There are many issues where Trump lies about an issue where the truth would be simple to explain and be understood by average people. When Trump tells the public that John Stewart invited Trump multiple times when John Stewart did no such thing it might be “emotionally true” in the sense that people who watch Trump want to emotionally belief.
It’s interesting that the best example you could come up with appears to be an obscure bit of trivia. I wasn’t able to figure out the exact details by searching, but Jon Steward certainly said many things that sounded like he was implying he’d love to have Trump on his show, e.g., this. I suspect, what may have happened is that Jon Steward (whose whole schtick is telling lies and half-truths, using a laugh track in lieu of a counter-argument, and pleading “just joking” when called on it) likes to imply he would totally beat Trump in an argument. A much more fun thing to say until Trump implies you’re just desperate to have him on the show for the ratings boost.
Berny Sanders for example said in on of the debates that America is the richest country on earth. There are countries with a richer per capita GDP but that’s besides the point that Sanders made for the debate.
Which was? I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “America is the richest country on earth therefore we can afford to adopt ”.
I’m sorry, I good the name wrong. I meant to say John Oliver and got the last name wrong. I referencing information from one of his videos on Trump.
I think Last Week Tonight generally follows at least Karl Roves 100% truth test.
Pieces of trivia make good examples because they are less politically charged. If you read “politics is the mindkiller” and understand it than you make effort in choicing nonpolitical examples to be able to think more rational.
Rationally analyzing a person like Trump isn’t easy and looking at examples that are in that trivia reference class instead of looking at highly charged political examples is much better if your goal is to understand the kind of person that Trump happens to be.
Which was? I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “America is the richest country on earth therefore we can afford to adopt ”.
I think it was something about how America has more people who suffer in poverty than many European countries.
I’m sorry, I good the name wrong. I meant to say John Oliver and got the last name wrong.
This doesn’t exactly inspire me to trust your memory about other details of the story.
I referencing information from one of his videos on Trump.
Specifically, he appears to have made a joke that could reasonably be interpreted as an invitation to Trump (specifically inviting an alias Trump once used), then said “that was only a joke” when Trump called him on it.
I think Last Week Tonight generally follows at least Karl Roves 100% truth test.
I admittedly haven’t watched it, but isn’t that the show that perfected the “laugh track in place of counter-argument without other breaks so viewers don’t have time to rationally process what’s being said” format.
The goal of my post isn’t to convince you. There’s a bunch of politics involved and additionally, it’s about the distinction of states for which I believe jimmy to which I have replied to have mental models, but where there’s a good chance that you don’t.
The best way to explain those to you would likely to talk about hypnosis in a nonpolitical context and I don’t want to get into that at this point.
There’s a bunch of politics involved and additionally, it’s about the distinction of states for which I believe jimmy to which I have replied to have mental models
And why does this discussion of psychological states depend no you asserting false statements about contemporary politics?
I don’t think that it depends on them. The fact that you think it does, indicates that the context of politics puts you into a defense way of approaching this conversation and that’s a state in which it’s unlikely that it’s easy to complicate a complex subject, and there’s no real reason for me to put in that work.
It’s interesting that the best example you could come up with appears to be an obscure bit of trivia. I wasn’t able to figure out the exact details by searching, but Jon Steward certainly said many things that sounded like he was implying he’d love to have Trump on his show, e.g., this. I suspect, what may have happened is that Jon Steward (whose whole schtick is telling lies and half-truths, using a laugh track in lieu of a counter-argument, and pleading “just joking” when called on it) likes to imply he would totally beat Trump in an argument. A much more fun thing to say until Trump implies you’re just desperate to have him on the show for the ratings boost.
Which was? I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “America is the richest country on earth therefore we can afford to adopt ”.
I’m sorry, I good the name wrong. I meant to say John Oliver and got the last name wrong. I referencing information from one of his videos on Trump. I think Last Week Tonight generally follows at least Karl Roves 100% truth test.
Pieces of trivia make good examples because they are less politically charged. If you read “politics is the mindkiller” and understand it than you make effort in choicing nonpolitical examples to be able to think more rational.
Rationally analyzing a person like Trump isn’t easy and looking at examples that are in that trivia reference class instead of looking at highly charged political examples is much better if your goal is to understand the kind of person that Trump happens to be.
I think it was something about how America has more people who suffer in poverty than many European countries.
This doesn’t exactly inspire me to trust your memory about other details of the story.
Specifically, he appears to have made a joke that could reasonably be interpreted as an invitation to Trump (specifically inviting an alias Trump once used), then said “that was only a joke” when Trump called him on it.
I admittedly haven’t watched it, but isn’t that the show that perfected the “laugh track in place of counter-argument without other breaks so viewers don’t have time to rationally process what’s being said” format.
The goal of my post isn’t to convince you. There’s a bunch of politics involved and additionally, it’s about the distinction of states for which I believe jimmy to which I have replied to have mental models, but where there’s a good chance that you don’t. The best way to explain those to you would likely to talk about hypnosis in a nonpolitical context and I don’t want to get into that at this point.
And why does this discussion of psychological states depend no you asserting false statements about contemporary politics?
I don’t think that it depends on them. The fact that you think it does, indicates that the context of politics puts you into a defense way of approaching this conversation and that’s a state in which it’s unlikely that it’s easy to complicate a complex subject, and there’s no real reason for me to put in that work.
Then why are you asserting them?