|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Skepticism at WaPo. No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely.
Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary.
Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic).
|
Paul Manafort, real estate shadester connected to other real estate shadesters and also connected to Donald Trump. A common theme with Trump over the decades - and yes, lots of Russian oligarch money is in the mix. This is not proof of anything, but it's no joke.
Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager who resigned over his lobbying work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian government, has taken out over $19 million in home equity loans in New York City in the past five years, in an escalating series of transactions that includes one particularly large and unusual loan from a banker on Trump’s Economic Advisory Council.
...
The raw facts stand out for their strangeness. Since 2012, Manafort has taken out seven home equity loans worth approximately $19.2 million on three separate New York-area properties he owns through holding companies registered to him and his son-in-law Jeffrey Yohai, a real estate investor. They include a condo on 27 Howard Street in Manhattan, a condo in Trump Tower, and a four-story, two-unit brownstone in Brooklyn at 377 Union Street.
...
Federal Savings Bank, a small lender that normally caters to low and moderate-income military veterans, issued Manafort’s wife, Kathleen, a $5.3 million loan, evidently to cover the prior Genesis Capital mortgage, and an additional $1.3 million loan. The loan is also short term, due in January 2018.
This $6.6 million in loans to one customer represents roughly 2.2 percent of Federal Savings Bank’s overall assets, and nearly 11 percent of the bank’s total shareholder equity. The total borrowing cost appears to exceed the equivalent market value of a property of that size in the neighborhood, and it’s also unusual from a risk management standpoint to loan millions of dollars for a home already in default by the same owner.
Adding to the intrigue is the identity of Federal Savings Bank’s founder, CEO, and chairman: Steve Calk, a Trump campaign supporter and member of the president’s Economic Advisory Council.
...
Russo and Termine wonder if the transactions resulted in available cash for Manafort and his family, with successive loans paying off prior ones.
“You’ve got lots of LLCs, lots of properties, lots of transfers to Manafort, his wife, and his kids,” said Termine. “It didn’t smell good, and then added together, it really doesn’t.”
As it happens, Manafort’s son-in-law and occasional business partner, Jeffrey Yohai, was recently sued in federal court for taking money from a real estate partnership for personal use. Celebrity photographer Guy Aroch accused Yohai of selling him stakes in a real estate partnership over a two-year period but then using “most or all of the funds for personal travel; lavish purchases; and/or speculative ventures outside the investment mandates,” according to the lawsuit. Aroch further alleges that Yohai uses his relationship with Manafort to meet wealthy people and sell them on investing in his real estate business.
...
Manafort has also been accused of misusing investor funds. In 2008, a Russian aluminum magnate named Oleg Deripaska sued Manafort in a Cayman Islands court for taking $19 million for investments and failing to explain how the money was used. For at least part of that legal dispute, Manafort could not be found.
...
On Thursday, Politico reported that Manafort was the victim of a blackmail attempt. A note attached to a text from a Ukrainian politician to Manafort’s daughter (and Jeffrey Yohai’s wife) references “bulletproof facts” regarding Manafort’s financial relationship with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who was favored by Russia.
...
Manafort confirmed the authenticity of the text to Politico but said he never responded “directly” to them. The text came in days before the revelation of the $12.7 million Ukrainian payment.
The Intercept
|
On March 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely. Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary. Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic).
Except not a single other member of the Armed Service Committee met with a Russian ambassador during 2016 and atleast one has commented that they never called/met (in the capacity of the Armed Service Committee). That all went through the foreign office.
|
On March 03 2017 03:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I rather have people being honest, and straight up debating/arguing. That's how democracy works, not when you lie, and call out everything as fake if it doesn't match your reality.
Civility is over rate and creates the illusion of being disinterested. It allows people to make arguments if bad faith and provides unearned authority due a perception that lack of emotion means high level thinking.
I don’t extend that level of civility to my own brother, who is in the dog house for voting to endanger my wife and his own sister’s heathcare. I don’t know why people expect it to be extended to anyone acting like as asshat in this thread. Elections impact peoples lives in profound ways. If you don’t want to scrap, don’t talk about politics.
|
On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you.
