No TV signal at my house. Helps keep me more sane. I think...

A co-worker stated blatantly incorrect information a few days ago that irritated the hell out of me. It wasn't about Trump but it prompted me to post the following elsewhere. I'm tired of so many people regurgitating information with no critical thinking or research on their own part. It's dangerous.

I use to listen to NPR almost exclusively while driving. While they were left-leaning, they seemed to be the least biased (not unbiased) news source to me. Now I just play music from my phone. My apartment building has TVs that constantly play CNN. I always stop and see what's on there when I come in the building until I have to shake my head and walk away. It usually doesn't take long. I'm a firm believer in listening to the "other side" so you know what they are thinking and where they are heading. It's gotten really difficult to do that.

========================
Whether it's information about Trump, firearms, low calorie sweeteners, or whatever, here are some tips for educating yourself so you don't perpetuate "facts" that make you look like an idiot:

- If it's a headline on a news network (Fox, CNN, whatever): disregard.
- If it's an "expert" on the news network giving you the "facts": disregard.
- Pretty much, if the information comes from a news network: disregard.
- If it's a statistic: disregard.
- If it's a statistic: disregard. (That was repeated intentionally.)
- If the "fact" or "profound thought" is in the form of an Internet meme: disregard and don't forward it in an email or re-post it on Facebook. (These can be good for a laugh sometimes though.)
- If it's anything that can be labeled as viral: disregard.
- If it's something that evokes a thought or emotion in you: do some further research before forming an opinion.

I know that we are all really busy with super important stuff. It's very tempting to consume small, catchy information pellets that are fed to us constantly. However, by necessity, tiny information pellets omit a lot of details that can completely change the context of the information. Sometimes they are blatantly misleading by design because the author knows you won't look into the issue further and they have perpetuated their intended message. Conversely, they might want you to click to read more so they can collect advertising dollars. In many instances, reading a few sentences into the story is enough to realize that the headline is distorted or just false.

Don't allow yourselves to be manipulated.
========================

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://hotair.com/archives/201...ly-to-her-top-aides/

A State Department spokesperson clarified Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s 2009 ethics pledge—to avoid conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation— did not extend to Clinton’s top aides at the Department.

Spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau was asked about recently revealed emails that showed top members of Hillary Clinton’s staff doing favors for Clinton Foundation associates. “I’m not going to speak to specific emails, but I think you guys know State Department officials are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations including businesses, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks,” Trudeau replied.

“You don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?” the reporter asked. But Trudeau simply repeated her statement about the Department talking to a wide range of people.

At this point another reporter interjected, “Importantly, in this case, Secretary Clinton made a pledge that she would not personally or substantially, in any way, involve herself with the Clinton Foundation.” He continued, “So it’s not just any outside organization, it’s the specific organization that she said ahead of time she wouldn’t have contact with.” “Doesn’t this then seem to violate that pledge?” he asked.

“So, again, to reiterate, you know, Department officials are in touch with a wide range of individuals,” Trudeau replied. She added, “I’d note that former Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.”

Pause a moment and consider what a slimy, Clintonian admission this is, one that reveals how utterly hollow Clinton’s pledge was all along. Does it matter if Clinton vowed not to be involved with the family Foundation if her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and top aide, Huma Abedin, were free to carry on as they pleased? What kind of ethics pledge is this?

Trudeau’s answer also still did not really respond to the initial question, i.e. is it a problem that state officials were doing favors for the Clinton Foundation? The AP’s Matt Lee tried once more to get Trudeau to answer that question. When she continued to repeat her talking point about speaking with outside organizations, Lee became exasperated.

“I’m sorry, am I not speaking English?” Lee snapped.

***************

it sounds like the entire upper management of the State Dept should be fired

Triangulation.

Clinton today repeated the call for Trump to release his tax returns (which isn't a requirement, despite the media making people think so).

The perfect response for him would be to say..."Gee, I emailed them to you... didn't you see them?".

And then demand she release her medical records.

quote:

And then demand she release her medical records.

What makes you think that anything she released would have any semblance of reality?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

And then demand she release her medical records.

What makes you think that anything she released would have any semblance of reality?

Yeah, even like a birth certificate or something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I've given up entirely on watching any cable news shows. I'll look at the FoxNews website, but that's the extent of it.

For the sake of your sanity, gentlemen, I'd suggest that you do the same. It's just not worth it. Pointless.

. Netflix is now streaming SlowTV, knitting night or maybe firewood morning, how about a 4 hour episode :train from Oslo to Bergen.

I often see people writing that a non-vote might as well be a vote for Clinton. I don't hear the other side saying the converse of this but the argument would seem to make just as much sense. So who's more likely not to vote in this election--a typically-Democratic voter or a typically-Republican voter?

quote:

I often see people writing that a non-vote might as well be a vote for Clinton. I don't hear the other side saying the converse of this but the argument would seem to make just as much sense. So who's more likely not to vote in this election--a typically-Democratic voter or a typically-Republican voter?

I'm encouraging every Clinton supporter I know to vote third party. I see many on the left who don't seem to care much for Clinton, and they clearly hate Trump. Johnson is a great compromise in their case.

