ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , lying charges , Russia conspiracies , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 12th September 2017, 12:18 PM   #1921
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
EC...
You're aware that some of this evidence you don't acknowledge consists of things the suspects (for lack of a better term) themselves freely acknowledge?
Which things did the accused acknowledge that I've rejected?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:21 PM   #1922
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
If you're nitpicking about you saying "the majority", then wouldn't it be faster for YOU to tell us which part of the evidence you find convincing?
If I were carrying around an itemized list in my head, sure. Then again, I'm not the one making the claim here - you're the one who has claimed I've rejected too much. So it's on you to specify what exactly you think I've rejected that shouldn't be treated with such a degree of skepticism.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:28 PM   #1923
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Why on God's Green Earth are some folks bogging themselves down so heavily on the matter of leaks? We see time and again how leaks eventually turn out to have basis in fact. Not all, I surmise, but a bloody good number of them. We could go back in history here and find so many examples of frenetic poo-pooing of leaks which later turned out to have been reliable. After so many proved leaks it makes little sense for the Trumpsters to just keep on harping on about their potential unreliability.
And the flip-side of that is that if we just decide that anonymous and unverified claims are reliable evidence... then all you have to do in order to condemn someone in the court of public opinion is make a claim against them. The accusation becomes evidence of guilt, in and of itself. Yes, in a large number of cases, the leaked information is ultimately proven true. But until such time as it is verified, it remains (and should remain) allegation and speculation. Accusations are NOT evidence, no matter the volume of them.
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Face it, apologists and defenders of the indefensible.
And that's excessive.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:55 PM   #1924
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If you dismiss every such report, the fact that there are a large number of reports adds up to nothing at all.
The fact that a large number of people believed the women in Salem were witches also added up to nothing at all.

A belief held by a lot of people isn't evidence of fact, nor even particularly suggestive of fact. If it were, then God would be real .
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:58 PM   #1925
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,691
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
And the flip-side of that is that if we just decide that anonymous and unverified claims are reliable evidence...
.....
The person making the claims is not anonymous to the reporter, and the claims are not necessarily "unverified." This is where the reputation of established media outlets is valuable. If a Washington Post or New York Times or CBS reporter with a history of thorough, accurate reporting says "This is what my sources [note the plural] are telling me," he is staking his own -- and his employer's -- reputation on his account. He has confirmed it from multiple sources that he knows or at least believes are reliable. That's way different from a blogger pulling random thoughts out of thin air.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 01:05 PM   #1926
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,423
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If I were carrying around an itemized list in my head, sure.
Just name a few. Stop dodging.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 03:09 PM   #1927
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Which things did the accused acknowledge that I've rejected?
The meeting, and the attendance.

Your assertion, as well as sunmasters, is no evidence to support collusion.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 03:10 PM   #1928
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The fact that a large number of people believed the women in Salem were witches also added up to nothing at all.

A belief held by a lot of people isn't evidence of fact, nor even particularly suggestive of fact. If it were, then God would be real .
If I were so inclined I'd say you just accused most of us on here of being as twisted as those who did the witch trials. And so is Congress, then? If there was no evidence why the hell are they still investigating? To piss you off?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 03:48 PM   #1929
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Just name a few. Stop dodging.
<Sigh>

You know, I've done this a few times. Do try to remember this time, will you?

Accepted: Sessions failed to disclose meetings that he had with Kislyak.
Uncertain: Whether or not those meetings were within the scope of his work as a congresscritter at the time they occurred, or were related to Trump's campaign

Accepted: Manafort did a lot of political consulting work for Pro-Putin factions in Ukraine and there are some questions about his payments with respect to that work.
Uncertain: Whether the payments were appropriately handled (this might have been answered and I just didn't follow up on all of it)

Accepted: Trump Jr. went to a meeting with a Russian lawyer with the expectation of receiving damaging intel about Clinton
Uncertain: What was actually discussed in that meeting, as well as whether or not the meeting itself was inappropriate or unethical (the latter part doesn't seem to have a clear answer so I defer until a judgment is made by experts)

Accepted: Comey felt uncomfortable around Trump and felt it would be necessary to document his meetings in an unclassified fashion
Uncertain: Whether the unclassified documentation was reasonable and appropriate on Comey's part given some of his prior handling of information with respect to Clinton, which seemed quite inappropriate to me.

