How To Humanize Politics

How To Humanize Politics

Arguing both sides of an issue transcends mere intellectual exercise; it cultivates empathy and fosters a deeper appreciation for the nuances inherent in any political or social matter.

In the intricate tapestry of politics and governance, where ideologies clash and decisions shape societies, the pursuit of truth often gets entangled in the web of biases and partisanship. In such a landscape, where echo chambers echo louder than reason, the art of arguing both sides of an issue emerges as a beacon of intellectual integrity and honesty. It’s not merely a debate tactic; it’s a cognitive exercise that fosters empathy, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of complex. However, this pursuit of balanced argumentation is often challenged by psychological phenomena like “splitting,” which perpetuates polarization and inhibits constructive discourse.

At the heart of democracy lies the principle of informed decision-making. Citizens are entrusted with the responsibility to engage with various viewpoints, evaluate evidence, and weigh conflicting arguments before arriving at conclusions. Yet, in today’s polarized political climate, this ideal seems increasingly elusive. People gravitate towards sources that reaffirm their preexisting beliefs, reinforcing ideological bubbles and exacerbating division. This phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, erects barriers to understanding and perpetuates a superficial understanding of complex issues.

Arguing both sides of an issue transcends mere intellectual exercise; it cultivates empathy and fosters a deeper appreciation for the nuances inherent in any political or social matter. When we step into the shoes of those with opposing views, we gain insight into their motivations, fears, and aspirations. This exercise humanizes the “other,” breaking down the barriers of “us versus them” mentality that underpin polarization. It’s a recognition that the world is not black and white, but a spectrum of shades and complexities that demand nuanced consideration.

Moreover, arguing both sides of an issue is essential for honing critical thinking skills. It requires us to question assumptions, scrutinize evidence, and identify logical fallacies. By subjecting our own beliefs to rigorous examination, we fortify them against the pitfalls of dogma and intellectual stagnation. This process of intellectual self-challenge is essential for personal growth and the advancement of society as a whole.

However, the psychological phenomenon of “splitting” poses a significant obstacle to this pursuit of balanced argumentation. Splitting, a defense mechanism identified in psychoanalytic theory, involves the polarization of viewpoints into extreme categories of good and bad, right and wrong. In the realm of politics, splitting manifests as the demonization of opposing ideologies and the dehumanization of those who hold them. It fosters an environment where meaningful dialogue becomes impossible, replaced instead by vitriolic rhetoric and tribalistic fervor.

The consequences of splitting are profound and far-reaching. It entrenches political polarization, erodes trust in institutions, and undermines the very fabric of democracy. When individuals are unable or unwilling to engage with opposing viewpoints, consensus becomes elusive, and governance descends into gridlock. Moreover, splitting fosters a culture of intolerance, where dissent is stifled, and diversity of thought is viewed with suspicion.

To combat the pernicious effects of splitting, we must actively cultivate a culture of intellectual humility and openness to diverse perspectives. This begins with acknowledging the inherent complexity of political issues and embracing the uncertainty that accompanies genuine inquiry. It requires us to resist the temptation to reduce complex issues to simplistic dichotomies and instead embrace the messiness of nuanced debate.

Furthermore, education plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of splitting. By equipping individuals with the tools of critical thinking and media literacy, we empower them to navigate the sea of information with discernment and skepticism. Schools and universities must prioritize the development of these skills, instilling in students a lifelong commitment to intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness.

In conclusion, the importance of arguing both sides of an issue in politics cannot be overstated. It is not merely a matter of intellectual exercise but a fundamental aspect of democratic citizenship. By engaging with diverse viewpoints, we enrich our understanding of complex issues, cultivate empathy, and fortify our critical thinking skills. However, this pursuit is hindered by psychological phenomena like splitting, which perpetuates polarization and inhibits constructive discourse. To overcome this challenge, we must foster a culture of intellectual humility, openness, and education. Only then can we truly fulfill the promise of democracy and navigate the complexities of the modern world with wisdom and insight.


Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax / Income Tax Spin

Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax / Income Tax Spin

Unless you missed it, WEALTH is different than INCOME.

