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 classified information , donald trump , national security issues , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 18th May 2017, 01:03 PM   #921
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
From the members in general? Yes I can.
From the members participating in threads about Trump?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Exactly. So people conclusion that it's very likely is not unskeptical. Quite the opposite.
People who have not done any differential work, who have not evaluated other potential causes, and who don't have the background and education necessary to conclude that it's likely? How is it in keeping with the general approach of skepticism to draw a conclusion of "very likely" based on a lack of knowledge and subject matter expertise, simply because it fits with what one believes to be true?

Hell, by your logic, I could say that it's "very likley" that gravity is caused by dark matter fluctuations in the quark field, because it fits with my understanding gleaned from a couple of pop-sci articles and a high school physics class

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Oh, please. At some point one must see the accumulation of evidence and draw a conclusion.
What evidence? What actual evidence is available? Something being investigated is not evidence. An allegation isn't evidence. Speculation from an anonymous person isn't evidence. Even firing Comey for not ceasing an investigation isn't evidence. It's suggestive and suspicious, definitely... but it is not actually evidence.

There's a large accumulation of similar types of evidence for the existence of bigfoot. What conclusion should we draw from that?

Hell... there's more actual evidence in the never-ending-and-woefully-outdated Knox/WhoeverTheHeck thread than there is here.

Again, it's entirely possible that he's nuts in a clinical sense. It's entirely plausible that he colluded with Russia. But skeptics should at least take the time to question the methodology, bias, and ***evidence*** available before forming an unshakable conclusion and treating any challenge as "apologetics", wouldn't you agree?
__________________
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 18th May 2017, 01:04 PM   #922
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,103
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't think you are. I just believe you are oversimplifying the issues by suggesting it's merely cold war thinking.
I always thought the Cold War thinking was "Us versus the Godless Communists". I guess the difference is they aren't Godless Communists anymore, so that means they are all peachy.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 18th May 2017, 01:10 PM   #923
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
How so ? I think he's clearly both evil and a bumbling idiot.



The fact that he is evil and a bumbling idiot is a real problem.
Malice and ignorance don't go hand in hand, not on the same action. If one is ignorant of the consequences, then one is not acting in malice. If one is acting in malice, one is not ignorant of the consequences.

Add to that... it's extremely unlikely that an idiot would be successful at garnering the presidency. It's also extremely unlikely that an obviously evil person would garner the presidency. For either of those to happen, it requires an overwhelming number of people to be both significantly more ignorant than Trump and extraordinarily naive. The only way that narrative works is if you can cast everyone outside of your circle of similarly minded people as being super-dumb, super-evil, or some combination thereof. You have to characterize everyone else as deplorable and idiotic for that to occur.

That in itself is poor reasoning.


Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Sure, some media, and some posters are being hyperbolic and over the top. However, I don't find find your description to be an accurate portrayal of what the NYT and Wapo are reporting, and how most of us are reacting.
How is my description of what NYT and WaPo reported inaccurate?

"Most numerous"? Okay, I might give you that as not being representative. Perhaps it's simply "Most vocal", and I've got my own perception bias. That is a reasonable possibility.
__________________
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 18th May 2017, 01:13 PM   #924
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 17,214
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
There's a large accumulation of similar types of evidence for the existence of bigfoot. What conclusion should we draw from that?
Bigfoot exists.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 18th May 2017, 01:14 PM   #925
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,883
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How many has he _not_ alienated?
Not many, but the WAPO and the FBI are the two that can really, really, hurt you if they want to.
dudalb 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 18th May 2017, 01:23 PM   #926
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Malice and ignorance don't go hand in hand, not on the same action. If one is ignorant of the consequences, then one is not acting in malice. If one is acting in malice, one is not ignorant of the consequences.
It's not a binary, it's a spectrum. One can be many levels of malicious, and many levels of stupid.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Add to that... it's extremely unlikely that an idiot would be successful at garnering the presidency.
Yet it happened.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It's also extremely unlikely that an obviously evil person would garner the presidency. For either of those to happen, it requires an overwhelming number of people to be both significantly more ignorant than Trump and extraordinarily naive. The only way that narrative works is if you can cast everyone outside of your circle of similarly minded people as being super-dumb, super-evil, or some combination thereof. You have to characterize everyone else as deplorable and idiotic for that to occur.