Accepted: Lots of people associated with Trump have had interactions with people associated with the Russian Government
Uncertain: Whether those interactions were inappropriate or even unusual for a campaign staff - do other candidate's teams interact with other foreign governments in a similar fashion?

Accepted: Russia disliked Clinton, and took steps to influence public perception against her.
Uncertain: Whether or not this is in any fashion unusual (or even unexpected) for a foreign government to do; we know that the US does this sort of thing on a regular basis.
Uncertain: Whether the Trump team had any material foreknowledge or involvement in Russia's plans

Accepted: Some entity obtained information from the DNC server and provided said information to wikileaks with the presumed intent of weakening Clinton's prospects as a candidate
Uncertain: Whether the entity that obtained the information was an insider leaking the info, or whether they were an outsider that hacked the server
Uncertain: Whether the entity that obtained the information was actually a Russian, or whether the incredibly obvious footprints left behind were a little too obvious, and too much of a total novice mistake for the purportedly super-skilled Russian hacker to have left behind unintentionally...

For the most part, I accept the known facts. What I don't necessarily accept at this point in time, is what those facts imply, and whether or not the narrative slung around those facts is a true story or a politically motivated stringing of pearls.

There are also cases where I end up arguing whether there is a case. For example, whether or not Trump Sr. had prior knowledge of Jr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer is unknown at present. Clearly Sr. had some input in the initial disclosure that Jr. made. Whether or not he single-handedly crafted it or not, or whether he only provided advisement on what to say is unclear. Regardless, however, the statement that Jr. made appears to be not false. It's not the whole truth, by any means. And it was certainly intended to close off a line of inquiry regarding the intent of that meeting. But it doesn't appear to be a fabrication - nobody has made a contrary claim concerning the actual content of the meeting. Thus, with no contrary claim, and with the statement appearing to be factually true (albeit incomplete), it seems unlikely that any case against Sr. could be made on the basis of that communication. There's even the potential that Sr. had plausible deniability regarding the intent at the time the response was crafted. It's probably not likely... but all it takes is plausibility to kill that case.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 03:51 PM   #1930
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The meeting, and the attendance.
I have not denied that the meeting occurred. I haven't questioned the attendance in any fashion. I'll even take it a step further - I haven't even questioned the intention of the meeting. Thus, your statement here is incorrect.

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your assertion, as well as sunmasters, is no evidence to support collusion.
No, not exactly. What I have asserted is that that the occurrence of the meeting is by itself insufficient to conclude collusion or conspiracy.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:03 PM   #1931
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Which is why the investigation is on going.

Just wait.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:05 PM   #1932
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
If I were so inclined I'd say you just accused most of us on here of being as twisted as those who did the witch trials. And so is Congress, then? If there was no evidence why the hell are they still investigating? To piss you off?
I don't think most of us are twisted. Well, okay, there are admittedly a specific few individuals that I think are twisted, but that has virtually nothing to do with this topic

I do, however, think that there is a massive amount of confirmation bias involved. And I don't think it's limited to ISF.

Here's something that I've dithered about, but which I don't think has been given sufficient consideration by posters here.

First, let's assume that there is no collusion. I'm not saying this is truth, I'm saying assume for the sake of argument. What will be the impact of this investigation? It will have eaten up a massive amount of time and resources. It will have weakened faith in the US government, both domestically and abroad. It will have prevented forward motion and essentially trapped the entirety of congress in an ongoing investigation. And at some point, someone is going to find something that is immaterial and has nothing to do with the accusations made... but it will be something. And that something would be used to remove officials from office, potentially used to remove the president from his office. So... what's to prevent the other side from using the same tactic to remove the next president? What's to prevent this from happening with other elected officials? Are we setting a precedent that if you make a big enough accusation with just enough plausible support, you can destroy democracy altogether? This isn't exactly new - it's been brewing for a while. We had repeated recounts with Bush. We've had accusations of vote tampering with every election for the last couple of decades. We had the unceasing argument that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. Now we've got the Trump colluded with Russia. Is this a real thing, or is it escalation of the same round-about attempts to discredit the 'other side' when they win an election? Will this continue to escalate, and what will be the impact of that on Us democracy?