The goal here is not to wade into the debate about taxation, but to simply call attention to words and statistics. Even though Elizabeth Warren, President Biden, and others are promoting a wealth tax (clear enough), most Americans don’t seem to completely grasp the nuance.

Two BIG spins are in play below:



In both instances, a small tweak or reframe of the discussion can mislead one’s conclusions (oh so subtly).

Here are Sen. Warren’s words:

Let’s be clear where we stand on taxes. The 99% in America last year paid about 7.2% of their total wealth in taxes. That top one tenth of one percent where Elon Musk lives, they paid about 3.2%. That’s less than half as much. If Elon Musk were paying at the same rate as the rest of Americans on their wealth, then Elon Musk and his kind could be funding a huge part of what we need in America.” Sen. Warren: Elon Musk is riding on the backs of hard-working families (cnn.com)

It is important to notice that the word ‘wealth’ is distinct from the word ‘income’. Wealth is your totality of net assets (what you own less what you owe), while income in the money you’ve brought in during a year. A wealth tax taxes all you’ve got, while income tax taxes what you’ve added. 

The spin here is based on the way the public has understood taxation for generations. When Sen. Warren says that the 1% are paying almost ½ of what the 99% is paying, she is attempting to spin our understanding of income tax into an outrage. It’s not that she’s necessarily wrong (but it would be nice to see her math), it’s that she is talking like the wealthy are cheating the tax code by not paying their taxes.

So, if the sentence is changed to ‘income’, then it would read like this: “Let’s be clear where we stand on taxes. The 99% in America last year paid about 7.2% of their total income in taxes.” Of course, that would be patently false as the following displays.

In 1 Chart, How Much the Rich Pay in Taxes | The Heritage Foundation

In actual income taxes paid, the heaviest contribution is made by the wealthiest income earners. In the math of taxes paid compared to income, the lower 50% only pays 3% of all taxes; which means the top 1% is paying of 700% more then the poorest families and a significantly greater percentage than any other group (assuming the math is correct).

There’s more to the spin, but the key lesson is to realize that numbers can often be twisted to say what you want, and even more readily when the words are switch to play against the common understanding. 

A wealth tax is different than an income tax, and in principle simply asks us to consider how much we want the federal government to slow our own accumulation of wealth and redistribute it in the a variety of causes (Warren is concerned with multiple universal solutions like universal healthcare, education, etc. 

Now you know. Probably smart to keep the following quotes in mind:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” 

-Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass

There are three kinds of falsehoods, lies, damned lies and statistics.

-Arthur James Balfour

Spin Check Vaccine Passports

Spin-Check: Claims About Vaccine Passports (Joe Biden, Chip Roy, & CNN)

SPIN: Urban Dictionary: To present an incident in a particularly slanted or biased manner.

CNN has fact-checked Chip Roy’s claim that “President Biden and his administration and Democrats are trying to institute a vaccine passport.” The fact-check concludes, 

CNN Vaccine Passport Facts First: This is misleading and needs context. Only New York City has announced a vaccine passport requirement and the White House has said repeatedly there won’t be a federally mandated vaccine passport. 

CNN Spin Summary: Chip Roy makes a claim that (1) Biden, (2) his administration, and (3) Democrats are trying to institute a vaccine passport. CNN makes a claim that this is false because the White House says it won’t happen and CNN can find no evidence.

1. The spin here is that a claim (Chip Roy) is defeated by another claim (The White House). Claims don’t prove other claims wrong. Why does the White House’s denial of something serve as ‘proof’ that those who disagree are wrong? Claims don’t conquer claims, they are ‘she-said / he-said’ situations. We could as easily say, “The White House says repeatedly that there won’t be a federally mandated vaccine passport, but Congressman Roy insists that the White House is working with Democrats to make it happen, therefore the White House is misleading.”

2. The spin here is that while Roy mentioned a vaccine passport, CNN changed the term to ‘federally mandated’ passport. The states and local governments could individually require a passport, which seems to be realized by CNN, since it notes New Your City has one. 

