https://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpg00Eyes for Lieshttps://www.eyesforlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/black-logo-smaller.jpgEyes for Lies2017-03-01 11:44:342021-01-18 15:35:53Here are my thoughts after the speech last night…
56replies
LisaLisa says:
I was the foreperson in a mock jury recently, trying to decide whether a seventy-something doctor was guilty of sexually harassing and/or battering his female employees at the bar he owns. I couldn’t believe how many people used the logic that he is a “well-respected” doctor to justify their position that he isn’t guilty. They also used the terms “locker room talk” and “sloppy drunk” to describe the defendant, implying that what he had said and done was harmless. Another juror commented to me at the end that he believes that seeing the President of the US throw around abusive language is normalizing such behavior. I couldn’t agree more, and it infuriates me.
Keith D. says:
There’s no such thing as a “sloppy drunk”. People need to understand what alcohol does. It reduces or removes inhibitions. Alcohol never turns someone into someone they’re not, it only ever reveals them for who they already were.
Bob says:
The point being they only get that way with the alcohol.
Keith D. says:
Not actually true. What the point I was making was is that who a person is when they’re drunk is who the person always is, even when you’re not seeing it. When you reverse this, what you wind up with is a situation where you blame the alcohol for who the person is, rather than acknowledging that whatever amount of restraint they have and exercise is the only thing that makes them who they are when they’re sober. The real person is the drunk person, the sober person is the mask they wear under conscious restraint in order to hide the drunk person.
The most accurate way to say what you’re trying to say is that in the best case, you only see the real person under their mask when they’re drunk.
One of the reasons that distinction is important is because you may actually see someone “get that way” when they’re completely sober, too, even if you normally don’t. Someone who’s perfectly calm and rational when they’re sober but who’s an angry drunk, for example, can show that exact same anger when they’re sober under the right circumstances. When you recognize that who someone is when they’re drunk is who they are under their mask, then you can recognize that whatever that is, it wouldn’t be out of character to see it when they’re sober either under the right circumstances.
When you get that backwards by attributing it to the alcohol rather than to the person, you wind up starting from the false premise that you wouldn’t ever see that same behavior/trait in ordinary circumstances if they’re sober, and that isn’t true. What you see in someone when they’re drunk is something you can absolutely see when they’re sober in the right situation (or in the wrong situation depending on how you want to look at it). Alcohol merely strips the mask, it doesn’t build the face underneath.
Mojopo says:
I shared this with a WaPo journalist, on Twitter. He was asking why Trump shouldn’t be praised, full stop, for giving a good speech. Your blog is a great rebuttal! Thanks!
Firstly, I think the wording of your quiz is inflammatory and fear provoking. No need for that. Stab in the back? Really? Well, anyway. I think this need to point out that President Trump is not this or that sort of person is tearing the country apart and does no good. He is who he is and with luck and the grace of God maybe he can do, with the aid of the rest of the government, some good. If you had to be good or moral person to become president we would be waiting a long time leaderless. I came to read your insights about the speech and what I read was about your own fear and worry with no reference to anything in the speech at all. The speech by the way, was exactly what I expected, nothing new. Sadly. I am no ones victim. We must not become victims to fear.
This is not a quiz. Trump has a history of lying, inflammatory behavior, backstabbing people, hatred towards many, many groups–women included. That is the person he has demonstrated himself to be. THAT is reality. I am not inflaming anyone. He did that. I am not scaring anyone. This is reality.
To dream he will “do something good” is to deny all the ugly. If you can’t see his behavior in the past month as troubling, you are at high risk.
Marcia Shoberg says:
So on point
Ripley says:
Sorry, Eyes for Lies this time you are dead wrong. There is something much more going on here. Trump is God’s choice for President of the United States. I mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Allah! Usually, I agree with you but you can’t quantify this with human reasoning. That is why he won so handily. That is why he won so extraordinarily. Sorry, I get the feeling that you’re not happy with this outcome but he will be our President for the next 8 years. That’s all there is to it. Nothing will change it. Watch and see.
Marcia Shoberg says:
Reductio ad Reduculum fallacy. Your logic is flawed. Feelings aren’t facts. 36 electoral votes is hardly extraordinary. And your presumption that he is God’s choice, firstly assumes others believe in the same God you do, if they believe at all. Secondly, it was the Russians, not a diety, that influenced the election. There is evidence. 3million more popular votes, you cannot argue with that. And, ‘sorry’is not an apology when followed by an excuse or a counter.
You just made me laugh really hard, Melinda. That is funny!!
Mimsie says:
I agree with Ripley, based on the Bible book of Daniel, chapter 4:17–the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men….Mr. Trump’s election is no more surprising than Mr. Obama’s election 8 years before. People have short memories, but remember how Mr. Obama came out of nowhere to win and how stunned people were? Not too many people read the Bible these days, but the indication is there that God is in control, and that all is working together for His purpose. And yes, He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Ripley says:
Thanks, but I didn’t post my comment to have anyone agree with me. It’s just a fact that Jesus Christ has chosen Donald Trump to be our president for the next 8 years. But, I do appreciate your Biblical knowledge and you know that what I’m saying is the truth. God, is indeed in complete control. And, he is guiding our President Trump in all that he does to save our country. Trump is a very good man and he, most importantly, loves Jesus Christ and he loves America! How refreshing! God bless.
Keith D. says:
As a Christian, I’ve read the Bible. God’s plan includes ending the reign of sin by finally withdrawing his protection and allowing sinners to finally bear the real weight of their choices. At some point, in terms of God’s plan, the end times will come and it will bring with it the Armageddon. That means that at some point, in order for all the things in Revelations to come to pass, God is going to “choose” leaders who will bring those times into being.
The thing with God’s will is that it has to do with God’s will, not man’s will. It has to do with fulfilling God’s plan, not man’s plan. It has to do with the bigger picture of sin and Lucifer having thousands of years to show all of creation what the wages of sin truly are in the absence of a merciful God. Evil people fulfill God’s will just as much as the righteous do. God chose Hitler to rule in Germany, and Stalin to rule the Soviet Union, and Mao to rule in China, and on and on. Hundreds of millions of innocent people have suffered and died under the leaders God has chosen to allow to rule, all in service not to man but to God and God’s larger plan.
