Calling Wolf

But there is another possible approach to Trump on the part of judges, and it so far seems to be the majority response and the prevailing one. (Remember, after all, that Bybee is in dissent here). And that is the one we hypothesized in our piece on the presidential oath of office:

Imagine a world in which other actors have no expectation of civic virtue from the President and thus no concept of deference to him. Imagine a world in which the words of the President are not presumed to carry any weight. Imagine a world in which far more judicial review of presidential conduct is de novo, and in which the executive has to find highly coercive means of enforcing message discipline on its staff because it can’t depend on loyalty. That’s a very different presidency than the one we have come to expect.
It’s actually a presidency without the principle that we separate the man from the office. It’s a presidency in which we owe nothing to the office institutionally and make individual decisions about how to interact with it based on how much we trust, like, or hate its occupant.

The question is whether the revolt of the judges we are currently witnessing is the beginning of this world.

By Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic Thursday, March 16, 2017, 9:24 PM 

When you #CallWolf all too frequently people loose #trust in what you say. 
Not something that we want to happen with our president.

seth
Which #RingingTrue … and yes that is what the #MSM is saying too … even many #republicans
.
But i note if there is any truth to #Trump’s allegations,  which somebody we can #trust says as well, then things switch around and #Trump gets even more power to make up things the way he wants them to be. 

We will be #molded. 

#guck, i hate it when that happens.

tag: #MakeShitUp

Comments


It is amazing how you still keep looking for frameworks to frame Trump with. There is only one that applies to Trump. “What people are thinking about”. That is all that matters in ANYTHING he does.

The cry wolf phenomena is something that happens, but compared to the phenomena of engineering what people are actually thinking about, it’s peanuts. So have been all the other frames.

The bottom line is it doesn’t matter at all what Trump does or how he does it. The only thing that matters going forward is what Trump gets people to think about. That’s it. And that’s all you ever have to figure out when analyzing Trump.

The only thing that matters is what happens when America and the rest of the world looses #trust is what the president of the United States says. 

Your priorities make no sense to me at all.


and #btw i agree with you, further analysis of trump is not necessary to explain and predict what he will do …
yes, attention mongering is his strategy, that is what he is actually doing.

This is between me and him (me and the world, relative to you), i am telling #Trump that America and the rest of the world is starting to loose #trust  in his leadership – which was also the message in the about link. 

But notice that i am hedging my bet here … if the previous administration actually did cause (or profit from) surveillance of #Trump, and that becomes the narrative, then the opposite will happen.  Then it will look like there really was a wolf there.  Then America will #trust his word even more.  #guck i hate it when that happens with a #liar.

Okay. I’ll buy that.

Though I think it is only a pet peeve of yours to so venomously keep harping on Trump being a liar. Trump may be a deliberate liar, and for certain Hillary Clinton was a pathological liar and probably lied more deeply and often than Trump has … same for most Presidents. The least in my time was probably Regan.

Calling Trump a liar as if it means something is like calling a stove “hot”. You are just noticing it more because he doesn’t try to hide it.

i said what i said not to call #Trump a liar … that is, as you have so poignantly depicted, redundant null



i said it to say that i suspect he #CallWolf’s.  
America will #trust him less, unless
“there actually is a #wolf” becomes the narrative .

I got the point. I said my “Though” only in respect to your “ i hate it when that happens with a #liar.” because that ending comment was personal and not a determinative part of the rest, which I said “okay” to. That last was just you getting in a personal jab due to your #liar pet peeve.  

okay point taken. 
i love honesty null … it is good for humanity. 
it is what i am into … it is what i do. 
i am sorry if you are not.

I never said I wasn’t. Noticing you taking a jab at someone does not in any way mean I don’t have the same value, or even that I wouldn’t do the same, it is just noticing.


However, I place more value in authenticity than honesty, to be honest.  

Truth is simply something a person thinks until it is so … i.e. navigates to that particular set of circumstances via their beliefs.

Authenticity is who someone is and how they behave … it is where they have been and where they are.

#hmmm … i do not draw that distinction … i do not think it makes a difference.

to me #honesty and/or #authenticity means that my #insides are telling the same vibration as are my #outsides appropriately in context.

#btw  the condition, i called “appropriately in context”, was discussed at the last meeting of the #SocratesCafe with the question:  How much truth do we need? … there being cases, as pointed out by #karen, where being honest can cause more harm than telling a #lie.

Karen’s point is but one of many where there IS a difference between truth and authenticity.

Truth is relative too. Authenticity is absolute. It is exactly what you are in this moment, and independent from the circumstances you find yourself in. As Karen points out, you can be authentic and not tell what you believe is the truth, in that moment and circumstance.

To be authentic is to follow your inner guidance, to know how to follow your YES, and to realize that truth is only a point of perspective and which reality you actualized for your senses, in this moment, to perceive … which may or may not align with others depending on what beliefs are shared between you.


well we may well be saying the same thing … the only difference being the language in which we say it …
but drilling down anyay ....

There is a case where one’s “inner guidance” is already at odds with the world …
and to compensate one lies. 

To me that would be a case of not being honest … and/or not being authentic (same thing).

A #LIE is saying something “you believe is not true, and with the intent to deceive another”. See the definition under #LIE.

… and a person can lie and still be authentic, for instance Karen’s case.

Truth is based on beliefs. Authenticity is based on beingness. They are different things when you understand the place of each in the cosmos.

seems to me you are just squiggling around with the language here.

can you talk about the specific case i brought up above?

… and, the reason you think I am pointing to the same thing is because you don’t make distinctions in this area … exactly because you are not allowing your perception to travel outside of the container where they appear to be the same.

I’m sorry. I can’t help you see something you always left turn before you get to the vantage point where you can see it from. And I don’t think this case above is going to help with that. We have been over this many more ways than this one, including this one, before. You will have to actually complete the journey to that vista where you can see the distinctions I am talking about here, before talking about what you can see from there will be useful. My continuing to describe to you what you can see from that vista point is never going to let your eyes actually see it. Once you go there and see it, then we can talk about what we see.

nathan this is not about me … this is not about you … this is not about me and you.

Rather this is about what being honest … and/or being authentic… means.  I don’t get any distinction there.  And yes i am using your definition of lie. 

To get us around the differences in language only, i introduced the term “honesty” … deep honesty , defining it as where one’s #insides … even down to what you call “inner guidance” … are telling the same story as their #outsides.  That may well be what you call “authenticity”.

For specific examples of people’s honesty #against the world try #snowden, #ThomasMore, or even my friend #aaron.   Those are life and death stories … not little trivial games. 

… or maybe just avoid the inquiry into what to do when one’s inner guidance is at odds with the world … and instead  turn this into a #ParentChild transaction from you to me … or maybe some mirrored #Bullshit from me to you.

#btw … and this part is about me …

my “inner guidance” (intuition) is not at odds with the deepest part of the world of which i null.

seth


seth, this is about you. Because you won’t go to the vantage point where you can see the difference. You simply turn before you get there. That is you. Not everyone does that. I was taken there myself, and one time I did not turn. I have taken many people back there since. Nearly every one of them made it the first time due to my attentiveness as a guide.

You don’t go. That is about you. This is not about authenticity and truth. This is about going to the place where you can easily see the distinction between them. It’s like seeing in black and white, verses seeing in color. No amount of words will suffice until a person who sees in black and white chooses to go to the place where they can see in color. And yes, even that is a “choice” … some have made it, most think it is only physical and genetic, so they don’t even try.

you are repeating yurself and you are confused … or you think you can confuse me … to be honest i do not know what you are doing.  i know what i am doing, however.

#BuhBye

… and that, my friend, IS the left turn.

Yes, you are very good at that left turn. You know how to do it well, no matter what options are available, no matter who is showing you otherwise. You have that left turn down so well nothing can shake you from making it.




its interesting to see where #Trump is getting his information … i trust #BrianStelter and this hangs together well …

i like the way #BrianStelter drills down to the source of  #information … and discloses its #biases.  

in this case it appears that  #Trump got information from judge Napolitano who got it from a broadcast on Russian TV. 

here is some more background on this from the NYT.

Fox’s Andrew Napolitano Stirred the Pot for Trump’s British Tempest


i will be listening for what part of this comes out in the congressional public haring about this tomorrow.

and if you doubt that #Trump will start a #war … just listen to his late night phone calls …