3. The spin here is that Congressman Roy mentioned that Democrats and Biden are trying to institute a vaccine passport as a setup for a joke. The point was to tell the young conservative group that they were in the right state if they get stuck saying, “But the good news is, “Roy added, “if they do so while you’re here — since each and every one of you are freedom lovers– you’ll get stuck in Texas. You get to stay here instead of having to use a vaccine passport.” Roy was using a common point of discussion and contention to simply make a group of young adults feel welcomed to Texas.

4. The spin here is that “Amid confusion over mask mandates, booster shots, and new guidance for those vaccinated… Republicans have thrown fuel on the fire.” The argument is that since there is already a debate going on about a number of covid issues, the Republicans are bad guys to add anything else to the discussion. Of course, what is true is at issue, not whether or not it adds fuel to the fire. 

5. The spin here is that Roy’s ‘fuel on the fire’ is an opinion about an implication, but without evidence. CNN says, “But Roy’s comments implied that Biden was working on a way to limit someone’s ability to freely move around the US and CNN has seen no evidence to back up that assertion.” When you take an implication and argue against it, you are inventing a straw man. For example, one could say, “Biden’s support of New York City implies he is for ‘passports’, therefore Biden is lying when he says he is not for them.”

6. The spin here is that Chip Roy’s entrance into the debate is a new development and Roy is an addon contributor to the discussion. CNN said, “Last week the Republican National Committee falsely claimed the Surgeon General recommended people wear masks while at home with their kids. Now, Rep. Chip Roy from Texas is claiming that President Joe Biden is working to institute a vaccine passport across the country.” First, there is a guilt-by-association spin; Republicans where wrong last week about one thing, so a Republican is wrong this week about another thing. Second, there is not a “Now, Rep. Chip Roy…”, but an ongoing debate. In fact, Roy is a co-sponsor of the April 2021 No Vaccine Passport Act (Biggs) https://biggs.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-biggs-introduces-no-vaccine-passport-act 

7. The spin here is that Biden supports New York City’s vaccination requirement (functional localized passport) while denying working on a federally mandated vaccine passport. Asking a discrepancy question exposes this, “Mr. President, given that you support New York City’s requirement of proof of vaccination, why are you not working on a federally mandated vaccine passport?

Of course, the vaccine passport discussion has been in the air for some time, and will continue. US News said Biden was working on a vaccine passport initiative back in March of 2021.

Chip Roy made a claim as the setup to a joke. CNN spun it as misleading and without evidence, proved by the White House denial.

4 Twisters

Anecdotal Evidence

Anecdotal Evidence: “The Mitigation Worked to Save Lives”

During the Coronavirus Crisis of 2020, there has been a lot of bantering about concerning various treatments and protocols; never mind the full reversals, like don’t wear a mask and do wear a mask. The argument from anecdote is thrown around like baking soda on a grease fire. Arguments like these are often really about spin; when the anecdotes (stories) serve you, you use them. When they hurt you, you diss them.  


President Trump specifically stated that he hoped hydroxychloroquine
would be a game changer. Critics attacked Trump as relying on anecdotal evidence
for his ‘highly ‘touted’ cure. They further went on to attack hydroxychloroquine
as dangerous, based on nothing less than their own anecdotal evidence of what
they’ve heard from some doctors. In an article about the lack of hard evidence,
the authors do accurately quote Trump:

“I may take it,” Trump said on Saturday, referring to hydroxychloroquine,
though he has twice tested negative for coronavirus, according to the White
House. “We’re just hearing really positive stories, and we’re continuing to
collect the data.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/
While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss
and discover the truth of things. Some studies have indicated that hydroxy doesn’t
work against the virus, but those are focused on hospital admissions. We would
need studies that show an early prescription at the onset of symptoms (with
zinc and azithromycin) doesn’t work.

While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss and discover the truth of things.  


Anecdote: A limited selection of examples which support or refute an
argument, but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.https://www.definitions.net/definition/anecdotal+evidence

Trump’s comment has both anecdote and data in it. He is
saying we are hearing positive stories, but that we need to keep collecting
data. There is nothing wrong with anecdotes, but they neither prove nor
disprove anything. There is no lie in anecdotal proof, since it could turn out
to be true.
In a hard-scientific world, we really think of anecdotes as hints or hypotheses,
and you’ll see it again if the virus gets to a truly manageable level. 


