Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Windy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:25 am

Absentia wrote:I don't know what kind of authorities get cited on a Gamergate forum, but I'm inclined to believe that the Director of the CIA knows more about what Russian intelligence is doing than you or I do. I can't empirically prove that he's telling the truth, but I can stack up a lot of corroborating testimony from other people in a position to know. You could argue that they're all lying, but that would sound a lot like, well, a conspiracy theory.


Yes, misinterpreting what these authority figures say is also pretty common for conspiracy theorists. I've already seen this a thousand times. He literally said he doesn't know if Trump engaged in any criminally liable behavior.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they're usually logically sound, but they rely too much on circumstancial evidence. Crimson can craft whatever fancy narrative he wants, but I've already seen this a thousand times.

You think this evidence is convincing because you lack experience. I've seen delusional optimists crushed enough times to know that hopium amounts to nothing.

Crimson wrote:I can empirically prove he's telling the truth.


"Empirically prove"
Posts a conspiracy theory
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Crimson847 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:26 pm

Windy wrote:Yes, misinterpreting what these authority figures say is also pretty common for conspiracy theorists. I've already seen this a thousand times. He literally said he doesn't know if Trump engaged in any criminally liable behavior.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they're usually logically sound, but they rely too much on circumstancial evidence. Crimson can craft whatever fancy narrative he wants, but I've already seen this a thousand times.

You think this evidence is convincing because you lack experience. I've seen delusional optimists crushed enough times to know that hopium amounts to nothing.


Windy wrote:
Crimson wrote:I can empirically prove he's telling the truth.


"Empirically prove"
Posts a conspiracy theory


Windy, I begin to think it's you who needs to broaden their perspective. You seem to think that "collusion" is a crime, which tells me you're at least as enbubbled as the blind liberals you detest so much. Collusion, as the administration and its defenders will happily tell you, is not a crime. It could certainly involve a crime--say, if Trump paid Russia to hack the DNC or offered state secrets in exchange for info--but simply receiving or even intentionally seeking information from a foreign government about a political opponent is not a crime. Indeed, they allege that this in fact happens all the time in politics, primarily citing the Steele dossier (which consisted of information from Russian sources).

And as much as I hate to admit it, the reason why they can get away with that is because they have a point: Trump's GOP opponents, and later the Clinton campaign, did in fact hire a guy to get dirt on Trump from the Russians. Liberals will argue that that's different because they didn't approach the Russian government directly, but given that many of Steele's sources were also government officials that distinction is weak and doesn't seem to be having much effect outside the faithful.

So, no, this is not some earthshaking revelation that will bring Trump crashing down. Even his base is now willing to accept that collusion occurred, but they're not remotely willing to abandon him over something that is not a crime or even unprecedented. If that's what you thought discovering mere "collusion" would result in, you were dreadfully mistaken. If you really think I'm hopeful about the chances of Trump being hounded from office in Nixonian disgrace as a final and cathartic end to his career and this whole Trumpian epoch, then you yourself are making unjustified assumptions about what your political opponents believe rather than bothering to ask what they actually think.

If you can understand why you did that, then you'll have the tools to understand why, to your frustration, others persist in doing the same thing no matter how much you make fun of them.
  • 5

Last edited by Crimson847 on Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Absentia » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:28 pm

Windy, all I'm going to say is you have a very strange definition of optimism and leave it at that.

Crimson847 wrote:Brennan wasn't revealing some secret bombshell information; he was just restating things that are already public knowledge. He's already said in the past that he's not basing his predictions about Trump going down on secret information...and good for him, because if he was blabbing classified intelligence or secret information about an investigation while it's still ongoing, that would be incredibly irresponsible of him.


I'm sure that his public views are colored by what he knows privately. If nothing else, I expect that if this was a Sham Witch Hunt fabricated by the FBI he would probably know about it.
  • 5

User avatar
Absentia
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:46 am
Location: Earth
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Crimson847 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:49 pm

Absentia wrote:Windy, all I'm going to say is you have a very strange definition of optimism and leave it at that.