That in itself is poor reasoning.
You're creating a false dilemma. Again, there is a large spectrum of intelligence, attitudes, and motives.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
How is my description of what NYT and WaPo reported inaccurate?

"Most numerous"? Okay, I might give you that as not being representative. Perhaps it's simply "Most vocal", and I've got my own perception bias. That is a reasonable possibility.
Your lumping together multiple articles, writers, and reactions and painting them with an overly broad brush.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 01:29 PM   #927
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,883
I think somebody is being a "Contrarian" here.....
dudalb 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 18th May 2017, 01:42 PM   #928
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,993
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
From the members participating in threads about Trump?
Don't play coy, now. That's exactly what I meant.

Quote:
People who have not done any differential work, who have not evaluated other potential causes, and who don't have the background and education necessary to conclude that it's likely? How is it in keeping with the general approach of skepticism to draw a conclusion of "very likely" based on a lack of knowledge and subject matter expertise, simply because it fits with what one believes to be true?
It isn't, but this isn't what this is. We have plenty of evidence.

Quote:
Hell, by your logic, I could say that it's "very likley" that gravity is caused by dark matter fluctuations in the quark field, because it fits with my understanding gleaned from a couple of pop-sci articles and a high school physics class
If you're going to treat me like an idiot, you can talk to yourself, for all I care.

Quote:
What evidence? What actual evidence is available?
Or, if you want to treat yourself like an idiot, see above.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 18th May 2017, 03:16 PM   #929
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I always thought the Cold War thinking was "Us versus the Godless Communists". I guess the difference is they aren't Godless Communists anymore, so that means they are all peachy.
I always thought Cold War thinking was "Russians are the bad guys in all things". I always though the "Godless Commies" bit was the justification. That might be a meaningless distinction though, I suppose.
__________________
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 18th May 2017, 03:29 PM   #930
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,497
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I always thought Cold War thinking was "Russians are the bad guys in all things". I always though the "Godless Commies" bit was the justification.
That's exactly right, except for the fact that it's exactly backwards. You know, the whole "one nation under god" thingee.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
Resume 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 18th May 2017, 05:59 PM   #931
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,103
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I always thought Cold War thinking was "Russians are the bad guys in all things". I always though the "Godless Commies" bit was the justification. That might be a meaningless distinction though, I suppose.
Nah, right after the collapse, everything was looking up. Then along came Putin.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 18th May 2017, 10:27 PM   #932
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,644
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Nah, right after the collapse, everything was looking up. Then along came Putin.
Things looked ok with Putin at the start: Western leader were looking forward to someone competent in the Kremlin.

But Putin soon realized that there was no chance to keep control of the country and rapid economic development. So he decided to tighten control and blame the lack of progress on "Western Aggression".
It is just a false narrative that Russia is the peacemaker and the US the belligerent in this case. Putin needs the US to be the bad guy far more than the US needs Russia to be anything at all.
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza 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 19th May 2017, 08:11 AM   #933
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,128
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How many has he _not_ alienated?
Ben and Jerry's?
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   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 19th May 2017, 08:21 AM   #934
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,332
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Additionally, Trump might very well have colluded with Russia to win the election. But at present there is still no actual evidence available to any of us to make that determination. We have speculation and allegation from unnamed anonymous sources. That speculation is accepted as firm evidence, and any challenge to the methods used to draw a conclusion is again dismissed as apologetics with no due consideration.
It's perpetually surprising to me the way the word evidence is abused on this forum. Evidence and proof aren't synonyms. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Nothing on this woefully incomplete list is speculation:
  • Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
  • Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
  • Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
  • Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
  • Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
  • Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
  • Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
  • Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
  • Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
  • Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 08:25 AM   #935
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
It's perpetually surprising to me the way the word evidence is abused on this forum. Evidence and proof aren't synonyms. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Nothing on this woefully incomplete list is speculation:
  • Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
  • Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
  • Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
  • Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
  • Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
  • Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
  • Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
  • Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
  • Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
  • Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton
That last is slightly controversial. Trump said, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." This could mean that he hopes they find them in the emails they've already absconded with, rather than that he's asking them to again hack into Clinton's emails and download more.