Dr. Fauci, and others, state that mitigation is working and will “do the trick for us.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYZ9FgkftE

However, that too is speculative. It makes sense, as does anecdotal evidence. However, we can’t know without a real comparative study. We would have to have the ‘curve’ studied with partial mitigation and no mitigation. Sweden is the curious example that seems to have a similar curve to the rest of the countries, but without the level of lockdown commonly employed. This kind of spin shadows a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore resulting from it: used to indicate that a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one). We mitigated, so lives were saved. Well, yes, maybe, but were they saved short-term or long-term? The simple fact is that we do not know. We do not currently have the scientific data to prove it. So, when unvalidated anecdotal evidence doesn’t serve, it’s bad. When other unvalidated evidence serves, it’s good. When trends on a chart serve, they are good. When trends don’t serve, they are bad.

Karl Popper gave us a better standard with his principle of falsifiability (if you can’t prove it’s wrong, you can’t prove it’s right) https://youtu.be/wf-sGqBsWv4

In the world of news and crisis, however, all you need to know is that everyone is talking about hope and predictions…which get’s tangled in the web of spin.When they say that anecdotal evidence suggest something, you can simply say, “Maybe.” When the ‘experts’ come out and insist that the mitigation worked, you can also simply say, “Maybe.” Definitive proof is another question entirely.Hope and hypotheses are not lies, but they also aren’t conclusive. Don’t get tricked, always spin-check.

President Trump Always Lies? No…

President Trump Always Lies? No…

Spin-check is about preparing readers to discern the truth, which isn’t easy in a spin-happy world. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS LIES. Accusing people of lying is the quickest spin of all that groups embrace, and it misdirects us from seeing the truth of things.

Plenty of people out there think it’s true that President Trump always lies, but clearly this is suspicious unless they change the meaning of the words ‘lie’ or ‘always’. The energy to overreact seems to be without boundaries. Here’s a recent example:

Well, this looks obvious! He says he signed the CHOICE Act, but we know he really didn’t. Ha! Liar! A few comments that immediately follow this post found at #trumplies show the instant conclusion:

The Trump tweet is explained by considering Trump a deliberate liar on one extreme, and a self-deceived (delusional?) liar at the other extreme. Apparently, “We know Trump is lying, we just don’t know exactly why!”

But is he lying? The simplest thing to do to avoid getting sucked into this spin-cycle is to begin with the assumption the other person might not be lying, that something else may be in play. This mindset will lead you to FIRST UNDERSTAND…and, of course, you can still condemn the sorry liar later.

We always try to ask, “Would Trump (or ________) really knowingly make such an outlandish statement that is blatantly false?” The answer is always, “Not likely.” So, we need to look at what the President actually said and compare it to what is claimed he said.

They say he said:

I signed the Choice Act, not Obama.

He said:

Last year I signed legislation that gives our Veterans CHOICE, through private providers, and at urgent care facilities! Today we fully funded this $10 billion a year effort that gets our brave Veterans care quickly, and close to home.

Now, first we can notice that he did not say he signed the Choice Act, but rather he signed ‘legislation’. From here we’d simple ask, “Did he sign legislation that does this?” With a little googling we can find that he did sign legislation:

Trump Extends VA Choice Program
Trump Signs 55 Billion Bill to Replace VA Choice Program

So, he did sign legislation (referring to either story above?). He extended the Choice Act (and improved it, apparently). Is he taking credit for something he didn’t do? Is he misleading everyone? Is he a jerk anyway? Well, all of these are clearly important questions. And, of course, congress passed the law, so they can get credit too.

One might still want to call the President a liar anyway, but the legitimacy of the claim in this case needs some explaining…or…perhaps an admission that it’s just not true in this rabid instance. The overreaction to whatever Trump says makes both spinning and looking stupid rather easy.

