I was wrong, Trump does care about the environment

I didn't say it was my 'perception of Americans'.

Because your comment was about your perception of the US being a 'caring country', I replied in kind.

I have also heard from UK visitors to US theme parks that US visitors to, and employees of US theme parks are remarkably kind and helpful, but that's a somewhat singular demographic compared with the political policies and human rights record, or lack thereof, of the whole country.

You started this exchange by advising me to question things and that my views will be obscured by viewing the mainstream media alone. Like I never ask questions, or don't use multiple sources in a bid to answer those horribly annoying questions.

I think the Trumpian antipathy to mainstream media is egregiously insulting and disrespectful to the many journalists who strive to inform with integrity, particulary those who risk and even lose their lives in pursuit of exposing harsh, dispicable realities.

I'm glad and grateful for this conversation with you, however, because I've gained an insight into how this blanket distrust of the mainstream media: it gives citizens permission to ignore a host of issues that are incongruous with a perception that the US is a 'caring country'. If people didn't feel vulnerabe, marginalised and generally shat on, they wouldn't have been sucked into the Trump cult-a-like madness in the first place.

"That is a fantasy world, not the real world" Judge Arthur F. Engoron

I didn't say that at all and I resent you unkindly trying to make out that did.

Where do you think I've copy and pasted?

If you're going to make personal accusations, at least back them up.

Are you referring the Judge Engoron quote? Do you know where it came from, or to whom it was directed?

I'm pleased for you.

I'm arguing my case.

Telling me I'll never understand, I lack common sense, making false accusations and huffing at me is not arguing yours.

That would depend on what you mean by 'unedited', given any media presentation is edited to some degree by virtue of clips having a starting point and an end.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cannot be disputed' either. Are you referring to the idea that a clip is evidence of someone saying something, or someone saying something factual, or perfectly argued?

I guess it would also depend on the context within which the clip was bracketted. I might say, "I like vanilla" and nothing more, but it would mean very different things if it was in the context of perfumes, mugs of cocoa, or sex.

I ike the sound of that, thank you.

I am a migrant, you muppet.

I was wrong, Trump does care about the environment
It was reported last week that Trump's ex-Executive Assistant Molly Michael told investigators that Trump regularly reused paper in a bid to save trees.

He wrote to-do lists for her on the back of White House notecards used to brief him while in office, rather than recklessly binning them in landfill waste collection. They were only spoiled on one side with sensitive information and classification markings.

Molly Michaels went on to recycle the card through an FBI reclamation scheme.

DT is nothing more than a rich getto.
This has been and continue to be true the more he talk and have others doing his dirty work.

Ghetto for me is lots of very thin Jewish people in cramped conditions.

Would you mind explaining 'a rich getto' to me, please?

I don't usually comment on blogs where the angry have started hurling abuse or bringing in ludicrous totally irrelevant arguments for fear of being caught in the crossfire but I have to agree with Chat on this one. When you know something is live and unplugged the fact that it is also recorded is immaterial. It can't be edited as it is happening. The videos may be cleaned up, pruned, slanted, and re-used endlessly but the original was in real time.

The marmite man is very fond of saying 'I didn't say that' - uh, you did - and 'fake news' - even of his own tweets once he's deleted them - and because so many clips have been creatively edited and amended there's ample proof of fakery both 'proving' and 'disproving' but every now and then there's the chance of watching something in real time and it is disturbing to watch it being massaged later. Not just marmite man, been a few others where I have shaken my head in disbelief. Before I got fed up with him his stand against fake news had my support. Pity he went so totally to the dark side on that righteous cause and lost all credibility because it IS a huge, huge, issue. And oh dear probably an irrelevant argument. Sorry.

I don't think you have presented an irrelevant argument at all, but I do think it's a part of a more complicated dynamic.

I asked Chat to clarify his comment because I wasn't sure what he was asking, or what point he was raising. The example he offered (conversation elsewhere) was the clip of Scott Hall pleading in the Georgia RICO case (posted elsewhere).

The phrase 'fake news' is rather nebulous and can be applied to pretty much anything, even live footage if we consider start points, end points (editing) and context as I mentioned earier.

If it's so difficut to define, what function do accusations of 'fake news' serve?

Trump clearly uses it as a propaganda tool: don't listen to anything except me, or people favorable to me; anything that questions, criticises, or contradicts me is fake news.