It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying.
|
On March 03 2017 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Paul Manafort, real estate shadester connected to other real estate shadesters and also connected to Donald Trump. A common theme with Trump over the decades - and yes, lots of Russian oligarch money is in the mix. This is not proof of anything, but it's no joke. Show nested quote +Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager who resigned over his lobbying work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian government, has taken out over $19 million in home equity loans in New York City in the past five years, in an escalating series of transactions that includes one particularly large and unusual loan from a banker on Trump’s Economic Advisory Council.
...
The raw facts stand out for their strangeness. Since 2012, Manafort has taken out seven home equity loans worth approximately $19.2 million on three separate New York-area properties he owns through holding companies registered to him and his son-in-law Jeffrey Yohai, a real estate investor. They include a condo on 27 Howard Street in Manhattan, a condo in Trump Tower, and a four-story, two-unit brownstone in Brooklyn at 377 Union Street.
...
Federal Savings Bank, a small lender that normally caters to low and moderate-income military veterans, issued Manafort’s wife, Kathleen, a $5.3 million loan, evidently to cover the prior Genesis Capital mortgage, and an additional $1.3 million loan. The loan is also short term, due in January 2018.
This $6.6 million in loans to one customer represents roughly 2.2 percent of Federal Savings Bank’s overall assets, and nearly 11 percent of the bank’s total shareholder equity. The total borrowing cost appears to exceed the equivalent market value of a property of that size in the neighborhood, and it’s also unusual from a risk management standpoint to loan millions of dollars for a home already in default by the same owner.
Adding to the intrigue is the identity of Federal Savings Bank’s founder, CEO, and chairman: Steve Calk, a Trump campaign supporter and member of the president’s Economic Advisory Council.
...
Russo and Termine wonder if the transactions resulted in available cash for Manafort and his family, with successive loans paying off prior ones.
“You’ve got lots of LLCs, lots of properties, lots of transfers to Manafort, his wife, and his kids,” said Termine. “It didn’t smell good, and then added together, it really doesn’t.”
As it happens, Manafort’s son-in-law and occasional business partner, Jeffrey Yohai, was recently sued in federal court for taking money from a real estate partnership for personal use. Celebrity photographer Guy Aroch accused Yohai of selling him stakes in a real estate partnership over a two-year period but then using “most or all of the funds for personal travel; lavish purchases; and/or speculative ventures outside the investment mandates,” according to the lawsuit. Aroch further alleges that Yohai uses his relationship with Manafort to meet wealthy people and sell them on investing in his real estate business.
...
Manafort has also been accused of misusing investor funds. In 2008, a Russian aluminum magnate named Oleg Deripaska sued Manafort in a Cayman Islands court for taking $19 million for investments and failing to explain how the money was used. For at least part of that legal dispute, Manafort could not be found.
...
On Thursday, Politico reported that Manafort was the victim of a blackmail attempt. A note attached to a text from a Ukrainian politician to Manafort’s daughter (and Jeffrey Yohai’s wife) references “bulletproof facts” regarding Manafort’s financial relationship with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, who was favored by Russia.
...
Manafort confirmed the authenticity of the text to Politico but said he never responded “directly” to them. The text came in days before the revelation of the $12.7 million Ukrainian payment. The Intercept
I find it extremely bizarre that the intercept of all places would report that story.
|
On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying.
What if the person you are talking to called you a moron at least 50 times? Can you just call them stupid back at that point? Or do we need to take the high ground again?
|
United States42694 Posts
On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying.
Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative.
|
On March 03 2017 03:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. What if the person you are talking to called you a moron at least 50 times? Can you just call them stupid back at that point? Or do we need to take the high ground again?
The person who went into the name calling in the first place was Kwark.
|
Discussion can basically be summed up so far as:
1) Multiple people in Trump's team have either avoided checks and balances, or lied in those checks.
2) Counter argument is that no one should care because nothing bad has come out of it yet.
|
On March 03 2017 03:48 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign.
3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia.
