Just the facts, ma'am
I decided to argue "the facts" about Trump's early actions in his second term as POTUS. So I decided to try to figure out what constitutes a fact in contrast to opinion or supposition or mendacity.
FACT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
fact
noun
1
a
: something that has actual existence
space exploration is now a factb
: an actual occurrence
prove the fact of damage2
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
These are the hard facts of the case.3
: the quality of being actual : actualitya question of fact hinges on evidence
4
: a thing done: such asa
: crime
accessory after the factb
archaic : actionc
obsolete : feat5
archaic : performance
Hmmmmn. Not much help in how you distinguish true facts from lies. So I poked a little deeper into internet authoritative information:
Epistemology - Wikipedia
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge. Also called "theory of knowledge", it explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience. Epistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises, they investigate sources of justification, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it.Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism debate whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances.
Separate branches of epistemology focus on knowledge in specific fields, like scientific, mathematical, moral, and religious knowledge. Naturalized epistemology relies on empirical methods and discoveries, whereas formal epistemology uses formal tools from logic. Social epistemology investigates the communal aspect of knowledge, and historical epistemology examines its historical conditions. Epistemology is closely related to psychology, which describes the beliefs people hold, while epistemology studies the norms governing the evaluation of beliefs. It also intersects with fields such as decision theory, education, and anthropology.
Early reflections on the nature, sources, and scope of knowledge are found in ancient Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. The relation between reason and faith was a central topic in the medieval period. The modern era was characterized by the contrasting perspectives of empiricism and rationalism. Epistemologists in the 20th century examined the components, structure, and value of knowledge while integrating insights from the natural sciences and linguistics.
So many words. No answers at all about what really is true and what is caca. If you don't accept the true facts, there is just something wrong with you.
Where is Joe Friday when we need him? So many liars and cretins just making up what they want to believe.
I guess that argument never leads anywhere at all, beyond, "I know what's true, dammit! If you don't accept the true facts, there is just something wrong with you."

Comments
For the plebes --
-- political discussion in the US context is not about truth. The participants do not care, then, if anything they say is true, and if they have a common epistemology at all, it serves as a set of alibis for their political behaviors. I suppose an approximate epistemology would be "X is true if person Y says it is true." Example: if Trump says he can "fix it," he can fix it, regardless of the mountain of evidence militating toward the notion that he can't. What would the name be, then, for the doctrine which argues that "truth is the exclusive possession of a presumed authority we like"?
Political discussion in the US context has a sort of high-school dynamic, the one found in the 2004 high school comedy movie Mean Girls or its source material, Rosalind Wiseman's book Queen Bees and Wannabes. If you want to be in with the cool kids, whichever group of cool kids you happen to like, you will believe what the cool kids believe, and you will echo their talking points whenever you are asked about whatever topic we're pretending is an issue.
"To watch the leader of the most powerful nation on earth endorse and finance a genocide prompts not a passing kind of disgust or anger, but a severance." -- Omar el Akkad
Spot on description of my union staff colleagues
There are only a tiny sliver of union staff employees who are not Democrats. We were frequently required to walk precincts for Dem candidates, and most of us internalized the reasoning behind our support for Dems. There were a sprinkling of Left Wingers -- or at least claimed to be. My supervisor at an SEIU local in San Francisco called himself a Maoist. Virtually all of these lefty union reps were all talk.
As of the covid Scare, they all bought the story because that is the sort of person they chose to be. Same applies now with TDs victims.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Peeked in
at that red + yellow place. The consensus is DEMOCRATS SUCK....as they exist right now. Do I feel a purge coming on? Tim Walz said it best “Look, I own this. We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had won the election, and we didn’t,”. So who's waiting in the wings? Newsome? Bootyjudge? Whoever wins no matter what they say the message will be "SEND $$$$$$$! We're for all these things we'll fail to deliver or protect.", then blame Bernie and AOC.
Rahm has thrown his hat in to the president ring
He’s been griping about how education has failed Americans without noticing how he closed 60 schools in Chicago during his tenure as mayor. Or governor.
Reminds me of Obama bitching about the economy during Trump’s first term like he had nothing to do with selling people out to the banks.
Yep. The orange site is very upset with Schumer and other dems selling out. Especially after they spent 2 years warning about T being a fascist.
The Washington Generals should probably sue the Democrats for copyright infringement.
Rahm?
*gag* But then almost all of them are gag-worthy, aren't they?
If you're poor now, my friend, then you'll stay poor.
These days, only the rich get given more. -- Martial book 5:81, c. AD 100 or so
Nothing ever changes -- Sima, c. AD 2020 or so
I look forward
not voting for whichever empty suit they choose to run. That will feel good, just as it has since 2016. That's my silver liniing...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
I know the feeling
I stopped voting after Obama’s betrayal the minute he became president. I fell for his hype of hope and change hook line and sinker and boy did I feel stupid when people pointed out how empty his words always were. He’d throw something out and I filled in the blanks.
The only reason he won another term was because of Sarah Palin.
The Washington Generals should probably sue the Democrats for copyright infringement.
What's more --
Should the Left Bury or Revive the Democrats?, which comes to something of the right conclusion but which is belied by his refusal to endorse an alternative to the two-party system and his DSA membership). You can see it more strongly in Bernie's sheepdog campaign. I suppose the thing, for those who can stomach it, is to find the Kos participants who can be persuaded, and get them out of there.
They'll be spreading all this crap about "what we should do to influence the Democratic Party," like they do now (example:There needs to be a general boycott of the pretense that the Democratic Party can somehow be persuaded, influenced, or somehow made to see whatever light they think they're spreading. And we all need to belong to something that is not Demopublican or Republicrat, and that something needs to be named. The Green Party, for instance.
"To watch the leader of the most powerful nation on earth endorse and finance a genocide prompts not a passing kind of disgust or anger, but a severance." -- Omar el Akkad
My only hope
One has to develop one's own reliability filters and practice
using and refining them. Inanimate objects that one personally encounters and observes are extremely likely to be real. Hearsay regarding assertions that were made by media talking heads about political figures are, ab initio, worthless. It takes long experience and observation and testing with respect to all the sources and intermediaries as well as the objects. Lastly, one can never know for certain what another person thinks or feels no matter how much one works at it and neither can anybody else. Every article or utterance purporting to tell one what some third party did or did not know, feel, understand, or think is simply hogwash. It is a guess, and if presented as knowledge demonstrates that the speaker is exhibiting what courts have labeled as "wanton and careless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements".
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Hi el
I think your approach is surely a reliable one, and when practiced over years of life experience and observation, while trusting in one’s natural inclinations, is a truth. Thank you for your insight.
Hiya Janis, thanks for that song.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --