Skip to main content

Love and hate - politically speaking

Timeline for James Comey.  There are two emotional threads.  Love and hate and then hate and love.

July 5, 2016.  Comey condemns Clinton for mishandling classified information.  But then say we will not indict.   Dems love it.  Reps hate it.

October 28, 2016.   Comey’s wait a minute moment.  We reopen the investigation, found new emails with classified info on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Oops.  Reps love it. Dems hate it.

Interim.  Both sides generally disdain Comey basically because he seems beyond the control of anyone.  Reps hate Comey; Dems hate Comey.  Especially, Hillary hates Comey, blaming his “re-opening letter” as a primary cause for her loss.

May 9, 2017. Trump fires Comey.  Reps claim it was appropriate; Dems also, probably.  However, because Trump did the deed, Dems hate it; Reps love it. Even the Nixonian metaphor has been issued – within an hour of the termination letter!  But it’s OK since it was made by an aging Senator. 

“Never let a crisis go to waste,”  Rahm Emmanuel advises us.   On the one hand, “kill the king.” On the other, “rule of law.” 

It seems clear that both sides are secretly delighted that Comey is gone.  But is Hillary?  This makes her situation tenuous, and possibly available for another review. 

One interesting thing about Trump is that he may have a deeply considered plan, which allows bifurcated pathways to proceed.  It gives the pundits on both sides endless opportunities for conjecture.   They love it and hate it.

Truly, we are in the era of post-truth, where emotion reigns over analysis and logic.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03
Post a Comment
Read more

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view
Post a Comment
Read more