A minor point, I'll grant, but it's the only criticism I have about the above list.
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 19th May 2017, 08:27 AM   #936
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
It's perpetually surprising to me the way the word evidence is abused on this forum. Evidence and proof aren't synonyms. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Nothing on this woefully incomplete list is speculation:
  • Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
  • Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
  • Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
  • Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
  • Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
  • Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
  • Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
  • Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
  • Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
  • Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton
Yep, there's a difference between a conspiracy theory and a theory about a conspiracy. People who aren't watching Rachel Maddow are probably missing a lot of pixels in the big picture.
WilliamSeger 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 19th May 2017, 08:34 AM   #937
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,275
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Ben and Jerry's?
They might be cross at Trump for not giving everyone at the table two scoops of ice cream.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt 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 19th May 2017, 08:46 AM   #938
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Malice and ignorance don't go hand in hand, not on the same action. If one is ignorant of the consequences, then one is not acting in malice. If one is acting in malice, one is not ignorant of the consequences.
It's not a binary, it's a spectrum. One can be many levels of malicious, and many levels of stupid.

As shown by recent events, one can be both malicious and stupid on many levels, all at the same time.
W.D.Clinger 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 19th May 2017, 08:57 AM   #939
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Things looked ok with Putin at the start: Western leader were looking forward to someone competent in the Kremlin.

But Putin soon realized that there was no chance to keep control of the country and rapid economic development. So he decided to tighten control and blame the lack of progress on "Western Aggression".
It is just a false narrative that Russia is the peacemaker and the US the belligerent in this case. Putin needs the US to be the bad guy far more than the US needs Russia to be anything at all.
Who's pushing this narrative?
__________________
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 19th May 2017, 08:59 AM   #940
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
It's perpetually surprising to me the way the word evidence is abused on this forum. Evidence and proof aren't synonyms. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Nothing on this woefully incomplete list is speculation:
  • Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
  • Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
  • Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
  • Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
  • Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
  • Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
  • Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
  • Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
  • Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
  • Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
  • Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton
Please provide supporting evidence for those claims. Evidence that is actually evidence, not "someone accused someone else of this thing".
__________________
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 19th May 2017, 09:03 AM   #941
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,332
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Please provide supporting evidence for those claims. Evidence that is actually evidence, not "someone accused someone else of this thing".
Are you genuinely this inattentive to the facts? Or maybe just trying to win internet debate points? I'll follow-up later in the Trump+Russia thread.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:17 AM   #942
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Are you genuinely this inattentive to the facts? Or maybe just trying to win internet debate points? I'll follow-up later in the Trump+Russia thread.
Some Trump supporters are quite proud that they don't pay any attention to the "lame-stream" media.
wareyin 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 19th May 2017, 09:20 AM   #943
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,644
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Who's pushing this narrative?
Most Trump supporters, who claimed that it was only Clinton who was causing conflict between the US and Russia.
And all the "fair&balanced" people who think that Russian meddling in foreign elections is ok since the US has had its share of attempted regime changes.
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza 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 19th May 2017, 09:59 AM   #944
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,407
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Please provide supporting evidence for those claims. Evidence that is actually evidence, not "someone accused someone else of this thing".
"Not sure if serious."
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 19th May 2017, 10:01 AM   #945
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,623
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Most Trump supporters, who claimed that it was only Clinton who was causing conflict between the US and Russia.
And all the "fair&balanced" people who think that Russian meddling in foreign elections is ok since the US has had its share of attempted regime changes.
Not to mention the white-supremacists dolts recently noted holding a rally with torches (actually, mosquito-repellent tiki lamps from Home Depot), chanting, "Russia is our friend".

And, of course, the oh-so-reasonable but-I'm-not-a-Trump-supporter folks who just somehow become curiously hyperskeptical and unaware of current events when Trump is actually blamed for things.
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 19th May 2017, 10:04 AM   #946
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Please provide supporting evidence for those claims. Evidence that is actually evidence, not "someone accused someone else of this thing".

Let's take the first one (lying about his relationship with Putin).

Trump himself has claimed that he's met Putin and that he's never met Putin. No matter which is the case, he has lied.
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 19th May 2017, 12:40 PM   #947
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Are you genuinely this inattentive to the facts? Or maybe just trying to win internet debate points? I'll follow-up later in the Trump+Russia thread.
I haven't read every single possible article or report, no. But I'm also not completely inattentive.

What I have read has almost all fallen into one of the following categories:
  • An unnamed person claims that...
  • An allegation is being investigated...
  • It's possible that it worked this way...
  • Someone accused someone of...

