4 ms·

> Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be

by knz 10y ago

> Simply invoking "liar" is not in itself important unless you point to an instance of a lie and a reliable non-partisan source that disproves it. That might be a high barrier for agreement but partisanship has reached toxic levels in the past few years. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overstates-crowd-size-at-inaugural.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overst... http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-crowd-estimates/766DA5D7-6DB1-4928-BE97-25BC3FC9A313.html http://www.wsj.com/video/white-house-disputes-inauguration-c... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722 http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration... The inauguration photo debate is a litmus test for the credibility of the administration and it's ability to tell the truth. We will have to agree to disagree on all of the other points.

beaconstudios 10y ago
the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other photos that show a bigger crowd, for example: https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Real-Inauguration-Crowd-Size-vs-FAKE-NEWS.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/u... The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth. Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.
- knz 10y ago
  It is ridiculous. But like I said, it's a litmus test for whether the Trump administration can look at fact and tell the truth. I struggle to understand how anyone can look at photos/video taken from the same perspective and claim it was bigger than Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg - the gaps at the back are clear). No one doubts it was a large crowd - as your photo shows, there were clearly hundreds of thousands of people there - and both sides definitely put a spin on everything, but the Trump administration clearly tried to play 2+2=5 on this issue, either for his ego or for more serious reasons. Either way, it's not part of a healthy society.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    For context, I'm not trying to claim it was bigger. I don't think you were trying to say that, but just so there's no misunderstandings. Trump has been elected precisely because he's not a focus-group-groomed super-careful politician who never says anything concrete. He was elected as a "real person" who, as a business magnate, should be able to apply his knowledge of negotiation and wealth accumulation to the nation at large. As such, there are going to be jarring incidents like this for those of us who are used to groomed politicians, where Trump says something off-hand and it turns out to be inaccurate. I think that's fine, as a non-politician he's going to make mistakes, but it's also an asset (IMO) to be able to signal intent with concrete statements, or to be able to make initial statements and then revise them when more facts come to light. The characteristic that made him slip up on the inaug. crowd size is the same characteristic that has led to him fulfilling campaign promises at record speed. I think it's a good trade-off.

by knz 10y ago

beaconstudios 10y ago

the whole inauguration crowd debacle strikes me as ridiculous. We know Trump is a man with an ego, he made a claim that the crowd was big, it wasn't as big as he thought, the media starts whipping up a frenzy about how it proves we live in a "post-fact" world. Then, the media started throwing up photos from earlier in the day to show that the crowd was tiny, when there are other photos that show a bigger crowd, for example: https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Real-Inauguration-Crowd-Size-vs-FAKE-NEWS.jpg https://i0.wp.com/www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/u... The real story here, in my opinion, is how both sides respectively exaggerated and underrepresented the size of the crowd (unimportant), and the media spun it into a narrative that was very clearly designed to invoke 1984-esque ideas that the party can declare that 2+2=5 and it becomes the truth. Also, your decision to "agree to disagree" on everything I've said strikes me as unhelpful. Rather than flesh out why you disagree with, for example, established facts like that poor whites largely voted Trump, you refuse to engage? If you wish to critique my argument then you should be expecting me to counter your critique.

knz 10y ago
It is ridiculous. But like I said, it's a litmus test for whether the Trump administration can look at fact and tell the truth. I struggle to understand how anyone can look at photos/video taken from the same perspective and claim it was bigger than Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg - the gaps at the back are clear). No one doubts it was a large crowd - as your photo shows, there were clearly hundreds of thousands of people there - and both sides definitely put a spin on everything, but the Trump administration clearly tried to play 2+2=5 on this issue, either for his ego or for more serious reasons. Either way, it's not part of a healthy society.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  For context, I'm not trying to claim it was bigger. I don't think you were trying to say that, but just so there's no misunderstandings. Trump has been elected precisely because he's not a focus-group-groomed super-careful politician who never says anything concrete. He was elected as a "real person" who, as a business magnate, should be able to apply his knowledge of negotiation and wealth accumulation to the nation at large. As such, there are going to be jarring incidents like this for those of us who are used to groomed politicians, where Trump says something off-hand and it turns out to be inaccurate. I think that's fine, as a non-politician he's going to make mistakes, but it's also an asset (IMO) to be able to signal intent with concrete statements, or to be able to make initial statements and then revise them when more facts come to light. The characteristic that made him slip up on the inaug. crowd size is the same characteristic that has led to him fulfilling campaign promises at record speed. I think it's a good trade-off.