Now... what if the investigation finds something? Will that change any of the foreseeable escalation? I can only see this getting worse. Even if the accusations are true, I fear that we've introduced a political tool that has massive and unprecedented opportunity for abuse.

On the other hand... let's assume there is collusion. If we stop investigating too early, what do we leave ourselves open to in the future? Is this something that is likely to be repeated? Or has the increased attention done enough to help reduce that potentiality?

I don't know the answer to either of those. I do know that the first scenario is the one that I find more concerning, in the long run.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:07 PM   #1933
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Which is why the investigation is on going.

Just wait.
I am waiting.

Seriously - my waiting seems to be the root cause of a lot of people accusing me of being a Trump supporter, among other insults.

Although I note that you seem to have accepted that I haven't denied the things you've accused me of denying.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:13 PM   #1934
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
That whole post already happened. It's what happened with Hillary.

How devastating was repeated investigations that turned up nothing? To Hillary, to our taxpayer dollars and all the things you describe. Its already happened, but you can't not investigate trump just because Hillary was viciously investigated.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:27 PM   #1935
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,786
From a new Snowden interview:

Originally Posted by DER SPIEGEL
[...] DER SPIEGEL: Speaking of political ambitions: Do you have an explanation for the increasing meddling on the part of the intelligence agencies with democratic elections?

Snowden: I think that is something that has always happened. What is noteworthy nowadays is that it is happening much more visibly. We know, for example, from declassified documents that the United States has interfered in elections throughout the last century. Every government that has an intelligence agency is trying to do the same thing. I would in fact be very surprised if the German government were an exception. Probably in a lighter and more polite way. But I think we are sort of tiptoeing around the Russian issue here specifically, aren't we?

DER SPIEGEL: How did you guess?

Snowden: It wasn't that difficult. Everybody is currently pointing at the Russians.

DER SPIEGEL: Rightfully?

Snowden: I don't know. They probably did hack the systems of Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party, but we should have proof of that. In the case of the hacking attack on Sony, the FBI presented evidence that North Korea was behind it. In this case they didn't, although I am convinced that they do have evidence. The question is why?

DER SPIEGEL: Do you have an answer?

Snowden: I think the NSA almost certainly saw who the intruders were. Why wouldn't they? But I am also convinced that they saw a lot of other attackers on there, too. There were probably six or seven groups. The Democratic National Committee is a big target and apparently their security wasn't very good. The DNC refused to provide these servers to the FBI, which is really weird. So, I think the reality here was it was narrative shaping about the Russians.

DER SPIEGEL: Is there a way to be absolutely certain who is hacking a system? It seems to be quite easy to manipulate a time stamp, use certain servers and stage a false flag operation.

Snowden: The false flag stuff is true -- I know how this works. I dealt with this in China's case. They used to be the usual suspects, nobody was talking about the Russians at that time. China didn't really care about covering their tracks that well. They would break the window, grab everything they could and then run off laughing. But even they never attacked directly from China. They would bounce off a server in Italy, Africa or South America. But you can follow the trail back -- it's not magic. [...]
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [3]...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 04:30 PM   #1936
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,423
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
<Sigh>

You know, I've done this a few times. Do try to remember this time, will you?
Accepted: A bunch of stuff happened between Trump and his people, and the Russians during the campaign.
Uncertain: That this means anything.

It's easy to say you accept something when you then turn around and nullify all of it.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 05:12 PM   #1937
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,510
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
<snip>

Now... what if the investigation finds something? Will that change any of the foreseeable escalation? I can only see this getting worse. Even if the accusations are true, I fear that we've introduced a political tool that has massive and unprecedented opportunity for abuse.

>snip>

"Introduced"?

You think this is something new? Congressional investigations?

Missed that whole Benghazi thing, I guess.

And Whitewater.

(Not to mention HUAC.)

So far, as Congressional investigations go, this one is small potatoes. Give it time. You don't have anything to complain about yet.

The standard set by Congressional Republicans most recently is two years, nine investigations, $7 million, all to exonerate Hillary.

Wait 'til we get in that range, then worry.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 05:27 PM   #1938
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,819
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
The fact that a large number of people believed the women in Salem were witches also added up to nothing at all.