God has also given us the Bible, and that Bible gives God’s people the tools necessary to evaluate others, to identify who the evil people are, and to spare ourselves from them. It has instructed us to do so, so that we need not suffer unnecessarily. If we refuse to follow God’s instruction and use the tools He has provided to us, then it isn’t God who’s failed, it’s us who’ve failed God. The Bible makes it quite clear that many of the people that we’ve voted for are on the side of evil and we shouldn’t associate ourselves with them.
The reality is, that doesn’t leave very many people for a God-fearing Christian to vote for, so in many cases, there are no candidates we can support for a given office. That’s what faith is for. In those situations, I believe the way a Christian should behave is to not vote for any of those candidates, and trust God to make things right according to His plans. But it’s dishonest to tell people that God’s will being done will “save our country” when the Bible is quite clear that God will never save any country that doesn’t at least slightly follow the instructions He’s given them to follow, and it’s quite clear that at some point in Human history, no country will be saved from anything at all, and it stands to reason that the leaders God has chosen will at some point have been chosen in order to bring that to pass. At some point, if you’re being honest, God’s chosen leaders will bring about the end of the world and the destruction of all man has ever done for themselves.
MsInformed says:
Superstition.
The Roman and Greek gods were thought to be real at one time.
MsInformed says:
2019 and he’s out.
Bonnie Olney Mullen says:
I’m sorry it was written sort of like a quiz and I didn’t know what else to call it. And inflammatory might not have been the best choice of words either. I was looking for more input about the speech than you had intended perhaps. I am in no way saying that Trump is to be given a pass in anyway for his choices. Words or deeds. Most politicians are troubling to me. I do disagree that to acknowledge, or dream, if he (by he I mean his government in general I suppose) does any good would be to deny the ugly. Shouldn’t we be able to see the truth where ever it lies? It might be in spite of himself but… Even the devil has a purpose.
Tracker says:
Making crude remarks in a private conversation is not “hatred towards women”. I also challenge you to find anything he’s said about any group of Americans that can be construed as “hatred”. The closest thing of the top of my head is he suggested some Muslims might not be contacting authorities (and reporting suspicious activity of other Muslims), but that’s it.
Marcia Shoberg says:
You dont get to decide how other people perceive anything. You can decide for yourself what you feel is a crude remark, but you don’t get to decide if others perceive things as microaggressions, like so many women do. And that’s not every woman either. For some, those sorts of things were normalized during their development, and now, simply tolerated, as expected. For others who developed under different circumstances, it is pushing the boundaries of decency and respect, and often demeaning. The definition of privilege is when you don’t recognize something as a problem, if it’s not a problem for you personally. It is a kind of lack of empathy, even if unintentionally. Or, the Dunning Kruger Effect.
Tracker says:
One of the problems with the modern discourse is redefining of words. Misogyny use to mean “hatred of women”, then “hatred or mistrust”. Now the way it’s used it means “disagreement with a woman” (especially those who call themselves feminist) and “complements/comments on sexual attractiveness”. For example I googled “misogyny” and changed the filter for “past hour” ( try it yourself ). The first result was Lisa Kudrow telling a story about a famous male guest star on Friends:
[‘I rehearsed without make-up for most of the week. And then, on show night, I’m in hair and make-up and I was told, ‘Oh wow, now you’re – can I say it?…’Now you’re f–kable.’]
That is not hatred, that is a crude complement. You can call it demeaning, crude, rude, unacceptable, but you can’t honestly say he said that because he hates Ms. Kudrow, let alone all women. I can understand why that comment is a problem, but accusing people of acting out of hatred when they are not is also a problem.
MsInformed says:
Try the word “contempt” in lieu of hatred. Where you go wrong is excusing sexual assault. IHe’s a man that has so little regard for women as people that he feel’s entitled to just start kissing on beautiful women or grabbing their pussies without consent. That’s misogyny, dood, and you cannot mansplain it away.
Tracker says:
It’s a well known and accepted fact that some women are very willing to have sexual relations with famous TV actors, professional athletes, and musicians with very little to no prompting. It’s a situation the vast majority of men will never find themselves in. 6’4″ famous billionaires do encounter those situations. The existence of groupies must offend your sensibilities, but they do in fact exist.
Also crude complements is not contempt of women either.
Pat Moran says:
Your statement “….history of lying, inflammatory behavior, backstabbing people, hatred towards many, many groups–women included.” describes AT LEAST 50% of the congresses of the U.S. and states in the U.S. and possibly a higher percentage of every President this country has had…..Even the beloved Washington broke more than “several” of the laws of the new Constitution; he broke the law prohibiting slavery in the District of Columbia by sneaking some of his slaves from his plantation in Virginia into D.C. Trump is no worse than many of our founding fathers, either, so I don’t understand why Trump is touted to be the absolute worse choice for a president….
MsInformed says:
Trump’s a con man (confidence man is the origin) and you have been conned.
Marcia Shoberg says:
I counted 23 logical fallacies I’m the first 30 minutes of last night’s speech. You’re obviously a good person with compassion and empathy, and unless you’ve dealt with pathologicals, it’s difficult to spot people lacking them. Because not everyone has those qualities, but you think everyone has them because you do. Sadly, this is not the case. If you understand a thing or two about logic, you’ll recognize that pathologicals despise logic. And introspection. That is why they lie, blame shift, and gaslight, and put on an act, to evade accountability. They count on good people like you, to let things slide, to give them a pass because you’re nice. So I simply ask you to look at him from a purely objective logical standpoint. I know you want to believe he has the US citizens in mind because you want to believe there’s good in everyone. I know you are capable of critical thinking, so I ask you to Google authoritarianism and logical fallacies.
