'Alternative Facts': The Needless Lies of the Trump Administration

It seems that with every passing minute we are increasingly discovering that in Trump world, the "truth" is whatever Der Fuhrer wants it to be.  Never mind that it is demonstrably false.  Hence the new double speak of "alternate facts" as espoused by Kellyanne Conway who seemingly is striving to make Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels look like a pillar of honesty in comparison. The take away form all the lies: do not believe ANYTHING that is said by Trump or his propagandists.  If they lie about small things easily shown to be lies, why believe them on anything?  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the Orwellian world of Trump/Pence.  Here are highlights:

One of the many things that is remarkable about the Trump administration is its devotion, even in its first days, to a particular variety of pointless falsehood.

Mendacity among politicians and the spokespeople hired to spin for them runs across eras and aisles, though it is true that some are more honest than others, and Donald Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate. But the Trump administration has displayed a commitment to needlessly lying that is confounding to even the most cynical observers of American politics.

No incident better summarizes this than a bizarre briefing by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Saturday. Speaking in the Brady Briefing Room, Spicer laid into the assembled reporters.

Then came the big whopper: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe.”

Spicer’s statement required dismissing all available evidence: ridership count, eyewitness testimony, independent crowd-counts, and Nielsen television ratings. Spicer cut his teeth at the Republican National Committee as the combative voice of a body often at odds with the media, but even by those standards, his furious insistence on assertions at odds with the evidence were peculiar.

They are, however, emerging as a hallmark of the administration. 

Ahead of the inauguration, Trump threw a concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial. “This started out tonight being a small little concert, and then we had the idea maybe we’ll do it in front of the Lincoln Memorial,” Trump said in brief remarks. “I don’t know if it’s ever been done before. But if it has, very seldom.” That claim was also ridiculous, whether it was intentionally misleading or simply badly misinformed. There was a huge, widely covered concert at the memorial to kick off Obama’s inauguration festivities eight years ago.

But how is anyone to view Spicer’s statement as stemming from anything other than a deliberate intent to mislead? The facts are clear, and given that Spicer did not take questions, his main purpose on Saturday must have been to spread falsehoods about crowd size.

Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway appeared on Meet the Press Sunday morning, where Chuck Todd grilled her on the incident. “The presidency is about choices. I’m curious why President Trump chose yesterday to send out his press secretary to essentially litigate a provable falsehood when it comes to a small and petty thing like inaugural crowd size,” Todd asked. Conway first tried to deflect, saying, “I don’t think presidents are judged by crowd sizes, they’re judged by accomplishments.” Fair enough, Todd said—so why lie?

“You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts,” Conway responded.

Todd was flabbergasted by the Orwellian turn of phrase: “Alternative fact are not facts. They’re falsehoods.”

There’s still no good explanation for Spicer’s statement, but it fits with a long-running mantra from Trump aides and supporters that there’s no such thing as an objective reality. The question for Trump and his aides is simple: If you’re willing to lie about stuff this minuscule, why should anyone believe what you say about the really big things that matter?

Perhaps there is a solution to Trump's lies provided the media has the backbone to be responsible: When Trump and his administration make clearly false statements, simply do not give the statement coverage.  Take away the podium and do not disseminate the lies.   

Ted Cruz Continues to Spread Anti-Transgender Lies

Not only is Ted Cruz physically repulsive, but he is morally repulsive as well as he continues to use anti-transgender fear mongering in a desperate attempt to goad the Christofascists to turn out and vote for him in the upcoming Indiana primary.  Cruz cares nothing for the truth and cares nothing about the harm he does to others in his power mad quest.  Towelroad looks at the latest vicious lies Cruz is utilizing.  Here are highlights: 

Even though the right-wing myths about what happens have been debunked many times (as recently as last week by FOX News anchor Chris Wallace), Ted Cruz continues to hammer home his fear-mongering about the consequences of transgender “bathroom bills” and according to the NYT, the strategy is working for him, at least in Indiana.

Said Cruz on Meet the Press Sunday:

“Donald Trump came out on television agreeing with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that grown men should be allowed to use little girls’ restrooms. Now I view this issue as a matter of basic common sense. I don’t think it’s a right or left or Republican or Democratic issue. It’s common sense. Look, I’m the dad of two little girls. It doesn’t make any sense to allow grown adult men – strangers – to be alone in a bathroom with a little girl – and virtually all Americans understand that. And it is only the height of political correctness that refuses to acknowledge this.”

Chuck Todd then asked about Caitlyn Jenner’s recent stunt in which she used the bathroom in a Trump Hotel in New York City and then emerged with a message directed at Cruz: “By the way Ted, nobody got molested.”

Replied Cruz:

“If you pass a law that says any adult man can go into a girl’s restroom if he feels like a woman at that minute… Look the real danger is not people who are transgendered it’s people who are predators. People who are predators who use that law as an excuse to go target our kids. … The reason Donald Trump’s comment is so revealing…he said a few months ago, ‘I can be the most politically correct person on earth’. This is political correct nonsense. People want someone who tells the truth. Donald is playing a role and pretending to be something he’s not. I’ve been the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.”

Meet The Press 6/30/13 - The Disingenuous Lies of Gay Marriage Opponents

Watching Meet the Press this morning where a discussion of this week's SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage took place, there were times when I wanted to throw something at the television as Ralph Reed (who I met years ago at a political event and who candidly sent my Gaydar into overdrive), Jim DeMint and other Christofascist puppets spouted the usually anti-gay lies and untruths.  They likewise made it clear that they believe that minorities should have no rights unless and until the majority deems to allow them to have them.   

