U.S. Politics: Confirming The Trumpocalypse

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

People wanted to believe the story to be true but they also offered a healthy skepticism. I seem to remember a lot of statements starting out with "if true..." rather then commenting on it as fact. You're projecting what you expect us to be like rather then what we were like.

 

Some did.  Some did not.  

And bias is not just about accepting something you agree with as fact. it's about the lens through which you judge something.  Even a persons estimation of what constitutes healthy skepticism is skewed by their biases.  

Given what we know about this particular tidbit of information, for example, healthy skepticism from my perspective would be to dismiss it until there's something tangible to discuss here.

 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Some did.  Some did not.  

And bias is not just about accepting something you agree with as fact. it's about the lens through which you judge something.  Even a persons estimation of what constitutes healthy skepticism is skewed by their biases.  

Given what we know about this particular tidbit of information, for example, healthy skepticism from my perspective would be to dismiss it until there's something tangible to discuss here.

 

Why? And which part?

The part where Russia may have compromising material on Trump? 

The part where Trump may be in massive debt to China and not be as rich as he claims?

The part where Russia compromised several others in the US?

The part where he enjoyed piss games?

Why are any of those particularly worthy of dismissal when it comes to Donald Trump? Given what you know of him - a person who repeatedly lies about every single aspect of their life, a person who has been shown to have extramarital affairs and brag about it, a person who has demonstrable business dealings with Russia and China but has not revealed his finances for some reason - what reason is there to be specifically blanket dismissive?

Especially when the source information has been corroborated by multiple intel sources from different agencies?

And especially especially: because Trump has compromised and flopped on virtually every single issue in his campaign, and sometimes done so in the same speech - save one. He has never, not once, spoken out about Russia or Putin. 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why? And which part?

The part where Russia may have compromising material on Trump? 

The part where Trump may be in massive debt to China and not be as rich as he claims?

The part where Russia compromised several others in the US?

The part where he enjoyed piss games?

Why are any of those particularly worthy of dismissal when it comes to Donald Trump? Given what you know of him - a person who repeatedly lies about every single aspect of their life, a person who has been shown to have extramarital affairs and brag about it, a person who has demonstrable business dealings with Russia and China but has not revealed his finances for some reason - what reason is there to be specifically blanket dismissive?

 

We are specifically talking about the golden shower part.

I'm not re-having this conversation with you.  Another poster has already pointed out to you all the reasons why this story should be mostly ignored a lot better and more patiently than I am willing or able to.

 

Quote

Especially when the source information has been corroborated by multiple intel sources from different agencies?

You're making my point for me.  Coming up with a lot of shaky justification for why a story with no legs MIGHT be true, and ignoring all the arguments to the contrary is exactly how 'fake news' sticks.

This golden shower story deserves no serious consideration at this point.

 

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Some did.  Some did not.  

And bias is not just about accepting something you agree with as fact. it's about the lens through which you judge something.  Even a persons estimation of what constitutes healthy skepticism is skewed by their biases.  

Given what we know about this particular tidbit of information, for example, healthy skepticism from my perspective would be to dismiss it until there's something tangible to discuss here.

 

Healthy skepticism is a fine reaction but given all we know about Trump and Russia's actions to get him elected, it's not a stretch to believe what's in those memos. There are some positions that Trump holds towards Russia that do not make sense. I don't have a clue whether they are true or not, I just know that if they were, I would have no trouble believing them and that's a huge issue in and of itself.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Healthy skepticism is a fine reaction but given all we know about Trump and Russia's actions to get him elected, it's not a stretch to believe what's in those memos. 

yes, actually.  It's a major stretch for a whole bunch of reasons.

That's the point.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Swordfish said:

We are specifically talking about the golden shower part.

I'm not re-having this conversation with you.  Another poster has already pointed out to you all the reasons why this story should be mostly ignored a lot better and more patiently than I am willing or able to.

Okay, so you're conflating 'someone who believes fake news' with 'someone who isn't deeply skeptical enough to my liking'. Those words don't mean the same things. 

Just now, Swordfish said:

You're making my point for me.  Coming up with a lot of shaky justification for why a story with no legs MIGHT be true, and ignoring all the arguments to the contrary is exactly how 'fake news' sticks.

Multiple corroborating, credible sources is not 'shaky justification'. It's how news stories actually function. 

Now, I do think that buzzfeed was way too quick on the draw here, and that was bad. But CNN was certainly not - they reported entirely factual information - and more importantly, the intelligence agencies believe it to be credible enough to take or attempt to take action and to debrief others. That is ALSO not typical of fake news. 

It's certainly possible that it's not real and is made up, and I even linked a small point about it that points to that direction. However, it already had enough credibility to not dismiss it out of hand. 

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

yes, actually.  It's a major stretch for a whole bunch of reasons.

That's the point.

Feel free to list those reasons.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Okay, so you're conflating 'someone who believes fake news' with 'someone who isn't deeply skeptical enough to my liking'. Those words don't mean the same things. 

No.  I'm not.  If I wanted to do that I'd have siad it explicitly.

I'm talking about why people are likely to believe 'fake news'.  As I quite clearly stated.

 

Quote

Multiple corroborating, credible sources is not 'shaky justification'.

if you don't think the basis for this story is shaky i don't know what to tell you.

Quote

It's how news stories actually function. Now, I do think that buzzfeed was way too quick on the draw here, and that was bad. But CNN was certainly not - they reported entirely factual information - and more importantly, the intelligence agencies believe it to be credible enough to take or attempt to take action and to debrief others. That is ALSO not typical of fake news. 

You keep saying that as if it proves something.  A briefing doesn't mean they think the information is credible.  it could simply mean they want to let someone know this is out there.  Again, this has been explained to you multiple times, you choose to ignore it for reasons that are fairly obvious.

Quote

It's certainly possible that it's not real and is made up, and I even linked a small point about it that points to that direction. However, it already had enough credibility to not dismiss it out of hand. 

No.  It didn't.  Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Elaborate justifications that ignore most of the picture and distort the rest in order to fit a particular pre existing opinion.

There are a ton of red flags here, and zero corroborating evidence. 

You want it to have legs, and so you set about constructing them.  

 

 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Feel free to list those reasons.

The source of the info.  Why it was commissioned.  The lack of coverage by mainstream media.  The plethora of people who've had this info for months, and haven't used it despite having a whole lot to gain by putting it out there,  presumably because it could not be verified. The complete LACK of corroborative evidence to back it up. Probably a handful more that I'm forgetting, but which have been covered extensively in previous pages of this thread.

 

 

 

 

[Rippounet]

I honestly think most leftists/liberals/Trump-haters  don't give a damn about his sexual practices, real or imagined. In fact, liberals tend to be quite open about sexuality, almost by definition (in the American sense of the term). At best/worst, it's a good opportunity for piss jokes.

The possibility of Trump being blackmailed by Russia, on the other hand, is a different can of worms. I don't believe that's true, and obviously this wasn't deemed newsworthy for a long time. It's interesting however that such an accusation prompted both the potus and Russia to react to what is essentially a -poor- tabloid story. Either it was seen as an opportunity to distract from genuine conflicts of interest, either the accusation was seen as serious enough to warrant a comment from both sides -or both. It seems possible someone within the FSB did spread the rumor that they had something on Trump, and that now he has won the election this bit of disinformation is embarassing to everyone.

It's another example of what the news look like today though. This isn't "fake news" really, since there was indeed a -probably fake- report that circulated. But it's an example of what I would call "silly news" i.e. stuff that no one should really care about.

For some reason I'm tempted to see this as the "9/11 effect." In the wake of 9/11, conspiracy theories gained considerable popularity and eventually kind of obscured the fact that some people within the Bush administration did see the attack as an "opportunity" (the word was actually used several times). This sick, twisted perspective on the world should have been the focus of criticism ; instead, way too many people spent their time trying to depict the attacks as a "false flag operation." Though at a glance the conspirationists did seem to criticize Bush's foreign policy, they actually didn't help rational discussion on the developing Bush doctrine.
I'd say we have something similar here. Silly accusations on Trump being blackmailed by Russia only obscure the fact that this is a US president with an unconfortable view of what the US's Russian policy ought to be. In the long run this is likely to help Trump since anyone criticizing his dangerous friendship with Putin could be dismissed as a "golden shower" conspirationist in the future.

Sad!

[Kalbear]

Just now, Swordfish said:

No.  I'm not.  If I wanted to do that I'd have siad it explicitly.

I'm talking about why people are likely to believe 'fake news'.  As I quite clearly stated.

You didn't clearly state it, well...clearly.

Just now, Swordfish said:

if you don't think the basis for this story is shaky i don't know what to tell you.

You could tell me why you think it isn't shaky.

Just now, Swordfish said:

You keep saying that as if it proves something.  A briefing doesn't mean they think the information is credible.  it could simply mean they want to let someone know this is out there.  Again, this has been explained to you multiple times, you choose to ignore it for reasons that are fairly obvious.

The FBI doesn't investigate or request warrants to 'let people know things are out there'. But again, we already have information saying that intelligence departments consider at least two sources credible, as they've provided high-value information in the past. We don't even need to say that because they had briefings that it is credible - we can simply take them at their word when they say 'the sources are credible' and believe they think the sources are credible. 

Just now, Swordfish said:

No.  It didn't.  Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  Elaborate justifications that ignore most of the picture and distort the rest in order to fit a particular pre existing opinion.

There are a ton of red flags here, and zero corroborating evidence. 

You want it to have legs, and so you set about constructing them.  

I agree that there is no corroborating evidence, and what exists is circumstantial. That is problematic, which is why I said I don't know for certain that it is true. But I don't need to have elaborate positions to think it's true. Really, the only one I have is "Trump has continued, repeatedly, to defend Russia and Putin despite massive pressure from press, GOP, Democrats and intelligence agencies - why?" 

And one answer that fits is 'because Russia has blackmail material on Trump". It doesn't mean that it's the reason or true, and I freely concede that, but it certainly fits the information we have. 

Note that this rumor has been going around about Trump for something like 3 years now. Intelligence people have also thought that this was likely. Politicians and intel folks have said that Trump's behavior about Russia is bizarre. You can dismiss that as well, and that's cool, but this is hardly some weird-ass claim out of left field. 

You still haven't answered the question - why is this information so incredible it should be dismissed out of hand? What information do you possess that makes it so incredibly unlikely that it shouldn't even be talked about?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm talking about why people are likely to believe 'fake news'.  As I quite clearly stated.

Comparing this to "fake news" is disingenuous at best. The only way this qualifies as "fake news" is if the intelligence agencies in question didn't brief Trump regarding these reports. You are conflating it to "fake news" when you talk about why people might believe "fake news" in connection to this story.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The source of the info.  

A previous source of high value intelligence that was deemed credible by multiple intel agencies, along with ANOTHER source that was also deemed credible. Both of whom apparently would be totally burned if this turned out to be false. 

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Why it was commissioned.

Opposition research uncovering bad information is not exactly surprising, no? It's also unclear that this is oppo research; Jeb Bush denies it, for instance.

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 The lack of coverage by mainstream media.  

Their inability to corroborate many parts of it so far does make it less likely to be true, though with this sort of thing they tend to be exceedingly careful given the harm it can cause. 

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The plethora of people who've had this info for months, and haven't used it despite having a whole lot to gain by putting it out there,  presumably because it could not be verified.

One could say the same thing about the DNC hack, yet the reason that got held back had nothing to do with verification and more to do with the politics of the time. 

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The complete LACK of corroborative evidence to back it up. Probably a handful more that I'm forgetting, but which have been covered extensively in previous pages of this thread.

Again, that's problematic, but that also means that it needs to be investigated, not dismissed. 

Another way to say it is this: if you have claims by a credible source, you don't dismiss them. You investigate them. 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Comparing this to "fake news" is disingenuous at best. The only way this qualifies as "fake news" is if the intelligence agencies in question didn't brief Trump regarding these reports. You are conflating it to "fake news" when you talk about why people might believe "fake news" in connection to this story.

Even then it's not fake news. The definition came about from websites purposely writing false stories in order to make money. This is not that.

Thought this was a pretty good interpretation of what have so far.

 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Comparing this to "fake news" is disingenuous at best. The only way this qualifies as "fake news" is if the intelligence agencies in question didn't brief Trump regarding these reports. You are conflating it to "fake news" when you talk about why people might believe "fake news" in connection to this story.

I'm talking about the power of confirmation bias.  Which applies to both 'fake news' wahtever that is, and peoples strong desires to believe stories like this.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

A previous source of high value intelligence that was deemed credible by multiple intel agencies, along with ANOTHER source that was also deemed credible. Both of whom apparently would be totally burned if this turned out to be false. 

Opposition research uncovering bad information is not exactly surprising, no? It's also unclear that this is oppo research; Jeb Bush denies it, for instance.

Their inability to corroborate many parts of it so far does make it less likely to be true, though with this sort of thing they tend to be exceedingly careful given the harm it can cause. 

One could say the same thing about the DNC hack, yet the reason that got held back had nothing to do with verification and more to do with the politics of the time. 

Again, that's problematic, but that also means that it needs to be investigated, not dismissed. 

Another way to say it is this: if you have claims by a credible source, you don't dismiss them. You investigate them. 

You keep saying this.

By all accounts, it's been investigated.  

You act like no one knew about this until yesterday.

These are the exact same types of 'appeal to ignorance' arguments the birthers used to make.

 

[Kalbear]

Heh. There's another amusing point - Trump says that he's extremely careful because there are cameras everywhere and who knows who could be listening.

Which we have proof that he was not particularly careful in the past, given the Access Hollywood tape. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm talking about the power of confirmation bias.  Which applies to both 'fake news' wahtever that is, and peoples strong desires to believe stories like this.

Except, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, no one is actually believing the story or claiming it is true, merely that it is possible. 

Again, you'd have a point if the FBI didn't consider it plausible enough to order a wiretap on its basis. Or the ODNI give a briefing. Or state that the sources were credible. I don't have to believe or disbelieve anything based on the information that the report had; I can simply look who is considering it at least credible to look into to believe that it is...worth looking into. And as I pointed out, the good thing is that it has a lot of specific data points that make it falsifiable. Unlike the birther story, this has tons of data that can be investigated and shown to not corroborate. 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

57 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

One might even say that single payer is the worst form of health care system, aside from all the others that have been tried from time to time.

If Trump was found to have been blackmailed by Russia in some way (e.g. in his cabinet picks and/or certain policies), is that impeachable? If blackmailing is a crime then is being blackmailed also a crime? Are you a victim as well as a criminal?

I think it all depends on what acts a person commits because of the blackmail.  I'm not sure simply appointing people who view Russia favorably is a crime. I know that if you give classified or sensitive information to unauthorized people, you are guilty of a crime, no matter the reasons. 

Back in the cold war days when I was in counterintelligence, coercion was the #3 reason people betrayed their country. (money was #1 and ideology was #2).  

[Mudguard]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Feel free to list those reasons.

The main reason for me is that many news organizations and the intelligence agencies have had these reports for months, and still no one has been able to corroborate any of the details that matter.  It's not for lack of trying either.  I watched a clip where Maddow talked to an NBC reporter that had access to the report for months, has been trying to corroborate the details, but still has nothing to show for it.  Things like Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, being in Prague have yet to be corroborated.  Here's a report that apparently debunks the claims that Cohen was making a bunch of nefarious deals in Prague.

Quote

CNN’s Jake Tapper reported Wednesday morning that intelligence officials looked into allegations from an explosive unsubstantiated memo that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in late August to meet with Russian officials, and found that it was a different Michael Cohen who visited the city.

Cohen strongly denied the charges Tuesday, saying that he had never been to Prague. The Washingtonian reported that two sources at the University of Southern California confirmed that Cohen was in Los Angeles at the time he was supposed to have been in Europe.

Tapper seemingly confirmed Cohen’s story. “People tried to run that down and concluded it was a different Michael Cohen. It was a Michael Cohen with a passport from another country, same birth year, different birth date,” he said.

Cohen played a huge role in the report.  If all of that was false, why believe any of it?  Are people going to argue that the other Cohen must have been the one making all those nefarious deals with Russia?  

Why haven't the intelligence agencies been able to corroborate the reports yet?  The CIA lacks the resources and connections that this one British intelligence agent has?  I find that hard to believe.

Another thing is the lack of supporting evidence for a report that was supposedly commissioned as opposition research.  What use is opposition research that completely lacks supporting evidence and cannot be used against Trump?  Seems to me that the ex-intelligence officer reeled in some suckers willing to pay for useless information that he may have just made up.   If any of this was real, don't you think that the information would have been verified and used during the campaign?

All this added up make me extremely skeptical about the report, and I have very little expectation that anything important gets verified because they've had many months to do so and still nothing.  If anything, the more people look into the details, the more errors are found.