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 !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 6th September 2018, 10:04 AM   #121
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 816
I think it is pretty clear that since we have no idea of the identity of the subversive and no way to cross examine said subversive, there is no reason to believe anything in the fake news op-ed is true. But, it won't hurt to start polygraphing people to see if we smoke out the ones we already know are there. Maybe this will prompt someone to go into Sessions' office, play some loud rap music to wake him up, and scream in his ear that there is a problem that needs attending to.
BrooklynBaby 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 6th September 2018, 10:05 AM   #122
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
On the other hand, "unfitness" can be applied to the impeachment process in a wide range of ways, thanks to the phrasing, "high crimes and misdemeanors". That's why I think it's a better match for what people are wanting, which is to remove the President under any pretext. Impeachment admits a lot more pretexts than the 25th.


No. The test for inability is explicitly described in the amendment. Congress is invoked to resolve disputes about the outcome of the test, because while the test is clear, it is not immune to dispute.


Certainly. Likewise, "made to pass the test of ability under duress" would fall under the "unable" category.

But the two questions are very different. "Is the president unable to act in the role, despite appearances?" is a much narrower question than "is the president acting in the role so badly that he should be removed?". Thus, since both questions require two thirds of Congress to support the desired outcome, impeachment is a much better fit for pursuing that outcome. One obvious reason this is so is that for the impeachment process, Congress doesn't have to explore the President's inner motives, only the external results. If the President is behaving badly, Congress can impeach him on that basis alone. If it's a 25th Amendment dispute, Congress has to actually answer the question of mental health, instead of simply examining the outcome.
Nope: the opposite. Impeachment is very narrow and the 25th Amendment was expressly created in recognition of that and the need to deal with "unable."

Impeachment (and conviction):
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
Giordano 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 6th September 2018, 10:05 AM   #123
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not sure that it does. While it plays directly into the "resistance" belief that Trump is unfit, it also plays directly into the Trump base belief that there's an unelected bureaucracy that's trying to undermine the results of the 2016 election. It's not a given that the first message will be more important than the second message. It will certainly help polarize things, but the overall effect is hard to gauge.
Trump's lunatic base already believed that 100%. It's not going to serve to get them to the polls for the midterms, especially since it paints a picture of all those other non-Trump republicans being in agreement that Trump is bad.

I don't see the behavior of his base changing at all, in any way as a result of the letter.
__________________
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 6th September 2018, 10:05 AM   #124
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I guess I'm having a hard time grasping exactly what the big bombshell is supposed to be here.

We already knew that a lot of Trump's inner circle don't like him and if you don't think at least some of that inner circle don't think the ship is sinking (regardless of whether or not you think it is sinking and indeed regardless of whether or not it actually is) and are taking steps to make sure they have a seat in the lifeboats you're naive to the point of insanity.

Stripped from all the "Pull Trump's string to see what crazy nonsense he spouts off to feed the media machine" language all we're left with is somebody in the White House doesn't like Trump and is intentionally making things difficult for him which... raise your hand if you couldn't have guessed that a week ago?
The writer is confirming what we've suspected, not what we already knew. There was no shortage of skeptics brushing off rumors of discontent in the top brass of the Whitehouse, "liberal fake nus", let alone a conspiracy to sabotage Trump's more extreme efforts.
Venom 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 6th September 2018, 10:05 AM   #125
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,837
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If there's only one anonymous source with no confirmation, then yes, an article is suspect. Most journalists know this. Most readers should too.
Uh, yeah. But that's not the case here is it? There are other sources saying the same thing and I know you've been exposed to that information.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 6th September 2018, 10:06 AM   #126
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,858
I've been having the same types of problems this morning with quotes. My apologies to The Prestige too!
Giordano 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 6th September 2018, 10:06 AM   #127
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,968
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.
Are the editors the same people who were the editors more than 30 years ago?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 6th September 2018, 10:06 AM   #128
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,167
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?
You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source. They typically do. The problem is that readers do not, which means readers cannot assess the credibility of the source. That the source is someone within the administration doesn't automatically grant them credibility.

