[quote=@Efficacy]
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Yeah, they're calling out the alternative facts that the MSM is using.
[/quote]

No. KAC said that Spicer gave "alternative facts" when it was brought up that what he had said was a provable and known falsehood. 

[quote=@Meta]
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

Let me break that down. That assumes first that
You are correct about this, politically speaking. This brash statement cannot be made without that assumption.
Supporting Trump is automatically a negative statement as to my political understanding. This also connects to the previous assumption, that you are correct in this matter.
You know the extent of my political knowledge. We rarely speak politically, and no, it is not a matter of "from what you have said I already know." You don't.
That President Trump is a bad thing, also appealing to assumption one.
That there is evidence that my political knowledge is inferior, other than "because I said so."

In addition, the way you stated that already shuts down dissent; that's a logical fallacy. You can't just say that someone knows less than you as an actual point in argument. If you didn't state it as an argument, then it's ad hominem, another logical fallacy. It's also extremely arrogant to make the previous assumptions and just come out with "You're wrong, so it doesn't even matter."

And probably more than anything, it's just an unkind thing to say to someone who considers you a friend just because you disagree with them politically.
[/quote]

You're the one assuming here. You completely misunderstood my statements twice, which is likely my fault for the wording on the second one. So let me show you why.

I specifically said that you're stupid >when it comes to politics< and followed this up by >based on what you have repeatedly shown.< This was in direct response to you saying "Probably because we haven't spoken in a long time and you think that anything you disagree with is stupid." Your entire first paragraph is incorrect because it is entirely based on a false assumption about what I was saying. It had nothing to do with whether or not you support trump. I said this DIRECTLY BEFORE my statement. 

Where did I say "From what you have said I already know?" I said it was "based on what you've repeatedly shown in the past that supports it." These are not the same thing. The first would mean it was based on the conversation at the time and that it was not a safe assumption but rather a total statement of objective fact. 

Yes, you can. As I already said, it was a direct response to you trying to make an argument that, by the logic you use here, would be just an ad hominem. It was not used to try to shut down dissent, it was used to counter something you said. 

Then you and I don't agree on what "stupid" means nor on the meaning it should have given the context. I not only stated it was specifically about a certain subject, changing the context from what it would be if I simply called stupid, full stop, but I also used it to mean the opposite of "knowledgeable" or "smart," rather than the opposite of "intelligent." It's not any less kind than saying "ignorant" other than the fact that "stupid" holds more negative connotations as a word, similar to using "retarded" in place of "handicapped." 

The issue of hypocrisy is that you responded to being called stupid on a specific subject by saying it invalidates everything else said, yet you are a supporter of trump who does genuine ad hominems against everyone who disagrees with him, and makes ALL of those assumptions that you assumed I made every time he talks to or about anyone who doesn't agree with him completely. If you genuinely believed that it invalidates everything else, then nothing trump says would ever be valid in your mind, and you wouldn't support him. Therefor it's hypocritical.