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.
Reply
Old 9th October 2019, 05:53 PM   #321
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm pretty sure he's referring to someone else.
My point is, stop fixating on someone else, and engage Meadmaker. Fixating on someone else just signals to someone else that you're terrified of where Meadmaker's skeptical inquiry might lead. If that's not the signal you mean to send, then my advice is to ignore someone else, and get busy engaging Meadmaker on his own terms.
theprestige 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 9th October 2019, 05:59 PM   #322
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I would assert that asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent is more than opposition research.
Sorta. It's some sort of oppo research + foreign meddling weirdness there's not even a term for.

The closest thing to it I've ever heard of is the October Surprise conspiracy theory.

https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/0.../#.XZ6C_-jYrnE
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 9th October 2019, 06:25 PM   #323
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is, stop fixating on someone else, and engage Meadmaker. Fixating on someone else just signals to someone else that you're terrified of where Meadmaker's skeptical inquiry might lead. If that's not the signal you mean to send, then my advice is to ignore someone else, and get busy engaging Meadmaker on his own terms.
I'm not terrified. I'm disgusted with juvenile hypocritical sophistry when principles of US democracy is at stake.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 9th October 2019, 06:27 PM   #324
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
He is (or was) literally playing the role of of defense for Trump in this mock trial.

I have been engaging Meadmaker. You must have missed the last couple of pages where we were [respectfully] arguing.

He conceded that there was no expert disagreement with the 1,027 former prosecutors and kinda gave up.
Was he playing some kind of Devil's Advocate and did that nuance go over my head?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 9th October 2019, 06:57 PM   #325
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,623
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not terrified. I'm disgusted with juvenile hypocritical sophistry when principles of US democracy is at stake.
You said it better then I did.

I also think Meadmaker's contrarian act was getting old anyway, but this takes the cake.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
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 9th October 2019, 07:00 PM   #326
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Was he playing some kind of Devil's Advocate and did that nuance go over my head?
He was mostly playing devil's advocate, I think.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 9th October 2019, 07:01 PM   #327
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Why do you get so hung up about Barr?
It's his department - if he wasn't directly involved, it was because he made it clear that he didn't want to be involved: there is no way something which contains his name didn't get cleared with him.
Because the original poster made a claim that Barr said something he didn't say. Here on this board we challenge claims to see if they are true or not, and that should include ones that would support our position just as much as those that don't. You seem to be believing that it is fine to tell lies and give out factoids without bothering to check them as long as they are sort of close to being maybe right, and they support your dialogue. That's not being a Skeptic.

There is a difference between Barr said, "X", and the DoJ said, "X", and if we want to make sure that we represent the truth as honestly as we can, then we need to distinguish that difference and get the facts right.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 9th October 2019, 07:09 PM   #328
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They literally do.

President Obama literally withheld military aid from Egypt. He literally allowed that aid after Egypt changed its regime in a way he approved of.
While Governments do play Quid Pro Quo, and often pressure each other, they do so for the benefit of the Country as a whole.

What is not done is using those levers of power to gain a personal political benefit rather than a public benefit. This is where it becomes an abuse of office. (And no, a politician being re-elected, regardless of who they are, is not considered to be a Public Benefit.)

This is the difference. Obama holding back Egypt's funding was to benefit the people of Egypt and the US by getting a more US friendly and democratic Government in Egypt. He wasn't doing it for his own gain.

Trump's holding back of military funding in the Ukraine was to get them to start up an investigation into his leading Political rival based on a disproven conspiracy theory so that he could use it to attack his rival. This is the definition of doing it for personal gain.

Again, using the powers granted by the public trust in public office for one's own gain rather then for the Public's, is an abuse of the power of that office, and the major reason that Impeachment was added into the Constitution.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 9th October 2019 at 07:11 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 9th October 2019, 07:25 PM   #329
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
While Governments do play Quid Pro Quo, and often pressure each other, they do so for the benefit of the Country as a whole.

What is not done is using those levers of power to gain a personal political benefit rather than a public benefit. This is where it becomes an abuse of office. (And no, a politician being re-elected, regardless of who they are, is not considered to be a Public Benefit.)

This is the difference. Obama holding back Egypt's funding was to benefit the people of Egypt and the US by getting a more US friendly and democratic Government in Egypt. He wasn't doing it for his own gain.