Quote:
All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.
Not in the least. The question isn't whether the editor is lying, but whether the author is lying. I cannot evaluate the reliability of the author based on the NYT knowing who the author is.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th September 2018, 10:07 AM   #129
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,123
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

The NYT editor gave confirmation that the letter is some sort of "legit". Someone in the admin was willing to claim authorship.
Which is not the same thing as actually being the author.

Quote:
All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.
Or that the editor believes he found the author, but was misled. Or that the editor believes his source is probably the real author, and that this is sufficient due diligence to justify publication.

All you're left with is speculating that the editor actually found the real author.

I'm not sure why it's important, though.
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 6th September 2018, 10:07 AM   #130
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,689
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.
How is a high-level member of Trump's administration an "entrenched bureaucrat"?

Also, bonus points to you for throwing shade on the veracity of the op-ed just over an hour after you claimed it was evidence of your conspiracy theory:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Or the author handed the text to a cut-out, who forwarded it to the New York Times under their own name. The editor would get in direct contact with the cut-out, who would claim to be the real author. The editor would have no way of knowing it was a trick.

Why throw just some **** at the wall when you can throw all the ****!
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 10:08 AM   #131
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,030
You know I hope we can get to a point where every piece of new information presented accomplishes something then verifying what the tribes already thought they knew.

So this is evidence of Trump being a monster who eats babies, proof of a deep state assault on the President, the end of democracy, the beginning of the revolution, proof that the press is vital, proof that the press is evil, and bringing dancing back to that town from Footloose.

Good, glad we cleared that up.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 6th September 2018, 10:08 AM   #132
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,167
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Uh, yeah. But that's not the case here is it? There are other sources saying the same thing and I know you've been exposed to that information.
Are there? All the sources are anonymous. How do you know it's not just the same source going through different channels? That's an old trick.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th September 2018, 10:09 AM   #133
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,123
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Are the editors the same people who were the editors more than 30 years ago?
Wrong question.

Are the editors today better people than the editors of 30 years ago?
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 6th September 2018, 10:10 AM   #134
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,138
Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. 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 6th September 2018, 10:10 AM   #135
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,543
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Nope: the opposite. Impeachment is very narrow and the 25th Amendment was expressly created in recognition of that and the need to deal with "unable."

Impeachment (and conviction):
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

25th Amendment:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
I'm actually soliciting your opinion on this...

...what do you think unable means? Obviously it could mean whatever a person wants it to mean. But what would it mean to you if you were put into that situation?
BobTheCoward 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 6th September 2018, 10:11 AM   #136
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Trump's lunatic base already believed that 100%. It's not going to serve to get them to the polls for the midterms, especially since it paints a picture of all those other non-Trump republicans being in agreement that Trump is bad.

I don't see the behavior of his base changing at all, in any way as a result of the letter.
You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.
BrooklynBaby 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 6th September 2018, 10:12 AM   #137
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,123
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. : p lol
I thought you were deprecating speculation.
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 6th September 2018, 10:12 AM   #138
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,718
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
'Lodestar' is an anagram for 'dares lot'. I bet there are other clues hidden in the text.
How about "rat doles"?
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner 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 6th September 2018, 10:12 AM   #139
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It's also a few other things including "leads rot" and "least rod."
East Lord. It's Vlad himself.
Hevneren 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 6th September 2018, 10:12 AM   #140
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,770
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source.
But the person who puts the op-ed out DOES know the source. It's only anonymous to other people. It's not like some bloke calling the NYT from a payphone to spout off unverified claims.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 6th September 2018, 10:14 AM   #141
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,770
Originally Posted by Hevneren View Post
East Lord. It's Vlad himself.
Store Lad? Maybe it's a Walmart employee.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 6th September 2018, 10:14 AM   #142
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,689
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.
As if simple, unsophisticated things are difficult to understand...
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 10:18 AM   #143
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps.

[...]

Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
Despite the obvious problems with Duranty's work, the NYT published it anyway, and it took them another fifty years to admit their mistake. Appeals to the editorial integrity of the New York Times, and to the reliability of its due diligence, do not impress.
Simply confirming the identity of a high-level member of the administration who submitted an Op-Ed a few weeks ago is not exactly as difficult as was attempting to ensure the accuracy of a story about life under a highly secret dictatorship in 1932. Further, the legal repercussions of being in error differed enormously.
Giordano 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 6th September 2018, 10:20 AM   #144
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You seem to be confused about what the problem is with anonymous sources. The problem isn't that the reporter (or in this case, the NYT editor) doesn't know the identity of the source. They typically do. The problem is that readers do not, which means readers cannot assess the credibility of the source. That the source is someone within the administration doesn't automatically grant them credibility.



Not in the least. The question isn't whether the editor is lying, but whether the author is lying. I cannot evaluate the reliability of the author based on the NYT knowing who the author is.
Eh.
I think I personally just don't care.

I'm feeling very like this about it all. (you only need to watch about 45 seconds)

https://youtu.be/i9CjBtv7j78?t=2m55s

I don't think hardly anyone besides conservatives are mad at the NYT for running it. Whose mind has really been changed as a result of them publishing it?
__________________
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 6th September 2018, 10:21 AM   #145
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,858
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm actually soliciting your opinion on this...

...what do you think unable means? Obviously it could mean whatever a person wants it to mean. But what would it mean to you if you were put into that situation?
Sorry Bob- I'm not interested. Have fun with anyone who might want to discuss it at this level.
Giordano 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 6th September 2018, 10:23 AM   #146
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,167
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But the person who puts the op-ed out DOES know the source. It's only anonymous to other people.
Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility. And it's why having only one anonymous source in a story is considered really weak, and good journalists try to avoid it whenever possible, and frequently avoid publishing if that's all they can get.

Quote:
It's not like some bloke calling the NYT from a payphone to spout off unverified claims.
It may not be "some bloke", but it's still unverified claims.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th September 2018, 10:24 AM   #147
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,689
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
I think it is pretty clear that since we have no idea of the identity of the subversive and no way to cross examine said subversive, there is no reason to believe anything in the fake news op-ed is true. But, it won't hurt to start polygraphing people to see if we smoke out the ones we already know are there. Maybe this will prompt someone to go into Sessions' office, play some loud rap music to wake him up, and scream in his ear that there is a problem that needs attending to.
You mean the problem that your guy has in choosing trustworthy and reliable people for his administration?

Seems like that problem can be solved by simply voting for someone who isn’t a corrupt and incompetent authoritarian. Maybe give it a shot next election cycle.

On a related note, good to see you wear your authoritarian colors proudly. Good luck in smoking out subversives, mein herr.
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 10:27 AM   #148
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,138
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility. And it's why having only one anonymous source in a story is considered really weak, and good journalists try to avoid it whenever possible, and frequently avoid publishing if that's all they can get.
Everyone is in agreement that the evidence for the author's claims is weak.
It's simply more interesting than anything else.
__________________
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 6th September 2018, 10:29 AM   #149
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,138
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
You don't understand a thing about Trump's base, but you should if you're going to comment on us. Standing in the dark and screaming at the boogie man is fun, but when the lights go on he always disappears.
So tell me: how is your behavior going to change as a result of the letter?
Has it altered your beliefs in any way?
__________________
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 6th September 2018, 10:31 AM   #150
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,543
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Sorry Bob- I'm not interested. Have fun with anyone who might want to discuss it at this level.
It's cool. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
BobTheCoward 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 6th September 2018, 10:32 AM   #151
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,398
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Those "Adults in the Room" are as responsible as parents who do their kid's homework, thus making it impossible for the teacher (voter) to find out that the pupil is failing in all subjects.

I'm leaning more and more towards Kelllyanne, because she seems to be the brightest of the bunch and possibly under the greatest stress (also personal) to let off steam.
This happens everyday, everywhere. Do you think that Steve Jobs was brilliant, or did he surround himself with people smarter than him, who made him look good? If not a good example, I am sure you can think of others.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 6th September 2018, 10:36 AM   #152
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,770
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
As if simple, unsophisticated things are difficult to understand...
Hillary must feel pretty vindicated by now.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 6th September 2018, 10:36 AM   #153
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,398
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Here's Kellyanne's reaction to the oped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=N-NEzyVVioc

No way it was her.