Crimson847 wrote:Brennan wasn't revealing some secret bombshell information; he was just restating things that are already public knowledge. He's already said in the past that he's not basing his predictions about Trump going down on secret information...and good for him, because if he was blabbing classified intelligence or secret information about an investigation while it's still ongoing, that would be incredibly irresponsible of him.


I'm sure that his public views are colored by what he knows privately.


Maybe. Former officials typically retain their security clearances, but unless they're asked to assist the new administration (which the Trump administration rather pointedly did not ask of any senior Obama officials, apparently in another breach of tradition) it's apparently rare for them to actually use them, except to get "historical access" to old files when writing their memoirs. IIRC Comey and Hayden have already said they don't use their security clearances so they don't much care if they're revoked, and I don't see a reason for Brennan to have done any differently.

Just wait for Mueller's report. Reading the tea leaves to try and figure out what he knows or doesn't know based on what political actors are saying on Twitter is a mug's game.

Absentia wrote:If nothing else, I expect that if this was a Sham Witch Hunt fabricated by the FBI he would probably know about it.


Sure. The investigation need not be a sham witch hunt to fail to dent Trump personally, though. It just needs to fail to turn up any new and more damaging revelations than what's already publicly known.
  • 6

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby blehblah » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:12 pm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/former-us ... -1.4788770

That was followed late Thursday by a joint letter from 12 former senior intelligence officials that called Trump's action "ill-considered and unprecedented." They said it "has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech."

The signees included six former CIA directors, five former deputy directors and former director of national intelligence James Clapper. Two of the signees — Clapper and former CIA director Michael Hayden — have appeared on a White House list of people who may also have their security clearances revoked.


For emphasis, "six former CIA directors, five former deputy directors and former director of national intelligence James Clapper".

These are not your typical left-wing shrinking violets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 8da8038e87

William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014. He oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

[...]

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.



There seems to something which is not a Deep State backlash on the go. This is solidarity amongst what can be generally considered a rather Republican, military-industrial-intelligence crowd against the actions of the current POTUS. That is, in America, without precedent.

Politico reported:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... ism-782898

A dozen former top intelligence officials, representing previous Republican and Democratic administrations, issued a letter late Thursday supporting former CIA Director John Brennan and lambasting President Donald Trump’s move to revoke his security clearance.

The rare statement from the former officials — including former CIA directors who served under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — comes one day after Trump pulled Brennan’s clearance and said he would evaluate clearances for other former intelligence officials, including two who signed on to the pro-Brennan statement.

That move from the White House “has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” the dozen ex-intelligence officials wrote in their joint letter.

“You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information.”

Those signing the letter were former CIA Directors William Webster, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and David Petraeus; former CIA Deputy Directors John McLaughlin, Stephen Kappes, Michael Morel, Avril Haines and David Cohen; and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.


Surely, that is a circling of the wagons, but isn't the typical narrative that the military-industrial-intelligence types go after Democrats? Trump is promising, and acting, to ensure money keeps flowing into the coffers of everyone involved, so you'd figure with the hawks in-charge of the henhouse, this crowd would be happy.

They aren't, and they spell-out why.

From the same Politico article:

In announcing the revocation of Brennan’s clearance, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders read a statement from Trump on Wednesday that denounced the Obama-era CIA director for what he called “lying,” adding that Brennan had “leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this administration.”


You can call these people idiots, you can call them partisan, you can call them all sorts of creative things, but generally speaking, you are best advised to not call them liars. Selective with the truth, especially when an administration inserts itself into the curation of raw intelligence data with the aim of arriving at a predetermined conclusion (invade Iraq!), or to otherwise further aims... sure. Liars? Thems is fightin words.

