"Has the 2016 election changed our perception of truth?"

I think we got a masters class on how out of control our social and mainstream media really are.
It is a game changer.

Has the 2016 election changed our perception of truth?

I don't think the 2016 elections changed people's perception of the "truth" .... truth as always is in the eyes of the beholder.

What the 2016 election has done (or helped to solidify) is people's perception of who tells them the truth.

Truthfuly it has been a long time coming; but in 2016 we finally fell off the cliff. Americans no longer think their government and news media are trustworthy. Now each person starts from that point and moves in their own direction; some turn to indeviduals that align with their already preconceived notions; some turn to social media and fervently turn out their own content; some become apathetic about the whole thing and just tune out; and excetera.

They are interesting time we living in ... it seems as if anything is possible from this point .... the American people could rebuild something better or we could spiral to our down fall.

Double post

Truth is dead.

Investigating emails 10 times is good, attempting to investigate if Russia tampered with the American election is a joke.

We cannot even be honest about motives or blatant things any longer, as long as you lie and lie hard enough, it is truth.

originally posted by: charlyv
I think we got a masters class on how out of control our social and mainstream media really are.
It is a game changer.

I we witnessed the Republicans are off their meds and that being presidential, religious, transparent or consistent was just a standards that was applied to would be liberals.

Trump wasn't really mocking the deformed reporter.
All 3,000 lawsuits he faced in his life were just BS.
The ties made in China and Mexico were just a hoax.
on and on

the meds ran out

who cares

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK, then how do you explain the acceptance of some facts and the denial of others based on political affiliation? Wouldn't that qualify as perception of truth?

You're assuming the left gives a flip about truth and doing what's right.

I assume constituents on both sides do in fact care about doing what's right, but often disagree about what that means.

I assume most politicians on both sides don't care a lick about doing what's right.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Thank you for finding this. I shared it with my friends on Facebook.

originally posted by: Greggers
Go with pointless.

I already had before I even hit the "reply" button. At least we agree on something.

Lunatics = the people willing to believe it without checking sources, although that's not necessarily what makes them lunatics.

Hell, if that's your metric for measuring who is a lunatic when it comes to trusting information without checking sources, that encompasses probably 95% of the American public. I'm one of the very few people that I know personally, other than my wife and a couple of friends, who actually attempt to verify information on a story or report. Most people don't, and on top of that, most people don't even read a story or watch a report, they just see a headline and run with it.

Unbalanced people are everywhere, yes. But the "official story" of any given conspiracy doesn't attract them per se. They do, however, tend to flock around conspiracies in droves.

Right, but what you're failing to credit these "unbalanced people," as you're willing to call them, with is that they often do a lot of research into an event before believing that the official story is false. No matter how 'far out' their claims are concerning the falsehood of the official narrative then becomes irrelevant to people who consider them "unbalanced," as they just get lumped into the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist" and often viewed as irrational, often by the people in that 95% that I mentioned who are apathetic about researching the veracity about claims in any given news report.

Do you see the irony in that?

In some cases, I consider those who buy into the official narrative more of a "lunatic" than those who are willing to question that narrative. In most cases, I think that apathy is the most prevalent quality in the American people these days, and I applaud anyone willing to dig deeper and try to connect dots that, say, the MSM or official mouthpieces fail to recognize or seemingly attempt to distract from or, in the worse cases, cover up.

Like Draoicht points out (and to which point you think is seldom true), when the story doesn't sit right, (some) people employ critical thinking skills, and this is what leads to a distrust in officials and official narratives, and the stench of lies from these sources is getting palpable these days--it's no wonder that the default stance of some anymore is to distrust the 'facts' from the first published reports, especially when these source would rather be first than be correct the first time. I'm not saying that it's the best approach nor the one that I take, but I am certainly always skeptical if we're being lied to, even by omission or innocent mistake, and that's why I constantly check multiple sources for important stories in order to get a more accurate picture.

And, you know, if that picture doesn't add up, then let the dot connecting begin, because where there's smoke, there's usually a raging fire that someone is trying to cover up in order to snuff it out before all of the looky lous show up. The real question is, what is actually smoke that leads somewhere, and what is just condensed breath from all of the hot air?