TRUMP 2016

[Aimless]

I am absolutely serious. While his reasoning about Klyushin is indeed based on extremely circumstantial evidence, it is nevertheless based on more than just Klyushin's boasting, as is indicated by one of the linked threads. He makes unjustifiably strong inferences but his habit is not in principle very different from inferring various things from currency fluctuations immediately following the Brexit referendum. Like I said, you have to take it for what it is. Abramson's approach is to piece together a compelling narrative from disparate facts and observations that others have reported. Over the course of this process he makes tenuous links appear stronger than more cautious observers would, afaict based on the belief that weak evidence becomes stronger if it fits into a compelling narrative that is believed a priori to be true and considered to be supported by many other lines of evidence of varying degrees of quality. Although questionable, this is a common belief and I believe you'll find that you yourself have, on many occasions in the past, committed yourself to similar approaches.

[Loki]

I am absolutely serious. While his reasoning about Klyushin is indeed based on extremely circumstantial evidence, it is nevertheless based on more than just Klyushin's boasting, as is indicated by one of the linked threads. He makes unjustifiably strong inferences but his habit is not in principle very different from inferring various things from currency fluctuations immediately following the Brexit referendum. Like I said, you have to take it for what it is. Abramson's approach is to piece together a compelling narrative from disparate facts and observations that others have reported. Over the course of this process he makes tenuous links appear stronger than more cautious observers would, afaict based on the belief that weak evidence becomes stronger if it fits into a compelling narrative that is believed a priori to be true and considered to be supported by many other lines of evidence of varying degrees of quality. Although questionable, this is a common belief and I believe you'll find that you yourself have, on many occasions in the past, committed yourself to similar approaches.

His shtick is combining a whole lot of info into a narrative. He's unreliable when creating a narrative. That's a reason to dismiss his arguments. Do you have no standards?

You're just whatabouting now. Yes, analysis that comes right after an event is usually less than reliable. How's that an excuse to use a similar quality of evidence months after an event?

I apply a far higher burden of evidence when using my real name. I don't expect anyone to use what I say here as definitive evidence of some kind of a serious crime.

I don't think he is making absurd claims. I've believed that Trump is/was involved in a criminal conspiracy with Russia since before the election.

I do agree that some of the evidence he has posted is not up to the demands he's placing on it (i.e google translations of tweets he says exists, but doesn't link to), but I've also yet to see any serious refutation from you or Fuzzy of the general substance of what he's saying. Just demands that we don't take him seriously because he is, according to you, a conspiracy nut.

It's not an unreasonable belief. But it's one that requires a substantial amount of evidence to be made in public, especially by someone claiming expertise in the area.

So the fact that he spreads conspiracies and uses flimsy evidence doesn't discredit him in your eyes? Do you not care about a source's reputation?

[Steely Glint]

It's not an unreasonable belief. But it's one that requires a substantial amount of evidence to be made in public, especially by someone claiming expertise in the area.

There is a substantial amount of evidence out there that Trump did a conspiracy. There's new story comes out about it approximately every two weeks. I dunno if you heard of this guy - Muller? Meller? Milller? Something like that. Anyway he's doing an investigation on it, so apparently he reckons there might be something to it and I heard he's a pretty serious guy.

This goes back to the last time I had this conversation with wiggin and Fuzzy - are you really just going to sit there any pretend that these claims by Abramson are just being made in a vacuum? Like, we don't already know a ton about what went on with Trump and Russia, and that Abramson is the first person in the world to think, hey, maybe 2016 wasn't entirely above board? Like he's the first person to suggest that certain events in 2013 might be related to 2016?

So the fact that he spreads conspiracies and uses flimsy evidence doesn't discredit him in your eyes? Do you not care about a source's reputation?

He's not a 'source'. A 'source' is someone who says X happened and expects you to take them at their word.

He's laying out a chain of reasoning, and providing evidence. He has shown his working. It doesn't matter who he is, if he's wrong you should be able to actually show us the flaws in his reasoning. But you haven't. You tried with the 'actual text of the scope of Mueller's investigation ' thing, but that was based on a deliberately narrow reading of the point he was trying to make, so no marks for that one.

I think we've all grown out of the stage of quoting logical fallacies at each other, but that's like a textbook ad hominem right there.

