Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Options
1…102103105107108…137

Comments

  • Options
    #3122
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Possibly, but I suppose himself and Michelle played tiddlywinks.



    Ha, you should be careful using words like that in an Atheist forum, especially when there is no evidence to back it up. This is not the forum to go on about beliefs solely on ones faith for a certain outcome.



    Perhaps you should argue the points I made, not the points you think I made.

    Regardless, you state that the Intelligence community had next to nothing to do with it, when in fact the whole reason it was reported was the belief that this dossier (unconfirmed if it was the same one or not) was briefed by said intelligence community to senior officials including Obama and Trump, which then made it news worthy according to the MSM.

    In this scenario the old LBJ story comes to the fore.



    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/if-youre-denying-youre-losing

    Decent article as well, by a left leaning site which is very pertinent with this story.

    I am sure Obama and Michelle could stay patient for a few nights in Russia. It is a random assumption to think otherwise without evidence.

    Umm it is called an opinion. I make no guarantee it is true. You can have your own opinion. We won't know until it happens. You are dodging the point made with a smart alec statement.

    The intellegence community were not the leak which is the claim Donald Trump made. This is what I have stated and you seem to agree with it before doing flips to put the blame back on them. If I choose to kill someone when Trump next tweets Trump is not responsible for murder.

    I argued the points relevant to the story. You made several with none. I ignored them as a result. You are ducking and diving for a way to blame this on the CIA and Co. and I am not following you off on tangents off of the main story. You have given up arguing that the IC were the leak and Trump was right so that is the end of it as far as I am concerned.

    I am not sure how true that article is and it seems harsh to punish Donald Trump for denying that Russia have a file on him. I presume that is what you are talking about right?


  • Options
    #3123
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I am sure Obama and Michelle could stay patient for a few nights in Russia. It is a random assumption to think otherwise without evidence.

    Bingo! Yet, you assume the same about Trump, with no evidence. Do you know what the word for this is?
    Umm it is called an opinion. I make no guarantee it is true. You can have your own opinion. We won't know until it happens. You are dodging the point made with a smart alec statement.

    You are showing yourself to be a bottle of puerile emotions, with no hard facts or evidence to back up anything you say. As you said yourself, you believe this will be the end of Trump. Belief without evidence, well you are in the wrong forum my friend. You should check out the Hazards of Belief sticky.
    The intellegence community were not the leak which is the claim Donald Trump made. This is what I have stated and you seem to agree with it before doing flips to put the blame back on them. If I choose to kill someone when Trump next tweets Trump is not responsible for murder.

    My what twisted logic you have.
    I argued the points relevant to the story. You made several with none. I ignored them as a result. You are ducking and diving for a way to blame this on the CIA and Co. and I am not following you off on tangents off of the main story. You have given up arguing that the IC were the leak and Trump was right so that is the end of it as far as I am concerned.

    What points were these, that the whole dossier is unverified and that some of the 'facts' laid out has been shown to be false, those points?
    You are the one trying to legitimise a story with as of yet no hard proof or facts to back it up. Next you will be telling me the earth was created in 7 days. Come to me with facts, not emotive idealogical garbage from the scrapheap of the tabloid press.
    I am not sure how true that article is and it seems harsh to punish Donald Trump for denying that Russia have a file on him. I presume that is what you are talking about right?

    As I posted in another post, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.


  • Options
    #3124
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Bingo! Yet, you assume the same about Trump, with no evidence. Do you know what the word for this is?



    You are showing yourself to be a bottle of puerile emotions, with no hard facts or evidence to back up anything you say. As you said yourself, you believe this will be the end of Trump. Belief without evidence, well you are in the wrong forum my friend. You should check out the Hazards of Belief sticky.



    My what twisted logic you have.



    What points were these, that the whole dossier is unverified and that some of the 'facts' laid out has been shown to be false, those points?
    You are the one trying to legitimise a story with as of yet no hard proof or facts to back it up. Next you will be telling me the earth was created in 7 days. Come to me with facts, not emotive idealogical garbage from the scrapheap of the tabloid press.



    As I posted in another post, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.


    This is a collection of random insults and goalposts moving at the speed of light.

    I was arguing that if a video about Trump was released. At no point did I assume the video existed. I argued if a video existed Trump's position would lose his position. I was also arguing as to why if a video of Trump it did not necessarily imply an incriminating video of Obama existed.