However, the process of declaring news to be fake is one of 'cognitive dissonance': when we have strong beliefs, or thoughts that we are emotionally invested in and we are faced with contradictory evidence, we find ways of explaining the evidence away.

When Scott Hall pleaded, whether we saw it live, or recorded, we have irrefutable evidence that he pleaded, but there have already been claims of the ever nebulous 'fake news'. One argument is that indicting someone on nine felony counts, but offering a plea deal of a few misdemeanors and five years probation in exchange for prosecutorial co-operation is hardly a choice made freely, not under threat, nor duress.

That is a valid argument, but it also fulfills the criteria of cognitive dissonance: I don't believe Trump is guilty, I believe he is being set up by the baddies, therefore to make mysef feel more comfortable about the impending tsunami of evidence against Trump I'm going to say it's all fake news and all part of a conspiracy to get rid of the real winner.

I think we should reframe the question 'what is fake news?' with the questions, 'what is a a sound argument?' and 'what is the cognitive dissonance?'..

I think 'gut feeling', or intuition is an essential survival tool.

Gavin de Becker (one time Secret Security Advisor and major financial contributor to RFK Jr who complained about his lack of security despite having the best man for the job at his disposal) talks a lot about survival instincts in his book The Gift of Fear, particuarly in the context of surviving domestic violence.

It's your gut feeling that has you lock a door, or exit through a window with barely registering why. Only later might you realise you reacted to the sound of a movement, or a movement in the corner of your eye that told you you were in danger.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are highy tuned to your instincts and have very good survival skills.

The trouble is, whilst acting on instinct is essential in some situations, in everyday life it's not always useful to just react to situations. If we have a gut feeing that something is wrong, or dangerous when we're watching the news, it's probably not a good idea to boot the TV, leap out of the window, or take any other reactive action.

In everyday life where our lives are not in immediate danger, our instincts are still giving us useful infrmation, but only if we take the time to unravel and understand them.

Using our gut feeling and reacting to politics, rather than thinking very carefully about our feelings and the political situation is totally dysfunctional.

Politics is not a situation where we are in immediate, life-threatening danger. It is not a tree that is about to fall on us right now, even if you think it is a dodgy tree that might fall a year from now.

You have time to think. You have time to manage and avoid the situation. You have time to test the tree to see if it really is dodgy, or if it is, fell the tree before it falls on you.

That is not a 'sound argument'.

It's an example, or piece of evidence that you can use to make a sound argument, though.

So, your argument is that the media regularly and persistently presents edited footage that makes Trump appear to be thoughtless and careless with the intention of promoting the idea that he is inappropriate for the presidency.

On it's own your one example doesn't support your argument, therefore it is not a sound argument. It might have been a mistake to show him dumping the bird food out of the context of following the Japanese leader's lead. It might have been presented like that because it looks funny. It may be that they are both thoughtless, careless arseholes.

If however, your instinct tells you that this editing was a deliberate act for a deiberate purpose, then present this example, along with others which all support your argument. If you can show a pattern, eliminating all other possibilites, then you have presented a sound argument.

If you are stuck at the 'gut feeling' stage and have not moved forward to present a 'sound argument' then you will not be listened to, nor taken seriously.

I keep saying this: The legal shit that Trump is in is based upon 'sound argument'.

Prosecutors have presented an argument to grand juries and presented many examples/pieces of evidence that support their argument and eliminate all other possibiities. Grand juries have ruled that the prosecutions' arguments are sound enough to move to the next stage whch is criminal indictment.

The indictments are being tested for soundness as we speak, for example, the motions trying to get state prosecutions moved to federal courts, recusal motions, severence motions, etc.

When that's all done, the next stage of proving the soundness of the argument is criminal trials. Inbetween and after all this, there are appeals courts where rulings can be challenged for unsoundness.

Every little minute part of the process has to be supported with evidence and with precedent (previous court ruling where arguments were ruled to be sound.)

Meanwhile, the Republican party is stuck at 'gut feeling' stage of presenting their arguments. This is either because they have no credible evidence, not enough examples to support to support their arguments and eliminate all other possibilities, they are incompetent at presenting a sound argument, or they are relying on paying with voters' gut feelings' to get into power, or off the litigation hook.