[Loki]

There is a substantial amount of evidence out there that Trump did a conspiracy. There's new story comes out about it approximately every two weeks. I dunno if you heard of this guy - Muller? Meller? Milller? Something like that. Anyway he's doing an investigation on it, so apparently he reckons there might be something to it and I heard he's a pretty serious guy.

This goes back to the last time I had this conversation with wiggin and Fuzzy - are you really just going to sit there any pretend that these claims by Abramson are just being made in a vacuum? Like, we don't already know a ton about what went on with Trump and Russia, and that Abramson is the first person in the world to think, hey, maybe 2016 wasn't entirely above board? Like he's the first person to suggest that certain events in 2013 might be related to 2016?

Just because there might really have been a conspiracy doesn't say anything about the quality of Abramson's evidence for such a conspiracy. Most of what he presents is either misleading or unrelated to the argument he's making.

He's not a 'source'. A 'source' is someone who says X happened and expects you to take them at their word.

He's laying out a chain of reasoning, and providing evidence. He has shown his working. It doesn't matter who he is, if he's wrong you should be able to actually show us the flaws in his reasoning. But you haven't. You tried with the 'actual text of the scope of Mueller's investigation ' thing, but that was based on a deliberately narrow reading of the point he was trying to make, so no marks for that one.

I think we've all grown out of the stage of quoting logical fallacies at each other, but that's like a textbook ad hominem right there.

Um, questioning the credibility and credentials of someone making an argument is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking someone for reasons unrelated to the argument. It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss an argument by someone who's not qualified to make that argument and has a history of making terrible arguments.

You have just classically described how the conspiracy theorist builds their web of delusion.
It's the hallmark of a solid conspiracy theory that everything fits together into the whole, that it's all connected. Which is one of the signs that it's a conspiracy theory because the real world is messier than that. Even in science and math

That's exactly what I meant. Everything about Abramson's 100-tweet threads shouts conspiracy. A lot of vaguely related evidence that is merged into a neat whole through a whole lot of tortured logic.

[Steely Glint]

Just because there might really have been a conspiracy doesn't say anything about the quality of Abramson's evidence for such a conspiracy.

Though it does undermine your argument Abramson shouldn't be believed because he's saying there's a conspiracy.

Most of what he presents is either misleading or unrelated to the argument he's making.

I'm sure you're pretty busy right now and will get around to providing examples soon.

Um, questioning the credibility and credentials of someone making an argument is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking someone for reasons unrelated to the argument. It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss an argument by someone who's not qualified to make that argument and has a history of making terrible arguments.

If I have a history of being terrible at maths, according to Loki, and then I say 2 + 2 = 4, then... 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 any more? The entire mathematical structure of the universe changes when I utter those words?

If his arguments aren't reasonable, you should be able to tell me why they aren't reasonable and why the connections he's making don't follow. Simply repeating that he's not credible doesn't cut it.

I mean, if you just can't be bothered I'd get that.

But if you're trying to pull a fast one because you're not comfortable with the implications, re: how debased US political culture actually is behind the veneer of Very Serious People having Very Serious And Very Non-Partisan Discussions and Not Coming to Hasty Conclusions About Other Very Serious People Being, For Example, Utterly Corrupt then I shall be cross.

[LittleFuzzy]

I am going to preface this by pointing out that while Loki has called him a conspiracy theorist or the next closest thing, I have not. I don't think he is one. I think he's obsessed and he gets erroneously fixated on minor or irrelevant material in his effort to make sure we don't forget anything.

Abramson's approach is to piece together a compelling narrative from disparate facts and observations that others have reported. Over the course of this process he makes tenuous links appear stronger than more cautious observers would, afaict based on the belief that weak evidence becomes stronger if it fits into a compelling narrative that is believed a priori to be true and considered to be supported by many other lines of evidence of varying degrees of quality.

