Fake News.

"Fake News" to me represents an achievement in self-mutilation. When I hear that response now, it signals to me that current events are not to be considered from one particular side as true. They are a two word response that conveys a sarcastic, distrustful, and likely limited world view.

The fact is fake news is binary, either the anti - Trump "main stream media" or the sites I call kooky, including infowars, the Blaze, and Breitbart.

As for me, news is news. Its fluid at all times, never set in granite. There isn't an either or.

News is mutable, distortable, and misundestandable. The most important thing to understand is that no matter who says it, how often its said, or the relative past of any party involved in the story, any news event can change in an instant, and any fact could change 180 degrees.

I enjoy the news that satisfies my mindset, and typically not so much those that don't. For me, fake news should be defined as news that is false from the get go, from the intent to knowingly deceive, but it doesn't seem to be. Rather any news from the wrong news sources earn the label.

Seems the only answer is to get news from as many sources as possible. Only speaking in terms of that ideal informed citizen, of course. I mean, if there is a war for our minds, and within that war we are being sold on the idea that one side is constantly blowing smoke up our collective ass, then the prudent course of action is to monitor all the news. From all the sources.

That's a tough bill to sell, to monitor the news from all the sources. But what's not difficult is getting the news from multiple sources, including those that are the bad guys.

It seems logical to me. How do you know who is lying if you don't compare stories? What also seems logical is to encourage the free press, especially if the environment is such that paranoia about the press is that they are dishonest.

More press is the answer, not less. Visit it all, let the marketplace make an honest appraisal. In fact, if a news outlet is using provocation to sow distrust of another outlet, scrutiny on both parties is more practical than blind trust of one over the other.

I make regular visits to "left" and "right" sites, mainstream media and aggregators. I have a good bead on the degree of honesty and incendiary nature of some of the sites out there, I still go because some times there is information that helps me understand better what the heck is going in this world.

The real picture is much bigger than any one media outlet, I often find stories that just aren't covered everywhere. As unsurprising as that it is, I can vouch, not one place has all the news covered.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/10/news/trump-press-conference-conflicts/index.html

This is a conflict that has been with him since the beginning, and an issue I've been waiting to comment on.

After all, it could of all went away, as an issue, if Mr. Trump would of just done what other Presidents, candidates even, have done and divested himself of these conflicts.

He even had said it was easy.

Regardless.

My thoughts actually are not to do with whether or not he is in conflict, but rather to ask when does the grading on the curve end?

Certainly it is not unfair to suggest that Mr. Trump has been graded on a curve since the beginning, as well.

There may be reasons for that, and there may be reams written soon enough, but suffice to say he is being graded on a curve --  words and conduct that would of sunk any traditional candidate evidently harmed him very little.

Regardless, again.

Personal sentiment aside, and those are probably cemented for now, are we to continue the curve when Trump violates laws and  the Constitution?    How about ethics and ethical behavior? 

That's what I'm curious about.

How far with the curve do we go?

The constitution, I believe, was written in part to provide immutable precepts.  Others may disagree, as is their right, but there is something similar in the argument to dismiss the popular vote/electoral vote complaints  --  both sides played by the same rules and Trump won.

If all presidents are to play by the same rules, then the curve needs to flatten out when it comes to concrete conflicts.

There is a process to discern the proper response to this unique issue, and that is impeachment.   Remember impeachment is just a step in investigating a serious matter, it does not remove Trump from office.  One must be found guilty for that.

Impeachment also is highly political,  which means public sentiment will have a major influence in the ultimate out come.  Or in other words, the curve Trump enjoys over others in similar circumstances continues, regardless.

I support further inquiry.  I believe that a 70 year old man with a life long ambition to be President, who announced more than 18 months ago, has had plenty of time to arrange his house so as not to conflict.   Just like everyone else before him had done.

If all that this country needed was a man beholden to no one and nothing, we would never have broken away from King George.

Stupid.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_586f882de4b02b5f85883e44?ir=WorldPost&

I'm sharing this story because I couldn't find it on those sites with real news:  infowars, the blaze, and breitbart.

Makes me wonder what else those site haven't covered over the years.

Infowars certainly seems to have missed the last 20 years of Putins life, what with the way they laud him...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/james-woolsey-donald-trump/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/kaine-trump-putin-defense-lawyer/index.html

Hmmm.....

http://www.infowars.com/trump-on-hacking-i-know-things-other-people-dont/

..if trump isnt taking Intel briefings, then how does he know?  Where is he getting information?

What is in this information that leads Trump to tell the world Putin is smart?

I'm reminded of that wise counsel, that it is  better to keep silent and allow the world to think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.