Bonnie Olney Mullen says:
Marcia, I totally agree with you. I’m sorry it if seemed I was in anyway saying I thought Trump is a swell guy. I just don’t find it helpful to make people more terrified than some of them already are. To tear our country apart for one man is surely giving him more power than is his due. I was looking for Eyes usual pointing out things said or done and her take on them. It wasn’t what I read and all I saw was her worry and fear with nothing referenced in particular, which is her right, just not her usual helpful sort of insight. Thanks for assuming I’m a good person though. I appreciate that.
Marcia Shoberg says:
The speech was written for him, by others who know what he needs to say in order to be validated. We have already seen, through his actions, what he is about, what he prioritizes, and what he vilifies and demand. Make no excuses. He hates women and minorities. Wants everyone to be like himself. Wants homage from everyone. That’s a pathological. They know how to play the game. To get normies to fall for their bs.
Exactly, Marcia. Trumps lies are dissected everywhere. Just go to FactCheck.org to see the lies in his speech.
Tracker says:
If you want to know why people don’t trust those types of sites just look at the first bulletin, the one about $6 trillion spent in the middle east. Here’s what Politifact said in October when they rated the claim half true:
“Trump said the wars in the Middle East have cost $6 trillion dollars.
Trump is citing the high-end estimate of credible analyses of spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he is confusing money that’s been spent with money that researchers say will be spent.”
Why didn’t FactCheck say that? Why did they just throw a number from a different report as if that’s the only “fact” that matters? Is not differentiated how much the wars cost with how much we have spent really a lie?
Marcia Shoberg says:
I have. And I also spotted flaws in his logic, or lack of to be more precise. It’s the same pattern of the thought process of pathologicals. Key elements of normal development are missing. For example, introspection.
I apologize. The fact check statement was for Bonnie 🙂
MsInformed says:
But you’ve fallen for his con.
Would you have attended Trump “University”?
Tracker says:
I was momentarily confused by everyone’s reaction, particularly the liberals. Then I realized almost none of them have never sat through an event or rally of his, only watching how CNN or NBC chose to preset snippets from it. This was the first time most of them sat through a positive, unfiltered speech of his. So yeah I don’t think he’s change simply because I’ve seen it before.
Other than the marijuana comment at CPAC, his firing of Flynn, replacing Flynn with McMaster, and some cabinet picks (the one I didn’t like was the Carl’s Jr guy that didn’t pass confirmation) he hasn’t done anything to I would call surprising or unexpected. This may shock people, but that includes talking about a path to citizenship. The only thing that would surprise me if any progress is made towards that before the wall is built.
Marcia Shoberg says:
Your hasty generalization of ‘liberals’ is an example of inductive reasoning. You observe a few cases that have a property in common, and infer that every similar case will share the same property. But your inductive reference is based on too few instances. Also, you have no idea what news sources or events people you don’t know, watch or attend. If you don’t cross reference or view from the opposite side of your cognitive bias, it’s understandable that you don’t think anyone else does either. That’s where you are wrong.
Tracker says:
It may be a hasty generalization, but it’s better than spending a paragraph explaining exactly who comprises of the group I’m talking about. It’s fair to say many of those who were shocked or surprised by his speech for the most part simply didn’t see the same things that long time Trump supporters have.
melinda says:
People should not be paying much attention to what Trump says anymore. If they are unable to see and hear the extraordinary level of deception in his communication, they can come to terms with reality only by paying attention to what the administration is actually doing.
A speech offering information inconsistent with what the administration is actually doing, written by someone else, delivered by a reality TV veteran, is not “positive” and “unfiltered,” it is about as filtered and nefarious as it gets.
Tracker says:
What you said is true for every politician. I think Obama was especially skilled in deception because he had so much help. Just look at the interview the NYT did with Ben Rhoades, his senior foreign policy advisor and speechwriter. He basically said the press is full of no-nothing sycophants who will push whatever narrative they want. This isn’t an unfair, inaccurate, or hyperbolic summary, that’s what he actually openly said. That’s not something we have to worry about with Trump.
But as far as his speech goes why do you think people like Van Jones on CNN were surprised? And consider someone like Van Jones is in the thick of it, it’s his job to be informed and comment on everything to do with the election. If he didn’t see and hear the same things I did the average person probably didn’t either. Whether or not you think it’s genuine or filtered or whatever should not have any bearing on how surprising how many people were surprised by his speech.
Chris says:
Eyes – longtime reader who’s very curious. I swear I remember you once posting here that you never posted about politics because it was an emotional topic for people and if you didn’t come down on the side they were already one they would never believe you. If I’m remembering that right, I’m wondering why you have changed your position on this. I imagine that is as true now as it ever was. The people that distrust him already will see what you are seeing and agree with you. Those that are his supporters will find ways to dismiss what you see. I think this would be true if Hillary were president as well, not that it’s party specific.
I chose not to talk about politics for years. You are correct. And you are right that if people are emotional, they will not see the truth, if they chose not to look at it and stay firm in their emotional beliefs. However, the amount of deception that is going on right now is of historic proportions, and I feel these deceptions are putting our country at serious risk. I also do not feel I am being American turning my back on it and not discussing what is hugely significant: our freedom.
I feel it is my duty as an American to stand on the truth, for the good of our country in this instance, and so I have chose to speak out. It may cost me some readers initially, but in the long run, I do believe the truth will come out. And I will not stand silent in support of of this huge of a deception. As an American and as a person with a gift, I cannot do that.
I also do not believe this is a partisan issue either, though it is sadly being turned into one by one side of the isle, but I think that will change. This is much greater issue than simply politics. This is about our democracy being attacked.
Renee
melinda says:
Thank you for following your conscience. This site connects directly to your business life, doesn’t it? Yet you have chosen not to remain silent in the face of danger. That takes courage. If people who read your blog really want to learn more about how to become aware of deception, I hope it’s at least in part because they want to protect themselves and other people from harm. It’s an important skill. Our current top-level national-security crisis–and that’s what this is, it is not politics as usual–shows how few people possess this skill. So thank you also for teaching what you know.
p3cop says:
I’m sorry, Renee, but that just doesn’t wash. I think YOU are being deceptive here. You never spoke about Hillary’s lies, even when they were glaringly obvious and so harmful to the nation. Hillary was and is a very dangerous person, a constant career liar, yet you remained silent through Benghazi, Whitewater, Monica, Sanders-gate, the Wiki leaks, all the demonstrable incidents of her obvious lies. Suddenly NOW you speak. Suddenly NOW the country is in grave danger. Statement Analysis is also useful in detecting lies, Renee, and I detect some in your statement above. Simple question-how did you vote?
