[Pete Svarrior]

A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

That's why I'm asking about urgency, not big-league-ness.

You continue to dodge my question.

it surprises me

1) i am surprised
2) i am surprised

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me

ok

Yes, if you cut out the parts of the sentences that clearly and explicitly state you're surprised by SOMETHING ELSE, then it might sound like you're being a reasonable human being here. If you pretend that I didn't previously point out that you didn't even come close to answering my question multiple times, you can claim that you were simply unaware. But damn, those pesky Interwebs forums just keep a record of what has been said. How inconvenient; as always when you try to lie, calling your bullshit out is as simple as scrolling up.

Gary, let's make this real simple. Focus for a moment, think about this one real hard and uncle SexWarrior will let you have two scoops of ice cream this evening. I'll even let you hit the quote button since you love doing that so much.

Does it surprise you that many Americans (not you, not your friends) may find an insider threat (not Comey, not Trump, just an insider threat) to be more urgent (not more important, not "bigger") than an outsider threat (not Russia, not Putin, not SexWarrior and his very simple questions)?

Pick one:


YES


NO 

[garygreen]

Does it surprise you that many Americans (not you, not your friends) may find an insider threat (not Comey, not Trump, just an insider threat) to be more urgent (not more important, not "bigger") than an outsider threat (not Russia, not Putin, not SexWarrior and his very simple questions)?

whether or not it would surprise me depends entirely on the nature of the threats.  as both dave and i have said explicitly already.  stop pretending to be dense.

some combinations of internal/external threats would be surprising.  others would not.  this particular combination surprises me.  so my answer is yes.  you can take my answer to be "yes, it surprises me."  as in: affirmative.  i am giving you a positive answer.  of the two images you displayed, i choose the top one.  or: yes.

lol you're almost literally just asking "which is worse, A or B?  JUST ANSWER A OR B, OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIAR."  i dunno what to tell you.  if you don't tell me what A and B are, then i can't give you any answer.  ask less shitty questions.

or here's a thought: maybe just say what your point is instead of constantly obfuscating it with sarcasm and loaded questions.  i mean don't quit being sarcastic; just like, you know, also make a point somewhere along the way.

[Lord Dave]

A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

That's why I'm asking about urgency, not big-league-ness.

Urgency is a factor of big-league-ness, damage potential, and time until damage.


For example, which is a bigger threat: ISIS or American murderers?  Both kill people.  ISIS is far away and has only killed like... What, 200 Americans?  But American Murders have killed thousands this year alone. Should we focus our military on defeating ISIS or American murderers?  The biggest threat seems to be the Americans, the internal threat as they kill more people more frequently.  But ISIS could cause alot of immediate damage and death. (Bombs and mass shootings).


Sorry but you can't break it down into a simple yes or no queastion. 

[Tom Bishop]

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

I am afraid I must question your reading comprehension. The preceding question was about Trump being under oath. It makes more sense that Trump was answering talking about himself being under oath, not Comey.

[Pete Svarrior]

whether or not it would surprise me depends entirely on the nature of the threats.  as both dave and i have said explicitly already.

Right. So it's fair to say, then, that you do not see any reason why an insider threat may be inherently more urgent than an outsider threat.

stop pretending to be dense.

same

some combinations of internal/external threats would be surprising.  others would not.  this particular combination surprises me.  so my answer is yes.  you can take my answer to be "yes, it surprises me."  as in: affirmative.  i am giving you a positive answer.  of the two images you displayed, i choose the top one.  or: yes.

Jesus Christ, finally. You know, if it didn't take you like a whole day to answer a yes/no question, you'd probably find yourself more capable of holding a conversation (other than having a conversation with someone who already agrees with you, of course).

lol you're almost literally just asking "which is worse, A or B?  JUST ANSWER A OR B, OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIAR."

Not at all. I'm asking you whether or not you understand why this particular property may affect the urgency of the situation. You've finally answered, and you answer is "no, I do not understand why an insider threat may be more urgent than an outsider threat".

For the avoidance of doubt, even though I was extremely clear about this already: you lied where you quoted yourself repeatedly saying "I am surprised" as to imply you've already answered my question, despite the fact that each instance of "I am surprised" was followed by a clarification that you're talking about anything but the subject of the question. If you don't want to be accused of lying, just be honest. It's easy!

i dunno what to tell you.  if you don't tell me what A and B are, then i can't give you any answer.  ask less shitty questions.

