IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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

Closed Thread
Old 16th August 2017, 07:58 PM   #1521
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Sigh. The usual overblown nonsense. I read what Trump said, and to me it's mostly spot on, although as usual there are liberal reporters looking around for a fainting couch every time he tweets or says something.
Like Ginger says, the false equivalency is something to behold. But it's worse than that...

"Liberal reporters"? There's a considerable number of prominent conservatives who are participating in this "overblown nonsense".

What a load of empty crap.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 09:21 PM   #1522
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 7,706
Quote:
Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years,

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC emails during last year's presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Donald Trump.

“Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,” he added.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...d-not-leak-him

Assange gotta defend his Russian masters.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 06:43 PM   #1523
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Nothing major, but perhaps somewhat interesting...

Ukraine hacker cooperating with FBI in Russia probe: report
A hacker in Ukraine who goes by the online alias “Profexer” is cooperating with the FBI in its investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, The New York Times is reporting.

Profexer, whose real identity is unknown, wrote and sold malware on the dark web. The intelligence community publicly identified code he had written as a tool used in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee ahead of last year’s presidential election.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 07:57 PM   #1524
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...d-not-leak-him

Assange gotta defend his Russian masters.
Interesting. Has he released any of this proof yet? In other news, WikiLeaks is being accused of turning down leaks on the Russian government.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 11:27 PM   #1525
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...d-not-leak-him

Assange and Rohrbacher gotta defend his their Russian masters.
ftfy.

Rohrbacher is a damned traitor. Both are Putin's tools.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 02:03 AM   #1526
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,335
Originally Posted by Civet View Post
Interesting. Has he released any of this proof yet? In other news, WikiLeaks is being accused of turning down leaks on the Russian government.
Good ol Mr Transparency. This will go down as news which surprises absolutely no one.
__________________
"To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength"
-Leni Riefenstahl
Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 07:02 AM   #1527
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
Originally Posted by trustbutverify View Post
Good ol Mr Transparency. This will go down as news which surprises absolutely no one.
I'd like to get angry about this possibility but Uncle Vlad is an unrepentant murderer of his political enemies. I can imagine that being a factor in such a decision.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 07:42 AM   #1528
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Like Ginger says, the false equivalency is something to behold. But it's worse than that...

"Liberal reporters"? There's a considerable number of prominent conservatives who are participating in this "overblown nonsense".

What a load of empty crap.
Brainster, regarding the liberal reporters you blame for the state of affairs... Is Romney a dupe of the liberal reporters? Corker? Rubio? The members of Trump's business council? Military leaders? Flake? Sasse? Bush1 and Bush2? I could go on at some length.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 07:50 AM   #1529
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Specifc examples please. I'm disinterested in your fact-challenged, unsupported claims.
And Emily's Cat falls silent.

When you're unable to produce specific evidence, that's a red flag that you're foisting BS.

Yours truly,
Captain Obvious
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 09:07 AM   #1530
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Fredo is in the crosshairs.

Quote:
Federal prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller are focusing keenly on the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and are trying to determine his intent when he attended a controversial June 9, 2016, meeting with a Russian lawyer, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

Trump Jr. has acknowledged that he was looking for negative information about Hillary Clinton when he, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, met with the lawyer. But he claimed he did not receive any useful opposition research.

The source familiar with the investigation said that prosecutors have been trying to determine exactly what information was provided and are scrutinizing Trump Jr.’s statements about the meeting.

Requesting or accepting anything of value for a presidential campaign from a foreign national violates federal election law, legal experts told BuzzFeed News.

Trump Jr.'s attorney, Alan Futerfas, did not respond to calls or an email requesting comment.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 09:22 AM   #1531
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Like Ginger says, the false equivalency is something to behold. But it's worse than that...

"Liberal reporters"? There's a considerable number of prominent conservatives who are participating in this "overblown nonsense".

What a load of empty crap.
In much the same way I describe my self as "the best mediocre rhythm guitarist in Parker County", "liberal" becomes "anyone with opinions to the left of mine"...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 10:37 AM   #1532
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
"liberal" becomes "anyone with opinions to the left of mine"...
Or more accurately, "any opinions that I decide are to the left of mine". Hitler was a liberal...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 10:58 AM   #1533
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Brainster, regarding the liberal reporters you blame for the state of affairs... Is Romney a dupe of the liberal reporters? Corker? Rubio? The members of Trump's business council? Military leaders? Flake? Sasse? Bush1 and Bush2? I could go on at some length.