A belief held by a lot of people isn't evidence of fact, nor even particularly suggestive of fact. If it were, then God would be real .
Right, but you can't simultaneously claim that all these reports add up to nothing at all and also are evidence that Mueller's investigation is leaking like a sieve.

Honestly, Cat, you're better than this. You snipped almost all of my post in order to ignore the basic inconsistency in your argument. I really do expect a better argument from you, dear miss/mister/feline.

ETA: You didn't snip the post unreasonably, but took it out of context. Sorry for the claim that you snipped it. Here is the relevant context.

Last edited by phiwum; 12th September 2017 at 05:42 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 05:35 PM   #1939
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,697
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat
...On the other hand... let's assume there is collusion. If we stop investigating too early, what do we leave ourselves open to in the future? Is this something that is likely to be repeated? Or has the increased attention done enough to help reduce that potentiality?
Assuming this case, there's also that bit about a Presidential candidate and campaign criminally conspiring with a hostile foreign power, then conspiring to obstruct justice with the help of pet Congressmen and the cheerleading of major media like Fox. Would you find that of any concern? Hypothetically, of course.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 05:58 AM   #1940
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,232
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
"Introduced"?

You think this is something new? Congressional investigations?

Missed that whole Benghazi thing, I guess.

And Whitewater.

(Not to mention HUAC.)

So far, as Congressional investigations go, this one is small potatoes. Give it time. You don't have anything to complain about yet.

The standard set by Congressional Republicans most recently is two years, nine investigations, $7 million, all to exonerate Hillary.

Wait 'til we get in that range, then worry.
Seems EC also missed all the "lock her up" chanting and that freaking lynch mob of a Republican convention. But what is a real shocker in general is how the GOP utterly wilts and collapses in a whining fit anytime a smidgen of the medicine they've been ditching out comes back their way. Thought it was a tough guy party; guess not. <shudders>
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:03 AM   #1941
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That whole post already happened. It's what happened with Hillary.

How devastating was repeated investigations that turned up nothing? To Hillary, to our taxpayer dollars and all the things you describe. Its already happened, but you can't not investigate trump just because Hillary was viciously investigated.
That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.

Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:07 AM   #1942
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Accepted: A bunch of stuff happened between Trump and his people, and the Russians during the campaign.
Uncertain: That this means anything.

It's easy to say you accept something when you then turn around and nullify all of it.
Holy hell. I haven't nullified it!

Can you seriously not distinguish between fact and narrative? Between known and verified events and motivations? Between definitive actions and impact? Are you seriously under the impression that a person's (or even a lot of peoples') opinion of what a fact might mean is not actually evidence of anything other than a hypothesis?

Do you accept hypotheses as true, without testing, simply because they feel right to you and agree with your belief?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:10 AM   #1943
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.
Are we not supposed to investigate accusations that clearly have a basis in fact?

Quote:
Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?
You can't not investigate Russian collusion because there was another farce investigation that was designed to hurt a party. If we go by that, then we can't investigate any crime, any where, anymore because it might be only for show. I don't buy that at all.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:10 AM   #1944
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.

Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?
Well, let's not ignore the converse, either: Should we risk corruption potentially damaging our country for fear of an overly investigative state?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:11 AM   #1945
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,423
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Holy hell. I haven't nullified it!
Yes you did.

Here's a made-up example:

Accepted: Mr X was found with the murder weapon in his car and with his fingerprints on it.
Uncertain: That Mr X actually touched the murder weapon during the murder.

That basically means that what you've accepted is meaningless, since I just said that it doesn't mean Mr X committed the murder!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:26 AM   #1946
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Right, but you can't simultaneously claim that all these reports add up to nothing at all and also are evidence that Mueller's investigation is leaking like a sieve.

Honestly, Cat, you're better than this. You snipped almost all of my post in order to ignore the basic inconsistency in your argument. I really do expect a better argument from you, dear miss/mister/feline.
phiwum, there is no inconsistency. Walk through this with me, if you will.

1) Unverified speculation is unverified. I don't accept that it is TRUE. I accept that the speculation has arisen and that someone has provided unverified information. I have no reference for the credibility of that information, thus I do not accept it as true, but neither do I assume it is false. Failure to accept as true is not the same as accepting as false. I have not made a decision that any of the information is false. It is simply not verified. It's in the category of plausible but uncertain.