Now, it's entirely possible that my lack of obsessive reading of all thing Trump has caused me to miss actual solid evidence that transitions an accusation to an actual event, a suspicion to an activity. That's certainly a possibility. If that's the case, please point me to the actual real evidence, rather than the speculations and allegations of a conspiracy. I'll happily change my tune as soon as I'm provided something firmer than "an article said it might be the case because some other person made an accusation".

There are definitely elements that I find suspicious. I have not taken a stance that Trump is innocent; I think it is quite reasonably plausible that he is not. But at present, I have not seen sufficient actual evidence to conclude his direct personal complicity.
__________________
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 19th May 2017, 12:53 PM   #948
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Let's take the first one (lying about his relationship with Putin).

Trump himself has claimed that he's met Putin and that he's never met Putin. No matter which is the case, he has lied.
Sure, I can see that interpretation. Clearly, not completely honest.

I also know that Trump is a bombast and an embellishes. I think it's quite plausible that his claimed relationship with Putin the past was exaggeration. He had passing acquaintance, may even have spoken to Putin in a formal venue. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Trump had claimed significantly more than was there: "I'm great friends with so-and-so, we were at a party together and we had a great time"... Sure, you were both at the party, sure you said Hi to the person, maybe even exchanged pleasant small talk about how great the party is. That's not necessarily the same thing as actually being friends with a person, having private conversations with them, etc.

It's also possible that he and Putin have historically been close friends, sharing innermost secrets, and planning to take over the world.

Do you have sufficient information to determine that Trump is currently purposefully lying about his relationship with Putin, as opposed to having exaggerated and embellished that relationship in the past?

Do you have sufficient information to conclude that Trump had a strong enough relationship with Putin in the past to say that he conspired with him to hack the DNC server?

If it is the case that Trump had a strong relationship with Putin in the past, then it would mean that he is lying about the extent of his relationship now. That would then support the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

If, however, it is the case that Trump embellished the extent of his relationship during past interviews, then it would mean that he is being truthful about the extent of his relationship now. That would weaken the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

Either is possible. I put the odds slightly in favor of past embellishment, solely based on my opinion of Trump as blustering conman rather than an evil genius. You may believe differently.

What I don't see, however, is that there's sufficient evidence to conclude which scenario is true and which is false. Acknowledging of course, that both may be false and a completely different scenario heretofore not considered may actually be true.
__________________
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 19th May 2017, 12:56 PM   #949
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,883
This "Oh, I am not defending Trump" routine had gotten very old very fast....
dudalb 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 19th May 2017, 12:59 PM   #950
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,427
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
This "Oh, I am not defending Trump" routine had gotten very old very fast....
Blah blah blah.

{Not Condemning Trump with Insufficient Evidence} <> {Defending Trump}

The world is not black and white. It is not either-or. Please stop functioning from the premise of a false dichotomy.

Seriously, if the only thing you'll accept is full support of burning him at the stake, you'll be woefully disappointed. Id on't support witch hunts, regardless of who their aimed at. Ask yourself, all of you, "If this were Clinton, would I accept this as firm evidence, sufficient to conclude complicity?" Go back and consider the bar set as qualifying evidence when it was Clinton under consideration for wrongdoing, and ask yourself if the bar is set at the same level for Trump. If not, you might consider your starting point. All of us are subject to confirmation bias - it's a part of being human and it's insidious. I know, whether you believe me or not, that I am NOT biased toward Trump. I know my own view toward him. I know I do NOT support him. I'm relatively certain that my own bias is accounted for in the consideration of evidence. I am, of course, subject to my own beliefs about others as well as about myself, but I think that my position of being against both parties, and the candidates that they put forth, is sufficient to allow me a reasonable degree of objectivity. I could, of course, be wrong. But given that I actually detest Trump and think he's a horrible choice for president, and a travesty of democracy, and a serious risk to the foundation of our country by turning it into a sideshow... I don't believe that I am biased in his favor.
__________________
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; 19th May 2017 at 01:06 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 12:59 PM   #951
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I haven't read every single possible article or report, no. But I'm also not completely inattentive.

What I have read has almost all fallen into one of the following categories:
  • An unnamed person claims that...
  • An allegation is being investigated...
  • It's possible that it worked this way...
  • Someone accused someone of...