I think it was someone who wants to be the next Henry Kissinger, like they were putting in their application with the illuminati with this stunt. lol
Did Kissinger steal your lunch money? I sense a fixation.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 6th September 2018, 10:38 AM   #154
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,770
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes. And that's the usual setup with anonymous sources, and the usual problem with anonymous sources. The reader doesn't know, so the reader can't evaluate credibility.
The person's from the Trump admin, Zig. Ok, let's say it's Pence. Now what?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 6th September 2018, 10:38 AM   #155
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,968
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Wrong question.
No, because if they're not, then what the editors of 30 years ago did is irrelevant to a story published yesterday.

Quote:
Are the editors today better people than the editors of 30 years ago?
I don't know. What evidence do you have pertaining to the editors of today?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 6th September 2018, 10:44 AM   #156
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,474
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Did you listen to the NYT podcast with the editor, explaining how he confirmed it came from someone in the admin?

The NYT editor gave confirmation that the letter is some sort of "legit". Someone in the admin was willing to claim authorship.

All you're left with is speculating that the NYT editor lying after that.
Yeah. Someone in the administration (the NYT knows who) CLAIMS they wrote the article.

They could be lying. So, therefore, we can blame the NYT for sloppy journalism.

See, they didn't actually WATCH the person write the letter, so how do they know the person is telling the truth?

It's called, "Seriously grasping at straws."
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 6th September 2018, 10:47 AM   #157
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,858
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
[snip]


It may not be "some bloke", but it's still unverified claims.
Yes, two different aspects.

The identity of the author of the Op-Ed piece as a high level member of the Trump administration was verified by the NY Times and I am fully convinced that this identification was correct.

But of course and as with any statement by any individual, what that high level member of the administration actually claimed in the Op-Ed, considered alone, must be initially viewed as "unverified." Except in this case what was written in the Op-Ed closely parallels what has been stated by many others in positions to know, including several who have been willing to be identified by name. It is also fully consistent with what has been publicly observed. The claims are therefore supported by independent information; whether this represents "verified" depends on the level of verification on which one insists.
Giordano 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 6th September 2018, 10:48 AM   #158
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,123
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Simply confirming the identity of a high-level member of the administration who submitted an Op-Ed a few weeks ago is not exactly as difficult as was attempting to ensure the accuracy of a story about life under a highly secret dictatorship in 1932. Further, the legal repercussions of being in error differed enormously.

If it's difficult to verify the claims of a highly secretive dictatorship, that is not an excuse to publish the claims at face value. But that's what the NYT chose to do. And the NYT further chose to stand by that publication for fifty years, even though they knew from the beginning that it was a mistake. This does not speak well of their qualifications as a proxy for our own due diligence.

And that's the point Ziggurat is making. Because the source is anonymous to us, and because there is no independent corroboration that is not anonymous, we cannot do our due diligence in evaluating the claims. We must trust that New York Times has done that for us. But trusting the NYT in that way, on the basis of the information so far provided, is just an abdication of our own responsibility in the matter.

"Trust, but verify," perhaps. But we cannot verify.
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 6th September 2018, 10:49 AM   #159
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,508
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Time to institute polygraphing and find the subversives.
So opposing Donald Trump is now subversive.
Then I am proud to be called a subversive. and have no hesitation in saying that the author of this wants Trump to be an authoritarian dictator.
__________________
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 6th September 2018, 10:50 AM   #160
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,689
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Everyone is in agreement that the evidence for the author's claims is weak.
It's simply more interesting than anything else.
Well, not everyone is in agreement on the weakness of the evidence.

theprestige believes that the op-ed substantiates the "deep state" conspiracy theory:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.

In fairness, he might have posted that before he realized he was supposed to be parroting the "fake news" talking point rather than the "deep state" one.
johnny karate 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
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 07:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.