Back to the CBC article:

Trump on Wednesday openly tied his decision to strip Brennan of his clearance — and threaten nearly a dozen other former and current officials — to the ongoing investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with his campaign. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump again called the probe a "rigged witch hunt" and said "these people led it!"

"So I think it's something that had to be done."


Trump didn't need to do that. He could have said something like, "Look, these folks aren't being given intelligence material after they leave their posts, so while traditionally they keep their clearance for a period of time, I didn't see a need to do so. Essentially, this is nothing more than a policy change which is in the best interests of enforcing the widely practiced 'least level of privilege' orthodoxy of security."

Lawyers said the revocation appeared to be within the president's authority. But they noted the power play also could be used to reinforce a case alleging obstruction of justice, following the president's firing of former FBI director James Comey and his repeated tweets calling for the investigation to end.

Patrick Cotter, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York and a longtime white-collar defence lawyer, said a prosecutor could argue Trump's targeting of clearances was intended as a warning that "if you contribute to, participate in, support the Russia probe and I find out about it, I'm going to punish you," but it is likely not obstruction in itself.

But, he said, the move would be a "powerful piece of evidence" for prosecutors as part of a pattern to demonstrate an intent to use presidential power in connection with the probe.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, agreed.

"What it shows is that the president is fixated on the Russia investigation, he's angry about it and he wants to do everything he can to discourage or slow down the investigation," he said.

Special counsel Mueller and his team have been looking at Trump's public statements and tweets as they investigate whether the president could be guilty of obstruction.

"I don't think it advances the criminal obstruction case, but I think it's factually relevant," said Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer. "I think it shows the state of mind and intent to interfere or impede any unfavourable discussion of his potential connection to Russia."

Former CIA directors and other top national security officials are typically allowed to keep their clearances, at least for some period. But Trump said Wednesday he is reviewing the clearances of several other former top intelligence and law enforcement officials, including Comey and current senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr. All are critics of the president or are people who Trump appears to believe are against him.


The official explanation, that Brennan could no longer be trusted with his clearance, was problematic as soon as Trump said he was also considering revoking the clearances of others. Him going a step further and saying that it is, essentially, because of the "rigged witch hunt" isn't helpful, but neither was it much of a secret.
  • 4

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Ceiling_Squid » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:28 pm

Even simpler, I see it as a strong arm tactic and a lashing-out simply due to spite. Trump doesn't like people who criticize him. He revoked clearance as a bully tactic, not due to any actual threat posed by said clearance.

It's a threat using a power available to him. Petty, angry, and yes, I think it's intended as a means of discouraging others to speak out against him. He's got a history of fighting the ideal of (critical) free speech with bluster.

Our president is a childish bully. I'm glad to see a show of solidarity from former intelligence officials. It's the appropriate response to a dickheaded move.
  • 3

User avatar
Ceiling_Squid
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Windy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:45 pm

Crimson847 wrote:Windy, I begin to think it's you who needs to broaden their perspective. You seem to think that "collusion" is a crime, which tells me you're at least as enbubbled as the blind liberals you detest so much. Collusion, as the administration and its defenders will happily tell you, is not a crime. It could certainly involve a crime--say, if Trump paid Russia to hack the DNC or offered state secrets in exchange for info--but simply receiving or even intentionally seeking information from a foreign government about a political opponent is not a crime. Indeed, they allege that this in fact happens all the time in politics, primarily citing the Steele dossier (which consisted of information from Russian sources).


I think you let yourself get emotionally attached to politics and you're letting it cloud your logic. An objective person wouldn't allow wild conjecture to fill them with hopium.

What's happening here is that a bunch of people who have never been to a conspiracy theory forum before are unaware that they sound exactly like one. Well almost, most conspiracy theory forums are aware that they're conspiracy theorists.

