@ HurricaneDitka, what is your opinion about "Truth isn't Truth"?

Since Mr. Ditka asked very politely …

… I’ve started a thread for him to discuss the latest Republican meme that “Truth isn’t Truth.”

Of course others should feel free to chime in, but I am especially interested in Mr. Hurricane’s opinion. Since wingnuts like octopus, Bricker and Desert Nomad claim not to have even voted for the Orange Monstrosity, (and the word “thought” is itself anathema to wingnuts like Starving and Silver lining) Hurricane may be the Doper who is most in tune with modern Republican “thought.”

The tweets of Donald Trump and his top mentors abound with pearls of wisdom besides just “Truth isn’t truth.” Once we get Hurricane’s attention, perhaps we can ask him for comments on other Trumpist wisdom.

And no, y’all don’t get away with quoting “You didn’t build that” by way of response.

Nah. Rudy just blurted, it was dumb, but meaningless. If he had said “Fake News isn’t truth!”, he still would have been bullshitting, but it wouldn’t have been noticed as much. He fucked up, I shrug.

This is one of things where if you insist on ignoring the context of the quote it looks much worse than it is. But in reality it was a bit of unfortunate phrasing.

The line was a counter to what the interviewer was saying. Giuliani’s point was that telling the truth wouldn’t necessarily help Trump avoid a perjury trap because other people could have a different version of events, and Mueller could decide to believe those other versions, which would mean that Trump was guilty of perjury. The interviewer objected that “truth is truth …” Giuliani’s response was that “truth is not truth”, meaning in context that from the perspective of an outsider there’s no way to determine objective truth such that someone who tells the truth can be protected against perjury charges.

Transcript here.

It’s ironic that people who call for context when their guys say things like “America was never great” and so on ignore it when they seize on something out of context that they like.

“Alternative facts”, maybe?

And why didn’t you see the irony in the original thread?

One would think that a former US Attorney would be a little nimbler on his feet than this. These guys have to be able to counter legal arguments on the spot in court that require a lot more thought than an interview with Chuck Todd. He may have been sharp in the past, but those days are well in his past. It was a moronic comment by someone who is now a blithering idiot and mindless partisan stooge. Our attempting to read into it requires infinitely more brainpower than what was used to utter it.

Rudy Guiliani is the Gene Parmesan of Trump associates.

Sooner or later, they’re just going to have to bring in Scott Baio to take charge of the legal team. He may not be an actual lawyer but at least he can speak coherent sentences and he skews younger.

No, Guiliani has always been kind of a flake. This is a surprise to exactly no one who has followed his career.

Stranger

Having seen the statement in context, I guess I could just shrug it off as a silly phrasing. What I find more interesting is Rudy’s pause when the interviewer mentioned that Mueller could use who had been more truthful over the years as a deciding factor on who to believe.

Meet halfway at “Alternative Truths”?

You guys know that disingenuous motherfucker is way too much of a snowflake to reply to a Pit thread, right?

Fuck him and his tender little snowflake ass.

Truth is not truth. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Time is money. Resistance is futile. Soylent Green is people.

Wasn’t it more than a pause? I can’t look up the clip right now but I thought he said something to the effect that it would be unfair for a jury to take his past history into account - like Trump was a slutty rape victim or something.

And he went on and on about how the attendees at the Trump Tower meeting had no way of knowing that the lawyer was connected to the Russian government. Like the text of those emails hasn’t been around for forever. I was a little disappointed that Todd didn’t call him out on that whopper.

Let’s see if I understand: When the people who actually hate America say something stupid or hateful, we have to consider the context, even reversing the meaning where necessary. If a Democrat says something we twist the words however best to sell soap on FoxNews, make it look like the anti-haters are the haters, and delude low-information voters. Got it.

It’s routine for your ilk to quote whole sentences out of context but I remember one occasion (from the Benghazi Witch-hunt IIRC) where a single clause was stripped from Hillary’s testimony and made into the Soundbite of the Day on FoxNews. A clause whose meaning was actually reversed when placed in the context of the rest of the sentence, being preceded with a conjunction like ‘if’ or ‘despite.’

(I wish I’d made a note about this scurrilous misquote. My Googling skills are very poor, and any search I try would probably just get millions of hits telling me about the Pizza Child-Sex Ring or such.)

Out of context, it’s funny and mockable.

In context? Fuck no it’s not better. It’s deeply pernicious. It is a claim that there is no such thing as objective truth, a claim that’s entirely in keeping with this administration’s frankly terrifying assault on facts, from “alternative facts” to “fake news” to the president’s thousands of lies.

Giuliani is advancing the idea that whatever the president says is just as true as what anyone else says, but that Mueller will arbitrarily choose to believe someone else over the president, so the president shouldn’t testify–that’s some postmodernist deconstructionist bullshit, and we should all reject it, and that’s the truth.

Don’t forget to use your Edith Ann voice when you say that.

If that is what he meant then he’s even stupider than he comes off on television.

Would you be referring to “What difference does it make”?

Any particular reason you’re resistant to the interpretation that there is such thing as objective truth but there’s no guarantee that Mueller will arrive at it?

I’m disappointed that this thread is taking root here at the SDMB. I watched the whole interview and Giuliani just mishandled what he was trying to say. Tapper had asked why Trump is hesitant about talking to Mueller under oath. Giuliani used the example of Flynn – Comey said Trump said to lay off Flynn and Trump denies he said that. Giuliani asked, essentially, what is the truth there? And, will Mueller believe his pal Comey or the guy he has been investigating. With so much on the line (perjury charges, obstruction charges), Trump would be crazy to go into that interview, when this example is just he-said-he-said.

He should have said, “how do we know which one is true?” rather than “truth is not truth”. He wasn’t saying that there are no true things anymore, rather he was saying that, how do you know what the truth is?

Contrast that with Conway’s “alternative facts” which is bullshit from beginning to end.

Taking Giuliani out of context here is total bullshit. And, he was just in an interview, where Cuomo, for example, was giving a speech.

Now, I agree that Giuliani is a crazy person, but this particular “issue” is ridiculous. Even Krugman brought it up and I’m really disappointed.