As we like to note, if Trump were Shakespeare and said, “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun,” wouldn’t he be open to the accusation of being a liar? Juliet is not the sun; it’s a gaseous ball of explosions about 93 million miles from earth; Shakespeare/Trump is a liar.

Of course, always make sure you get the actual quote which is declared the ‘lie’. Next, to avoid getting caught up in group-spins like these, simply ask, “What did they mean?” and “Is it true?” In this way you’ll be fair-minded and call a liar a liar with accuracy, rather than getting egg on your face like those who buy spin in Costco-sized containers.

Spinning the Quid-Pro-Quo Bottle

Spinning the Quid-Pro-Quo Bottle

The story is simple. The Dems are saying the US Prez pressured the Ukraine Prez to do what he (US) wanted or else he (Ukraine) would lose out on aide (get punished). Sound right?

There is confusion and complexity in the details which may (or may not) get sorted out in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that there is widespread disagreement among those who could be legitimate witnesses to what happened. That aside, the propaganda lesson here is that this argument can easily be used again and again on any US president. There are two big points to ponder.

1. All presidents can be accused of an implied quid pro quo in every conversation

This is a framework the anyone can use on any President. Think about it; isn’t there an implication in any phone call with the most powerful leader in the world that, “if you don’t behave there will be repercussions?” Does he really have to say anything quid-ish?No president can escape that accusation; no matter what the situation, true? We need to appreciate this reality, because it shines light on the fictional finger-pointing we are enjoying as a nation today. So, wait, what is quid pro quo? It’s Latin for ‘this for that’ and largely a relates to contracts, and is aligned with consideration; or an exchange of value. This value can be as little as a dollar (real estate assignments often use this standard), but value must be exchanged for the contract event to happen.

In the case of the President, was there an exchange of value? Even the always-against Judge Napolitano admits there was no exchange:”The Ukrainian president didn’t ever feel pressured, and he got his money. Do we know if he turned over anything about Biden to the president?” Earhardt asked. When Napolitano said he didn’t, Earhardt remarked, “That’s not quid pro quo. “The delay is the quid pro quo,” Napolitano answered back. “The delay of 55 days, knowing that the Russians are at the border.””  https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-trump-delay-ukraine-aid-quid-pro-quo-1471758

Huh? Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence the Ukraine president knew about such a delay, there still was no actual exchange of either information (Ukraine) or a delay (US). One might try to spin it into a threat; but again, what conversation could anyone have with any US president that opponents couldn’t claim an implied threat? Every president from the past or the future can be accused of the same thing.

2. Everything any president does can be framed as ‘personal political gain’

Every photo-op, every trade deal, and every military threat can be seen as advancing a president’s standing politically, especially if they are up for reelection. The curious case of Hunter Biden (and Joe) is that the story suggests that if it had been a John Doe (and Joe) that were under the president’s concerned eye, then there would have been no ‘crime’ at all in play. Common sense says if something is wrong, then it is wrong. Changing the characters shouldn’t change anything. Oh, but it does, doesn’t it?

Much of this is the disgusting nature of politics and diplomacy, which is probably what Mulvaney was stumbling around to say. https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-blasts-media-says-mick-mulvaney-said-nothing-wrong-at-press-conference

When either party has a biased desire to take down an opponent, then looking for a scandal will always be easy work…if the attack is about implied consequences of crossing the US president, and if it helps his personal political cause. There is no way out of this spin except to see what is motivating those who are questioning others’ motives. CNN’s notion of ‘facts first’ is a good one if followed, which the Democrats have ignored. In the law-and-order world this is highlighted with, “I have the criminal, now I just need a crime.” The same reversal is seen in the preaching world too, “I have a message, now I just need a Bible verse.”Keep spin-checking!



In a 17 June 2019 article in USA Today titled, “Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons,” the Mueller Mandate is redefined with the the phrase, “Russian Interference.”


1. Red Herring[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue]. 


2. Russian InterferenceA computer hacking conspiracy involving gaining unauthorized access into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stealing documents from those computers, and staging releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.


3. Mueller Mandate(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBIDirector James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). 