    Shall I take you giving up on the argument a signal that you feel I was correct. I never said the accusations in the memo was true. You are changing the argument entirely.

    I made no claim about Trump's guilt. I was merely highlighting the sillyness of your if you deny something I win argument. You have yet to provide evidence that the IC have the link. See your own quote on this matter.

    If you have something to say on the topics of what effect such a video (if it exists) might have on the effect of Trump's career, whether that implies a video of Obama exists that would be embarrassing or on the issue of Trump's claim that the IC leaked the memo then I am happy to continue this discussion.

    These were the topics we originally started on before goalposts started morphing into hoops and moving around. If not I would thank you not to put words in my mouth that I did not say.


  • Options
    #3125
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    They're in the news too!

    Starting to feel very much like one of the essays from Gore Vidal's Decline and fall of the American Empire
    Its worth reading the actual words of the ethics guy.
    Tillerson, the Exxon guy is lauded for his exemplary divestment.
    The suggestion is made that DJT could do better, and maybe he will.
    Its a tricky one, because previous presidents have not been asked to sell off property. Its a lot easier and much more impersonal to sell off bonds and shares, and to resign a directorship from somebody else's company/corporation.
    Trump is a new phenomenon. He is not a career politician financed by business tycoons. He is the tycoon.
    Therefore I think he will set a new precedent for the ethics rules to be followed in this new type of scenario.
    For example, I don't think it would be reasonable to force him to sell off Trump Tower for the duration of the presidency. He might never get it back again if he did. Most Americans will understand this. Maybe not the trump-haters, but they are blinded by their own prejudice and no matter what he does, they will never be satisfied with it.

    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Not necessarily.
    Another plank in his campaign was a commitment to (a) big tax cuts, plus (b) big expenditure on infrastructure and on building up the military. Obviously that involves a massive increase in US public debt
    Not necessarily more debt.
    Military;
    I would envision a far less interventionist period ahead in US foreign policy. Foreign military adventures are extremely costly. Plenty of savings to be made there, while improving pay and conditions for actual servicemen. Trump could also make the US military better equipped while saving money. There is a lot of funny stuff going on in procurement, and the military themselves would welcome some changes. As we know, the Donald has already made his feelings known in regard to certain overly lucrative airplane contracts, even before taking office.

    Infrastructure;
    Spending on infrastructure does not automatically mean extra public expense.
    I'm not going down an economics rabbithole on this, but suffice it to say, if there is surplus labour in an economy, it is often beneficial to use it for public infrastructure projects. Workers bring in taxes. This is particularly effective if the state can create its own money. The Donald understands money, and he understands that a temporary increase in the money supply to stimulate the economy and to generate productive wealth, is a good thing for the economy.
    This is very different to the state borowing money from the IMF or other external sources (plus interest payments) and then using the money to pay off banksters bondholders and speculators, as we did. Increasing their profit is not necessarily productive to the domestic economy, especially when many are foreign based.


  • Options
    #3126
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I was arguing that if a video about Trump was released. At no point did I assume the video existed. I argued if a video existed Trump's position would lose his position. I was also arguing as to why if a video of Trump it did not necessarily imply an incriminating video of Obama existed.

    Ah, ok it is your belief (that word again) that if a video existed (no proof on one exisiting) and was released to the public, Trump would have to step down?
    You don't believe this video exists, but if it did, you believe (that word again) that he would have to step down.
    There are more holes in that rationale then Swiss cheese. Pinning ones hope in non existing videos is a mugs game. What next, videos of the Grassy Knool, fake moon landings, Lizard people?
    Shall I take you giving up on the argument a signal that you feel I was correct. I never said the accusations in the memo was true. You are changing the argument entirely.

    Yet, here you are hyping it up, using it as a method to get your idealogical digs in.
    I made no claim about Trump's guilt. I was merely highlighting the sillyness of your if you deny something I win argument. You have yet to provide evidence that the IC have the link. See your own quote on this matter.

    Yet, he would have to step down if this non existing video emerges. Why speculate on something that does not exist. Next you will be telling us that a diety talks to you, all with no proof mind.

    The Intelligence community have made their own bed in this matter and from decades of interference in politics. Again, look at the Iraq dossier and its history.
    If you have something to say on the topics of what effect such a video (if it exists) might have on the effect of Trump's career, whether that implies a video of Obama exists that would be embarrassing or on the issue of Trump's claim that the IC leaked the memo then I am happy to continue this discussion.