Yes!

Of course.

RINOs, every one.

Probably more than dupes. They egged the reporters on.

How many of them are or know someone who is a Freemason?

Answer me that!

ETA: Some of them even go to work with known liberals on a regular basis. Try to 'splain that away.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 18th August 2017 at 11:04 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 01:19 PM   #1534
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Or more accurately, "any opinions that I decide are to the left of mine". Hitler was a liberal...
Well, yes. Is there any opinion more valuable to me than my own?
By simple definition, I promote anyone I consider better than myself to either (a) doesn't live in Parker County, or (b) good, superior, or excellent rhythm player, and thus preserve my position as best in class.
Works for anyone you wish to denigrate, as well, by simply modifying the premises.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 07:43 AM   #1535
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Looks like Mueller taking a long look at Fredo's meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/2...fBn8pmVw?amp=1
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2017, 07:54 PM   #1536
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
The calorie count of this nothingburger keeps rising...

Exclusive: Top Trump aide's email draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry
Washington (CNN) — Congressional investigators have unearthed an email from a top Trump aide that referenced a previously unreported effort to arrange a meeting last year between Trump campaign officials and Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2017, 08:43 PM   #1537
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Trump was trying to make a giant Moscow hotel deal while he was running for President, and was told it would help him if he praised Putin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mepage%2Fstory
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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 09:50 AM   #1538
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
A story in The Hill about houw Russian bots amplify the alt Right

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...fies-alt-right
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 02:04 PM   #1539
chrispy
Graduate Poster
 
chrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Solola, Guatemala
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Trump was trying to make a giant Moscow hotel deal while he was running for President, and was told it would help him if he praised Putin:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mepage%2Fstory
And the hits keep on coming... This link has more of the substance of the back and forth emails between Cohen and Sater https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uring-campaign

My favorite quote, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater said, according to an email published by the New York Times. “I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

In another email, Sater looked forward to the eventual ribbon-cutting on a Trump Tower in the Russian capital. “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” he wrote.
chrispy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 03:45 PM   #1540
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by chrispy View Post
And the hits keep on coming... This link has more of the substance of the back and forth emails between Cohen and Sater https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uring-campaign

My favorite quote, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater said, according to an email published by the New York Times. “I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

In another email, Sater looked forward to the eventual ribbon-cutting on a Trump Tower in the Russian capital. “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected,” he wrote.
And don't forget Trump saying he had no business interests in Russia and no loans out from Russian banks.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 04:08 PM   #1541
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Mueller's team is 'keenly focused' on figuring out if Trump tried to hide the purpose of the Don Jr. meeting.

Quote:
Federal investigators working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller are keenly focused on President Donald Trump's role in crafting a response to a published article about a meeting between Russians and his son Donald Jr., three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The sources told NBC News that prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting and whether he sought to conceal its purpose.

The meeting occurred at Trump Tower in June 2016 and was attended by Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, also involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya and former Soviet intelligence officer Rinat Akhmetshin.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 06:04 PM   #1542
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
I honestly don't understand how some of these bits don't make you step back and question them some.

The most solid allegations in that story are from:

Quote:
three sources familiar with the matter
...and...
Quote:
A person familiar with Mueller's strategy
Wouldn't that sort of ambiguous language make you a bit skeptical in pretty much any other context?


ETA: Consider a person with a microphone interviewing four people on the street:

Persons 1, 2, and 3...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with the investigation into Trump being led by Meuller?
Random person on the street: Yes, I'm familiar with the matter.
Interviewer: Do you think prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting between his son and the russions in June?
Random person on the street: Yes, I think prosecutors want to know that.

Person 4...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with Meuller's strategy regarding his Trump investigation?
Random person on the street: Yeah, I think so.
Interviewer: Do you think it's now of interest to prosecutors whether or not Trump made a knowingly false statement?
Random person on the street: Oh totally, I think they totally are interested in whether he made a knowingly false statement!

Interviewer: That's a wrap boys, we've got all the quotes we need, let's print this sucker!

++++++++++++++++++

Maybe, maybe not. But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 28th August 2017 at 06:10 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 06:25 PM   #1543
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
You can argue that, but be warned; when the reports are confirmed you will look pretty silly.