2) Recognizing that a whole lot of supposedly confidential information has been provided to the media regarding this investigation is a separate issue. It is possible that all of it is completely made up by people with no actual knowledge. It's also possible that people with some knowledge have provided false, partial, or misleading information in order to shape the perception of events. It's also possible that the information is completely accurate. See item one above regarding lack of acceptance as true not meaning that I accept it as false. Either way, it has been claimed that the information came from inside sources, which would indicate that the ship is not tight.

Really, these are not dependent on one another, so there is no inconsistency, nor is there any contradiction. Consider the truth pairs possible:
  1. The information came from inside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
  2. The information came from inside AND the information is fabricated
  3. The information came from outside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
  4. The information came from outside AND the information is fabricated

Note that fabricated information isn't necessarily false - its truth is unknown by the provider of information. The information could be true, but the person providing it does not actually know. For example, I could make the claim that you have red hair. That claim is fabricated - I do not know what color your hair is. It is also possible that I'm correct by coincidence, and that you do have read hair... but the claim I made is still fabricated.

No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.

For Items 1 and 2, if the information is coming from inside Meuller's team, then it's not a tight ship.

For Item 3, even if the information isn't being directly supplied by Meuller's team, it is being supplied by someone who received the information from Meuller's team... which also means it's not a tight ship.

Item 4 is the only possibility that would justify the claim that Meuller runs a tight ship... but that also leaves you in a position where the information is fabricated.

I have no problem saying that I have not accepted unverified speculation as true information. I also have no problem saying that it appears that Meuller doesn't run a tight ship.

I would also point out that those people claiming simultaneously that the information is coming from Meuller's team (inside knowledge on the condition of anonymity) AND that Meuller runs a tight ship are incorrect in their assessment - those two claims are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
ETA: You didn't snip the post unreasonably, but took it out of context. Sorry for the claim that you snipped it. Here is the relevant context.
No worries. I didn't think it was out of context for you and I (we know the context), and I don't think I implied a different context.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 13th September 2017 at 09:29 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:53 AM   #1947
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.
This seems to be a meaningless statement. It implies a probability measure when in reality we do not know the frequency of any of the events.

Tomorrow, either the sun will rise or it won't. Two possibilities. Therefore, there is a 50% chance the sun will not rise.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:55 AM   #1948
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Assuming this case, there's also that bit about a Presidential candidate and campaign criminally conspiring with a hostile foreign power, then conspiring to obstruct justice with the help of pet Congressmen and the cheerleading of major media like Fox. Would you find that of any concern? Hypothetically, of course.
Of course it's a concern. Generally speaking, I don't have any disagreement with an investigation occurring. I am getting a bit leery of this one, because it keeps mutating. It's been more than 9 months now that there has been speculation and allegations of conspiracy on the part of Trump's campaign, including Trump himself. We have information directly from Comey that Trump was NOT under investigation himself while Comey was in the FBI... but also an unwillingness to release that information to the media - which allowed the media to continue speculation of Trump's direct culpability. We have seen several different paths investigated, which have no yielded fruit. And when each path seems to reach a dead-end, a new path is tried instead.

If you keep digging long enough and hard enough, you will find something. It may not be related to any of the allegations that are under investigation... but it will uncover something. The method in which this topic has been fueled by supposed insiders has begun to feel like a witch hunt.

I understand that a lot of people really hate Trump. It begins to look like they hate him enough to disregard their principles, and to use any means they can to destroy him. I don't have that level of hate for anyone. I dislike Trump enormously... but not enough to abandon my values and my principles.

And at the end of the day, I really think this approach is a distraction. It works to our disadvantage, and to the advantage of Trump's staff. We should be focusing on his performance, and his apparent mental decline, his inability to be diplomatic, and his complete unsuitability as president. We should be focusing on the 2018 election cycle, and we should be reaching out to our various congresscritters. We should be pushing for a psychiatric and health evaluation to determine whether he is fit for the job. We should be taking steps to block the legislation that he is backing that is detrimental to the US. And yes, we should be investigating the extent of foreign (not just Russian) influence on our election process and determining ways to mitigate it in the future.