    Why would I waste time talking about a video that does not exist? What a waste of time. It seems this is your prerogative. Can I talk about non existing videos of Hillary Clinton having sex with her long time alleged 'friend' Huma Abedin? No, as its a complete waste of time.

    These were the topics we originally started on before goalposts started morphing into hoops and moving around. If not I would thank you not to put words in my mouth that I did not say.

    It is not I who wants to talk about non-existing video evidence in the belief (that word again) that if a video exits, Trump would have to step down.
    There is a forum here, where such beliefs with zero evidence are given credibility, but the Atheist forum is not one of them. Perhaps post there instead if you cannot handle the burden of proof.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3127
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Ah, ok it is your belief (that word again) that if a video existed (no proof on one exisiting) and was released to the public, Trump would have to step down?
    You don't believe this video exists, but if it did, you believe (that word again) that he would have to step down.
    There are more holes in that rationale then Swiss cheese. Pinning ones hope in non existing videos is a mugs game. What next, videos of the Grassy Knool, fake moon landings, Lizard people?



    Yet, here you are hyping it up, using it as a method to get your idealogical digs in.



    Yet, he would have to step down if this non existing video emerges. Why speculate on something that does not exist. Next you will be telling us that a diety talks to you, all with no proof mind.

    The Intelligence community have made their own bed in this matter and from decades of interference in politics. Again, look at the Iraq dossier and its history.



    Why would I waste time talking about a video that does not exist? What a waste of time. It seems this is your prerogative. Can I talk about non existing videos of Hillary Clinton having sex with her long time alleged 'friend' Huma Abedin? No, as its a complete waste of time.




    It is not I who wants to talk about non-existing video evidence in the belief (that word again) that if a video exits, Trump would have to step down.
    There is a forum here, where such beliefs with zero evidence are given credibility, but the Atheist forum is not one of them. Perhaps post there instead if you cannot handle the burden of proof.
    What's your problem with the word believe? Just because an atheist does not share your juvenile belief in a sky wizard does not mean that atheist is not allowed to use the word believe. Atheists don't believe in gods, that is not the same as not believing in anything. Grow up..

    MrP


  • Options
    #3128
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Ah, ok it is your belief (that word again) that if a video existed (no proof on one exisiting) and was released to the public, Trump would have to step down?
    You don't believe this video exists, but if it did, you believe (that word again) that he would have to step down.
    There are more holes in that rationale then Swiss cheese. Pinning ones hope in non existing videos is a mugs game. What next, videos of the Grassy Knool, fake moon landings, Lizard people?



    Yet, here you are hyping it up, using it as a method to get your idealogical digs in.



    Yet, he would have to step down if this non existing video emerges. Why speculate on something that does not exist. Next you will be telling us that a diety talks to you, all with no proof mind.

    The Intelligence community have made their own bed in this matter and from decades of interference in politics. Again, look at the Iraq dossier and its history.



    Why would I waste time talking about a video that does not exist? What a waste of time. It seems this is your prerogative. Can I talk about non existing videos of Hillary Clinton having sex with her long time alleged 'friend' Huma Abedin? No, as its a complete waste of time.




    It is not I who wants to talk about non-existing video evidence in the belief (that word again) that if a video exits, Trump would have to step down.
    There is a forum here, where such beliefs with zero evidence are given credibility, but the Atheist forum is not one of them. Perhaps post there instead if you cannot handle the burden of proof.

    You said he wouldn't have to resign and stated several of your other beliefs without proof. I countered. You started insulting me and posting gibberish. I have no idea why you started talking about a video that may not exist but insulting me for it seems hypocritical. You have failed to maoe an actual point for several posts now, never mind defend it or back it with evidence. I am done responding to childish insults.


  • Options
    #3129
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    MrPudding wrote: »
    What's your problem with the word believe? Just because an atheist does not share your juvenile belief in a sky wizard does not mean that atheist is not allowed to use the word believe. Atheists don't believe in gods, that is not the same as not believing in anything. Grow up..

    MrP

    I personally have no issue when people use the word believe, especially when they put forward a reasoned and well structured argument with supported evidence to back up a claim.

    However, the poster in question is using belief in the purest religious forum that belief and hope can manifest a favourable outcome. It is kind of like doing 10 hail Mary's instead of the usual 5 will cure a relative of an ailment.

