Suddenly accuracy and detail become popular, and all it took was for the worst developed world leadership candidate in modern history to win the presidency of the US.

Do the words horse, stable and bolted mean anything to anyone?

We're about 10 years into post truth politics by now, and it seems a strange thing to me to start the fight-back here, on individual comments made by people beholden to themselves. Rather than opinion-shaping mass media printing literal lies.

Let he who did not engage in hyperbole during Trump's campaign cast the first stone. Everyone's suddenly twice the pedantic nerd I ever am when the phrase "post truth" becomes en vogue.

I don't want to be a dick or anything, but look at the backlash to all this policing of PC language. People were happy to give a potential president of the US the leeway to be sexist and xenophobic because of political correctness fatigue. Do you really want to do the same thing but with FACTS? Because that's where this ends...

2024 -- "Oh you can't say anything these days without being sure you're 100% correct and accurate and can't be misconstrued! So what if the president's opinion on climate change doesn't involve facts? It's about time someone spoke their mind without the fact-checking police getting involved!"

I genuinely don't want to be a dick about it. But if I am one, I'm pretty sure I do also have a good point.

There were categorically no facts in his post (see the key phrases "I think" and "they seem").

There was no logic or arguments either. Logic and argument come from reasoning based on presented facts.

This might sound petty (it does to me and I'm writing it), but when Post Truth Politics caused Brexit and Trump, words like "facts", "logic" and "reasonable arguments" cannot be thrown around.

Regardless of whether I agree with @Spacedog79 (which I mostly do), what he presented was "opinion", not fact, logic or argument.

Ah well yes, he did support Trump. So if that alone makes him persona non grata, thats fine.

For me he came closest to explaining the fascination that people have with this phenomenon of post-truth, from the actual angle of a republican. Or maybe I just share some insane traits with Scott.

I find neither Scott nor Trump "persuasive" BTW, just interesting.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

Uggggh! Thanks for nuthin' and thanks anyway farhad, for changing my tags. While this may have served, to explain in so many wonderful colloquialisms, what some gang-bangers call deancin', it does not accomplish what I had intended with the post-truthfully, the exercise was about the color red-the feeling red-the texture red-the sound of red.....
so-"Keep yer nose out for violations, offfi-suh!!