What we should NOT be doing, is turning the US presidency into the newest reality TV show, where the whole nation is sitting on the edge of their seats, drooling in anticipation of what new drama will unfold in this episode!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:56 AM   #1949
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Seems EC also missed all the "lock her up" chanting and that freaking lynch mob of a Republican convention. But what is a real shocker in general is how the GOP utterly wilts and collapses in a whining fit anytime a smidgen of the medicine they've been ditching out comes back their way. Thought it was a tough guy party; guess not. <shudders>
Holy hell. I'm sorry I didn't supply you with an itemized and exhaustive list of everything that could fall under the category of discussion. Please, consider it all in there, and don't let that distract you from the point.

Honestly people. "Here's a serious concern, with significant impact to our democracy..." "OMG, I notice you didn't include *specific event A*" "Yeah, I see she also didn't include *significant event B*!" "Oh totally, her point is just completely ridiculous, because it doesn't include these specific things that we want included!"

<Sigh>
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 13th September 2017 at 09:58 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:00 AM   #1950
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Are we not supposed to investigate accusations that clearly have a basis in fact?



You can't not investigate Russian collusion because there was another farce investigation that was designed to hurt a party. If we go by that, then we can't investigate any crime, any where, anymore because it might be only for show. I don't buy that at all.
You know, it would be really refreshing if you actually read posts with an open mind and full intention to engage, rather than picking out whichever parts make you feel like you're going to win the internet.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
On the other hand... let's assume there is collusion. If we stop investigating too early, what do we leave ourselves open to in the future? Is this something that is likely to be repeated? Or has the increased attention done enough to help reduce that potentiality?

I don't know the answer to either of those. I do know that the first scenario is the one that I find more concerning, in the long run.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:03 AM   #1951
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yes you did.

Here's a made-up example:

Accepted: Mr X was found with the murder weapon in his car and with his fingerprints on it.
Uncertain: That Mr X actually touched the murder weapon during the murder.

That basically means that what you've accepted is meaningless, since I just said that it doesn't mean Mr X committed the murder!
That's an asinine example. Nothing we have is nearly as solid as that. Don't conflate your made-up, clear and definitive evidence with the allegations and speculations in question here.

If you want to make up an example, at least make up one that is a wee bit closer to the truth. For example:

Accepted: A weapon was found in Mr. X's car, with Mr. X's fingerprints on it, and Mr. X has no alibi for the time of the murder.
Uncertain: Whether the weapon is the one used in the murder.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:04 AM   #1952
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,142
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
This seems to be a meaningless statement. It implies a probability measure when in reality we do not know the frequency of any of the events.

Tomorrow, either the sun will rise or it won't. Two possibilities. Therefore, there is a 50% chance the sun will not rise.
I did not intend to ascribe any degree of likelihood to any of those scenarios. I don't believe it was implied, although I do understand how you inferred it.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:09 AM   #1953
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,819
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
phiwum, there is no inconsistency. Walk through this with me, if you will.

1) Unverified speculation is unverified. I don't accept that it is TRUE. I accept that the speculation has arisen and that someone has provided unverified information. I have no reference for the credibility of that information, thus I do not accept it as true, but neither do I assume it is false. Failure to accept as true is not the same as accepting as false. I have not made a decision that any of the information is false. It is simply not verified. It's in the category of plausible but uncertain.

2) Recognizing that a whole lot of supposedly confidential information has been provided to the media regarding this investigation is a separate issue. It is possible that all of it is completely made up by people with no actual knowledge. It's also possible that people with some knowledge have provided false, partial, or misleading information in order to shape the perception of events. It's also possible that the information is completely accurate. See item one above regarding lack of acceptance as true not meaning that I accept it as false. Either way, it has been claimed that the information came from inside sources, which would indicate that the ship is not tight.

Really, these are not dependent on one another, so there is no inconsistency, nor is there any contradiction. Consider the truth pairs possible:
  1. The information came from inside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
  2. The information came from inside AND the information is fabricated
  3. The information came from outside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
  4. The information came from outside AND the information is fabricated

Note that fabricated information isn't necessarily false - its truth is unknown by the provider of information. The information could be true, but the person providing it does not actually know. For example, I could make the claim that you have red hair. That claim is fabricated - I do not know what color your hair is. It is also possible that I'm correct by coincidence, and that you do have read hair... but the claim I made is still fabricated.