    In a forum such as this where Atheists like me want a higher standard of debate, logic and structured arguments, I would have thought it was self evident that people should not put their faith on a belief solely and purely for self interested purposes with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

    God does not exist because there is no evidence as such. Fine. Yet, it is ok to believe in videos (that do not exist) of Golden showers that will send the president elect packing when there is no evidence of such material.

    I am not sure how any logical and reasonable Atheist can honestly and credibly stand by that logic and reason. In fact, people are using their emotions to come to outcomes, much like the religious people come to outcomes of miracles and godly intervention.


  • Options
    #3130
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    You said he wouldn't have to resign and stated several of your other beliefs without proof. I countered. You started insulting me and posting gibberish. I have no idea why you started talking about a video that may not exist but insulting me for it seems hypocritical. You have failed to maoe an actual point for several posts now, never mind defend it or back it with evidence. I am done responding to childish insults.

    Next time you make wild unsubstantiated claims about non existent videos and their outcomes on the president elect, perhaps you can put forward some proof first. It will make it easier to decipher your posts and its meaning, or lack of.


  • Options
    #3131
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,226 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I personally have no issue when people use the word believe, especially when they put forward a reasoned and well structured argument with supported evidence to back up a claim.

    If a person had 'a reasoned and well structured argument with supported evidence' they would not be using the word 'believe', they would be saying 'know'. That is the whole point of the word.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3132
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    looksee wrote: »
    If a person had 'a reasoned and well structured argument with supported evidence' they would not be using the word 'believe', they would be saying 'know'. That is the whole point of the word.

    Possibly, yet do you think if one uses the word in the context of a political argument and debate it should be free from ridicule, when no evidence is forthcoming?

    People 'believe' lots of crazy things. That is the reason why they are crazy!!!!


  • Options
    #3133
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    I think he will set a new precedent for the ethics rules

    I don't doubt that for a moment, much the same way the last major revision to the code of ethics followed Nixon's presidency and the Watergate scandal. As for the notion of it being ethically acceptable for Trump to maintain his business interests at arms length, the OGE is pretty clear on that;
    Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics wrote:
    So, to be clear,OGE’s primary recommendation is that he divest his conflicting financial interests. Nothing short of divestiture will resolve these conflicts.

    The references in the document to how Tillerson was doing it right seem primarily there to contrast and illustrate how Trump is doing it wrong. As for not being a career politician, running for president and winning rather ends that. He may not have been a career politician in the past but he clearly is now, and by running for president I don't doubt he was made aware of the ramifications should he win. He clearly has to abide by the same minimal ethical standards as everyone else. Of course it would be nice if he could aspire to more than minimal ethical standards but I don't think anyone really sees that happening.


  • Options
    #3134
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    People 'believe' lots of crazy things. That is the reason why they are crazy!!!!

    People similarly believe lots of things as yet unproven on the basis of their assessment of surrounding information and historical context. This is rational. We start with a hypothesis the we suspect will be true and we look for evidence to back it up. We either find supporting evidence, and find the hypothesis true, find contradictory evidence and find it false, or find no evidence either way and call the hypothesis unproven.

    To my mind, these documents about Trump should not have been published without any substantial supporting evidence, as doing so is clearly just mud slinging. That said, Trump's people have employed similar tactics in the election campaign and had he not done so, it is questionable as to whether he'd have won the election. No doubt there will be plenty of mud slinging in all directions over the coming months. It is my belief that some of it is going to stick.


  • Options
    #3135
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    He clearly has to abide by the same minimal ethical standards as everyone else. Of course it would be nice if he could aspire to more than minimal ethical standards but I don't think anyone really sees that happening.
    You're still not getting it. Tillerson only had to give up his job and his bonuses. He took a severe hit, but it was relatively straightforward because he did not own Exxon.
    Its different for an entrepreneur type businessman. Not a different standard of ethics, but different practical means for avoiding a conflict of interest.


  • Options
    #3136
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    You're still not getting it. Tillerson only had to give up his job and his bonuses. He took a severe hit, but it was relatively straightforward because he did not own Exxon.
    Its different for an entrepreneur type businessman. Not a different standard of ethics, but different practical means for avoiding a conflict of interest.

