus bigotry plus ignorance plus bile, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

Another thread in a complete tangle as it shifts to argue over the nonsense that Ake spews and how it should be treated. His work here is done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 11:13 AM

"My views generate a lot of traffic on this forum, some threads ran into many thousands of posts"

There ya go, Teribus. Wot he said.

Subject: RE: BS: The Alternative Facts Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 17 - 10:41 AM

"I'm taking akenaton on over his fatuous claim that he's the prime mover behind threads-of-thousands." - Shaw

Only trouble Shaw is that Akenaton made no such claim did he? All he said was that his comments on the threads he contributes to attach a great deal of attention by way of responses.

As to this addressed directly to Stu - "just try to remember whose side I'm on." - Is this another indication that you and your pals do not act in concert? Thought you weren't supposed to be on anybody's side.