So, no, this is not some earthshaking revelation that will bring Trump crashing down. Even his base is now willing to accept that collusion occurred, but they're not remotely willing to abandon him over something that is not a crime or even unprecedented. If that's what you thought discovering mere "collusion" would result in, you were dreadfully mistaken. If you really think I'm hopeful about the chances of Trump being hounded from office in Nixonian disgrace as a final and cathartic end to his career and this whole Trumpian epoch, then you yourself are making unjustified assumptions about what your political opponents believe rather than bothering to ask what they actually think.


Ah, but the great thing in the era of virtue signalling is you don't have to care about whether Trump actually gets removed from office because of Russia, you only need to worry about whether you can convince yourself that you were right.
  • 1

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby NathanLoiselle » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:03 pm

Hey! I so too do know what the inside of a conspiracy theory thread looks like!
  • 0

User avatar
NathanLoiselle
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:49 am
Location: You'll Never Know!
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Crimson847 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:41 am

Windy wrote:I think you let yourself get emotionally attached to politics and you're letting it cloud your logic.


Nobody gets involved in politics as you or I do without getting emotionally attached to politics--as mentioned before, it isn't very "rational" for an individual to spend their time this way. That clouds everyone's logic, with the exception of those who remain completely uninvolved in politics, who unfortunately by definition cannot get involved in politics. Anyone who tells you they're an objective observer of politics is feeding you a line of bull. I can't fix "you're biased". What I can fix, though, is "your logic is wrong".

With that in mind, can you point to any specific logical or factual errors?

An objective person wouldn't allow wild conjecture to fill them with hopium.


What claim that I've made do you believe is wild conjecture? And hope of what, exactly?

What's happening here is that a bunch of people who have never been to a conspiracy theory forum before are unaware that they sound exactly like one. Well almost, most conspiracy theory forums are aware that they're conspiracy theorists.


I used to be a 9/11 Truther. I read the conspiracy sites and forums avidly. You know what I rarely saw fellow truthers do? Say "you know what, I read the NIST report and it actually makes fair points; I think they're right that Islamist extremists were behind 9/11 and not the government." If they did that, they wouldn't have been truthers anymore. Is that the new hotness on the conspiracy web these days--hearing your opponents out and conceding their central point?

I admit it's been awhile; maybe things have changed. Or maybe that dog won't hunt.

Ah, but the great thing in the era of virtue signalling is you don't have to care about whether Trump actually gets removed from office because of Russia, you only need to worry about whether you can convince yourself that you were right.


I was wrong. About a great many things, from my assessment of Hillary to my understanding of the priorities of large portions of the Democratic and Republican bases to my predictions about the 2016 GOP primary and general election. No doubt I still am wrong about a great many things. And the glorious thing about that is it means I had the opportunity to learn more in the last two years about politics than I did in the previous eight. If I'm wrong again, bring it on.
  • 5

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Windy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:47 am

Crimson847 wrote:Nobody gets involved in politics as you or I do without getting emotionally attached to politics--as mentioned before, it isn't very "rational" for an individual to spend their time this way. That clouds everyone's logic, with the exception of those who remain completely uninvolved in politics, who unfortunately by definition cannot get involved in politics. Anyone who tells you they're an objective observer of politics is feeding you a line of bull. I can't fix "you're biased".


I'm politically neutral, I hate everyone, any bias I might have comes from my extreme misanthropy, not my political loyalties. I'm more open to the possibility of conspiracy theories being true than most people, and there's nothing more annoying than that one guy who likes to act coy, posting wild conjecture, and making vague claims. They intentionally lead the audience to a specific conclusion but avoid actually making any real claims so they can pretend that it's the audience's fault for reaching that conclusion when it turns out to be literally nothing.

What I can fix, though, is "your logic is wrong".


How does your logic reconcile itself with the fact that your entire argument is an appeal to authority? An authority that may or may not even agree with you, I'm not really sure because I thought we were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia but apparently even if Trump didn't break any laws you're still somehow correct?

With that in mind, can you point to any specific logical or factual errors?


This kind of thinking is a trap. One of the reasons why conspiracy theories get anywhere is because they're logically sound and you technically can't prove that it didn't happen.