It was a simple question. Sorry it caused you so much trouble. I'll make sure to approach you like a five-year-old in the future straight away, since that seems to have worked. Isn't that right, little Gary-poo?

or here's a thought: maybe just say what your point is instead of constantly obfuscating it with sarcasm and loaded questions.  i mean don't quit being sarcastic; just like, you know, also make a point somewhere along the way.

Again, it's a trivial rhetorical mechanism. It's supposed to make you think about your own reasoning and explain it, so that the conversation is bilateral. My counterpoints will vary vastly depending on what exactly your reasoning is. For example, in this case it may have been that you do not think insider threats are more urgent in general (this turned out to be the case, as per your very reluctant qualification), or you may have thought that insider threats are generally more urgent, but that this specific case is an exception (what I thought your reasoning would be). If I had simply assumed the latter, I would have spent a lot of time arguing against something you don't believe, and then you'd go to town on me for misrepresenting your arguments or whatever. Naturally, your obstructionism caused me to waste a lot of time anyway, but that's on you.

I can't believe that I have to explain this to anyone older than 10. Nuh-uh, I won't explain my reasoning! Just give me your counterpoints to my reasoning already, DU-UH

Now, with that out of the way, you believe that insider threats are not inherently more urgent than outsider threats. This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

Urgency is a factor of big-league-ness, damage potential, and time until damage.

For example, which is a bigger threat: ISIS or American murderers?  Both kill people.  ISIS is far away and has only killed like... What, 200 Americans?  But American Murders have killed thousands this year alone. Should we focus our military on defeating ISIS or American murderers?  The biggest threat seems to be the Americans, the internal threat as they kill more people more frequently.  But ISIS could cause alot of immediate damage and death. (Bombs and mass shootings).

Congratulations, you almost managed to understand the point of the question. Now, consider this situation:

You're Dave McSuperdave, internationally-renowned vigilante in tight red pants. Donaldo Le Trumpo, evil super-genius, is about to fire his experimental chemical weapon at Dave City, killing millions and also making the frogs gay. You were sent to stop him, but unfortunately the evil NRAMan has intercepted you and put the gun to your head.

Which of the two threats is bigger? Well, Le Trumpo and his chemical weapon, of course. He's about to turn the freaking frogs gay.
Which of the two threats is more urgent? That would be NRAMan - he's both more accessible to deal with (he's right next to you already), and he directly threatens your chances of ever stopping Le Trumpo.

Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.

Sorry but you can't break it down into a simple yes or no queastion. 

I just did, and Gary just answered. This shit really isn't hard.

[trekky0623]

How in the world is Comey anything close to an insider threat? He hasn't done anything illegal or vaguely threatening.

[Pete Svarrior]

How in the world is Comey anything close to an insider threat? He hasn't done anything illegal or vaguely threatening.

Dunno.

the premise that comey is a threat to national security.

Well, that's not a premise of my question.

Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay

[...]

But no, I didn't say he is one. As always, I am a fan of operating under the presumption of innocence, a concept apparently difficult for some Americans to grasp. [...]

[trekky0623]

all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

Since no one else was talking about insider threats, it appears that either you think or you understand that other people think that something in what garygreen said constituted what could possibly be considered an "insider threat." Why bring it up otherwise?

So if you don't think Comey is an insider threat, then perhaps explain why people in the GOP would consider him an insider threat, since you brought it up.

[Lord Dave]

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".

I am afraid I must question your reading comprehension. The preceding question was about Trump being under oath. It makes more sense that Trump was answering talking about himself being under oath, not Comey.

The proceeding question was IF Trump would go under oath.
Which he answered in the first two words.  The rest was a rant with a lot of rhetorical questions trying to argue why he wouldn't ask for loyalty.  He's trying to convince the interviewer that it wouldn't make sense.  That's fine but it has nothing to do with what he'd say under oath. 

The change of topic occurs when he says "I hardly know the man".  He is not talking about HIM (Trump) being under oath, he's talking about Comey as a person and the conversation they had. 

[Lord Dave]

Congratulations, you almost managed to understand the point of the question. Now, consider this situation:

You're Dave McSuperdave, internationally-renowned vigilante in tight red pants. Donaldo Le Trumpo, evil super-genius, is about to fire his experimental chemical weapon at Dave City, killing millions and also making the frogs gay. You were sent to stop him, but unfortunately the evil NRAMan has intercepted you and put the gun to your head.