Or it may be that NBC have it wrong and their sources are lying, in which case you will be vindicated! But that scenario leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 06:38 PM   #1544
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,276
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Wouldn't that sort of ambiguous language make you a bit skeptical in pretty much any other context?
But its not any other context, and context matters.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
"essentially" ...ok
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 07:01 PM   #1545
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I honestly don't understand how some of these bits don't make you step back and question them some.

The most solid allegations in that story are from:


...and...


Wouldn't that sort of ambiguous language make you a bit skeptical in pretty much any other context?


ETA: Consider a person with a microphone interviewing four people on the street:

Persons 1, 2, and 3...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with the investigation into Trump being led by Meuller?
Random person on the street: Yes, I'm familiar with the matter.
Interviewer: Do you think prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting between his son and the russions in June?
Random person on the street: Yes, I think prosecutors want to know that.

Person 4...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with Meuller's strategy regarding his Trump investigation?
Random person on the street: Yeah, I think so.
Interviewer: Do you think it's now of interest to prosecutors whether or not Trump made a knowingly false statement?
Random person on the street: Oh totally, I think they totally are interested in whether he made a knowingly false statement!

Interviewer: That's a wrap boys, we've got all the quotes we need, let's print this sucker!

++++++++++++++++++

Maybe, maybe not. But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?

I suppose that if I had never read a newspaper in my life and hence didn't know how they used terms like "familiar with" when citing unidentified sources, then I'd be about as puzzled as you pretend to be.

ETA: Here's an article about Kaczynski (the unabomber) using the phrase "sources familiar with the investigation". Here's an article about the Hillary email investigation which repeatedly uses similar phrasing. Here's an article using the same phrase discussing the Martha Stewart insider trading investigation. Did your spidey senses tingle on each of these articles too?

Last edited by phiwum; 28th August 2017 at 07:11 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 Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 08:41 PM   #1546
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I honestly don't understand how some of these bits don't make you step back and question them some.

<snip>

Maybe, maybe not. But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
I don't think it's the vague and anonymous sourcing which is the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the subject matter. For some reason it's newsworthy that federal investigators are keenly focused on a nothing burger of an issue. It's only a small step closer to a crime than lying about farting in an elevator.

"According to several sources familiar with the matter, federal investigators are keenly focused on President Trump's role in deflecting attention from the source of a particularly fragrant gaseous emission of the lower colon by a human being in an elevator who was allegedly involved in the campaign.

"These same sources say that when the gaseous emission was first detected by the olfactory organs of several human beings present at the time, Trump repeatedly claimed that 'whoever smelt it dealt it.'

"Federal investigators had previously uncovered evidence that Trump's claim is untrue in general, although it may have been true in this specific case. Sources say that investigators are still unsure about Trump's motives. Whether he 'dealt it' or was covering up for somebody close to him who did, or even whether he actually holds such scientifically unsound beliefs is unknown at this time."
sunmaster14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 07:00 AM   #1547
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I honestly don't understand how some of these bits don't make you step back and question them some.

The most solid allegations in that story are from:


...and...


Wouldn't that sort of ambiguous language make you a bit skeptical in pretty much any other context?


ETA: Consider a person with a microphone interviewing four people on the street:

Persons 1, 2, and 3...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with the investigation into Trump being led by Meuller?
Random person on the street: Yes, I'm familiar with the matter.
Interviewer: Do you think prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting between his son and the russions in June?
Random person on the street: Yes, I think prosecutors want to know that.

Person 4...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with Meuller's strategy regarding his Trump investigation?
Random person on the street: Yeah, I think so.
Interviewer: Do you think it's now of interest to prosecutors whether or not Trump made a knowingly false statement?
Random person on the street: Oh totally, I think they totally are interested in whether he made a knowingly false statement!

Interviewer: That's a wrap boys, we've got all the quotes we need, let's print this sucker!

++++++++++++++++++

Maybe, maybe not. But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
Here's a shorter version you can post next time... I take issue with investigative journalism as relating to high profile scandals. Woodward and Bernstein be damned. Deep throat anyone?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 07:50 AM   #1548
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Here's a shorter version you can post next time... I take issue with investigative journalism as relating to high profile scandals. Woodward and Bernstein be damned. Deep throat anyone?
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 07:58 AM   #1549
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,581
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
IMO it depends on the nature of the claim and the media through which it is presented.