The Republican party needs to up their game and present 'sound arguments', rather than 'gut feeling' antics if they are to have any hope of succeeding and overcoming the poop they are in. I personally would be thrilled to bits if the Repubican party and the Repubican defense teams did just that.

*playing with voters, not paying.

'Cognitive' relates to thoughts and reasoning skills.

'Dissonance' means a lack of harmony.

'Cognitive dissonance' is a term used in psychology to explore what happens when we are faced with information that brings disharmony to our thoughts and reasoning.

One of the most famous studies in the research of cognitive dissonance is sometimes called 'The End of the World Study' from the 1950's.

A woman claiimed that she had a message from god telling her precisely when the world was going to end and she had a small group of followers. When the allotted time came and went,, the woman ran out of the room in tears, only to come back a short while later claiming she had received another message from god teling her the group's faith had saved the world from his destructive wrath.

The cognitive dissonance is where the world not ending doesn't match the belief that the world is going to end. When we have strong beliefs, or thoughts we are emotionally invested in and information presents itself that contradicts our thouhts and beliefs, we have two options:

1. we change our thoughts and beliefs;

2. we change the contradictory information.

We tend to avoid pain, discomfort and disharmony and often the easiest way to do that is to change the contradictory information, rather than our whole belief system, or admit we were wrong.

(Earlier I said we should ask 'what is the conitive dissonance'. I was wrong, I should have said, 'what is the reaction to the cognitive dissonance'. Just sayin'.)

The prophet in the study changed the contradiction from 'the world didn't end, therefore my vision/message from god was stupidly false' to 'I've had another message from god saying we saved everyone, our beliefs are intact and on top of that, we are heroes'.

In the current legal and political situation we will most likely all have our thoughts and beliefs thrown into disharmony by contradictory information: it's extremely unlikely that Trump et all with be found guilty on all charges, or not guilty on all charges. We are all going to have to manage the discomfort of that, whatever we think, or believe to be true, there will be information that contradicts them.

The issue is not that you personally should behave as if the blogs are a courtroom, or a House of Representitives, etc., but that the Repubican party should behave as if they are in a courtroom, or a House of Representitives when they are.

The Democrat party are.

That imbalance is your biggest probem.

The Republican party and Republican defendants are behaving like they are on a dating website forum. They are not trying to resolve this situation sensiby and legally, they are throwing anythng out there for attention and entertainment.

What does that mean?

And as I've said before...

I'm not trying to.

It's very difficult to learn and progress if you surround yourself with people who only agree with you. In discussing these matters, I learn and progress; I change my own mind.

Again, no.

An opinion doesn't necessarily need to be supported by a 'source', particularly on a dating website, but don't expect me to accept an opinion someone has plucked out of their arse.

A philosophy lecturer once said to my fellow students and I, "I don't care what your personal opinion is. I don't care if you think Hitler was right. If you can argue your case properly, I'll give you a high mark."

Having said that, legal due process requires both sound argument and citation of precedent.

Legal due process is the era we are currenty in regarding the leadership of one of the most powerful countries in the world, which ultimately affects all the other countries.

PS. Thanks for the apology.

PPS. The hair dryers are a waste of a resources. The ceiling fan, however, is an efficient duel function use of energy, especually if powered by renewable energy.

You didn't answer this question, but I'd like to create some perspective.

One of my longest posts on this blog is about 330 words, or 2/3 of a page.

Judge Chutkan's latest ruling was about 10,000 words, or 20 pages.

It was the ruling where she said, "No, I'm not going to recuse myself." which is 7 words, or perhaps just one.

Those other 9,993+6 words are all analysis and citations of precedent arguing her case.

And that's just one response to one pre-trial motion.

Judge Engoron's summary judgement in the civil suit against Trump et al was 45 pages, or 22,500 words of analysis, citation and conclusions. Again, that was even before the trial started and without motions to appeal, or their responses.

We have entered this era of legal due process where each question is asked and answered using tens of thousands of words, where evidence may be in the order of 500 million words.

How do you hope to understand what's going on, or develop an informed opinion, or decide what is real and what is fake, or fair, or unfair, or grasp the enormity of the monumental events happening in your country if you think 300 words from me is overanalysing?

Saying I overanaliyse is like saying smoke signals are a technological step too far in the current conditions of communication.