4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. What if the person you are talking to called you a moron at least 50 times? Can you just call them stupid back at that point? Or do we need to take the high ground again? Hmmmm i didn't realize that there was such a long history of acrimony between Kwark and xdaunt
I tried to fill you in a page ago. There is no left leaning person in this thread that Xdaunt has not called a moron or “intellectually dishonest” at some point. Any discussion with him degrades down to personal insults on a long enough time line. We mostly perfected the art of getting their quickly.
Edit: Ok, I saw the edit. You need to understand that most left leaning folks in this thread are so tired of being called stupid and being talked down to we just take the gloves off instantly. You were not here for the might makes right western civilization vs the middle east discussion that had everyones eyebrows raised.
|
On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative.
You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign.
3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia.
4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit.
We've had this discussion many times before. You should take it to this thread if you want to continue it.
|
On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign.
3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia.
4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit.
a known issue; imho best taken to the feedback thread.
|
On March 03 2017 03:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit. We've had this discussion many times before. You should take it to this thread if you want to continue it.
You beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 03 2017 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely. Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary. Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic). Except not a single other member of the Armed Service Committee met with a Russian ambassador during 2016 and atleast one has commented that they never called/met (in the capacity of the Armed Service Committee). That all went through the foreign office.
That's a big change from up to 30 Senate Democrats that met with Russian officials in 2015. Sorry, let me update my rhetoric to match the current tone. McCaskill and others announcing their support for the Iran deal mere days after secret meetings with Russian officials. Waiting for the probe of what really went on behind closed doors. But I'm well aware of things that were fine in 2015 turning sinister in 2016. Because you lost an election.
Now, go contact Democratic Senator Ed Markey. Ask what really went on when he was partying with the Russian Ambassador at the French ambassadors residence. Or wait, that was 2016 so clearly they were at the same party and never met. Absolutely absurd, Senators are involved in treaties and ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments.
|
United States42694 Posts
On March 03 2017 03:48 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:46 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign.
3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia.
4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. What if the person you are talking to called you a moron at least 50 times? Can you just call them stupid back at that point? Or do we need to take the high ground again? Hmmmm i didn't realize that there was such a long history of acrimony between Kwark and xdaunt
I don't hate xDaunt. I don't especially hate anyone in this topic. Mostly I just pity him. He's become emotionally attached to the idea of the Trump platform in the way that a lot of cultists do. You see this with anything from scientology to those MLM housewives who take it super personally if you try and explain to them what a pyramid scheme is. A lot of these movements deliberately create adversarial narratives for this exact reason, if you feel strongly associated with the brand and someone attacks the brand then surely they must be attacking you personally. And that means that you can short circuit the part of the brain that does all the logical processing and skip to feeling angry and defensive. Once you're there then you can dismiss the attack as an act of spite by an enemy, even if it's coming from a friend, and reconcile it in your new world view.
If you tell someone selling their weight loss herbs on facebook that the herb company website says that 95% of independent retailers like them lose money you'll hear
1) You want me to fail
2) You hate people who are their own boss
2a) because you hate women in business
2b) because you hate your own job and can't bear to see anyone else succeed
2c) because you've been destroyed by the corporate propaganda
3) You're jealous
4) You're stupid
5) Why can't you be happy for me like a good friend
etc
If you tell xDaunt that the courts found that Trump's executive order was unconstitutional you'll here
1) The judges hate Trump
2) They just want to stop him making America great again
3) They're part of the establishment and hate Trump's revolution
4) They're educated liberal elites and hate the people who voted for Trump
5) Why can't they just let him do what he was elected to do
It's the same mentality. It doesn't matter that in the first example the friend just wants to help you avoid losing money and in the second example the courts just want Trump to write constituional executive orders. They're emotionally invested in the concept and the people behind the concept deliberately encourage the adversarial narrative as a way to frame anything that disagrees with it as an assault. It's sad. xDaunt is the political equivalent of a lonely military housewife with a garage full of diarrhea inducing all natural organic supplements who is slowly alienating everyone around her with an obsession which is spiraling out of control.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Adam Schiff, along with his co-Cali-Rep Maxine Waters, are known bumbling idiots on the matter of Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