Now, it's entirely possible that my lack of obsessive reading of all thing Trump has caused me to miss actual solid evidence that transitions an accusation to an actual event, a suspicion to an activity. That's certainly a possibility. If that's the case, please point me to the actual real evidence, rather than the speculations and allegations of a conspiracy. I'll happily change my tune as soon as I'm provided something firmer than "an article said it might be the case because some other person made an accusation".

There are definitely elements that I find suspicious. I have not taken a stance that Trump is innocent; I think it is quite reasonably plausible that he is not. But at present, I have not seen sufficient actual evidence to conclude his direct personal complicity.
Let's take another one then. Do you doubt that Flynn lied about his Russian contacts?

Here's what's clear: Pence and other spokesmen said that Flynn didn't talk about sanctions prior to the inauguration. This was on Meet the Press. Pence's aides said that Pence was told he hadn't discussed sanctions by Flynn. Numerous reports said otherwise and Trump said that Flynn was fired because "of what he said to Pence."

Now, maybe the aides lied, maybe Trump didn't mean that Flynn lied to Pence, etc. Maybe Pence made everything up. But surely the most plausible explanation is that Flynn lied about the contents of his conversations with the Russians.

Do you need more evidence than that to concede this point?

I won't do this for each and every item on the list. Why don't you pick one you think is dubious and we can talk about it? (Perhaps in the Trump/Russia thread).
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 19th May 2017, 04:59 PM   #952
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,280
Israeli intelligence officials were shouting at U.S. counterparts in meetings over Trump's SNAFU

Quote:
Just days before President Donald Trump’s arrival in Tel Aviv, Israeli intelligence officials were shouting at their American counterparts in meetings, furious over news that the U.S. commander in chief may have compromised a vital source of information on the Islamic State and possibly Iran, according to a U.S. defense official in military planning.

“To them, it’s horrifying,” the official, who attended the meetings, told Foreign Policy. “Their first question was: ‘What is going on? What is this?’”
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:13 PM   #953
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,799
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yep, there's a difference between a conspiracy theory and a theory about a conspiracy. People who aren't watching Rachel Maddow are probably missing a lot of pixels in the big picture.
I know everything*, and I would rather dive into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades than spend one more minute with Maddow.

*big picture wise WRT this Trump fiasco
__________________
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 19th May 2017, 06:53 PM   #954
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 14,988
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Sure, I can see that interpretation. Clearly, not completely honest.

I also know that Trump is a bombast and an embellishes. I think it's quite plausible that his claimed relationship with Putin the past was exaggeration. He had passing acquaintance, may even have spoken to Putin in a formal venue. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Trump had claimed significantly more than was there: "I'm great friends with so-and-so, we were at a party together and we had a great time"... Sure, you were both at the party, sure you said Hi to the person, maybe even exchanged pleasant small talk about how great the party is. That's not necessarily the same thing as actually being friends with a person, having private conversations with them, etc.

It's also possible that he and Putin have historically been close friends, sharing innermost secrets, and planning to take over the world.

Do you have sufficient information to determine that Trump is currently purposefully lying about his relationship with Putin, as opposed to having exaggerated and embellished that relationship in the past?

Do you have sufficient information to conclude that Trump had a strong enough relationship with Putin in the past to say that he conspired with him to hack the DNC server?

If it is the case that Trump had a strong relationship with Putin in the past, then it would mean that he is lying about the extent of his relationship now. That would then support the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

If, however, it is the case that Trump embellished the extent of his relationship during past interviews, then it would mean that he is being truthful about the extent of his relationship now. That would weaken the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

Either is possible. I put the odds slightly in favor of past embellishment, solely based on my opinion of Trump as blustering conman rather than an evil genius. You may believe differently.

What I don't see, however, is that there's sufficient evidence to conclude which scenario is true and which is false. Acknowledging of course, that both may be false and a completely different scenario heretofore not considered may actually be true.


This is ridiculous. He outright lied. He claims to have directly spoken to Putin, then claims he's never spoken with him. The other details aside, he's not only being dishonest about his connections with Putin, he's outright lying. No spin, no interpretation, outright lying. The interpretation part comes in for what his lying means, not if it's lying or not.

*************** is lying. It's a type of lying, which still makes it lying.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 19th May 2017, 07:12 PM   #955
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Ask yourself, all of you, "If this were Clinton, would I accept this as firm evidence, sufficient to conclude complicity?"
Yes.