What claim that I've made do you believe is wild conjecture? And hope of what, exactly?


Without concrete evidence of anything, every claim is just wild guessing. Even your claims aren't concrete, which makes it easier to backpedal later when it turns out to be a nothingburger. Everyone's been tiptoeing around actually making a concrete accusation on exactly what Trump actually did that's illegal while coyly trying to invoke imagery of Russian hackers. I've seen this a thousand times, if there was anything of substance in this shitshow, they would be direct instead of playing these childish games. You accuse Trump supporters of backpedaling, yet we've gone from "Trump colluded with Putin to overthrow to democracy" to "Trump may have not even done anything illegal".

I used to be a 9/11 Truther. I read the conspiracy sites and forums avidly. You know what I rarely saw fellow truthers do? Say "you know what, I read the NIST report and it actually makes fair points; I think they're right that Islamist extremists were behind 9/11 and not the government." If they did that, they wouldn't have been truthers anymore.


Have you considered that maybe your past as a 9/11 truther is an indication that you're predisposed towards being a conspiracy theorist? It's quite common for people who change their opinions on things still end up retaining the same behavior and thinking patterns that led to those opinions in the first place.

Is that the new hotness on the conspiracy web these days--hearing your opponents out and conceding their central point?


Actually the new hotness is to archive everything to use as evidence later.

I was wrong. About a great many things, from my assessment of Hillary to my understanding of the priorities of large portions of the Democratic and Republican bases to my predictions about the 2016 GOP primary and general election. No doubt I still am wrong about a great many things. And the glorious thing about that is it means I had the opportunity to learn more in the last two years about politics than I did in the previous eight. If I'm wrong again, bring it on.


The glorious thing is I was right about everything.
  • 1

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Crimson847 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:32 pm

Windy wrote:I'm politically neutral, I hate everyone, any bias I might have comes from my extreme misanthropy, not my political loyalties. I'm more open to the possibility of conspiracy theories being true than most people, and there's nothing more annoying than that one guy who likes to act coy, posting wild conjecture, and making vague claims. They intentionally lead the audience to a specific conclusion but avoid actually making any real claims so they can pretend that it's the audience's fault for reaching that conclusion when it turns out to be literally nothing.


Or, alternately, so later on they can argue they were right about everything all along regardless of what happens. Yes, I can imagine that would be annoying.

How does your logic reconcile itself with the fact that your entire argument is an appeal to authority?


When appeals to authority are fallacious, what makes them fallacious is that the authority is not relevant to the claim in question. For instance, if I claim Colgate must be the best toothpaste because LeBron James told me so in a TV ad, that's fallacious because although King James is certainly a bona fide expert on playing basketball, as far as I know he doesn't know any more than you or I do about dentistry. So citing him as an expert on basketball tactics would be reasonable, but citing him as an expert on toothpaste would be fallacious.

In this case, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the foremost authority on the planet on the question of "what is Donald Trump's current defense against the Russia investigation?" is Donald Trump's defense team and Trump himself. What they say isn't necessarily 100% likely to be the right answer to that question (in theory they could be lying, though I don't know why you'd give your own defenders a fake defense to use), but it's far more likely to be right than my own opinion or anyone else's opinion. Fair?

On the question of whether Trump's defenders are right on the law, this is a more complex question that's easier to get wrong, but I think the best people to consult are lawyers experienced in this area of law, both those supportive of Trump and those who are not. If several of the lawyers who support him contradict what the Trump team says, that tells me the Trump team is probably wrong on the law. If several opponents agree with what they say, that tells me they're probably right. Again, I can't be 100% certain, but that approach is much more likely to lead me to the correct answer than just going with whatever I personally think. Fair?


An authority that may or may not even agree with you, I'm not really sure because I thought we were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia but apparently even if Trump didn't break any laws you're still somehow correct?