No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.

For Items 1 and 2, if the information is coming from inside Meuller's team, then it's not a tight ship.

For Item 3, even if the information isn't being directly supplied by Meuller's team, it is being supplied by someone who received the information from Meuller's team... which also means it's not a tight ship.

Item 4 is the only possibility that would justify the claim that Meuller runs a tight ship... but that also leaves you in a position where the information is fabricated.

I have no problem saying that I have not accepted unverified speculation as true information. I also have no problem saying that it appears that Meuller doesn't run a tight ship.

I would also point out that those people claiming simultaneously that the information is coming from Meuller's team (inside knowledge on the condition of anonymity) AND that Meuller runs a tight ship are incorrect in their assessment - those two claims are mutually exclusive.


No worries. I didn't think it was out of context for you and I (we know the context), and I don't think I implied a different context.
No, you multiply possibilities unnecessarily by analyzing matters in terms of "known true" or "fabricated" in order to pretend that there are four options when there are two.

Either the sources are authoritative or they are not. You have chosen to presume they are not authoritative, like all anonymous sources. Very well, but then we cannot presume that they are indicative of leaks either! You can't very well agree that the information comes (directly or otherwise) from the investigation because the source says so while simultaneously dismissing the claims of the source because anonymous sources are unreliable.

Sorry, Cat, but you are being transparently inconsistent here. (There's also the issue that enumerating possibilities does not help in discovering probabilities and this is, indeed, a novice fallacy, but let's focus on other matters.)
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:16 AM   #1954
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,697
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Of course it's a concern. Generally speaking, I don't have any disagreement with an investigation occurring...
I'm glad to hear it. Seriously; we have a Presidential candidate who openly invited a hostile foreign intelligence service to commit cyberespionage against an American political party; whose climb out of financial wreckage was, by his son's own boasting, funded heavily by Russian interests, some plausibly linked with the Russian government and/or mobs; who's repeatedly praised the murderous kleptocrat in charge of Russia; who's repeatedly denigrated and denied the intelligence reports indicating deliberate Russian interference in our core democratic processes, and the agencies that produced them; and, by his own admission, fired the FBI director because of the FBI's investigation into such matters. Oh, yes, he's also surrounded by people who have repeatedly lied about their foreign contacts and entanglements on their clearance applications (that's a felony, dontchaknow).

I'm glad to hear that you are concerned about that, of course assuming that actual malfeasance in the appropriately strict legal terms is found.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:55 AM   #1955
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,714
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
"Introduced"?

You think this is something new? Congressional investigations?

Missed that whole Benghazi thing, I guess.

And Whitewater.

(Not to mention HUAC.)

So far, as Congressional investigations go, this one is small potatoes. Give it time. You don't have anything to complain about yet.

The standard set by Congressional Republicans most recently is two years, nine investigations, $7 million, all to exonerate Hillary.

Wait 'til we get in that range, then worry.

The correct response to having a HUAC precedent is not to say "now it's our turn".
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:58 AM   #1956
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,819
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The correct response to having a HUAC precedent is not to say "now it's our turn".
Absolutely agree, though I'd say that the current situation deserves careful investigation. Not a witch hunt, but due concern.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:01 AM   #1957
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,714
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Absolutely agree, though I'd say that the current situation deserves careful investigation. Not a witch hunt, but due concern.
Yes, and I'd agree with your addition!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:04 AM   #1958
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,819
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Yes, and I'd agree with your addition!
Wait, I was geared up for a fight. What now?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 11:15 AM   #1959
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,714
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Wait, I was geared up for a fight. What now?
There might still be Russians out there!
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 12:39 PM   #1960
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,639
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
We have seen several different paths investigated, which have no yielded fruit. And when each path seems to reach a dead-end, a new path is tried instead.
You see this, right here? This is what people are complaining about. How do you know they have not yielded fruit? How do you know they are dead ends?

You've flipped from saying that we just can't possibly make any inferences at all over what the bare facts are, no matter how opprobrious they may appear, to concluding that the investigation is running into dead ends, presumably because you personally haven't heard the story in the news for a while.

I'm sure you can think of a good reason for your sudden abundance of credulity, but it doesn't escape anyone's notice that it happens along partisan lines.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.