You are welcome to your opinion. If you can’t understand my position which is genuine and truthful, I will understand.
killer instinct says:
As a non-USA resident and citizen, I am sick and tired of all the whining and Trump this Trump that. Anybody ran any checks on Hillary? She and her scumbag husband, just like 99% of all politicians, are also spot on, point for point, for the quick “are you on your way to being a victim” check. You think anything would have been better with them in charge? We’ll have to wait and see what happens TO OTHER COUNTRIES doing this liar’s term (probably two), but history proved it really really well, how many poor, helpless countries were ruined and destroyed during the Clinton regime. I feel sort of sorry for the lot of you, but if America goes down in flames, and with that stops being the world police and harassing almost every other country out there, then it was worth it. You guys will recover much quickly than the rest of us, who are left to suffer the consequences of the “WAR ON …” (fill in the blank), or various operations with extremely deceptive titles , like “Merciful this”, “Freedom that”… I’ma grab me some popcorn and fingers crossed the US “Defense” forces collapse and a new, different era of “world peace” begins.
maria says:
I really agree with everything you are said. Clintons are so corrupt and would not have been any better. It is a shame that every election we only have two choices Republicans or Democrats-the Independents never get to the debates and are virtually shut out by our mainstream media. I pray for real peace as well.
Tracker says:
” I feel sort of sorry for the lot of you, but if America goes down in flames, and with that stops being the world police and harassing almost every other country out there, then it was worth it.”
That’s the thing people don’t understand. GWB, Obama, and Hillary uses (what many people consider) deception and we get regime changes, quagmires, and refugee crises. Trump uses (what many people consider deception) and we get a wall, people have to come in legally, and no regime changes and quagmires.
wttdl says:
I enjoy Wikileak’s coverage of Hillary, because Assange’s entire enterprise is based on NOT lying.
The ‘Libya Tick Tock’ email (aka Hillary’s “internal brag sheet of how she was the person behind the Libyan catastrophe”):
I mean, think about it, she orchestrated the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Libyan State AS HER SELFISH PLATFORM TO USE when she ran for president in 2016!
This self-serving maneuver has led to the European refugee crisis, the destabilization of North African countries, and the creation of ISIS’s strongest branch, outside of Syria-Iraq.
Not to mention the gift that keeps on giving … Gaddafi’s huge arsenal of weapons has shown up in the hands of terrorists in places like Gaza, Syria, Nigeria and Mali.
… and we should be afraid of Trump?
Maybe it’s better to tell little white lies like Hillary’s trip to Bosnia wherein she had to dodge sniper fire when all the diplomat Chris Hill recalled was children handing her bouquets of spring flowers.
MsInformed says:
Yeah, Trump won’t make any of that happen as you may have noticed in the last 4 months.
He’s a grifter, a con man.
is is says:
One awesome thing about the internet is that pages tend to stick around forever. I have putin a reminder in my calendar for this day in 2024 to come back to take a look how your foray into politics has aged: http://archive.is/mZldehttp://archive.is/vkDiM
Until then, thank you for the good you have done.
MsInformed says:
I don’t think you will have to wait that long.
is is says:
Hey, thank you for the reminder of this post, MsInformed. When it comes to the Russia “nothing burger”, to quote CNN’s Van Jones, Eyes has arguably already been proven wrong. But there are plenty of other potential things that can be blamed on Trump, plenty of time to move the goal posts, etc. The presidency is still young.
wttdl says:
I believe that most “analysis” about Trump stems from people’s ongoing confounded underestimation of him, starting with every laughable month after June 2015: he’s running as a joke, he’s advertising for a new reality tv show, his numbers will soon drop, the candidate who is ahead in the beginning never wins, he probably doesn’t even want to be president, he is running on a bet, ok any day now … well, he won the primary but he’ll never beat HRC … ooops.
He’s a buffoon, a fool, an idiot, who somehow beat 17 other candidates with the best strategists in the country, all the while under-spending them all by millions, he won even though his own party didn’t support him–let alone worked against him–beat the Clinton MACHINE–“the most qualified candidate in history” (even though she had Hollywood behind her, even though she had the DNC fix in with screwing Bernie over, and she had CNN feeding her debate questions, and had protester plants out sabotaging his rallies in order to paint him as the “violent candidate”.
Given all of this absolute brilliance, I’m surprised that people don’t finally adapt their opinion of him, and realize that his “inability” to tell the truth, is yet another successful strategy.
He tells lies that are seemingly random, frequently inconsistent, and often plainly ridiculous. He says or tweets things on the record and then denies having ever said them. He contradicts documented fact and then disregards anyone who points out the inaccuracies. He even lies when he has no discernible reason to do so — and then turns around and tells another lie that flies in the face of the previous one.
It is tempting to think Trump did this by accident or that it is the byproduct of an erratic, undisciplined, borderline pathological approach to dishonesty. But that would be underestimating him yet again.
Vladislav Surkov, an adviser to Putin used this strategy to undermine peoples’ perceptions of the world, so they never know what is really happening.
Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from
neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.
But the key thing was, that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
It is a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused. A ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it is undefinable.
Maybe we’d have been better off with a 50 year career politician who chronically lies about not knowing what a “C” means: national secrets on a private server and donations that dried up to her pay to play “Foundation” after she lost … talk about reasons to be PETRIFIED!
dorothy says:
Thank you for this post, Renee. I know that it’s hard to give an honest opinion these days, we have become so divided. I try not to be emotional and to listen to people I disagree with but I fail a lot. There are some things about the President that are simply dishonest and vile. I also feel that we have a duty not to normalize this behavior.
wttdl says:
Trump’s “depends on what you consider ‘having a relationship’ (Putin)”, reminds me of Clinton’s “depends what your definition of the word “is” is.
vvf says:
you’re full of crap, i wolrked for trump back in the 80s, all my bosses were female or minority. If you own a casino in NJ, you are going to get a security clearance akin to the investigations they perform in the military for top secret clearance,s. if this guy was dirty the’d find it already you should be ashamed to Bash our president and if you are in the USA love it or LEAVE it
I was the foreperson in a mock jury recently, trying to decide whether a seventy-something doctor was guilty of sexually harassing and/or battering his female employees at the bar he owns. I couldn’t believe how many people used the logic that he is a “well-respected” doctor to justify their position that he isn’t guilty. They also used the terms “locker room talk” and “sloppy drunk” to describe the defendant, implying that what he had said and done was harmless. Another juror commented to me at the end that he believes that seeing the President of the US throw around abusive language is normalizing such behavior. I couldn’t agree more, and it infuriates me.
There’s no such thing as a “sloppy drunk”. People need to understand what alcohol does. It reduces or removes inhibitions. Alcohol never turns someone into someone they’re not, it only ever reveals them for who they already were.
The point being they only get that way with the alcohol.
Not actually true. What the point I was making was is that who a person is when they’re drunk is who the person always is, even when you’re not seeing it. When you reverse this, what you wind up with is a situation where you blame the alcohol for who the person is, rather than acknowledging that whatever amount of restraint they have and exercise is the only thing that makes them who they are when they’re sober. The real person is the drunk person, the sober person is the mask they wear under conscious restraint in order to hide the drunk person.
The most accurate way to say what you’re trying to say is that in the best case, you only see the real person under their mask when they’re drunk.
One of the reasons that distinction is important is because you may actually see someone “get that way” when they’re completely sober, too, even if you normally don’t. Someone who’s perfectly calm and rational when they’re sober but who’s an angry drunk, for example, can show that exact same anger when they’re sober under the right circumstances. When you recognize that who someone is when they’re drunk is who they are under their mask, then you can recognize that whatever that is, it wouldn’t be out of character to see it when they’re sober either under the right circumstances.
When you get that backwards by attributing it to the alcohol rather than to the person, you wind up starting from the false premise that you wouldn’t ever see that same behavior/trait in ordinary circumstances if they’re sober, and that isn’t true. What you see in someone when they’re drunk is something you can absolutely see when they’re sober in the right situation (or in the wrong situation depending on how you want to look at it). Alcohol merely strips the mask, it doesn’t build the face underneath.
I shared this with a WaPo journalist, on Twitter. He was asking why Trump shouldn’t be praised, full stop, for giving a good speech. Your blog is a great rebuttal! Thanks!
Thanks, MJ!
Firstly, I think the wording of your quiz is inflammatory and fear provoking. No need for that. Stab in the back? Really? Well, anyway. I think this need to point out that President Trump is not this or that sort of person is tearing the country apart and does no good. He is who he is and with luck and the grace of God maybe he can do, with the aid of the rest of the government, some good. If you had to be good or moral person to become president we would be waiting a long time leaderless. I came to read your insights about the speech and what I read was about your own fear and worry with no reference to anything in the speech at all. The speech by the way, was exactly what I expected, nothing new. Sadly. I am no ones victim. We must not become victims to fear.
This is not a quiz. Trump has a history of lying, inflammatory behavior, backstabbing people, hatred towards many, many groups–women included. That is the person he has demonstrated himself to be. THAT is reality. I am not inflaming anyone. He did that. I am not scaring anyone. This is reality.
To dream he will “do something good” is to deny all the ugly. If you can’t see his behavior in the past month as troubling, you are at high risk.
So on point
Sorry, Eyes for Lies this time you are dead wrong. There is something much more going on here. Trump is God’s choice for President of the United States. I mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Allah! Usually, I agree with you but you can’t quantify this with human reasoning. That is why he won so handily. That is why he won so extraordinarily. Sorry, I get the feeling that you’re not happy with this outcome but he will be our President for the next 8 years. That’s all there is to it. Nothing will change it. Watch and see.
Reductio ad Reduculum fallacy. Your logic is flawed. Feelings aren’t facts. 36 electoral votes is hardly extraordinary. And your presumption that he is God’s choice, firstly assumes others believe in the same God you do, if they believe at all. Secondly, it was the Russians, not a diety, that influenced the election. There is evidence. 3million more popular votes, you cannot argue with that. And, ‘sorry’is not an apology when followed by an excuse or a counter.
God must really like the Russian mafia.
You just made me laugh really hard, Melinda. That is funny!!
I agree with Ripley, based on the Bible book of Daniel, chapter 4:17–the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men….Mr. Trump’s election is no more surprising than Mr. Obama’s election 8 years before. People have short memories, but remember how Mr. Obama came out of nowhere to win and how stunned people were? Not too many people read the Bible these days, but the indication is there that God is in control, and that all is working together for His purpose. And yes, He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Thanks, but I didn’t post my comment to have anyone agree with me. It’s just a fact that Jesus Christ has chosen Donald Trump to be our president for the next 8 years. But, I do appreciate your Biblical knowledge and you know that what I’m saying is the truth. God, is indeed in complete control. And, he is guiding our President Trump in all that he does to save our country. Trump is a very good man and he, most importantly, loves Jesus Christ and he loves America! How refreshing! God bless.
As a Christian, I’ve read the Bible. God’s plan includes ending the reign of sin by finally withdrawing his protection and allowing sinners to finally bear the real weight of their choices. At some point, in terms of God’s plan, the end times will come and it will bring with it the Armageddon. That means that at some point, in order for all the things in Revelations to come to pass, God is going to “choose” leaders who will bring those times into being.
