Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (150248)	1/18/2020 9:28:12 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 362390

>>That is true. I do actively avoid jumping to conclusions, reaching beyond the evidence. How, then, do I express that caution? The missing link in an otherwise workable formula which is the acceptance of false narratives spewed at MSNBC as though it were factual material to provide a basis for your daily infusions. You’re not alone. One of my highly tuned in friends on Facebook parallels your thinking on a lot of these issues. Shockingly, he, too, was part of the bureaucracy for decades (less circumspect than you are, but the same basic MO). Somehow, the hyperbole spew from an angry media is more credible than the facts on the ground.

To: Lane3 who wrote (150248)	1/18/2020 12:09:26 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362390

You make an interesting observation and not unfairly. Your use of these words, words I also often use in conversation, can be differentiated in the following way. From experience I have noticed that this kind of language in the media very often precedes the release of a set of facts that show the truth to be opposite to what the original statements would have us believe. Notice I said 'in the media'. After closely following the many accusations and investigations re Trump, I've seen this pattern repeated over and over. Strong statements made that at first look like statements of fact, so strong that one can easily miss the use of these words, and it's these words that tip off me off that the writer is actually expressing his or her opinion. I refer to these words as 'red flags' because they alert me to the possibility that what I'm reading is actually propaganda and not valid evidence of something. This suspicion is too often solidified when subsequent events reveal the initial charges, assumptions, etc. to be lacking candor as the FBI says. Rightly or wrongly, it is this all too frequent sequence of events that is behind my original statement.