    I understand it, but then again I'm sure Trump's advisers also understood it when he announced an interest in becoming president. The bottom line, as per Shaub's comments, is that this is simply one of the downsides of being president. He doesn't have to give up his wealth, just effectively liquefy his assets and pay off his outstanding debts. The notion of handing over the reigns of his businesses to family seems about as useful in terms of resolving his conflict of interests as John Gilligan passing the stud farm over to his wife. Once he knows he might ever own the businesses he currently owns again at some point in the future, the conflict of interest clearly remains regardless of who is running those businesses in the interim period. This is not something being forced upon him, he choose to run for president and there is no doubt he was made aware of the consequences of succeeding prior to doing so.


  • Options
    #3137
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The Gilligan stud farm was bought with the proceeds of crime. A different thing altogether.
    So you think he should be forced to sell off Trump Tower, just in case there is some conflict of interest? No doubt the rooms will sell well for the next few years, but I can't see that as a conflict of interest, unless Putin block books the penthouse for a year, paying double the normal rates, and doesn't bother showing up. I'm sure the press will be monitoring the situation and will report on any potential conflicts of interests that arise.


  • Options
    #3138
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    smacl wrote: »
    People similarly believe lots of things as yet unproven on the basis of their assessment of surrounding information and historical context. This is rational. We start with a hypothesis the we suspect will be true and we look for evidence to back it up. We either find supporting evidence, and find the hypothesis true, find contradictory evidence and find it false, or find no evidence either way and call the hypothesis unproven.

    This makes some sense of course. However, even if we take this as true, the poster in question did not do this. He made unsubstantiated claims and made a number of emotional leaps of faith to come to his conclusion and outcome. These emotional leaps include that
    a) the allegations are true (when no evidence is there that is)
    b) there are videos showing these allegations in their true form (when there is no evidence as such)
    c) if released Trump would have to resign (when there is no proof that this would be the case, why would he?)

    When challenged, he/she resorted to a faith based reasoning, not an evidence based reasoning, therefore I called him out on it. People seem to have a problem with evidence based reasoning apparently.

    To my mind, these documents about Trump should not have been published without any substantial supporting evidence, as doing so is clearly just mud slinging. That said, Trump's people have employed similar tactics in the election campaign and had he not done so, it is questionable as to whether he'd have won the election. No doubt there will be plenty of mud slinging in all directions over the coming months. It is my belief that some of it is going to stick.

    I think people backslapping each other over this, even though privately they admit these allegations are made up either in part or wholly are like the boy that cried wolf. Because, there may well be a scandal of sorts to emerge, but if all you are saying each and every day is 'Russia, Putin, Trump', with no hard evidence as such, when something concrete emerges the public will be just numb from it all and not really care, it is already happening. The reaction to some to his election is actually quite shameful.


  • Options
    #3139
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Here is Glen Greenwald's take on it. For those who do not know who he is, he is about as left as you can go in the United States. He puts to bed a lot of things the MSM are wrong about. Also note the aggressive stance of the interviewer. New media vs Old, and the old are getting quite anxious i feel.



  • Options
    #3140
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Why would this shorten his term? Even if the sexual allegations are true, why would he have to resign over it?

    If they are true, it also means that Obama may have been caught in such a scandal as well.

    I look at this as the establishment and the intelligence community desperately trying to have leverage against Trump.

    Still waiting on evidence based reasoning on any of the above? (The post that I originally responded believe it or not given where the argument was dragged to).

    Please note the first paragraph appears to be operating under assumption that the allegations are true and the video is released. I gave possible reasons for it (Christians going against him, people getting frightened that it means the rest of the memo is true) in the what if scenario created by the quoted poster. I should point out that these are questions posed by FA and so do not require backing up as they don't make a claim. The question does however create the what if scenario that FA has spent multiple posts screaming is "faith" based.

    The second is based on the possibility of a video that hasn't even been hinted at so far. Never mind the existence or revealing it. To think I was being given out for discussing the possibility of a video that has at least been hinted at in the IC. Again it starts off assuming a video of Trump exists and is released (which is fine, I feel it perfectly legitimate to take part in what if discussions, I do take issue with being insulted for responding in kind)

    The third was the closest to being backed up. I believe the proof was that the IC lied over the Iraq war. Also that they eventually got their hands on it It is an opinion which is fair enough but I pointed out that there are many places the leak could have come from. However the poster in question does take issue with opinions not backed by serious evidence so...


  • Options
    #3141
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Here is Glen Greenwald's take on it.
    Very impressive interview by Greenwald. He was formerly a lawyer specialising in litigation, so the BBC (fake?)news anchor hadn't really much of a chance of riling him ;)

    When she was harping on about Trump V "The CIA" as if the CIA was a respected neutral third party, he pointed out that CIA director Brennan declared support for the democrats.
    I think he should also have pointed out that Brennan will be replaced by Pompeo as soon as Trump takes office, and that should end the spat between Trump and "the CIA".
    That would probably be very obvious to a US audience, but maybe less so to the BBC viewers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3142
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    recedite wrote: »
    Very impressive interview by Greenwald. He was formerly a lawyer specialising in litigation, so the BBC (fake?)news anchor hadn't really much of a chance of riling him ;)

    When she was harping on about Trump V "The CIA" as if the CIA was a respected neutral third party, he pointed out that CIA director Brennan declared support for the democrats.
    I think he should also have pointed out that Brennan will be replaced by Pompeo as soon as Trump takes office, and that should end the spat between Trump and "the CIA".
    That would probably be very obvious to a US audience, but maybe less so to the BBC viewers.

    Pompeo agrees with the CIA in that little spat. In fact I have not heard any of his picks defend Russia yet. They all believe Russia is at fault for the dnc hack.


  • Options
    #3143
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The spat I was thinking about was the more recent declassification of briefings containing the mischievous Kompromat allegations (which they were careful not to actually endorse)

    But anyway, Pompeo says
    “I will continue to pursue foreign intelligence with vigor no matter where the facts lead,” Mr. Pompeo said. He added that he would do this “with regard to this issue and each and every issue.”
    The C.I.A. under his leadership, he said, would provide “accurate, timely, robust and clear eyed analysis of Russian activities.”
    And that's exactly what people should expect of him.


  • Options
    #3144
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    recedite wrote: »
    The spat I was thinking about was the more recent declassification of briefings containing the mischievous Kompromat allegations (which they were careful not to actually endorse)

    But anyway, Pompeo says
    And that's exactly what people should expect of him.

    The media printed them but they were never declassified?

    The CIA can't stop the media printing documents that the CIA didn't even put together. The version printed was the version handed to the fbi (so they didn't make it).


  • Options
    #3145
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Still waiting on evidence based reasoning on any of the above? (The post that I originally responded believe it or not given where the argument was dragged to).

    Why should I provide evidence for the above.
    I asked a question in the first line, why does asking a question have to carry a burden of proof. It is a question. You DO know what a question is right?

    In the second line, the key words are 'if and 'may'. These are qualifiers, You DO know what a qualifier is right?

    The last line is an opinion but you can see:
    exhibit A, my link to the Glen Greenwald interview,
    exhibit B, Patrick Cockburn's piece, http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/patrick-cockburn-dodgy-dossier-is-reminiscent-of-saddams-supposed-wmds-35364567.html

    You have offered nothing, zero, squat, zilch but empty hopeless naive faith filled 'belief'.
    Please note the first paragraph appears to be operating under assumption that the allegations are true and the video is released. I gave possible reasons for it (Christians going against him, people getting frightened that it means the rest of the memo is true) in the what if scenario created by the quoted poster. I should point out that these are questions posed by FA and so do not require backing up as they don't make a claim. The question does however create the what if scenario that FA has spent multiple posts screaming is "faith" based.

    So, you are primarily engaging in a theoretical thought exercise, outside the realms of reality? Can you tell me who shot JFK so?
    The second is based on the possibility of a video that hasn't even been hinted at so far. Never mind the existence or revealing it. To think I was being given out for discussing the possibility of a video that has at least been hinted at in the IC. Again it starts off assuming a video of Trump exists and is released (which is fine, I feel it perfectly legitimate to take part in what if discussions, I do take issue with being insulted for responding in kind)

    Until you hinted at it of course....
    Let me put it this way, the odds of a video existing of golden showers and Trump are about the same as there is an interventionist bearded God. Happy?
    The third was the closest to being backed up. I believe the proof was that the IC lied over the Iraq war. Also that they eventually got their hands on it It is an opinion which is fair enough but I pointed out that there are many places the leak could have come from. However the poster in question does take issue with opinions not backed by serious evidence so...

    So you are admitting now that the Intelligence community are not some paragons of truth, virtue and fact finding? So, you are agreeing with me. Strange, you didn't say that at the start.


  • Options
    #3146
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Why should I provide evidence for the above.
    I asked a question in the first line, why does asking a question have to carry a burden of proof. It is a question. You DO know what a question is right?

    In the second line, the key words are 'if and 'may'. These are qualifiers, You DO know what a qualifier is right?

