Lies, A Contradiction Of The Truth. -Examples, Teaching and Opinions-
By ABC-AntiBullyingCrusador
I came across an article yesterday, titled and linked below, that caught my attention.
Flake and Corker Feel Liberated to Speak Minds That Should Terrify Trump
As a backdrop, before this article was published, there had been several reports that Senator Jeff Flake had been critical of President Trump's "behavior" even using the word "dangerous" at one point, while at the same time, he announced his decision to not run for re-election. This article is related.
To keep things clear, quoted content from the linked, complete article content, will be in BLUE print. ABC's commentary, teaching and opinions will be in the default BLACK print.
The article starts off with the statement;
THE BIG IDEA: Now Jeff Flake can listen to his conscience, not his consultants.
As if Flake couldn't listen to his own conscience BEFORE?
Looking at this statement at face value, most people didn't think twice, but the few who did noticed that the statement implies that Jeff Flake did NOT listen to his own conscience UNTIL just now, after FIRST deciding not to run for re-election.
Further more, according to various news reports, Flake also NOW feels free to say publicly, that President Trump's state of mind is "dangerous"! This has been stated in many different ways by many different people, starting from well before the election.
Most recently, talk intentionally meant to emphatically declare that President Trump is mentally unstable, has been parroted by three top Republican lawmakers, Flake, Corker and John McCain. The three, either by coincidence or by the hand of God, share both the distinction and the experience, of now living within their closing days as lawmakers. The significance of this, has yet to unfold.
Having experienced and studied "psychopathic bullying" for over 15 years, I can tell you that the "mental health card" is a common tactic used uniquely by REAL psychopathic bullies. But like all psychopathic bullying tactics, being built on lies and deception, they are intended to change perceptions against their "targets".
But like all lies, they are a contradiction of the truth. When you look just a little bit deeper, the contradictions become obvious.
For example, It would be scary to believe that Flake, Corker and other top lawmakers, REALLY believe their own lies about the president's mental health. The contradiction being, that if the president's mental health was really all that dangerous, nobody in their right mind with a moral conscience, especially a top lawmaker, would have hesitated a moment to say it. Never mind first waiting to decide about running for re-election!
The second example starts with the quoted text.
"As one of the most authentically conservative members of Congress, Flake has a level of moral authority rivaled by few others."
This statement was supported by the next statement about Flake's political history, or did it?
"Flake was proving his conservative bona fides by leading the charge to kill earmarks, voting against Medicare Part D despite arm-twisting from George W. Bush himself and speaking out against deficit spending by his own party."
The words and terminology alone, throws some doubt about Flake's "level of moral authority", but before your mind can even begin to wonder about how "speaking out AGAINST his own party" is "proving his conservative bona fides" When the next sentence;
"House GOP leaders even removed Flake from a choice slot on the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 as retaliation for his criticism." -
-Throws in, yet a bigger question, How does being removed by your own party's leadership "from a choice slot", "as retaliation for criticism", add-up, to some how mean that Flake "has a level of moral authority"?
The article then repeats the point that the article failed to convince you of.
"This part of his background makes it hard for anyone to credibly argue that Flake speaking out against Trump is anything but principled."
Does it REALLY?
I have noticed recently, that the news media has been repeating or reinforcing their points and conclusions again toward the end of the same article, more than they used to. Especially articles like this one, where the major points are not clearly stated in the first place. It's as if stating it twice, makes you believe something the article had failed to convince you of.
-Just an observation though-
In conclusion, read important articles slowly or re-read articles that you found compelling enough to base your opinions on. Read between the lines and watch for the inconsistencies and contradictions that become obvious, when the assertions are either contradicted within an article content its self, or by logical consideration of the "usual course of events" one would normally expect.
Here's to learning just a little bit more, about the importance of looking just a little bit deeper!
ABC-AntiBullyingCrusador
-Won't you consider leaving a Comment? No identifying information is required-
ALL Reader Comments are welcome and are especially ENCOURAGED when your comments differ from that of the article or offers a different perspective or experience as RELATED to the article. With the following EXCEPTIONS; 1) Any reader comments expressed in such a way, that may be interpreted as "incivility" or "Adult Bullying" will be moderated by ABC individually for determination. 2) In violation of Blogger Content Policy.
ALL Reader Comments are welcome and are especially ENCOURAGED when your comments differ from that of the article or offers a different perspective or experience as RELATED to the article. With the following EXCEPTIONS; 1) Any reader comments expressed in such a way, that may be interpreted as "incivility" or "Adult Bullying" will be moderated by ABC individually for determination. 2) In violation of Blogger Content Policy.
