Michael Flynn is in the market for a deal. He wants to trade his testimony, presumably against his former superiors in the Trump administration, for immunity from criminal prosecution.
"...as the rats jump ship they'll turn on each other seeking immunity, witness protection, and relocation."
ABG; To a certain extent you're right .
But if it doesn't lead to getting rid of Trump, a la Nixon and Watergate, we may not be able to overcome what he leaves in his wake after a full term in office.
No no no
when you ask that question, the picture should be of a guy who just pissed on a high cinderblock (I think) wall
I predict that this is a trap. Michael Flynn, by saying that he wants immunity for anything that might incriminate him, is suggesting that he is, hoping to lure investigators into hearing testimony that exonerates Trump. It's all Trump theater. It may, also, be intended to prevent/delay testimony from individuals who actually can show a Russian connection to Trump's election.
Democrats ought to want to drag this investigation out as long as possible, because the more times news sources air stories about a Russian connection, the greater the tendency on the part of the public, even Trump supporters, to believe that there was a connection. We know that saying, "crooked" Hillary, and "Little Mario" often enough, eventually brought doubt not only in the minds of the GOP base, but independents. It is a form of inoculation.
"Half a century of research into inoculation theory has found that the way to neutralise misinformation is to expose people to a weak form of the misinformation. The way to achieve this is to explain the fallacy employed by the myth. Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact."
from The Conversation.
Also mentioned is the fact that when told a myth that conflicts with science, science deniers become even more entrenched in their belief in the myth when confronted with scientific evidence that conflicts with it.
Can you give an example of weak form of misinformation?
kosh, this is an excerpt from an article in The Guardian. It is fairly long, but describes the problem and the solution:
According to inoculation theory, facts are important but by themselves aren’t sufficient to convince people as long as misinformation is also present. People also have to be inoculated against the misinformation, for example through an explanation of the logical fallacy underpinning the myth.
To test the theory, the study authors ran an experiment using a fact that’s been subjected to a tremendous misinformation campaign: the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming. There’s been some debate among social scientists about consensus messaging, with most research suggesting it’s effective and important at convincing people about the importance of climate change.
However, Dan Kahan has argued that given science communicators’ efforts over the past decade to inform the public about the expert consensus, the fact that so few people are aware of it suggests that consensus messaging is a dud. If it were going to work, it should have worked by now, the argument goes.
This new study guts that argument. In their experiment, the scientists first asked their representative American subjects “To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening?”. The average answer was between 70% and 73%. Each group was then presented with evidence of the 97% expert consensus. That raised the average answer to about 90%. As you would expect, facts were effective when presented by themselves.
The authors ran three more tests. First, after showing the 97% consensus evidence in pie chart form, they then presented a group with a piece of misinformation – the infamous Oregon Petition, which is often used to argue there is no climate consensus. This misinformation completely offset the influence of the facts – the subjects’ answers in this group fell all the way back down to a 73% perceived consensus.
In the next tests, after showing the evidence of 97% consensus, the scientists “inoculated” the groups against the misinformation. In one test, they informed the group “Some politically-motivated groups use misleading tactics to try to convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists.” In the final test, they provided much more detail about the specific flaws in the Oregon Petition, and how it misinforms people.
After then showing these groups the Oregon Petition misinformation, the average perceived consensus rose to 80% in the first test, and 84% in the second test. The inoculation offset about half to two-thirds of the effect of the misinformation, and participants’ perception moved closer to the truth. "
I'm in the process of writing an article on the sources of altered perceptions of fact, those that can be combated (for example actual delusions can't), and this process of overcoming what are termed "over-held" beliefs. Since you are passionate about overcoming inaccurate concepts you might want to look at it..
I answer your question with another: Who knows and who cares?
Join Our Salon
Welcome toOur Salon
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Posted by Johnny Robish on July 21, 2018 at 8:45pm
Posted by moki ikom on July 21, 2018 at 6:06pm
Posted by Phyllis on July 21, 2018 at 5:56pm
Posted by Dicky Neely on July 21, 2018 at 2:11pm
Posted by Doc Vega on July 21, 2018 at 1:46pm
Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 21, 2018 at 7:32am
Posted by Johnny Robish on July 20, 2018 at 10:53pm
Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 7:00pm
Posted by Ron Powell on July 20, 2018 at 1:30pm
Posted by Dicky Neely on July 20, 2018 at 1:26pm
Posted by Ben Sen on July 20, 2018 at 11:14am
Posted by Doc Vega on July 20, 2018 at 10:36am
Posted by Safe Bet's Amy on July 20, 2018 at 7:03am
Posted by Johnny Robish on July 19, 2018 at 9:15pm
Posted by Ron Powell on July 19, 2018 at 2:10pm
© 2018 Created by lorianne.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.