    The last line is an opinion but you can see:
    exhibit A, my link to the Glen Greenwald interview,
    exhibit B, Patrick Cockburn's piece, http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/patrick-cockburn-dodgy-dossier-is-reminiscent-of-saddams-supposed-wmds-35364567.html

    You have offered nothing, zero, squat, zilch but empty hopeless naive faith filled 'belief'.



    So, you are primarily engaging in a theoretical thought exercise, outside the realms of reality? Can you tell me who shot JFK so?



    Until you hinted at it of course....
    Let me put it this way, the odds of a video existing of golden showers and Trump are about the same as there is an interventionist bearded God. Happy?



    So you are admitting now that the Intelligence community are not some paragons of truth, virtue and fact finding? So, you are agreeing with me. Strange, you didn't say that at the start.

    Tough. You started the topic of the thought exercise not me. When someone responds to your thought exercise of would he have to resign you immediately attack attack attack instead of any form of reasoned debate. I gave several reasons as to why he might have to resign IF such a tape came out and existed. You asked a question about whether he would have to resign IF such a tape existed and came out and gave out when someone respones to your taught exercise.

    I no more hinted or suggested that such a tape existed of Trump than you suggested such a tape existed of Obama. You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have posted in order to insult me about your own misrepresentations.

    On your last point. You have offered nothing, zero, squat, zilch but empty hopeless naive faith filled 'belief'.

    I did not agree with your point that the intellegence services created this as leverage against Trump. You are making the ridiculous assumption that doing one thing wrong means everything ever is your fault. I find it hilarious that you give out about the lack of evidence based reasoning when you entirely refuse or are incapable of it yourself. Remember you don't like any sort of opinion not based on hard evidence. Once again your only attempt at debate has been insults and misrepresenting my argument.


  • Options
    #3147
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    ...the BBC (fake?)news anchor...

    Ugh. Quite possibly the worst thing about a Trump victory is how it has emboldened his supporters to believe that childishness is a useful debating tactic.

    Here's a free clue: "fake" doesn't mean "something I disagree with". Calling every news source that doesn't tell you only what you want to hear "fake news" is about as mature as "I know you are, but what am I?"


  • Options
    #3148
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Tough. You started the topic of the thought exercise not me. When someone responds to your thought exercise of would he have to resign you immediately attack attack attack instead of any form of reasoned debate. I gave several reasons as to why he might have to resign IF such a tape came out and existed. You asked a question about whether he would have to resign IF such a tape existed and came out and gave out when someone respones to your taught exercise.

    I no more hinted or suggested that such a tape existed of Trump than you suggested such a tape existed of Obama. You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have posted in order to insult me about your own misrepresentations.

    On your last point. You have offered nothing, zero, squat, zilch but empty hopeless naive faith filled 'belief'.

    I did not agree with your point that the intellegence services created this as leverage against Trump. You are making the ridiculous assumption that doing one thing wrong means everything ever is your fault. I find it hilarious that you give out about the lack of evidence based reasoning when you entirely refuse or are incapable of it yourself. Remember you don't like any sort of opinion not based on hard evidence. Once again your only attempt at debate has been insults and misrepresenting my argument.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

    I have made out my arguments numerous times as well as being polite enough to back them up with links. You have not done this, while going on about a video that does not exist, as some sort of proof.

    Remember, you believe in certain outcomes which do not have any basis in truth. This is called faith. That is your own issue.

    I just have a higher level of scepticism than you. People are free to believe in fairytales, but you are not free to lecture me about your fairy tales and expect me to swallow whole what you are peddling. Your the priest in this debate, not me.


  • Options
    #3149
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

    I have made out my arguments numerous times as well as being polite enough to back them up with links.

    You have not. You have also not been polite. You have spent this discussion insulting me and not arguing. I have at several points attempted to put them forward and have had them ignored.


  • Options
    #3150
    FA Hayek
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    Christy42 wrote: »
    You have not. You have also not been polite. You have spent this discussion insulting me and not arguing. I have at several points attempted to put them forward and have had them ignored.

    Any points you have put forward have been entirely faith based as you have not backed them up with any link. That is your own issue, not mine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3151
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,888 ✭✭✭Christy42


    FA Hayek wrote: »
    Any points you have put forward have been entirely faith based as you have not backed them up with any link. That is your own issue, not mine.

    So you agree you have not provided evidence as you claimed.


Advertisement