Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Quid pro quo

Quid pro quo, something for something else.

I watched 60 Minutes while staying overnight at Mom and Dad's.

The host was interviewing Republicans who supported Trump.

The host appeared to read from the transcript of the phone call.

The person being interviewed responded "That is not how the transcript reads."

The host inserted an extra word, "although" in the transcript.

It may have been subconscious. One of the difficulties of proof reading is that proficient readers insert words into sentences to make sense, even when that word is not in the text.

If you assume Trump is dirty and corrupt, then it "makes sense" to insert a word to link the two parts of the phone call.

If you assume Trump is not inherently dirty and corrupt, then you give him the benefit of the doubt.

Pelosi has played this game before. She did not even bother to read the transcript. She dismissed it, saying "We already know what it means."

One must wonder: Is Trump a simpleton or a genius?

The titans of Silicon Valley are already having second thoughts about their ability to control Warren and Sanders. They would be much, much happier with Biden, Buttigieg or Gabbard. If the Democrats lose the deep pockets of wealthy California billionaires then their path to the White House becomes much more difficult.


  1. Scott Adams has this right - two movies playing on the same screen - the Left and Right don't see the same thing when they look at words on paper.

  2. One wonders? Really? Every time Trump gives our enemies an opening, it turns out to be the entrance to a trap. Things fall Trump's way far too often to be chance: either Trump is a genius, or God is directing him moment by moment.


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.