In return, please ask yourself "If this were Clinton, would I be falling over myself as readily to find some excuse for her behavior?"
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
Old 19th May 2017, 07:29 PM   #956
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Ask yourself, all of you, "If this were Clinton, would I accept this as firm evidence, sufficient to conclude complicity?"
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yes.

In return, please ask yourself "If this were Clinton, would I be falling over myself as readily to find some excuse for her behavior?"
Just watch the first 5 min of this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Viktor Medvedchuk is one of the guys who communicated with Trump officials as revealed by Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18E106

Ask yourself this, everyone (as long as we're asking people to ask themselves things): If THIS SAME GUY called and talked to anyone in any campaign from Reagan/Bush all the way through Clinton/Kaine, do you think it would be a national scandal?

This was a Soviet-era fake attorney who railroaded dissidents into the gulag. He's now a Russian Oligarch. We launched a war in Vietnam with significantly less evidence of Russian collusion than we have with Trump Squad and these Ex-Soviets.



Settle down, last part was a joke. You do realize, though, that we kicked Charlie Chaplain was kicked out of the United States for less contact with the Soviets.
TraneWreck 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 19th May 2017, 07:36 PM   #957
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,479
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yes.

In return, please ask yourself "If this were Clinton, would I be falling over myself as readily to find some excuse for her behavior?"
Not Emily's Cat here of course, but...

The question is absurd because Clinton is competent and doesn't have a personality disorder.

I have had many criticisms of both Clintons and Obama. When relevant I'm not so blind as to not see the negatives.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 07:39 PM   #958
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,956
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
This is ridiculous. He outright lied. He claims to have directly spoken to Putin, then claims he's never spoken with him. The other details aside, he's not only being dishonest about his connections with Putin, he's outright lying. No spin, no interpretation, outright lying. The interpretation part comes in for what his lying means, not if it's lying or not.

*************** is lying. It's a type of lying, which still makes it lying.
I was reading her whole post saying those words out loud to myself. I knew it was going to be hilarious when it started with:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Sure, I can see that interpretation. Clearly, not completely honest.
That's some pretty disingenuous **** right there. He blatantly said something, and has had all the time in the world to correct the record. Literally thousands of times to correct the record, and he never has. Now he's balls deep in this Russia thing and he's trying to backpedal.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 19th May 2017, 07:40 PM   #959
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Sure, I can see that interpretation. Clearly, not completely honest.

I also know that Trump is a bombast and an embellishes. I think it's quite plausible that his claimed relationship with Putin the past was exaggeration. He had passing acquaintance, may even have spoken to Putin in a formal venue. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Trump had claimed significantly more than was there: "I'm great friends with so-and-so, we were at a party together and we had a great time"... Sure, you were both at the party, sure you said Hi to the person, maybe even exchanged pleasant small talk about how great the party is. That's not necessarily the same thing as actually being friends with a person, having private conversations with them, etc.

It's also possible that he and Putin have historically been close friends, sharing innermost secrets, and planning to take over the world.

Do you have sufficient information to determine that Trump is currently purposefully lying about his relationship with Putin, as opposed to having exaggerated and embellished that relationship in the past?

Do you have sufficient information to conclude that Trump had a strong enough relationship with Putin in the past to say that he conspired with him to hack the DNC server?

If it is the case that Trump had a strong relationship with Putin in the past, then it would mean that he is lying about the extent of his relationship now. That would then support the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

If, however, it is the case that Trump embellished the extent of his relationship during past interviews, then it would mean that he is being truthful about the extent of his relationship now. That would weaken the case that he conspired with Putin during the last election.

Either is possible. I put the odds slightly in favor of past embellishment, solely based on my opinion of Trump as blustering conman rather than an evil genius. You may believe differently.

What I don't see, however, is that there's sufficient evidence to conclude which scenario is true and which is false. Acknowledging of course, that both may be false and a completely different scenario heretofore not considered may actually be true.
I don't care when he lied. The claim was that "Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin." He either did it when he talked about having a friendship with Putin or when he said he never met the man. In either case, Varwoche's claim is undeniably true.
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 19th May 2017, 07:40 PM   #960
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,956
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yes.

In return, please ask yourself "If this were Clinton, would I be falling over myself as readily to find some excuse for her behavior?"
I do know there were plenty of times in the Hillary Clinton thread where the line was thousands of times more skewed than this and I know I didn't see this level of rationalizing.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 01:38 AM.
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.