The thing with God’s will is that it has to do with God’s will, not man’s will. It has to do with fulfilling God’s plan, not man’s plan. It has to do with the bigger picture of sin and Lucifer having thousands of years to show all of creation what the wages of sin truly are in the absence of a merciful God. Evil people fulfill God’s will just as much as the righteous do. God chose Hitler to rule in Germany, and Stalin to rule the Soviet Union, and Mao to rule in China, and on and on. Hundreds of millions of innocent people have suffered and died under the leaders God has chosen to allow to rule, all in service not to man but to God and God’s larger plan.
God has also given us the Bible, and that Bible gives God’s people the tools necessary to evaluate others, to identify who the evil people are, and to spare ourselves from them. It has instructed us to do so, so that we need not suffer unnecessarily. If we refuse to follow God’s instruction and use the tools He has provided to us, then it isn’t God who’s failed, it’s us who’ve failed God. The Bible makes it quite clear that many of the people that we’ve voted for are on the side of evil and we shouldn’t associate ourselves with them.
The reality is, that doesn’t leave very many people for a God-fearing Christian to vote for, so in many cases, there are no candidates we can support for a given office. That’s what faith is for. In those situations, I believe the way a Christian should behave is to not vote for any of those candidates, and trust God to make things right according to His plans. But it’s dishonest to tell people that God’s will being done will “save our country” when the Bible is quite clear that God will never save any country that doesn’t at least slightly follow the instructions He’s given them to follow, and it’s quite clear that at some point in Human history, no country will be saved from anything at all, and it stands to reason that the leaders God has chosen will at some point have been chosen in order to bring that to pass. At some point, if you’re being honest, God’s chosen leaders will bring about the end of the world and the destruction of all man has ever done for themselves.
Superstition.
The Roman and Greek gods were thought to be real at one time.
2019 and he’s out.
I’m sorry it was written sort of like a quiz and I didn’t know what else to call it. And inflammatory might not have been the best choice of words either. I was looking for more input about the speech than you had intended perhaps. I am in no way saying that Trump is to be given a pass in anyway for his choices. Words or deeds. Most politicians are troubling to me. I do disagree that to acknowledge, or dream, if he (by he I mean his government in general I suppose) does any good would be to deny the ugly. Shouldn’t we be able to see the truth where ever it lies? It might be in spite of himself but… Even the devil has a purpose.
Making crude remarks in a private conversation is not “hatred towards women”. I also challenge you to find anything he’s said about any group of Americans that can be construed as “hatred”. The closest thing of the top of my head is he suggested some Muslims might not be contacting authorities (and reporting suspicious activity of other Muslims), but that’s it.
You dont get to decide how other people perceive anything. You can decide for yourself what you feel is a crude remark, but you don’t get to decide if others perceive things as microaggressions, like so many women do. And that’s not every woman either. For some, those sorts of things were normalized during their development, and now, simply tolerated, as expected. For others who developed under different circumstances, it is pushing the boundaries of decency and respect, and often demeaning. The definition of privilege is when you don’t recognize something as a problem, if it’s not a problem for you personally. It is a kind of lack of empathy, even if unintentionally. Or, the Dunning Kruger Effect.
One of the problems with the modern discourse is redefining of words. Misogyny use to mean “hatred of women”, then “hatred or mistrust”. Now the way it’s used it means “disagreement with a woman” (especially those who call themselves feminist) and “complements/comments on sexual attractiveness”. For example I googled “misogyny” and changed the filter for “past hour” ( try it yourself ). The first result was Lisa Kudrow telling a story about a famous male guest star on Friends:
[‘I rehearsed without make-up for most of the week. And then, on show night, I’m in hair and make-up and I was told, ‘Oh wow, now you’re – can I say it?…’Now you’re f–kable.’]
That is not hatred, that is a crude complement. You can call it demeaning, crude, rude, unacceptable, but you can’t honestly say he said that because he hates Ms. Kudrow, let alone all women. I can understand why that comment is a problem, but accusing people of acting out of hatred when they are not is also a problem.
Try the word “contempt” in lieu of hatred. Where you go wrong is excusing sexual assault. IHe’s a man that has so little regard for women as people that he feel’s entitled to just start kissing on beautiful women or grabbing their pussies without consent. That’s misogyny, dood, and you cannot mansplain it away.
It’s a well known and accepted fact that some women are very willing to have sexual relations with famous TV actors, professional athletes, and musicians with very little to no prompting. It’s a situation the vast majority of men will never find themselves in. 6’4″ famous billionaires do encounter those situations. The existence of groupies must offend your sensibilities, but they do in fact exist.
Also crude complements is not contempt of women either.
Your statement “….history of lying, inflammatory behavior, backstabbing people, hatred towards many, many groups–women included.” describes AT LEAST 50% of the congresses of the U.S. and states in the U.S. and possibly a higher percentage of every President this country has had…..Even the beloved Washington broke more than “several” of the laws of the new Constitution; he broke the law prohibiting slavery in the District of Columbia by sneaking some of his slaves from his plantation in Virginia into D.C. Trump is no worse than many of our founding fathers, either, so I don’t understand why Trump is touted to be the absolute worse choice for a president….
Trump’s a con man (confidence man is the origin) and you have been conned.
I counted 23 logical fallacies I’m the first 30 minutes of last night’s speech. You’re obviously a good person with compassion and empathy, and unless you’ve dealt with pathologicals, it’s difficult to spot people lacking them. Because not everyone has those qualities, but you think everyone has them because you do. Sadly, this is not the case. If you understand a thing or two about logic, you’ll recognize that pathologicals despise logic. And introspection. That is why they lie, blame shift, and gaslight, and put on an act, to evade accountability. They count on good people like you, to let things slide, to give them a pass because you’re nice. So I simply ask you to look at him from a purely objective logical standpoint. I know you want to believe he has the US citizens in mind because you want to believe there’s good in everyone. I know you are capable of critical thinking, so I ask you to Google authoritarianism and logical fallacies.
Marcia, I totally agree with you. I’m sorry it if seemed I was in anyway saying I thought Trump is a swell guy. I just don’t find it helpful to make people more terrified than some of them already are. To tear our country apart for one man is surely giving him more power than is his due. I was looking for Eyes usual pointing out things said or done and her take on them. It wasn’t what I read and all I saw was her worry and fear with nothing referenced in particular, which is her right, just not her usual helpful sort of insight. Thanks for assuming I’m a good person though. I appreciate that.