I guess this is going to be one of those token investigations to appease the masses.

Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...ndation-is-underway/

The perceived feud doesn't help... but who's funding who?

Under the agreement, the RNC sends out fundraising letters, under the signature of Donald J. Trump for President. The RNC uses most of the money raised to support the Trump campaign, but some is supposed to be for down ticket races....


Trump: If GOP drops me, ‘I’ll stop funding the Republican Party’

August 12, 2016 | 7:47am

Trump: If GOP drops me, ‘I’ll stop funding the Republican Party’

The Republicans’ money train will come to a screeching halt if the party doesn’t squarely back its presidential nominee, Donald Trump warned Thursday.

Trump issued the warning on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” in response to a question about Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus reportedly threatening to pull back party funds and reallocate them to other races.

“He just put out a press release. And he just put out a tweet it’s untrue,” Trump said.

He added: “And I mean, if it is true, that’s OK, too. Because all I have to do is stop funding the Republican Party.”

The Trump campaign and the RNC entered into a joint fundraising agreement in May which benefits the campaign, the national party, and state parties across the nation.

Trump raised about $80 million in July, with $64 million coming from the joint effort with the RNC.

Trump said he’d be able to determine the day after Election Day whether the Republican Party was sufficiently helpful.

“I will let you know on the 9th, on November 9th … when we find out whether or not that is all good,” Trump told guest host Eric Bolling.

Trump was in Florida for campaign rallies and to raise money.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/t...he-republican-party/

Perhaps it is just a reminder for folks about the true colors of the GOP

I just don't care. It doesn't matter. Everyone seems to be against the guy. I just don't care. I support Donald Trump. Period.

Everyone else can do whatever they want and say whatever they want. The race is already decided and we just need to await the revelation in November.

quote:

perceived feud

is it?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The perceived feud doesn't help... but who's funding who?

Under the agreement, the RNC sends out fundraising letters, under the signature of Donald J. Trump for President. The RNC uses most of the money raised to support the Trump campaign, but some is supposed to be for down ticket races....


Trump: If GOP drops me, ‘I’ll stop funding the Republican Party’

August 12, 2016 | 7:47am

Trump: If GOP drops me, ‘I’ll stop funding the Republican Party’

The Republicans’ money train will come to a screeching halt if the party doesn’t squarely back its presidential nominee, Donald Trump warned Thursday.

Trump issued the warning on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” in response to a question about Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus reportedly threatening to pull back party funds and reallocate them to other races.

“He just put out a press release. And he just put out a tweet it’s untrue,” Trump said.

He added: “And I mean, if it is true, that’s OK, too. Because all I have to do is stop funding the Republican Party.”

The Trump campaign and the RNC entered into a joint fundraising agreement in May which benefits the campaign, the national party, and state parties across the nation.

Trump raised about $80 million in July, with $64 million coming from the joint effort with the RNC.

Trump said he’d be able to determine the day after Election Day whether the Republican Party was sufficiently helpful.

“I will let you know on the 9th, on November 9th … when we find out whether or not that is all good,” Trump told guest host Eric Bolling.

Trump was in Florida for campaign rallies and to raise money.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/t...he-republican-party/

Priebus didn't say these things and neither did Trump. It's all taken out of context and spun for sensationalism. No one is suggesting that the GOP should quit funding Trump. The entire farce is so people will spread the nonsense and introduce the false notion that the GOP isn't funding and supporting Trump.

Why post this stuff? Educate yourself from better sources that aren't pulling you by the ring they have inserted in your nose so they can make money and/or advance their agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:
Why post this stuff?

That's a good question.

quote:

It's all taken out of context and spun for sensationalism. No one is suggesting that the GOP should quit funding Trump.

Yes, that's why I called it a 'perceived feud'...
I think it's media driven rather than by Trump or the GOP.

quote:

Why post this stuff?

Because I'm voting for Trump, but man, it's really hard for me to do it. We can't have Hillary under any circumstance, but Trump sure is a looser! We must all vote for Trump in November even though he is the most terrible choice.

It's a passive aggressive behavior from Cruz supporters.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

It's all taken out of context and spun for sensationalism. No one is suggesting that the GOP should quit funding Trump.

Yes, that's why I called it a 'perceived feud'...
I think it's media driven rather than by Trump or the GOP.

Media and spin?

"the allegation had elicited fresh concerns about Trump's relationship with the truth and his preparedness to be commander in chief."

https://www.washingtonpost.com...7287896b5_story.html
If it was so pathetic, it would be comical

quote:

It's a passive aggressive behavior from Cruz supporters.

It's sad that you would say such a thing. I'm planning to vote for Trump but that's not good enough for you, because I voted for someone else in the primary.

And sure... let's all just ignore what's going on in the campaign.

If it doesn't go our way you can always blame it on the people who voted for someone else in the primary. That's unity for you.

PS: Remember the old days, early in the primaries, when we were all on the same team and there was even talk of this?:



Trump team, RNC to meet at pivotal moment

Struggling campaign requests Orlando sit-down to fix the relationship and plot a turnaround.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/...226938#ixzz4H8E30Cqs

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chellim1,