"Truth isn't truth" - Is "1984" Trump's Playbook? (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

This point was raised by apalmer in The Trump Years thread but I think it deserves its own thread.

This morning on Meet the Press Rudi Giuliani had this exchange with Chuck Todd:
 

Meet the Press‏ @MeetThePress 45m45 minutes ago

.@RudyGiuliani on Trump testifying with Mueller:

"I am not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury... it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth."

@chucktodd: "Truth is truth"

GIULIANI: "No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth."

This is about as Orwellian as it gets and continues a disturbing trend that we have been seeing from Trump and his representatives. Just last month Trump said,
 

"Don’t believe the crap you see from these people — the fake news.

"https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/trump_dont_believe_the_crap_you_see_from_these_people_on_fake_news.html 

Do his supporters ever question statements like this, or do they just nod their heads in approval? The now regular use of this type of language is quite disturbing.

What are your thoughts.

 

[bueno]

I long for the days of Walter Cronkite and news that was less frequently spun.

 

[Mile High]

The biggest truth Donald Trump has said is he could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose a vote.

 

[pecorino]

No, any supporters at this point do not question his statements (although they may concede that Rudy is losing it).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think not literally right now, but my feeling is that the destruction of institutional firewalls coupled with replacement of democratic principles with illiberal ones puts us in danger of that happening. 

 

[squistion]

Congressman Adam Schiff weighs in with a 1984 refresher.

Adam Schiff‏ @RepAdamSchiff 42m42 minutes ago

Today, Giuliani added to Orwell’s liturgy:

War is Peace.

Slavery is Freedom.

Ignorance is Strength.

Truth isn’t Truth.

 

[bueno]

I think not literally right now, but my feeling is that the destruction of institutional firewalls coupled with replacement of democratic principles with illiberal ones puts us in danger of that happening. 

1984 came in the Bush years when we invaded Iraq. Not that it was a bad move, but it was an Orwellian tactic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1984 came in the Bush years when we invaded Iraq. Not that it was a bad move, but it was an Orwellian tactic.

You could say the same think about 1964 & the Gulf of Tonkin. This is a concept of governance (or lack thereof) across the board. It’s an ideology and philosophically nihilistic.

 

[bueno]

You could say the same think about 1964 & the Gupf of Tonkin. This is a concept of governance (or lack thereof) across the board. It’s an ideology and philosophically nihilistic.

Well I had to take a Gupf on that one, but I see the reasoning for Vietnam a bit differently. True, containing Communism sounds a bit like Orwell, but not quite like: we ere attacked by the Taliban and OBL, so let's take out a different bad guy who happens to be of the same religion. The latter seems much more Orwellian to me.

Of course there is also the words of the wise Obi-Wan: 

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

“The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.”

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well I had to take a Gupf on that one, but I see the reasoning for Vietnam a bit differently. True, containing Communism sounds a bit like Orwell, but not quite like: we ere attacked by the Taliban and OBL, so let's take out a different bad guy who happens to be of the same religion. The latter seems much more Orwellian to me.

Of course there is also the words of the wise Obi-Wan: 

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

“The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.”

I don’t think you see my point about GOT, the government claimed the US Navy was attacked, the facts have shown most likely they were not. It was a bigger and more damaging lie than Iraq. The comp though is that it was ‘a lie’, not a whole concept of ruling by altering truth and perception of reality.

 

[bueno]

I don’t think you see my point about GOT, the government claimed the US Navy was attacked, the facts have shown most likely they were not. It was a bigger and more damaging lie than Iraq. The comp though is that it was ‘a lie’, not a whole concept of ruling by altering truth and perception of reality.

There is the reason presented to the public and then there are reasons the politicians don't want to present. Two U.S. Destroyers may or may not have been attacked - but that was the excuse needed to go fight the Communists in Vietnam. You can go back even earlier than that if you want to the explosion aboard the USS Maine and the Spanish American War. That explosion likely was not an act of aggression, but it provided the necessary excuse. Look at the War of 1812. The reason given was the Brits were impressing American sailors, but our actions show our real reason was to try to annex Canada.

I would argue that finding an excuse like these three examples is not Orwellian so much as SOP. Iraq was Orwellian.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This feels like trolling - and not serious discussion - and certainly could have been included in any number of existing Trump threads.

Rudy is inartful, but he is not necessarily wrong...