If the National Inquirer claims that it has evidence of a Nazi moonbase from unnamed NASA sources then I think there should be considerable skepticism.

If the Washington Post carries a story relating to President Trump based on unnamed sources but where the claims are consistent with the President's known behaviour the some skepticism is still warranted (after all, the unnamed source could have their own reasons for making **** up) but rather less than for the first claim.

If the author of the story also has a string track record of reliably delivering from unnamed sources then whilst skepticism is still necessary, one again a lower threshold may be appropriate.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 08:11 AM   #1550
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
We should proportion our trust in unnamed sources to the prior proven reliability of the news outlet and/or the individual reporter, especially their reliability with respect to unnamed sources. If they have a good record of quoting reliable sources who turned out to be correct, we have to factor that into our thinking.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”

Last edited by d4m10n; 29th August 2017 at 08:12 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 08:13 AM   #1551
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
I don't think it's the vague and anonymous sourcing which is the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the subject matter. For some reason it's newsworthy that federal investigators are keenly focused on a nothing burger of an issue. It's only a small step closer to a crime than lying about farting in an elevator.
Keep telling yourself that. Your hero also lies to himself constantly, enough so that he believes what he's saying.

What is it exactly that led you to the conclusion that this is a "nothing burger"?

Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12

Last edited by Agatha; 2nd September 2017 at 02:09 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 08:14 AM   #1552
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
What's their track record when referring to this particular issue? Seems to me unnamed sources have a hellova track record so far.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 08:19 AM   #1553
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
We should proportion our trust in unnamed sources to the prior proven reliability of the news outlet and/or the individual reporter, especially their reliability with respect to unnamed sources. If they have a good record of quoting reliable sources who turned out to be correct, we have to factor that into our thinking.
That seems to be the general consensus, then. We just need to know which stories turned out to be true.

Who's game?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 09:43 AM   #1554
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
Here are two blogposts on 538 about this

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-attention-to/

Quote:
The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources.

What’s a reader to do? Well, here’s a guide to unnamed sources in government/politics/Washington stories — who they are, how reporters use them, and how to tell if you should trust what they say. Having covered Congress, the White House, several presidential campaigns and briefly the Education and State departments, I have begged (usually unsuccessfully) many sources to allow me to use their names, written a fair number of stories with unnamed sources, and spent a lot of time trying to decode stories with unnamed sources written by other journalists. For this piece, I also consulted other journalists and political types who have served in senior staff roles on campaigns, on Capitol Hill and in presidential administrations.

This is part one of two. I’ll cover some general principles for reading anonymously sourced stories here and break down the different types of such sources in part two. I wrote this piece because of all the Trump-Russia stories, but the rules, terms and designations apply to other Washington stories as well.
Quote:
5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.In conclusion, we think you should continue to read stories with unnamed sources, but carefully and cautiously. Even major outlets like CNN and The New York Times occasionally get things wrong when relying on unnamed sources. On the other hand, this article and its follow-up should help you understand why everyone in Washington knew that in February, then-national security adviser Michael Flynn was in deep trouble. He was accused of something that either happened or did not — a factual claim (talking on the phone with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and discussing sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Russia) — in a story in a traditionally reliable outlet (The Washington Post) that was written by reporters known for covering national security and intelligence issues (Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima), with multiple unnamed sources making the claim (“nine current and former officials”).


And the second part

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-attention-to/

Quote:
In the first part of our guide to unnamed sources, we laid out some general tips for making sense of these kinds of stories. In this part, we want to get more specific, to help you to essentially decode these stories. We also want you to be able to know which stories you should rely on based on the different kinds of sourcing used.

So we’re going to divide anonymous sources into six general types and give the pros and cons of each, in terms of reliability. We ordered the types of unnamed sources, roughly speaking, from most reliable to least reliable (at least in my experience):
Quote:
Conclusions: Caveat lector
“The whole system of anonymous sources has a flaw,” said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University. “Sometimes the name that is withheld is bigger news than the news the withheld name is offering. But there is no way for the readers to know because the name is … withheld.”

Rosen is right. But as a reader, you don’t have any other options. Washington stories have always been full of unnamed sources. But now, we are in a unique era: an administration with a lot of factions, often fighting with one another; a federal bureaucracy skeptical of its boss; a Republican majority in Congress leery of Trump but often not wanting to blast him with their names attached. So there are lots of people who want to talk to the press, but also lots of incentives for them to do so without their names attached. Heck, the former FBI director was essentially acting as an unnamed source, so you can imagine that others with fewer credentials (or more to lose) are even more afraid to go on the record.