I'm not saying that the left as a whole has been right on this. The endless insistence that Trump is a traitor doesn't seem to be justified by actual evidence, just the sort of speculation Brennan has been feeding and a need to rationally explain his warmth toward Putin. If Trump were successfully quashing all investigations into his activity that would be one thing--if no more evidence is forthcoming, you gotta do your best with what you have. But as long as Mueller's investigation continues and remains independent, I'm for waiting to see what he turns up, not tainting the investigation by jumping to conclusions.

I'm not saying Brennan has been right about everything either. He had to publicly backtrack his assertions in March after implying that he knew the Russians have something on Trump (feeding speculation that he had secret info on the Russia investigation). The NYT asked him directly if he knew anything he wasn't sharing and he backpedaled immediately. So I'm not arguing that the man is a beacon of honesty and forthrightness.

What I claim is simply that in the one statement that Absentia quoted, Brennan is correct on the basic facts. There are indeed many unanswered questions about what went on between Trumpworld and Russia during the election. According to Trump and his defense team themselves, there was collusion, in that the campaign tried to get info on Hillary from the Russians (but they argue that collusion is not a crime and happens all the time in politics, so he shouldn't be removed over it). The evidence that financial crimes were also committed in Trumpworld is in Manafort's indictment. I pointed this out not because I'm interested in defending the left's narrative of the election, but to demonstrate my point that Brennan's not secretly slipping info about the investigation to the public, just packaging already-public information in a leading way.

This kind of thinking is a trap. One of the reasons why conspiracy theories get anywhere is because they're logically sound and you technically can't prove that it didn't happen.


They're logically sound if you accept certain premises, chief among them being that there is a reasonably successful conspiracy to suppress the truth and your primary critics are all part of it. Once you question that core premise, the whole edifice falls apart.

But if your point is that I should distrust logically sound arguments, not despite the fact that they're sound but because of it, what do you propose then? Remember, if your proposal makes any sense I'll be obligated to dismiss it.


Without concrete evidence of anything, every claim is just wild guessing. Even your claims aren't concrete, which makes it easier to backpedal later when it turns out to be a nothingburger. Everyone's been tiptoeing around actually making a concrete accusation on exactly what Trump actually did that's illegal while coyly trying to invoke imagery of Russian hackers. I've seen this a thousand times, if there was anything of substance in this shitshow, they would be direct instead of playing these childish games. You accuse Trump supporters of backpedaling, yet we've gone from "Trump colluded with Putin to overthrow to democracy" to "Trump may have not even done anything illegal".


Didn't I mention that the whole reason Trumpworld can get away with this is because they have a point? Haven't I been criticizing people for assuming Trump must be guilty of a serious crime before the investigation has concluded? You seem to be assuming that I'm on board with everything the Democratic base claims or believes, and I'm not sure why.

Have you considered that maybe your past as a 9/11 truther is an indication that you're predisposed towards being a conspiracy theorist? It's quite common for people who change their opinions on things still end up retaining the same behavior and thinking patterns that led to those opinions in the first place.


If I'm not familiar with conspiracy theory forums then I don't know what conspiracy theorists are like, so I must be a conspiracy theorist. If I'm very familiar with conspiracy theory forums then I know too well what conspiracy theorists are like, so I must be a conspiracy theorist. Heads I'm right, tails you're wrong. Very clever.

If I can't win no matter what, though, what's my incentive to play the game?

Actually the new hotness is to archive everything to use as evidence later.


That's not new at all. I'm suing you for false advertising.

The glorious thing is I was right about everything.


Yeah, you're the best.
  • 7

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby NathanLoiselle » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:55 pm

No, I'm the best! Windy is mediocre at the most. :P
  • 0

User avatar
NathanLoiselle
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:49 am
Location: You'll Never Know!
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Windy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:18 pm

Crimson847 wrote:When appeals to authority are fallacious, what makes them fallacious is that the authority is not relevant to the claim in question. For instance, if I claim Colgate must be the best toothpaste because LeBron James told me so in a TV ad, that's fallacious because although King James is certainly a bona fide expert on playing basketball, as far as I know he doesn't know any more than you or I do about dentistry. So citing him as an expert on basketball tactics would be reasonable, but citing him as an expert on toothpaste would be fallacious.