The irony, of course, is filled with examples of where the majority was wrong, especially morally, in the way that minorities have been persecuted and deprived of rights: slavery, segregation, the treatment of women as chattel, hatred towards Jews,, etc.  The list is too long to enumerate, although I will point out two things.  First, in 1938, despite knowledge that atrocities against and the persecution of Jews was occurring in Germany, a Fortune poll found that two-thirds of the American public favored barring Jewish refugees from coming to America.  And when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Loving v. Virgina, interracial marriage had a lower approval level with the American public than gay marriage enjoys today.  Rather than being right, the majority is all too often wrong.  Dead wrong in the case of opposing entrance of Jewish refugees in the 1930;s.

The other thing that became abundantly clear from the interviews is that religious based animus towards gays and our families is the primary motivation of the "godly Christian" crowd.  Ralph Reed tried to float the canard that gay couples make inferior parents and without naming it by name relied on the fraudulent Christian Right funded Regnerus "study."  When confronted by David Gregory with he fact that the study only had relevance on broken homes, Reed refused to answer.  The same thing happened when Rachel Madow asked Jim DeMint to explain how same sex marriage harmed heterosexual marriage.  He could not give one concrete response and only reverted back to the usual blather about children needing a mother and father.

The sad reality is that these "godly folks" truly care nothing about the lives they damage or ruin.  When it comes to divorce, no one has a higher divorce rate than Evangelical Christians in the Bible Belt.   And banning gay marriage does nothing to (i) reduce the heterosexual divorce rate, or (ii) make gay and lesbian headed families miraculously disappear.  All it does is harm our children and deprive us of rights and benefits so that assholes like DeMint and Reed can feel superior.  It's sickening and it is diametrically opposed to the Gospel message.

Could Anti-Gay Politics Sink A Presidential Campaign?

Yesterday Towleroad asked an interesting question, namely whether anti-gay rhetoric - and past actions and statements - could sink one or more of the GOP presidential candidate hopefuls? As noted, when Michele Bachmann appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday, she did all kinds of disingenuous dancing around in an attempt to avoid directly reaffirming her past vitriolic anti-gay statements. It's important that Bachmann and now Rick Perry be pressed constantly on their anti-gay extremism for two reasons: (1) the majority of the public is moving past gay bashing and may be turned off by it, and (2) anti-gay extremism is part and parcel of the Christian dominionism that Bachmann and Perry subscribe to - something the general public must be made to realize regardless of what these extreme candidates may pretend to the contrary. Here are some highlights from Towleroad:

Michele Bachmann did a wonderful job dodging Meet the Press host David Gregory's questions about her homophobic policies this weekend. . . . Bachmann clearly wants to avoid such questions, and the only explanation I can think of is that she's fearful her extreme politics will turn off voters. This got me wondering: could anti-gay politics sink a presidential campaign?

A Gallup Poll found that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage. The Public Religion Research Institute, CNN, the Washington Post and ABC News have also all found majority support. What's more, most of the nation supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell's repeal and are against DOMA. All of these numbers reflect the fact that LGBT people are becoming more visible, and therefore more accepted, than ever in American history.

With the 2012 race heating up -- and as LGBT activists in states like Oregon and Maine trying to put same-sex marriage on their respective ballots, and as the Proposition 8 trials continue, virtually guaranteeing the issue a national spotlight -- it will be interesting to see if the right starts unearthing and highlighting their archaic, exclusionary politics, or whether they'll try to avoid the issue all together.

And, most importantly, how will the public respond to the possible revival of homophobic politicking on a national level? As voters become more accepting of their gay friends and neighbors, will they be revolted by Bachmann and company's discriminatory ways? Will being seen as intolerant and exclusionary help or hinder presidential candidates?

David Gregory Shreds Michele Bachmann

Appearing on Meet the Press today, Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann got shredded by David Gregory on the issue of gays and gay marriage. Her refusal to give a direct answer and/or disavow her past hateful and judgmental statements spoke volumes. Nothing is more inconvenient for bigots like Bachmann than having their own words used to show their true colors. Under grilling, Bachamnn showed herself to be not only a bigot, but also a disingenuous liar

NBC's Tim Russert Dies of Heart Attack

While more recently I had not agreed with some of his reporting - e.g., beating the Rev. Wright story to death and in my view catering to Hillary Clinton during the primaries - I nonetheless was sad to learn that Tim Russert died this afternoon of a heart attack. I had watched him on "Meet the Press" just recently. It's perhaps even more of a shock now that I have realized that he was only a little more than two years older than me (I had thought he was older than 58 and I guess I don't look so bad for my age after all). I can certainly think of numerous people much more deserving of death than Russert. His unexpected death should be another wake up call to all of us that we truly do not know how much time we have in this life, so we need to enjoy the moment and find some magic and wonder in every passing day. My thoughts and condolences go out to his wife and son. I am glad that Russert had been able to vacation with his family just days ago. Here are some highlights from MSNBC:

*

WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58. Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. He and his family had recently returned from Italy, where they celebrated the graduation of Russert’s son, Luke, from Boston College.

*

Russert was best known as host of “Meet the Press,” which he took over in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television. But he was also a vice president of NBC News and head of its overall Washington operations, a nearly round-the-clock presence on NBC and MSNBC on election nights.

*

Survivors include Russert’s wife, Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair magazine, whom he met at the 1976 Democratic National Convention; and their son, Luke.