So our advice is: Read all of these vaguely sourced stories with skepticism. But if you really want to keep up with Trump’s Washington, you probably don’t have a choice but to read some stories with unnamed sources.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 10:06 AM   #1555
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31,644
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I honestly don't understand how some of these bits don't make you step back and question them some.

The most solid allegations in that story are from:

Quote:
three sources familiar with the matter
...and...
Quote:
A person familiar with Mueller's strategy
Wouldn't that sort of ambiguous language make you a bit skeptical in pretty much any other context?


ETA: Consider a person with a microphone interviewing four people on the street:

Persons 1, 2, and 3...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with the investigation into Trump being led by Meuller?
Random person on the street: Yes, I'm familiar with the matter.
Interviewer: Do you think prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting between his son and the russions in June?
Random person on the street: Yes, I think prosecutors want to know that.

Person 4...
Interviewer: Are you familiar with Meuller's strategy regarding his Trump investigation?
Random person on the street: Yeah, I think so.
Interviewer: Do you think it's now of interest to prosecutors whether or not Trump made a knowingly false statement?
Random person on the street: Oh totally, I think they totally are interested in whether he made a knowingly false statement!

Interviewer: That's a wrap boys, we've got all the quotes we need, let's print this sucker!

++++++++++++++++++

Maybe, maybe not. But since all we have is essentially "someone said something", it leaves a bit to be desired in terms of solid evidence, wouldn't you think?
From those 538 links I posted earlier

Quote:
1. Multiple sources add up.


When an outlet says “six White House officials” or “seven Department of Justice officials,” it’s providing a level of precision that makes me more likely to trust the story. This does not necessarily mean that the story is correct. But it does suggest it was thoroughly reported.
Quote:
Federal investigators working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller are keenly focused on President Donald Trump's role in crafting a response to a published article about a meeting between Russians and his son Donald Jr., three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The sources told NBC News that prosecutors want to know what Trump knew about the meeting and whether he sought to conceal its purpose.

The meeting occurred at Trump Tower in June 2016 and was attended by Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, also involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya and former Soviet intelligence officer Rinat Akhmetshin.
Quote:
3. Specifics matter.


What information does the story give you about its sources? The more, the better. For example, trust “Department of Justice officials” more than “administration officials.” If a story includes claims from unnamed officials from the Justice Department, those claims are typically run by the department’s press office. I would interpret a story sourced to “Department of Justice officials” without a denial from the press team there to be accurate — and perhaps even leaked by the department’s press team itself. An “administration official,” on the other hand, covers a much bigger group of people with disparate interests and points of view. It’s easy for other reporters to call the Justice Department and verify the story, while it’s much harder to confirm a story attributed to administration officials, which could mean any agency or the White House.
Quote:
4. Consider the outlet and the reporters.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 03:23 PM   #1556
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It does pose a problem though: how much skepticism of unnamed sources should we exercise?
More to the point, perhaps, is how sceptical we expect the secondary sources, to be, and they know who these persons "familiar with the investigation" are.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 03:57 PM   #1557
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You can argue that, but be warned; when the reports are confirmed you will look pretty silly.
No, if the reports are confirmed I'll still look like someone who waited until actual evidence surfaced before jumping to a conclusion.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 03:58 PM   #1558
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
But its not any other context, and context matters.
Ah, gotcha. So long as the context is Trump!!!!! then nothing solid is required.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
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 Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 04:22 PM   #1559
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
Originally Posted by Stacko View Post
Looks like Mueller taking a long look at Fredo's meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary.
During Watergate the simple question was : What did the President know?

In this case the equivalent question is : what did Candidate Trump know?

If he "weighed in" on the original sketchy response when news of the Fredo meeting broke then he must have known all about it by then at least. Unless he was still being deceived, which is surely not a claim Trump would ever make. He might allow his lawyers to make it, but he'd tweet a denial right after and then bring it up at his next rally. "I so knew who was at that meeting, there were some great people at that meeting, on many sides, many sides".
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 04:22 PM   #1560
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That seems to be the general consensus, then. We just need to know which stories turned out to be true.
We could start with a random sample of anonymously sourced stories from, say, ten years ago.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 10:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.