I wasn't expecting someone to argue against truth, but it's an Orwellian world now.
I don't get his attacks on Rep. Lewis. Sure, they are of a piece consistent with his past psychoses, but come on, when does the presidency start?
I still don't get what he's doing with health care. Based on statements over the past few days, it sounds like they have a team that is just doing some proof-reading now. He wants repeal+replace to occur simultaneously, but that is just not possible.
Too many lies. Too much drama. Didn't someone say "If you like your president, you can keep your president." ?
That's my point. 1) folks that believe in the Republicans/Democrats like a religion will not be swayed. They can't. They claim they're open minded but no factual evidence will change their mind. They're done. 2) folks that are open minded are willing to listen to reasonable information and make a decision without clinging to an ideology that defines them. (They don't care who wins the football game as long as it's the team that plays the best.) 3) so anyone wishing to be heard has an obligation to be honest. Completely so.
So I don't care about the ideology. Just gimme some truth. All I want is the truth.
And what kind of truth is it that you seek ? Over easy, soft and fuzzy, spoon fed or hot and nasty ?
Truth is a conclusion based upon facts. How many facts are needed to make a truth ? This would make truth relative to the facts.
What is being passed off as truth by democrats is that Trump is the illegitimate POTUS. And this is based upon facts collected by those who state this truth. I have yet to see any fact though. Just conclusions of unseen facts, conclusions passed down from others that don't state anything with certainty, just the degree of likely hood of certainty.
You wish dialogue ? Just how do you get that going when one side sees the other side as illegitimate before it even opens its mouth ?
Another thought. I don't see anything related to Hillary's emails, the DNC's emails and Podesta's emails or Comey's revelations and unrevelations that changed one single mind or vote. If you were still onboard with either candidate before it started coming out, you weren't going to switch sides after and didn't. You were already committed to looking past all the clutter.
Only until after Trump is accepted as the legitimate CIC for the next 4 years can any real discussions happen. Until then, its what we have now and will continue to have. Funny that the source of this outrage and hate is from the very same who verbally body slammed Trump over his possible non acceptance of the results of the vote are doing the very thing that they were so outraged about the possibility in itself happening in the first place.
He can't challenge the results but we can.
That is the truth, you (R's) can't but we (D's) can. Right ? That doesn't sell very well.
At the very least the pendulum has swung in the other direction now. Do you want to stand in front of it and be knocked over or do you want to let it do its thing like it always will, until it swings back in the other direction ?
Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works by CJ Hopkins (Counterpunch) The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an “official narrative” that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between “the truth” as defined by the ruling classes and any other “truth” that contradicts their narrative.
Imagine this Maginot line as a circular wall surrounded by inhospitable territory. Inside the wall is “normal” society, gainful employment, career advancement, and all the other considerable benefits of cooperating with the ruling classes. Outside the wall is poverty, anxiety, social and professional stigmatization, and various other forms of suffering. Which side of the wall do you want to be on? Every day, in countless ways, each of us are asked and have to answer this question. Conform, and there’s a place for you inside. Refuse, and … well, good luck out there.
That's my point. 1) folks that believe in the Republicans/Democrats like a religion will not be swayed. They can't. They claim they're open minded but no factual evidence will change their mind. They're done. 2) folks that are open minded are willing to listen to reasonable information and make a decision without clinging to an ideology that defines them. (They don't care who wins the football game as long as it's the team that plays the best.) 3) so anyone wishing to be heard has an obligation to be honest. Completely so.
So I don't care about the ideology. Just gimme some truth. All I want is the truth.
For a quick read, I think you can safely stick to the bolded sentences.
Putting my earlier (semi-) sarcasm aside, I agree that we should personally strive to fit into your category #2. However, I think it's that endeavor is going to become more difficult as more Americans (on both sides of the political aisle) stay in their infotainment echo chambers, rejecting evidence that beliefs-contradicting evidence (regardless of its reliability) and relying on dubious news sources.
Commonly accepted sources and notions of truth might continue to disappear from the US. When a POTUS lies as flagrantly and frequently as Trump does, it sends a signal that it's OK for others to do so.
Two op-eds might interest you all. The first warns that deliberate campaigns to sow doubt about our political organizations, leaders and news organizations divide citizens and create a paralyzing mistrust of the society in general.
The second op-ed advises Americans about how to counter a leader like Trump who spews kompromat notions (Obama was never born here, the country is falling apart), blatantly lies, evades unpleasant truths and manipulates the press. Italy endured nine years of Silvio Berlusconi as Prime Minister and wow did he resemble Trump. You have to force leaders like this to be specific about events and their policies, to stick to the facts.
...kompromat is more than an individual piece of damaging information: It is a broader attempt to manufacture public cynicism and confusion in ways that target not just one individual but an entire society.
And although this practice tends to be associated with Russia — the word kompromat is a portmanteau of the Russian words for “compromising” and “information” — it is a common feature of authoritarian and semiauthoritarian nations around the world.
...
By eroding the very idea of a shared reality, and by spreading apathy and confusion among a public that learns to distrust leaders and institutions alike, kompromat undermines a society’s ability to hold the powerful to account and ensure the proper functioning of government.
...
Although the Trump dossier purported to be a warning about kompromat elsewhere, she said, it could also be seen as a form of kompromat itself. She listed the parallels to what she had seen in her research: Its content is damaging but unverified.
...The document also fostered uncertainty and division (amongst Americans about its reliability). ...