The speech was written for him, by others who know what he needs to say in order to be validated. We have already seen, through his actions, what he is about, what he prioritizes, and what he vilifies and demand. Make no excuses. He hates women and minorities. Wants everyone to be like himself. Wants homage from everyone. That’s a pathological. They know how to play the game. To get normies to fall for their bs.
Exactly, Marcia. Trumps lies are dissected everywhere. Just go to FactCheck.org to see the lies in his speech.
If you want to know why people don’t trust those types of sites just look at the first bulletin, the one about $6 trillion spent in the middle east. Here’s what Politifact said in October when they rated the claim half true:
“Trump said the wars in the Middle East have cost $6 trillion dollars.
Trump is citing the high-end estimate of credible analyses of spending associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he is confusing money that’s been spent with money that researchers say will be spent.”
Why didn’t FactCheck say that? Why did they just throw a number from a different report as if that’s the only “fact” that matters? Is not differentiated how much the wars cost with how much we have spent really a lie?
I have. And I also spotted flaws in his logic, or lack of to be more precise. It’s the same pattern of the thought process of pathologicals. Key elements of normal development are missing. For example, introspection.
I apologize. The fact check statement was for Bonnie 🙂
But you’ve fallen for his con.
Would you have attended Trump “University”?
I was momentarily confused by everyone’s reaction, particularly the liberals. Then I realized almost none of them have never sat through an event or rally of his, only watching how CNN or NBC chose to preset snippets from it. This was the first time most of them sat through a positive, unfiltered speech of his. So yeah I don’t think he’s change simply because I’ve seen it before.
Other than the marijuana comment at CPAC, his firing of Flynn, replacing Flynn with McMaster, and some cabinet picks (the one I didn’t like was the Carl’s Jr guy that didn’t pass confirmation) he hasn’t done anything to I would call surprising or unexpected. This may shock people, but that includes talking about a path to citizenship. The only thing that would surprise me if any progress is made towards that before the wall is built.
Your hasty generalization of ‘liberals’ is an example of inductive reasoning. You observe a few cases that have a property in common, and infer that every similar case will share the same property. But your inductive reference is based on too few instances. Also, you have no idea what news sources or events people you don’t know, watch or attend. If you don’t cross reference or view from the opposite side of your cognitive bias, it’s understandable that you don’t think anyone else does either. That’s where you are wrong.
It may be a hasty generalization, but it’s better than spending a paragraph explaining exactly who comprises of the group I’m talking about. It’s fair to say many of those who were shocked or surprised by his speech for the most part simply didn’t see the same things that long time Trump supporters have.
People should not be paying much attention to what Trump says anymore. If they are unable to see and hear the extraordinary level of deception in his communication, they can come to terms with reality only by paying attention to what the administration is actually doing.
A speech offering information inconsistent with what the administration is actually doing, written by someone else, delivered by a reality TV veteran, is not “positive” and “unfiltered,” it is about as filtered and nefarious as it gets.
What you said is true for every politician. I think Obama was especially skilled in deception because he had so much help. Just look at the interview the NYT did with Ben Rhoades, his senior foreign policy advisor and speechwriter. He basically said the press is full of no-nothing sycophants who will push whatever narrative they want. This isn’t an unfair, inaccurate, or hyperbolic summary, that’s what he actually openly said. That’s not something we have to worry about with Trump.
But as far as his speech goes why do you think people like Van Jones on CNN were surprised? And consider someone like Van Jones is in the thick of it, it’s his job to be informed and comment on everything to do with the election. If he didn’t see and hear the same things I did the average person probably didn’t either. Whether or not you think it’s genuine or filtered or whatever should not have any bearing on how surprising how many people were surprised by his speech.
Eyes – longtime reader who’s very curious. I swear I remember you once posting here that you never posted about politics because it was an emotional topic for people and if you didn’t come down on the side they were already one they would never believe you. If I’m remembering that right, I’m wondering why you have changed your position on this. I imagine that is as true now as it ever was. The people that distrust him already will see what you are seeing and agree with you. Those that are his supporters will find ways to dismiss what you see. I think this would be true if Hillary were president as well, not that it’s party specific.
Any reason you are speaking out now?
Hi Chris,
I chose not to talk about politics for years. You are correct. And you are right that if people are emotional, they will not see the truth, if they chose not to look at it and stay firm in their emotional beliefs. However, the amount of deception that is going on right now is of historic proportions, and I feel these deceptions are putting our country at serious risk. I also do not feel I am being American turning my back on it and not discussing what is hugely significant: our freedom.
I feel it is my duty as an American to stand on the truth, for the good of our country in this instance, and so I have chose to speak out. It may cost me some readers initially, but in the long run, I do believe the truth will come out. And I will not stand silent in support of of this huge of a deception. As an American and as a person with a gift, I cannot do that.
I also do not believe this is a partisan issue either, though it is sadly being turned into one by one side of the isle, but I think that will change. This is much greater issue than simply politics. This is about our democracy being attacked.
Renee
Thank you for following your conscience. This site connects directly to your business life, doesn’t it? Yet you have chosen not to remain silent in the face of danger. That takes courage. If people who read your blog really want to learn more about how to become aware of deception, I hope it’s at least in part because they want to protect themselves and other people from harm. It’s an important skill. Our current top-level national-security crisis–and that’s what this is, it is not politics as usual–shows how few people possess this skill. So thank you also for teaching what you know.
I’m sorry, Renee, but that just doesn’t wash. I think YOU are being deceptive here. You never spoke about Hillary’s lies, even when they were glaringly obvious and so harmful to the nation. Hillary was and is a very dangerous person, a constant career liar, yet you remained silent through Benghazi, Whitewater, Monica, Sanders-gate, the Wiki leaks, all the demonstrable incidents of her obvious lies. Suddenly NOW you speak. Suddenly NOW the country is in grave danger. Statement Analysis is also useful in detecting lies, Renee, and I detect some in your statement above. Simple question-how did you vote?