 

[squistion]

Congressman Ted Lieu seems to view this similarly as I do:

Ted Lieu‏ @tedlieu 1h1 hour ago

The statement by Rudy Giuliani that "truth isn't truth" is another step towards authoritarianism. It also reminds us of Nixon's defense that "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

Does this make you angry? Scared? If so, vote this Nov & get others to vote.

 

[Henry Ford]

This whole thread presupposes Trump has read a book. 

 

[squistion]

This is interesting, this tweet was posted 8 hours ago, before Giuliani went on MTP. 

Tomi Lahren‏ @TomiLahren 9h9 hours ago

Truth is the new hate speech.

I am wondering if attacking the concept of truth was some sort of preplanned meme or talking point for today:

 

[bueno]

This whole thread presupposes Trump has read a book. 

He sure has liberals completely off-kilter with his version of double-speak.

 

[Henry Ford]

He sure has liberals completely off-kilter with his version of double-speak.

Does he?

 

[Henry Ford]

Seems more like he has conservatives off kilter. They’re the ones not acting like themselves. 

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

This is interesting, this tweet was posted 8 hours ago, before Giuliani went on MTP. 

Tomi Lahren‏ @TomiLahren 9h9 hours ago

Truth is the new hate speech.

I am wondering if attacking the concept of truth was some sort of preplanned meme or talking point for today:

It was in the CIA 4am briefing.

 

[bueno]

Does he?

I think he does. Conservatives are trying to get reelected.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is interesting, this tweet was posted 8 hours ago, before Giuliani went on MTP. 

Tomi Lahren‏ @TomiLahren 9h9 hours ago

Truth is the new hate speech.

I am wondering if attacking the concept of truth was some sort of preplanned meme or talking point for today:

The timing is weird, the concept is weirder.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is the reason presented to the public and then there are reasons the politicians don't want to present. Two U.S. Destroyers may or may not have been attacked - but that was the excuse needed to go fight the Communists in Vietnam. You can go back even earlier than that if you want to the explosion aboard the USS Maine and the Spanish American War. That explosion likely was not an act of aggression, but it provided the necessary excuse. Look at the War of 1812. The reason given was the Brits were impressing American sailors, but our actions show our real reason was to try to annex Canada.

I would argue that finding an excuse like these three examples is not Orwellian so much as SOP. Iraq was Orwellian.

I disagree, Iraq was very much in line with those anecdotes IMO.

Trump telling people to disbelieve what they see & here is Orwellian.

 

[lazyike]

This point was raised by apalmer in The Trump Years thread but I think it deserves its own thread.

This morning on Meet the Press Rudi Giuliani had this exchange with Chuck Todd:
 

This is about as Orwellian as it gets and continues a disturbing trend that we have been seeing from Trump and his representatives. Just last month Trump said,
 

Do his supporters ever question statements like this, or do they just nod their heads in approval? The now regular use of this type of language is quite disturbing.

What are your thoughts.

The question and debate we need to be having...is Trump the biggest con man liar to ever have walked the face of the earth and who wouldn't you find more credible than him at this point.

 

[bueno]

I disagree, Iraq was very much in line with those anecdotes IMO.

Trump telling people to disbelieve what they see & here is Orwellian.

WMD in Iraq was very much Orwellian and many people believed it, including me.

 

[bueno]

The question and debate we need to be having...is Trump the biggest con man liar to ever have walked the face of the earth and who wouldn't you find more credible than him at this point.

At least P.T. Barnum didn't become President.

 

[lazyike]

At least P.T. Barnum didn't become President.

Probably some car salesman but their lies affected just a few unlucky buyers rather than an entire nation with a population over 300 million.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

WMD in Iraq was very much Orwellian and many people believed it, including me.

Ok maybe we just see Orwellian differently. When our troops got to the site where we had claimed in our U.N. briefing to have been the locals of mobile launchers IIRC and found no WMD the administration didn’t tell people the news was fake, or that the reports of troops themselves were not to be believed, they just shifted their claims. Technically that’s just lying and being caught at it, but I don’t want to wrestle too much with you on that.

 

[timschochet]

Giuliani was specifically talking about not wanting to put Trump on the stand, because he fears a perjury trap. What he can’t say, but we all know, is that Trump lies all the time. 