Many people in the United States traditionally see the leak of confidential documents by whistle-blowers, like Daniel Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers, as a way to hold the powerful to account. We tend to believe that transparency serves the public good, and secrecy the interests of the powerful.
Such a belief presumes that there is a fixed quantity of hidden information out there that the news media is or is not revealing. But in a kompromat society, incriminating material, real and fake, will be manufactured as needed to serve a political purpose.
To smear a president, undermine a judge or sow distrust in an institution or process, all someone needs to do is create a set of documents salacious enough to attract discussion, persuade some corner of the web to publish them and then wait for the resulting controversy to be reported as news.
That does not hold the powerful to account. And worse, it undermines the institutions that are supposed to do so.
... First, for the skeptical, don’t underestimate the man. Why is a regular guy attracted to a billionaire candidate? It’s simple. Because he can “play to people’s fantasies,” as Mr. Trump puts it. The man knows his television, loves money, hates rules, tells jokes, uses bad language and is convivial to a fault. He may not be like us, but he makes sure there’s something about him that different people can relate to, personally.
As both Mr. Trump and Mr. Berlusconi know, once you have the people on the hook, you can sell them anything, and they’ll forgive you for everything. His appalling remarks about women and foreign countries? A sign of authenticity, say his admirers. ...
But to obsess over him is exactly what the man wants. “You see?” he can say. “They all gang up on me, those establishment types!” Ross Perot took advantage of the media’s love for the odd and novel in 1992; today, thanks to the Internet, it’s easier to spread the word.
Soon Mr. Trump’s act will become repetitive, so just speed up the process. Make him boring. Force him to be specific. For now, he can ignore questions about how, exactly, he would deport the estimated 11 million immigrants living in America without legal papers. Don’t stop asking. Eventually people will see through his charade. It might not seem that way now, but trust me — it worked with Mr. Berlusconi, once we figured out how to do it.
...
Third, don’t forget his miscues and misrepresentations. Right now Americans are drawn to Mr. Trump’s pragmatism, both in his life and his politics. But that won’t last. Americans also don’t like being lied to, and as the campaign season lengthens, there will be a lot of opportunities to point out instances of what I’ll delicately call “tactical amnesia” on Mr. Trump’s part. Candidates have lost for these sorts of mistakes. Don’t let Mr. Trump get away with it.
...
Finally, don’t dig yourself into a hole. Margaret Thatcher’s classic acronym, TINA — There Is No Alternative — says it all about the attitude of many voters. Before choosing what they think is right, they consider what they believe to be possible. Mr. Berlusconi lasted as long as he did for lack of alternatives; Mr. Trump is banking on the creation of a self-fulfilling narrative, that even if he is not the best candidate, he is the only viable candidate. ... While Mr. Trump might be new to politics, Trumpism — which is to say the offensive masking themselves as “honest,” the unprepared masking themselves as “fresh” — is an ancient story. “People take pleasure in giving power to the indecent,” wrote Seneca, 2,000 years ago. But they pay for this, sooner or later. And with Mr. Trump, it may be sooner.
you guys disturb my digestion... just seeing the name TRUMP is constipating. There shouldn't be no political discussion in here. We want to relax , your nation just elected a psychopath, let not this mistake be a burden on other nations. As A Canadians, I say, good luck !
Ye olde double negative. What you're saying is there should be plenty of political discussion in here. ;-)
you guys disturb my digestion... just seeing the name TRUMP is constipating. There shouldn't be no political discussion in here. We want to relax , your nation just elected a psychopath, let not this mistake be a burden on other nations. As A Canadians, I say, good luck !
2) folks that are open minded are willing to listen to reasonable information and make a decision without clinging to an ideology that defines them. (They don't care who wins the football game as long as it's the team that plays the best.)
I'm not sure this one works. It just says that if you're open-minded, you are easily swayed.
That's my point. 1) folks that believe in the Republicans/Democrats like a religion will not be swayed. They can't. They claim they're open minded but no factual evidence will change their mind. They're done. 2) folks that are open minded are willing to listen to reasonable information and make a decision without clinging to an ideology that defines them. (They don't care who wins the football game as long as it's the team that plays the best.) 3) so anyone wishing to be heard has an obligation to be honest. Completely so.
So I don't care about the ideology. Just gimme some truth. All I want is the truth.
as cynical as I am I do belive that the majority of Americans will do the right thing if facts and only facts are presented to us in a fair manner but it does seem that this idea is getting less probable as I witness the last 16 years
This is fake news. It's unsubstantiated and a report of a report.
How fitting: it's about Trump. Hey, if Douchebag Don can lie all the time, why can't we?
I can't say Perez Hilton's any more reliable, but it's a bit late in the day to worry about reliable reporting. You're in Trumpworld now. Facts are optional.
Perhaps you'd prefer the Daily Mail's regurgitation of the touchy-feely BS spew from Trump's head of the Presidential Inauguration Committee:
I expected that second panel to refer to his taxes. Seriously, instead of caring about what he thinks of Streep or Hamilton, why aren't we being shown them?
You might see them if Douchebag Don faced any consequences for not publishing them. But I think the next four years are going to consist of Trump saying and doing whatever he wants until forced to do otherwise.
Americans saw Trump behaving just like that during the campaign and voted for him anyway. They wanted the crazy, hate-filled, sleazy narcissistic loudmouth and they got him.
Don't expect Trump to suddenly become ethical, responsible or accountable.Too bad so many people hated this past campaign: that's exactly what the next four years are going to be like.
I expected that second panel to refer to his taxes. Seriously, instead of caring about what he thinks of Streep or Hamilton, why aren't we being shown them?