THE ISSUESo, the red herring of ‘Russian Interference’ is being drug across the trail of ‘Russian Collusion’ in this USA Today article (and via other media outlets): 

The case had gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.


See what they did there?

In other words, Russian Interference in the 2016 election was an issue dating back to the Obama administration, but it was not about whether the Trump Campaign had colluded (secret conspiracy with the intent to defraud) with the Russians. Mueller was charged to specifically determine if there was coordination between Trump Campaign officials and the Russian government.


1. If there had been no Russian Interference in the 2016 election, it could still have been possible that the Trump (or Clinton) campaign could have conspired with the Russian government.2. But if Donald Trump had lost the presidency to Hillary Clinton, then there               * WOULD NOT BE a Special Counsel or Mueller Report               * WOULD STILL BE Russian Interference3. So, Russian Interference is not the same as Russian Collusion


The spin here is that USA Today is dragging a red herring across the trail to confuse (or conflate) the issues. Without discussing the ‘obstruction’ question, the Mueller Report and it’s confirmation by the Attorney General, the investigation was about whether or not members of the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government; which has been thoroughly investigated and established that there was no collusion. It is safe to assume (unless there is unintentional incompetence in play) that in order to keep the issue in the news, USA Today (et al) have muddled and conflated the Russian Investigation with the Trump-Collusion Investigation. It’s a red herring which continues to ‘mislead or distract from a relevant or important question’— which in this case is, “Did any members of the Trump campaign collude with Russian?” The Mueller Report ended the question with a specific, “No.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Watch for this common tactic called a red herring — whether it’s intentional or not, it’s a spin to check.



The simple fact is that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge or accuse President Trump of any wrong doing.


Mueller’s key words from his May 29, 2019 public statement were,

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.


There are two assertions here:

  1. If we were sure the president didn’t commit a crime, we would have told you.
  2. We did not determine the president committed a crime.

The convoluted wording alone should make us wonder about spin. Clearly Mueller did not have a legal case against the president (or he would have stated such), but spin allows him to make a political accusation; by suggestion.

  • We can’t say the president didn’t commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he did
  • We can’t say the president did commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he didn’t

All of this leaves a cloud of suspicion, but rightly viewed, Mueller is an agnostic rather than a true atheist.

  • Agnostic: I don’t know if there is a God or not; suggesting not enough proof or evidence either way
  • Atheist: I know there is no God; suggesting evidence and proof exists to show ‘no God’

By posturing himself as an agnostic, he leaves room for speculation on the part of all the rest of us. To bend Robert Frost’s words,

We dance in a ring and suppose,
Mueller sits in the middle and knows.

To Un-Spin this matter, we simply need to know if Mueller thinks he had a case to indict Trump if he were not the president. If that were so, his language would be something like, “While I know a sitting president can’t be indicted, I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove he committed a crime.” That would be provable and explosive if true. Indicting the president is one thing, accusing him of committing a crime is another.

Of course, he says nothing close to an accusation since he flatly states, “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller’s spin is to nuance the difference between these two statements:

  1. We determined a crime was not committed
  2. We did not determine a crime was committed

In either statement, there is nothing for the legal system to do. If there was no crime or if no conclusion is reached that there was a crime, it doesn’t matter legally; THERE IS NO CASE.


Mueller’s entire problem is one of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. He states this in the same public statement when he says,

[Volume One of the report] includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.


In the legal world, insufficient evidence mean you don’t have a case, especially during a trial. When there is not enough evidence, then charges are dropped and the person under investigation is cleared and freed.

n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the 
prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough 
convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has 
completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.


Of course, if a prosecutor concludes that there would be such a ruling or probability, then there would be no charges to begin with, which is what we commonly mean by not having a ‘prosecutable case’.

Mueller spins his position to leave room for ‘maybe’, but let’s face a couple of facts beyond the spin:

  1. Around 35 million dollars was spent trying to especially prove the president committed a crime
  2. Mueller did not find that the president committed a crime

Mueller actually clears the president with his report and statement. Congress, on the other hand, is not a legal system, but a political one. DANGER: SPIN AHEAD.