Appeals to authority are always fallacious. Logical fallacies don't require context, they attack the inherent structure of the argument. Except for the slippery slope meme, fuck that meme. This isn't even really an appeal to authority, you're taking their words, adding your own interpretations to it, and asserting that your own interpretations have authority.

In this case, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the foremost authority on the planet on the question of "what is Donald Trump's current defense against the Russia investigation?" is Donald Trump's defense team and Trump himself. What they say isn't necessarily 100% likely to be the right answer to that question (in theory they could be lying, though I don't know why you'd give your own defenders a fake defense to use), but it's far more likely to be right than my own opinion or anyone else's opinion. Fair?

On the question of whether Trump's defenders are right on the law, this is a more complex question that's easier to get wrong, but I think the best people to consult are lawyers experienced in this area of law, both those supportive of Trump and those who are not. If several of the lawyers who support him contradict what the Trump team says, that tells me the Trump team is probably wrong on the law. If several opponents agree with what they say, that tells me they're probably right. Again, I can't be 100% certain, but that approach is much more likely to lead me to the correct answer than just going with whatever I personally think. Fair?


Well, if I was you and several lawyers contradicted what Trump said I would go study the law and figure it out for myself, or refuse to take a position.

What I claim is simply that in the one statement that Absentia quoted, Brennan is correct on the basic facts. There are indeed many unanswered questions about what went on between Trumpworld and Russia during the election. According to Trump and his defense team themselves, there was collusion, in that the campaign tried to get info on Hillary from the Russians (but they argue that collusion is not a crime and happens all the time in politics, so he shouldn't be removed over it). The evidence that financial crimes were also committed in Trumpworld is in Manafort's indictment.


All of these vague claims and "unanswered questions" mean absolutely nothing. I've seen more evidence that Obama is secretly funding terrorist groups and they're still not convincing enough.

They're logically sound if you accept certain premises, chief among them being that there is a reasonably successful conspiracy to suppress the truth and your primary critics are all part of it. Once you question that core premise, the whole edifice falls apart.

But if your point is that I should distrust logically sound arguments, not despite the fact that they're sound but because of it, what do you propose then? Remember, if your proposal makes any sense I'll be obligated to dismiss it.


Shit I mixed up "valid" with "sound".

Didn't I mention that the whole reason Trumpworld can get away with this is because they have a point? Haven't I been criticizing people for assuming Trump must be guilty of a serious crime before the investigation has concluded? You seem to be assuming that I'm on board with everything the Democratic base claims or believes, and I'm not sure why.


Absentia implies Trump committed a serious crime based on what someone else said
I can empirically prove it

If you're going to intentionally lead the audience to a specific conclusion you could at least have the courtesy not to blame them for it.

If I'm not familiar with conspiracy theory forums then I don't know what conspiracy theorists are like, so I must be a conspiracy theorist. If I'm very familiar with conspiracy theory forums then I know too well what conspiracy theorists are like, so I must be a conspiracy theorist. Heads I'm right, tails you're wrong. Very clever.

If I can't win no matter what, though, what's my incentive to play the game?


Now you know how I feel every time I'm right about everything and then everyone else moves their goalposts.
  • 0

User avatar
Windy
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 11:41 am
Show rep

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby blehblah » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:31 pm

I am certainly anything but an expert in logic, but the "context" thing caught my eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Authority

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

Tip: Question authority -- or become the authority that people look to for answers.
  • 4

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Of Trump, Russia, and tapps

Postby Learned Nand » Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:48 am

I'm confused as to what fact or conclusion is actually in dispute here.
  • 3

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron