If we don't know it is a false hood, is that knowingly telling a lie? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No. But you know Trump owns a certain amount of deceit. He called it "truthful hyperbole" in his book.

Trump's tactics seems consistent with the following:

"The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another...

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side... The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas.These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

I'm going to be bold: I think such comparisons are more or less a version of the "hypocrisy argument." When someone uses such a comparison to try to claim a political side is "better" than another, they utterly disrespect people suffering the injustice and ignore the impact the supposedly "better policy" has on people.

Failing to torture people for give years, doesn't make torturing them for two months okay. It doesn't make the latter policy any " better." Any good only comes from the stopping of either policy ("No more torture"). Time doesn't make a difference to this consideration. Torturing people for only two months doesn't make people any better for taking that action.

Length of detainment is not a factor in judging either of these policies ought never gave happened. A shorter time is not an ethical success with which to score political points.

I was talking about knowing if thy self is telling a false hood, if we don't know it is a false hood, is that knowingly telling a lie? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

OK, we were talking about different things. I already presupposed that lying was when one knew that it is a falsehood being told, intentionally telling a falsehood as if it were the truth. You were talking about being true to one's own self, which I took to mean adhering to one's principles. In this case, one could be true to one's own self and still lie to others. Now I see that by "true to one's own self", you mean not intentionally telling a falsehood.

How do you relate this to speaking how one feels? Suppose that I feel something is the right thing to say, but I have no idea whether it's the truth or not, so I say it as if it is the truth, because I feel that it is correct to say it as the truth. Is this being dishonest, making a statement as if I know it to be true, when in reality I have no idea whether it's true or not? It's not knowing oneself to be telling a falsehood, because the person doesn't know whether it's true or false. However the person makes the statement in a way to indicate that the person believes it to be the truth. Isn't this still a form of deceit, perhaps even lying, to say that something is true when you do not know whether it's true or false?

The news has gone there, we might as well too. Trump is a Russian agent. Apparently his administration is rotten to a considerable depth. Like an old wall or a rotten foundation, there's what you see, and then there's what you find when you peel it back. If true, everything makes sense. If it's not true, then nothing makes sense. Now, the trolls have wasted our time by creating misdirection, diversion, and questioning - the same way holocaust deniers waste our time - but we can no longer allow ourselves to be distracted, or see it as a kind of late-night TV comedic topic, but must rather instead be alert, to be no longer weak-minded or ambivalent about the issues or their importance. Trump is a traitor. Some of us - many of us - have wondered that, supposed and considered it, thought it, said it, but never really took it on as being true. It's now time to do just that.

We can suppose and hope that for most of us there will be no direct effect - that we need do nothing but vote and telephone our representatives in Congress, especially Republican members. We can hope that's all it comes to for us. In other parts of the world, people aren't so lucky, and already some of us have been harmed.

It seems to me now is a good time to adopt a zero-tolerance (personal) policy with respect to nonsense Trump. We can all, we should all, make it completely and loudly clear to our government that there is a disease at the heart of it, and it needs to be cured.

A traitor! There's a chance we may see a disgraced ex-president hanged. If he deserves it I hope we collectively have the stomach to do it. I am opposed to capital punishment, but it rare circumstances it is appropriate and proper.

one of the stories Obedient Media invented: — Benkei

Mr Craddick did not write that piece. Piece was written by Adam Carter. And it is Disobedient media not "Obedient" media.

You might have been thinking of your preferred news sites where you are happy to just obey your masters.

There are usually various contributors to sites. Often they differ on their angles within the same organization.

Or you have an infected computer now. — Benkei

Nup.

They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills. — Michael

Not surprised you believe that.

Your feelings on John Pilger?

A traitor! — tim wood

A traitor to who? The intelligence officials who claim evidence of a dnc hack by Putin?

First of all: they are un-elected.

Secondly: they represent the military-industrial complex and not Americans.

Third: no Russia, no NATO.

Maintaining an enemy maintains military-industrial complex industry.........and it is huge.

A cold war is fantastic business.

Strzok will be arrested, that is my prediction. We'll see.

for which crime?

I suppose anything goes in the lounge but "Judge" Jeanine Pirro does entertainment and Trump PR not news. Will you be posting Hannity videos next? How low are you going to go, Agu?

for which crime? — Benkei

Lying to congress, and abuse of public function.

So apart from some silly entertainment videos, where is your evidence he did either of those two things? Give a proper source.

Give a proper source — Baden

Define "proper".

Define "define".

The "source" above is not particularly avoiding a fact that they are speculating.

So it is "proper" for speculation. And sure, it is news/entertainment.......like practically every other video platform "news" site.

where is your evidence he did either of those two things? — Baden

The text messages? Corroborating his testimony with that of Lisa Page?

How are the text messages evidence he lied under oath?

How are the text messages evidence he lied under oath? — Baden

It maybe his refusal to answer questions that DO NOT actually compromise an investigation.

So non cooperation with a tribunal while under oath.

My speculation.

He's a nobody anyway. The best one could get from him maybe his ability to eventually sing.

He may get Arkancided before singing begins.

Lying to congress, and abuse of public function. — Agustino

According to republicans resulting from the Page hearing, right? Don't you think it's curious though that they are avoiding saying what the texts really mean according to Page. I suspect they are latching on an ambiguous statement, which is why the Democrats are denying it.

He was directed by the FBI not to answer those questions, which they determined compromised the investigation (your opinion on their import isn't relevant here) and consulted his lawyers when he was asked, as is his right, which was confirmed by members of the congress at the hearing.

I agree he's a nobody and this is a distraction, but my point is that speculation about him getting life in prison as the video title suggests (basically for not liking Donald Trump) is beyond the realms of rational consideration. And no, you can't draw an equivalency with all news agencies. The BBC does not equal Alex Jones, and CNN, for all its faults, is not the same as Jeanine Pirro, who is the media equivalent of WWE.

He was directed by the FBI not to answer those questions, which they determined compromised the investigation (your opinion on their import isn't relevant here) and consulted his lawyers when he was asked as is his right, which was confirmed by members of the congress at the hearing. — Baden

I see that as legally challenge-able.

The FBI are not above being legally challenged.

I agree he's a nobody and this is a distraction, but my point is that speculation about him getting life in prison as the video title suggests (basically for not liking Donald Trump) is beyond the realms of rational consideration. — Baden

It is hyperbole. Personally I have never liked Fox news. They are opportunist. Alex Jones is opportunist and comedy at best, but too repetitive to watch (although I watch "real news with david knight" because he is sane and comes across as independent of his boss and he is not hyperbolic. I think Jones appears to at least respect independence of his senior crew. BUT, he also maintains a business model of hyperbole, which is not anything that attracts me).

The BBC does not equal Alex Jones — Baden

What the BBC is equal with is the CBC. I don't trust tax funded media. They can be subject to government-speak, merely lends itself to another propaganda arm. They don't have to compete in the "market place of ideas".

You can't fully trust any media, and you need to do your own research if you're really interested in as objective a viewpoint as possible, but there has to be some nuance and recognition of degree when judging media outlets. The BBC are non-profit and held accountable by independent regulating bodies, which are required to rationally debate issues of bias and can impose punitive measures for any bias discovered. Not a perfect system, but it's one that tends to produce stories that are tied to fact and when they are not consequences ensue. Alex Jones, on the other hand, competes in the "market place of ideas" but as you more or less pointed out yourself can therefore say anything that helps sell his vitamin pills* as long as it doesn't contravene YouTube's terms of service. There is a huge market in the market place of ideas for fantastical ideas such as Pizza Gate, Birtherism etc. posing as truths partly just because they are more exciting than reality. Fox News and CNN fall somewhere in the middle. They exhibit obvious Pro and anti-Trump bias and package and sell that to Republicans and Democrats respectively. But they are still required to base their biased reporting to a large extent on the real world** as they are mainstream media and expected to show some degree of accuracy.

*(Just as an addendum, it's in Alex Jones' interest to maintain a gullible audience with regard to his content not just because the content is popularly fantastical but because a gullible audience are exactly the type of people who are likely to buy his fake pills. With his business model, he literally can't not run stupid stories without attracting people who won't buy his products and driving away those who will.)

**Hannity and Pirro are notable exceptions to this and not much of a step up from Jones.

Been reading Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. Now I know who Trump is basing his presidency on, it's the character of Johnny Gentle, the unlikely President of the USA in the book ("This is Johnny Gentle, né Joyner, lounge singer turned teenybopper throb turned B-movie mainstay, for two long-past decades known unkindly as the 'Cleanest Man in Entertainment’ (the man’s a world-class retentive, the late-Howard-Hughes kind, the really severe kind, the kind with the paralyzing fear of free-floating contamination..)"

--------

Mario’s openly jejune version of his late father’s take on the rise of O.N.A.N. and U.S. Experialism unfolds in little diffracted bits of real news and fake news and privately-conceived dialogue between the architects and hard-choice-makers of a new millennial era:

...

GENTLE: So we’re sympatico on the gradual and subtle but inexorable disarmament and dissolution of NATO as a system of mutual-defense agreements.

P.M. CAN. [Less muffled than last scene because his surgical mask gets to have a prandial hole]: We are side by side and behind you on this thing. Let the EEC [The EU] pay for their oown defendings henceforth I say. Let them foot some defensive budgets and then try to subsidize their farmers into undercutting NAFTA. Let them eat butter and guns for their oown for once in a change. Hey?

GENTLE: You said more than a mouthful right there, J.J. Now maybe we can all direct some cool-headed attention to our own infraternal affairs. Our own internal quality of life. Refocusing priorities back to this crazy continent we call home. Am I being dug?

P.M. CAN: John, I am kilometers ahead of you. I happen to have my Term-In-Office-At-A-Glance book right with me here. Now that the big frappeurs are being put doown, we are wondering what is the date I can be pencilling in for the removals of NATO ICBM frappeurs from Manitoba.
...
Nobody who wasn’t actually there at the 16 January meeting knows just what was said when or by whom, the Gentle administration being of the position that extant Oval Office recording equipment was a veritable petri dish of organisms.
-----

A traitor to who? The intelligence officials who claim evidence of a dnc hack by Putin? — raza

You're like a dog that keeps sniffing his own ass and the asses of other dogs. You need to get a different view and some fresh air!

How about answering a simple - almost simple - question: On a prima facie basis, do you think Trump is acting as a Russian agent? That is, while a final determination of fact comes from trial, do you think that, for now, there is enough and more than enough evidence to compel, as reasonable, the conclusion that Trump is acting as a Russian agent?

No argument, because you use argument as obfuscation. Just Yes or No.

The BBC are non-profit and held accountable by independent regulating bodies, which are required to rationally debate issues of bias and can impose punitive measures for any bias discovered. Not a perfect system, but it's one that tends to produce stories that are tied to fact and when they are not consequences ensue. — Baden

They also do hit pieces rather than interview the subjects and protected for many years their favourite pedophile, Jimmy Saville.

They are certainly not free of bias.

How about answering a simple - almost simple - question: On a prima facie basis, do you think Trump is acting as a Russian agent? That is, while a final determination of fact comes from trial, do you think that, for now, there is enough and more than enough evidence to compel, as reasonable, the conclusion that Trump is acting as a Russian agent?

No argument, because you use argument as obfuscation. Just Yes or No. — tim wood

Very simply, no.

Your evidence he has been (or will you be obfuscating)?