We can call this one a spin-by-deletion or context error. Honestly, I don’t know if Chris Cuomo just made a mistake, is engaging weak journalism, or is up to something. In his video from Cuomo Primetime (“New Abortion Laws Aim to Provoke Roe v. Wade Protections” – May 7, 2019) he accuses President Trump of ‘fiction, BS, and ignorance’, charging him with misstating the law. Chris Cuomo is the one, however, who is doing the misstating. Here’s the Cuomo verbatim:

CUOMO: What you’re seeing is Republicans running with the fiction POTUS is pushing. It’s fear-mongering. It goes back to the campaign.

TRUMP (video clip): You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day.

CUOMO: That’s just not true. That’s complete BS. So, whether he is ignorant or not on the issue doesn’t matter anymore as President of the United States.


So far so bad for the President, except the video tape is both edited and out-of-context. Here’s the verbatim from the New York Times:

CONTEXT: October 20, 2016 debate moderated by Chris Wallace. The question concerned partial-birth abortions.

TRUMP’S ACTUAL WORDS: Well I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying. In the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother in the ninth month, on the final day.


First, this statement was made during the campaign and shows Trump attacking Clinton’s view (or his view of her view). Trump is clearly not stating this is the current law as Cuomo insists he thinks. Instead, Donald Trump is arguing what he believes will happen if Hillary’s view becomes accepted.

Second, this statement also has the words ‘of the mother’ removed. Why would CNN edit Mr. Trump’s words in mid-sentence? Speculation would suggest that it softens the rhetoric, making the issue sound less mother/daughter and more woman/body. Another option is the clip was edited to essentials because of time constraints. Whatever the reason, it doesn’t make Cuomo and his team look good.

Chris Cuomo may have been ignorant (didn’t realize the clip was an out-of-context and edited clip) or he may have been simply offering BS (his term), but in either event he’s wrong on this point. The spin is for the Pro-abortion/Pro-life debate. Cuomo is making a case for women’s rights (pro-abortion) and is using a false narrative (via a video clip) to invite people to think this President (and pro-life advocates) are so lame that they don’t even understand the laws and are willing participants in promoting false information. It’s a spin. Of course, the irony is that it is a part of his Facts First segment.

One should always insist upon two essential things before making a conclusion about another’s BS;

  1. Assume the person being quoted means something that makes sense to themselves, and then look for it.
  2. Gather the context of words, setting, and intended audience.

These two simple practices will steer you well, and they will allow you to see where spin-meister’s, entertainers, op-ed writers, and sometimes journalists, can go awry. CNN’s Chris Cuomo would have done better engaging these tools.

NOTE WELL: The ‘abortion issue’ isn’t going away and is, at its core, a conflict of values: The mother’s rights vs. the unborn daughter’s rights. Pro-abortion advocates are making the mother’s rights the issue, while pro-life advocates are making the unborn daughter’s rights the issue (an alternate framing would say the woman’s rights vs the fetus’s rights, but that’s another Spin-Check). THE QUESTION: At what point does the unborn daughter’s rights exceed the mother’s rights (if ever)? Wherever you land, please check the spin and keep the facts in play, especially within the context they’re quoted.

How They Spin Definitions: The Trump Tax Cut Hit

How They Spin Definitions: The Trump Tax Cut Hit

One of the favorite ways in which media outlets (like CNN and The Washington Post, see below) spin the news for us is by REDEFINING the terms to prove the opposition wrong.

If you think we mean that certain outlets ALWAYS spin, then you are missing our point. We are all given to spinning because of our biases; however, certain news organizations clearly spin more than others. True?