Trump's holding back of military funding in the Ukraine was to get them to start up an investigation into his leading Political rival based on a disproven conspiracy theory so that he could use it to attack his rival. This is the definition of doing it for personal gain.

Again, using the powers granted by the public trust in public office for one's own gain rather then for the Public's, is an abuse of the power of that office, and the major reason that Impeachment was added into the Constitution.
Well said. I salute you.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 9th October 2019, 11:04 PM   #330
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sorta. It's some sort of oppo research + foreign meddling weirdness there's not even a term for.

The closest thing to it I've ever heard of is the October Surprise conspiracy theory.

https://sandiegofreepress.org/2017/0.../#.XZ6C_-jYrnE
Spinoff thread!

lol
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 9th October 2019, 11:24 PM   #331
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because the original poster made a claim that Barr said something he didn't say. Here on this board we challenge claims to see if they are true or not, and that should include ones that would support our position just as much as those that don't. You seem to be believing that it is fine to tell lies and give out factoids without bothering to check them as long as they are sort of close to being maybe right, and they support your dialogue. That's not being a Skeptic.

There is a difference between Barr said, "X", and the DoJ said, "X", and if we want to make sure that we represent the truth as honestly as we can, then we need to distinguish that difference and get the facts right.
See, I disagree with that, unless of course Barr has recused himself on the issue.
Which he hasn't.
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 9th October 2019, 11:34 PM   #332
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
See, I disagree with that, unless of course Barr has recused himself on the issue.
Which he hasn't.
It doesn't matter if he recused himself or not, the AG and the DoJ are separate entities. The AG might on occasion speak on behalf of the DoJ, but saying that he said something because the DoJ did is dishonest at best and can leave you vulnerable to attack by opponents. It's better to be precise in your language and facts or you open yourself to being considered no better than Trump.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 10th October 2019, 12:12 AM   #333
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It doesn't matter if he recused himself or not, the AG and the DoJ are separate entities. The AG might on occasion speak on behalf of the DoJ, but saying that he said something because the DoJ did is dishonest at best and can leave you vulnerable to attack by opponents. It's better to be precise in your language and facts or you open yourself to being considered no better than Trump.
The DOJ is vast, but when it comes to the President, the AG is involved - period.
Barr hasn't publicly spoken on the issue except for denying that he was part of Team Rudi to twist Zelensky's arm.
If he in any way didn't support the way the DOJ handled the issue, he would have had to say so by now: he was kept in the loop, after all.

This is the typical "the buck stops with someone else" BS that is at the core of the Trump Presidency.
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 10th October 2019, 02:09 AM   #334
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The DOJ is vast, but when it comes to the President, the AG is involved - period.
Barr hasn't publicly spoken on the issue except for denying that he was part of Team Rudi to twist Zelensky's arm.
If he in any way didn't support the way the DOJ handled the issue, he would have had to say so by now: he was kept in the loop, after all.

This is the typical "the buck stops with someone else" BS that is at the core of the Trump Presidency.
Whether he agreed with it or not is irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether he said it. He didn't. It's that simple. Your determination to try and put the words in his mouth is getting close to 9/11 Truther or Benghazi nut levels. Just accept that there is no record of Barr saying it, that it was DoJ Officials that said it and leave it at that, because that is the truth of it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 10th October 2019, 02:32 AM   #335
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
There is no record of Barr saying it - I never said there was. That was your interpretation.
And that is why I don't understand your tenacity on this.

I stand by my point that a stated opinion of the DOJ is one shared by the AG unless there is reason to believe otherwise.
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 10th October 2019, 08:17 AM   #336
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm not terrified. I'm disgusted with juvenile hypocritical sophistry when principles of US democracy is at stake.
So switch off it.
theprestige 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 10th October 2019, 08:20 AM   #337
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So switch off it.
Uh, No.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 10th October 2019 at 08:38 AM.
acbytesla 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 10th October 2019, 08:24 AM   #338
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There is no record of Barr saying it - I never said there was. That was your interpretation.
And that is why I don't understand your tenacity on this.

I stand by my point that a stated opinion of the DOJ is one shared by the AG unless there is reason to believe otherwise.
I thought your point was that when a DOJ official says something, it's accurate to claim that the AG said it.