You are welcome to your opinion. If you can’t understand my position which is genuine and truthful, I will understand.
As a non-USA resident and citizen, I am sick and tired of all the whining and Trump this Trump that. Anybody ran any checks on Hillary? She and her scumbag husband, just like 99% of all politicians, are also spot on, point for point, for the quick “are you on your way to being a victim” check. You think anything would have been better with them in charge? We’ll have to wait and see what happens TO OTHER COUNTRIES doing this liar’s term (probably two), but history proved it really really well, how many poor, helpless countries were ruined and destroyed during the Clinton regime. I feel sort of sorry for the lot of you, but if America goes down in flames, and with that stops being the world police and harassing almost every other country out there, then it was worth it. You guys will recover much quickly than the rest of us, who are left to suffer the consequences of the “WAR ON …” (fill in the blank), or various operations with extremely deceptive titles , like “Merciful this”, “Freedom that”… I’ma grab me some popcorn and fingers crossed the US “Defense” forces collapse and a new, different era of “world peace” begins.
I really agree with everything you are said. Clintons are so corrupt and would not have been any better. It is a shame that every election we only have two choices Republicans or Democrats-the Independents never get to the debates and are virtually shut out by our mainstream media. I pray for real peace as well.
” I feel sort of sorry for the lot of you, but if America goes down in flames, and with that stops being the world police and harassing almost every other country out there, then it was worth it.”
That’s the thing people don’t understand. GWB, Obama, and Hillary uses (what many people consider) deception and we get regime changes, quagmires, and refugee crises. Trump uses (what many people consider deception) and we get a wall, people have to come in legally, and no regime changes and quagmires.
I enjoy Wikileak’s coverage of Hillary, because Assange’s entire enterprise is based on NOT lying.
The ‘Libya Tick Tock’ email (aka Hillary’s “internal brag sheet of how she was the person behind the Libyan catastrophe”):
I mean, think about it, she orchestrated the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Libyan State AS HER SELFISH PLATFORM TO USE when she ran for president in 2016!
This self-serving maneuver has led to the European refugee crisis, the destabilization of North African countries, and the creation of ISIS’s strongest branch, outside of Syria-Iraq.
Not to mention the gift that keeps on giving … Gaddafi’s huge arsenal of weapons has shown up in the hands of terrorists in places like Gaza, Syria, Nigeria and Mali.
… and we should be afraid of Trump?
Maybe it’s better to tell little white lies like Hillary’s trip to Bosnia wherein she had to dodge sniper fire when all the diplomat Chris Hill recalled was children handing her bouquets of spring flowers.
Yeah, Trump won’t make any of that happen as you may have noticed in the last 4 months.
He’s a grifter, a con man.
One awesome thing about the internet is that pages tend to stick around forever. I have putin a reminder in my calendar for this day in 2024 to come back to take a look how your foray into politics has aged: http://archive.is/mZlde http://archive.is/vkDiM
Until then, thank you for the good you have done.
I don’t think you will have to wait that long.
Hey, thank you for the reminder of this post, MsInformed. When it comes to the Russia “nothing burger”, to quote CNN’s Van Jones, Eyes has arguably already been proven wrong. But there are plenty of other potential things that can be blamed on Trump, plenty of time to move the goal posts, etc. The presidency is still young.
I believe that most “analysis” about Trump stems from people’s ongoing confounded underestimation of him, starting with every laughable month after June 2015: he’s running as a joke, he’s advertising for a new reality tv show, his numbers will soon drop, the candidate who is ahead in the beginning never wins, he probably doesn’t even want to be president, he is running on a bet, ok any day now … well, he won the primary but he’ll never beat HRC … ooops.
He’s a buffoon, a fool, an idiot, who somehow beat 17 other candidates with the best strategists in the country, all the while under-spending them all by millions, he won even though his own party didn’t support him–let alone worked against him–beat the Clinton MACHINE–“the most qualified candidate in history” (even though she had Hollywood behind her, even though she had the DNC fix in with screwing Bernie over, and she had CNN feeding her debate questions, and had protester plants out sabotaging his rallies in order to paint him as the “violent candidate”.
Given all of this absolute brilliance, I’m surprised that people don’t finally adapt their opinion of him, and realize that his “inability” to tell the truth, is yet another successful strategy.
He tells lies that are seemingly random, frequently inconsistent, and often plainly ridiculous. He says or tweets things on the record and then denies having ever said them. He contradicts documented fact and then disregards anyone who points out the inaccuracies. He even lies when he has no discernible reason to do so — and then turns around and tells another lie that flies in the face of the previous one.
It is tempting to think Trump did this by accident or that it is the byproduct of an erratic, undisciplined, borderline pathological approach to dishonesty. But that would be underestimating him yet again.
Vladislav Surkov, an adviser to Putin used this strategy to undermine peoples’ perceptions of the world, so they never know what is really happening.
Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from
neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.
But the key thing was, that Surkov then let it be known that this was what he was doing, which meant that no one was sure what was real or fake.
It is a strategy of power that keeps any opposition constantly confused. A ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it is undefinable.
Maybe we’d have been better off with a 50 year career politician who chronically lies about not knowing what a “C” means: national secrets on a private server and donations that dried up to her pay to play “Foundation” after she lost … talk about reasons to be PETRIFIED!
Thank you for this post, Renee. I know that it’s hard to give an honest opinion these days, we have become so divided. I try not to be emotional and to listen to people I disagree with but I fail a lot. There are some things about the President that are simply dishonest and vile. I also feel that we have a duty not to normalize this behavior.
Trump’s “depends on what you consider ‘having a relationship’ (Putin)”, reminds me of Clinton’s “depends what your definition of the word “is” is.
you’re full of crap, i wolrked for trump back in the 80s, all my bosses were female or minority. If you own a casino in NJ, you are going to get a security clearance akin to the investigations they perform in the military for top secret clearance,s. if this guy was dirty the’d find it already you should be ashamed to Bash our president and if you are in the USA love it or LEAVE it