Remember that spin = propaganda. “In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public opinion in favor or against some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may also rely on altering the presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and highly manipulative tactics.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(propaganda)

Media have continued to enter into the domain of politics by taking a slant on the news in order to influence public opinion. Redefining terms is a favorite tool of all spin-meisters.Let’s start with a pretend scenario to understand the game. Imagine you simply want to find a flaw in what someone says in order to write about it. In this case, you don’t like Trump saying he is the oldest president to be sworn into office. While on the surface it’s true, since he was 70 at the time of his inauguration, it gets a spin like this,Trump’s Claim: “I’m the oldest person ever sworn in as president.”Fact Check: While it’s technically true, it needs some context.Donald Trump was sworn in at 70 years of age, but relative to life expectancy, he is actually among our youngest presidents. Trump was 70, but life expectancy at the time was 78 years old in the United States. In contrast, consider Abraham Lincoln, who was 52 years old when he became the president. The life expectancy in 1861 was only 40.5 years in the United States. Relative to the population, Abraham Lincoln was much older than Donald Trump, therefore Trump’s point of accomplishment is nothing much to write home about.

Now, do you get the idea? A term is REDEFINED to suit an argument or analysis to support a bias or slant in the ‘reporting’ or opinion piece. You’ll notice it often once you start paying attention to this tactic.Here’s an example from the world of news.

2019 – Pence & Tax Cuts

(CNN March 4, 2019) While praising President Donald Trump during his remarks at CPAC, Vice President Mike Pence listed off some of the accomplishments he believes the administration has made in its first two years. Among them, of course, was the 2017 tax reform.

“With the support of this generation of conservatives, President Trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in American history,” the Vice President said. “That’s promises made and promises kept.”

CNN and the Washington Post (and others) took exception to this claim and called it false in early 2018.

2018 – Pence & Tax Cuts

CNN – The biggest tax cut in history? Not quite.“The Treasury measured the sizes of tax cuts by looking at the revenue effects of the bills as a percentage of gross domestic product — in other words, how much federal revenue the bill cuts away as a portion of the economy. Reagan’s 1981 cut was 2.9% of GDP. Obama’s tax cut extensions in 2010 and 2012 were 1.3% and 1.8%, respectively. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html

Washington Post – Fact Check: Biggest tax cut in U.S. history?Trump repeatedly claims he passed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history, but it’s just not true. He’s earned Four Pinocchios for this claim before — but repeated it 57 times in his first year as president. The best way to compare tax cuts (or spending plans) over time is to measure them as a percentage of the national economy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/live-updates/trump-white-house/fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-state-of-the-union-2018-address/fact-check-biggest-tax-cut-in-u-s-history/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5f4ce69e7666

So, these two outlets rely on the Treasury measurement based on the GDP or as compared to the national economy. It’s fine, of course, to measure it however you’d like, but it isn’t addressing the fact-claim. The writers should be asking, “What did Trump and Pence mean when they said, ‘We gave the largest tax cut in history.” This goes to determining meaning in communication. As Stephen Covey points out in his 7 Habits book, “First understand, then be understood.” I frame it as, “First understand, then disagree.”

What did Trump/Pence mean? Were they thinking of the GDP and the national economy as a comparison over time? No, the Whitehouse told us exactly what they meant by the statement:President Trump’s tax cuts are the biggest gross tax cuts in American history, cutting over $5.5 trillion in taxes over ten years.

The President’s tax law included substantial reforms to make taxes simpler and fairer, which helped offset the cost of the tax cuts and thereby limit the net tax cut to $1.5 trillion.

President Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, the largest percentage point reduction of the top marginal rate in history.

President Trump’s tax cuts include the biggest increase in the child tax credit in history.


So, if Trump/Pence meant that it’s the largest dollar amount tax cut in history, then they are not factually wrong. They said and meant what they said and meant (though it can be it’s own spin, perhaps). For the Washington Post to give Trump four Pinocchio’s and then base it on ‘the best way to compare’ is a spin using redefinition. In other words, neither Trump nor Pence meant what the Washington Post or CNN said they should have meant.UNSPUN VERSION:Trump/Pence: “President Trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in American history.”Journalist: While it is true that Trump’s tax cut is the largest dollar amount cut in history, it is doubtful that it will be the most impactful tax cut in history. The Treasury has a consistent way to measure a tax cut’s impact…SPIN-CHECK TIP:Watch for it and keep asking, two basic question to avoid their propaganda-spin:

  • What did they say?
  • What did they mean by what they said?

That will guide you well through the brackish water of spin into the clear waters of the Gulf of Truth.

: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in on line