I think you need to make a clearer distinction between "accurate claim" and "reasonable inference". And not try so hard to defend the use of the former, when it is the latter that is meant, and it is the latter that is supported by the facts.
theprestige 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 10th October 2019, 08:45 AM   #339
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
I made "Barr said" as a shorthand for "DOJ said" in this case, because it is such high-profile and the office of the AG acknowledged that it was involved.

If you think that Barr can't be sanctioned or impeached for allowing corrupt behavior in his department, even if he didn't sign the actual thing, you are wrong.
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 10th October 2019, 08:58 AM   #340
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Uh, No.
Why not? You're sick of it. You have other options for conversations to have and people to converse with. Why stick with the stuff you're sick of?
theprestige 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 11th October 2019, 09:55 AM   #341
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why not? You're sick of it. You have other options for conversations to have and people to converse with. Why stick with the stuff you're sick of?
Because I don't suffer in silence like a battered wife. A tremendous injustice has been waged on the United States and it must be responded to.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 11th October 2019, 11:01 AM   #342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I made "Barr said" as a shorthand for "DOJ said" in this case, because it is such high-profile and the office of the AG acknowledged that it was involved.

If you think that Barr can't be sanctioned or impeached for allowing corrupt behavior in his department, even if he didn't sign the actual thing, you are wrong.
There's a difference between inferring his responsibility for what was signed, based on his role overseeing the people that signed it, and representing that responsibility by claiming that he signed it himself. Every sane organization acknowledges that a supervisor cannot be completely responsible for the poor choices and bad behavior of a subordinate. A lot of the time, the buck does properly stop with the subordinate.
theprestige 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 11th October 2019, 11:14 AM   #343
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's a difference between inferring his responsibility for what was signed, based on his role overseeing the people that signed it, and representing that responsibility by claiming that he signed it himself. Every sane organization acknowledges that a supervisor cannot be completely responsible for the poor choices and bad behavior of a subordinate. A lot of the time, the buck does properly stop with the subordinate.
That's NOT True. Just a weak appeal to plausible deniability.

Certainly, some acts by subordinates may be excused as one offs. But the boss is genarraly responsible for the direction of the company as well as the acts of the employees. That subordinates are often used as blame and sacrificial lambs is just a sorrowful reminder that the world is not fair.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 13th October 2019, 07:49 PM   #344
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,729
Cool a whole page of nitpicking!

You ever read the last page of a thread to see what it's all about, then find you are interested so you go back and start from the beginning? This is not one of those threads.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 14th October 2019, 07:45 AM   #345
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Cool a whole page of nitpicking!



You ever read the last page of a thread to see what it's all about, then find you are interested so you go back and start from the beginning? This is not one of those threads.
Meadmaker is doing something interesting, though. Especially knowing he's not a Republican and doesn't like Trump.
theprestige 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 14th October 2019, 07:47 AM   #346
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Meadmaker is doing something interesting, though. Especially knowing he's not a Republican and doesn't like Trump.
Interesting but not very self-consistent.
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 14th October 2019, 07:53 AM   #347
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Interesting but not very self-consistent.
Haters gonna hate. I think you're going out of your way to try make his approach as non viable as you can.
theprestige 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 14th October 2019, 08:03 AM   #348
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Haters gonna hate. I think you're going out of your way to try make his approach as non viable as you can.
I think you are prejudiced on this.

Mead changed tack multiple times, from asking for specific crimes, to crimes serious enough for indictment, to crimes for impeachment.

Mead wanted evidence of a crime by Trump, and I gave an example of a Prosecutor naming him as part of a conspiracy for which a close Trump associate got convicted.
And he dismissed it as nothing serious.
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 14th October 2019, 08:34 AM   #349
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I think you are prejudiced on this.



Mead changed tack multiple times, from asking for specific crimes, to crimes serious enough for indictment, to crimes for impeachment.



Mead wanted evidence of a crime by Trump, and I gave an example of a Prosecutor naming him as part of a conspiracy for which a close Trump associate got convicted.

And he dismissed it as nothing serious.
The way I read it, he dismissed it as not being what you claimed.

But the perfect is the enemy of the good. Go back and re-read the OP. Do you think a skeptical look at the legal issues as such is a reasonable thing to attempt?
theprestige 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 14th October 2019, 09:03 AM   #350
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I would assert that asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent is more than opposition research.

I'd also argue its a theft of American resources for personal political gain.

I would assert that it wasn't even really opposition research: it was just a political stink bomb.
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
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 10:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.