The argument that Rudy is trying to make is this: there is a big truth out there, and that big truth is that Trump did not collude with the Russians. But that big truth is surrounded by all sorts of little lies and possible obstruction, mainly because Trump wanted this whole story ended quickly and continually blundered in attempting to do so. Rudy can’t say this, so instead he makes absurd comments like “truth isn’t truth.” This is not some Orwellian scheme to destroy our sense of integrity; it’s a bunch of Trump’s officials trying to get around the fact that he lies as easily as he breathes, and just as often. 

 

[bueno]

Ok maybe we just see Orwellian differently. When our troops got to the site where we had claimed in our U.N. briefing to have been the locals of mobile launchers IIRC and found no WMD the administration didn’t tell people the news was fake, or that the reports of troops themselves were not to be believed, they just shifted their claims. Technically that’s just lying and being caught at it, but I don’t want to wrestle too much with you on that.

Remember the scene in 1984 when the enemy changed in the middle of a speech?

 

[Qanon]

Giuliani was specifically talking about not wanting to put Trump on the stand, because he fears a perjury trap. What he can’t say, but we all know, is that Trump lies all the time. 

The argument that Rudy is trying to make is this: there is a big truth out there, and that big truth is that Trump did not collude with the Russians. But that big truth is surrounded by all sorts of little lies and possible obstruction, mainly because Trump wanted this whole story ended quickly and continually blundered in attempting to do so. Rudy can’t say this, so instead he makes absurd comments like “truth isn’t truth.” This is not some Orwellian scheme to destroy our sense of integrity; it’s a bunch of Trump’s officials trying to get around the fact that he lies as easily as he breathes, and just as often. 

You don't know what a "perjury trap" is, do you?

"A perjury trap is a real thing. The term describes when prosecutors lure a witness into giving false testimony, usually for reasons other than covering up a crime, knowing they can prove the claim was false, and then nail them for perjury. The impeachment of President Clinton was a classic perjury trap."

 

[Green Balloons]

Seems more like he has conservatives off kilter. They’re the ones not acting like themselves. 

Might as well jump. 

 

[Zow]

Newt unequivocally laid the groundwork for this in 2016 when he equated how people “feel” things to bring as truthful as the actual truth. 

 

[squistion]

Ok maybe we just see Orwellian differently. When our troops got to the site where we had claimed in our U.N. briefing to have been the locals of mobile launchers IIRC and found no WMD the administration didn’t tell people the news was fake, or that the reports of troops themselves were not to be believed, they just shifted their claims. Technically that’s just lying and being caught at it, but I don’t want to wrestle too much with you on that.

He doesn't get Orwell. The government lying to us or giving us false information about WMD is not Orwellian (governments have lied to their citizens since governments began) 

However, the government telling us that black is white, or is this case truth is not truth, is not lying to us, but rather saying that we can't trust our perceptions of reality - that what we see, hear and read can not be trusted and in some cases the opposite of that is what is the real truth.

In other words, it is a brain bash to avoid using the vulgar term of messing with someone's mind.

 

[timschochet]

You don't know what a "perjury trap" is, do you?

"A perjury trap is a real thing. The term describes when prosecutors lure a witness into giving false testimony, usually for reasons other than covering up a crime, knowing they can prove the claim was false, and then nail them for perjury. The impeachment of President Clinton was a classic perjury trap."

 Hey conspiracy boy, I’ve forgotten more about Clinton’s impeachment than you’re ever going to learn, OK? Go back to your numerology lessons and fake aerial photographs, and leave the serious discussion to the grownups. 

 

[squistion]

You don't know what a "perjury trap" is, do you?

"A perjury trap is a real thing. The term describes when prosecutors lure a witness into giving false testimony, usually for reasons other than covering up a crime, knowing they can prove the claim was false, and then nail them for perjury. The impeachment of President Clinton was a classic perjury trap."

There is no such thing as a perjury trap.

If you tell the truth, you can't commit perjury.

Clinton committed perjury. If he told the truth about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky he would not been charged with anything. However, he tried to parse words and it came back to bite him (so to speak).

 

[bueno]

He doesn't get Orwell. The government lying to us or giving us false information about WMD is not Orwellian (governments have lied to their citizens since governments began) 

However, the government telling us that black is white, or is this case truth is not truth, is not lying to us, but rather saying that we can't trust our perceptions of reality - that what we see, hear and read can not be trusted and in some cases the opposite of that is what is the real truth.

In other words, it is a brain bash to avoid using the vulgar term of messing with someone's mind.

Changing reasoning mid-speech is right out of Orwell.