You have just classically described how the conspiracy theorist builds their web of delusion.
It's the hallmark of a solid conspiracy theory that everything fits together into the whole, that it's all connected. Which is one of the signs that it's a conspiracy theory because the real world is messier than that. Even in science and math

[RandBlade]

Trump's now retweeting Britain's evil (my term) "far right" hate group "Britain First" which is a despicable anti-Islam organisation that split from the BNP as the BNP wasn't extreme enough for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42166663

[Lewkowski]

Trump's now retweeting Britain's evil (my term) "far right" hate group "Britain First" which is a despicable anti-Islam organisation that split from the BNP as the BNP wasn't extreme enough for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42166663

Like I wouldn't mind retweeting a video where it shows Isalmic Terrorists doing shitty things but the video is not even factually correct. Its like he doesn't even do more than just take a cursory glance at something before mouthing off.

[Timbuk2]

Just when you thought the low-rent President's Twitter escapades couldn't sink any lower.

This is appalling.

It was Coulter who Tweeted the original video - Trump follows Coulter on Twitter. Sort of xenophobic bigot Trump admires I suppose. And now he's Re-Tweeting videos of a group known for going into the streets in gangs and hunting anyone who looks a bit Muslim.

[Aimless]

Lewkowski for president.

[Steely Glint]

'Britain first' was what the guy who murdered Joe Cox shouted before he killed her.

[Aimless]

People all over the west are loving this.

[RandBlade]

They're infamous liars that are never factually correct. They don't give a shit about whether something's true or not just want to cause hste and division.

[Lewkowski]

They're infamous liars that are never factually correct. They don't give a shit about whether something's true or not just want to cause hste and division.

Which is a problem because Islamic Terror is a big issue and Trump picked quite possibly the stupidest way to to shine attention on it.

[Aimless]

I must say I can definitely get behind the idea to give James O'Keefe the Putziler Price for excellence in journalistic self-pwnage.

[RandBlade]

I may not respect her much but I'm glad even Theresa May publicly criticised Trump for sharing the vile Britain First videos. Now he's attacking her.

A public spat between the PM and President is normally only for fictional Christmas movie Love Actually, if there's one thing that will be as threatening to May as "being savaged by a dead sheep" it is a Twitter spat with this POTUS.

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

Theresa May must be feeling pretty pleased with herself right now.

Note to world leaders: if you want to be popular, start a twitter feud with Donald Trump.

[Timbuk2]

Indeed, it's quite something when you have politicians from other countries calling May 'A Great World Leader'.

[RandBlade]

Well indeed. Islamic Terror is a problem but hate groups like Britain First that spread nothing but false lies undermine that. If you need to lie about your opponent rather than find real issues to criticise then that implies your opponent is not actually all that bad and tarnishes the real issues as lies.

[Steely Glint]

The New York Times has a piece about Trump trying obstruct justice again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/u...?smid=tw-share

The silence from the GOP is, of course, deafening.

[Loki]

Flynn got off light. I'd be amazed if he's not cooperating with the feds.

[Ominous Gamer]

Twitter Link

[Ominous Gamer]

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

[RandBlade]

Impeach Trump now.

[Steely Glint]

Indict the living shit out of all of them.

[Aimless]

They need to make one final attempt at passing the comically shitty tax "reform" bill and I will be disappointed with anything that doesn't land Trump, Kushner and Sessions in prison so I can wait a little bit longer.

Flynn flipping was expected but still interesting considering the discussion from a few months ago about Trump possibly trying to assure his cronies that he'd pardon them. Given Flynn's stature you'd have to wonder who they're expecting to be able to go after based on his testimonial. Consider Kushner's possible role in that business with the UNSC resolution for example.

[Aimless]

And there it is: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...contact-russia

[Flixy]

And there it is: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...contact-russia

I can't even imagined the stupidity Trump will sink to when his own family gets legal problems. I wouldn't even be surprised if his reaction will cause him more problems than the actual investigation.

Then again, I'm not sure anything can surprise me at thise point.

[EyeKhan]

I can't even imagined the stupidity Trump will sink to when his own family gets legal problems. I wouldn't even be surprised if his reaction will cause him more problems than the actual investigation.

Then again, I'm not sure anything can surprise me at thise point.

I have to wonder when he'll start firing off pardons.

Fuzzy/ Loki, does he have to wait until a conviction, or can he pardon Flynn right now so he won't feel compelled to help Mueller? And don't even say 'oh, he wouldn't do that, it would look really really bad' because he would. He is really really bad and he doesn't, apparently, try to hide it. (Maybe he is hiding how bad he truly is, but still appears way bad despite the efforts.)