 

[zoonation]

Giuliani was specifically talking about not wanting to put Trump on the stand, because he fears a perjury trap. What he can’t say, but we all know, is that Trump lies all the time. 

The argument that Rudy is trying to make is this: there is a big truth out there, and that big truth is that Trump did not collude with the Russians. But that big truth is surrounded by all sorts of little lies and possible obstruction, mainly because Trump wanted this whole story ended quickly and continually blundered in attempting to do so. Rudy can’t say this, so instead he makes absurd comments like “truth isn’t truth.” This is not some Orwellian scheme to destroy our sense of integrity; it’s a bunch of Trump’s officials trying to get around the fact that he lies as easily as he breathes, and just as often. 

Agree with this.  But the words have meaning and should be chosen more carefully.   But, having said that, I’m sort of with you on the overall narrative angle:   None of these ridiculous statements are useful ammunition in the vote to come in November, or how the public will react to whatever Mueller puts out.  The sides are drawn.  Short of video where trump actually blows putin, nothing else will move the needle on the right.  I’m not sure that would even do it.  

The “Trump” is a despicable human being on every level narrative wont carry the water.  For sure not in the Senate and may just do anough to flip the house.  

The irony is that a R controlled senate with a weak D hold on the house only feeds the trump 2020 campaign.  And I think he knows it.  May even want it.  

 

[squistion]

Changing reasoning mid-speech is right out of Orwell.

Except that wasn't done in the middle of a speech with WMD. Rolling disclosures or shifting narratives to fit new facts is not changing reasoning mid-speech.

 

[timschochet]

The irony is that a R controlled senate with a weak D hold on the house only feeds the trump 2020 campaign.  

This is an interesting theory which I haven’t considered. At this point in time I don’t agree with you. But I’ll have to think about it. 

 

[zoonation]

 Hey conspiracy boy, I’ve forgotten more about Clinton’s impeachment than you’re ever going to learn, OK? Go back to your numerology lessons and fake aerial photographs, and leave the serious discussion to the grownups. 

This was quite agressive for you!

 

[zoonation]

This is an interesting theory which I haven’t considered. At this point in time I don’t agree with you. But I’ll have to think about it. 

He needs chaos to thrive.  He can ramp up the rhetoric big time if he has a true opponent blocking his “promises” to the people.   

Think of the grenades he could launch between nov 18 and 20 if the Dems can run some interference. 

 

[timschochet]

This was quite agressive for you!

It’s tongue in cheek. But in all seriousness, some mom’s basement living, Comet Pizza believer is going to lecture me about Monicagate? Get the #### out of here. 

 

[bueno]

Except that wasn't done in the middle of a speech with WMD. Rolling disclosures or shifting narrative to fit new facts is not changing reasoning mid-speech.

I think you are being too literal with your literature.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

This feels like trolling - and not serious discussion - and certainly could have been included in any number of existing Trump threads.

Just another space to dump tweets

 

[cockroach]

1984 came in the Bush years when we invaded Iraq. Not that it was a bad move, but it was an Orwellian tactic.

I agree in a way as we really had a 5 min hate going with OBL.  He fit the description of the guy in the book to a tee also. 

 

[cockroach]

 Hey conspiracy boy, I’ve forgotten more about Clinton’s impeachment than you’re ever going to learn, OK? Go back to your numerology lessons and fake aerial photographs, and leave the serious discussion to the grownups. 

I hope this gets you a timeout.  Bully.  

 

[timschochet]

He needs chaos to thrive.  He can ramp up the rhetoric big time if he has a true opponent blocking his “promises” to the people.   

Think of the grenades he could launch between nov 18 and 20 if the Dems can run some interference. 

I have a different theory. I think if the Dems win the House Trump will work with them on infrastructure and immigration, much to his supporters chagrin. 

 

[zoonation]

I have a different theory. I think if the Dems win the House Trump will work with them on infrastructure and immigration, much to his supporters chagrin. 

You’re dreaming.  That is not a path to reelection.   Which is the only thing he cares about.  

 

[bueno]

I have a different theory. I think if the Dems win the House Trump will work with them on infrastructure and immigration, much to his supporters chagrin. 

I don't think he cares who wins in November, unless he doesn't get his SC nomination by then. He will do most of his work the same way Obama did - through the executive branch.

 

[timschochet]

You’re dreaming.  That is not a path to reelection.   Which is the only thing he cares about.  

He wants to be loved. And taken seriously.