Which of the two threats is bigger? Well, Le Trumpo and his chemical weapon, of course. He's about to turn the freaking frogs gay.
Which of the two threats is more urgent? That would be NRAMan - he's both more accessible to deal with (he's right next to you already), and he directly threatens your chances of ever stopping Le Trumpo.

Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise.  Therefore, to create an impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.

Now I understand your point:

The most immediate threat that you can deal with right now is usually the one you attack first, even if it's smaller in the large scale of things.

Of that I agree.

So what you're saying is that by making Comey an immediate, internal threat, people will assume he's more of a threat than any outside agency (like Russia) because he's right there with his hands on actual intelligence that could fuck us up now vs the Russians who may or may not have something useful that could, at some point, doom us all.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since no one else was talking about insider threats, it appears that either you think or you understand that other people think that something in what garygreen said constituted what could possibly be considered an "insider threat." Why bring it up otherwise?

So if you don't think Comey is an insider threat, then perhaps explain why people in the GOP would consider him an insider threat, since you brought it up.

I also don't think that the GOP consider him an insider threat. They're building a narrative, and it's been working fantastically so far.

I already explained myself. Trekky, it's very important that you read what people have said before you try to respond. Otherwise, you're just talking to yourself (or, worse, your imagination).

This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

So what you're saying is that by making Comey an immediate, internal threat, people will assume he's more of a threat than any outside agency (like Russia) because he's right there with his hands on actual intelligence that could fuck us up now vs the Russians who may or may not have something useful that could, at some point, doom us all.

Yup, that's pretty much spot on. I don't know for certain whether it's Russia they're trying to distract people from, but they're clearly trying to distract people from something.

[trekky0623]

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (bonus Rasmussen poll) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

[Pete Svarrior]

The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

For the most part, yes.

Trekky, why do you keep saying things I've already said and acting as if it was a rebuttal of some sort? How would you feel if I responded to your post just now with "A-ha! I think you'll find that most Americans find Trump less trustworthy than Comey!!!"? My guess is it wouldn't leave the best impression on you, so why would you let yourself do the same?

[Tom Bishop]

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (bonus Rasmussen poll) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Huffington Post poll? Aren't those the same people who constantly posted pro-Clinton polls throughout the election and who predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning?

[Lord Dave]

Trump's opinion polls and polls on the trustworthiness of Comey and Trump (bonus Rasmussen poll) don't seem to point to this "masterful 4-D chess move" narrative. The only people who are going to think Comey is some sort of threat are the people who are already die-hard Trump supporters. And, as was said in the campaign, they'll support him even if he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

Huffington Post poll? Aren't those the same people who constantly pro-Clinton polls throughout the election and who predicted that Hillary had a 98% chance of winning?

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

[Tom Bishop]

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

[trekky0623]

For the most part, yes.

Trekky, why do you keep saying things I've already said and acting as if it was a rebuttal of some sort? How would you feel if I responded to your post just now with "A-ha! I think you'll find that most Americans find Trump less trustworthy than Comey!!!"? My guess is it wouldn't leave the best impression on you, so why would you let yourself do the same?

This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.

You claim this GOP strategy, which, by the way, I don't see any evidence of from Congressional Republicans, is working "spectacularly well." If this strategy is even happening within the GOP, the polls indicate it's not working anywhere near "spectacularly."

What the GOP is instead saying is one of either (a) Trump is new to this, he didn't know better, (b) What Comey said Trump did is not actually wrong, or (c) they're focusing on other things, like Trump not being under investigation or the actions of Loretta Lynch. The only people claiming Comey lied or is a threat is the Trump administration, not the mainstream GOP.

[Lord Dave]

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

Interesting isn't it?
Should be interesting to see just how far this Russian thing goes.  We were told that the voting machines weren't tampered with, that the efforts failed.

But what if they didn't?

Pure speculation, obviously.  But just interesting to see how so many polls got it wrong without any reason then we find out Russia tried to influence the election.  Probably a coincidence.

[Tom Bishop]

A poll that assumed no outside influence in the elections.
Which we now know is false.

Science fails when unexpected variables are thrown into the mix.

What are you talking about? The Huffington Post polls the data was based on were conducted and updated constantly throughout the election, up until November 8th, the day of the election, and all suggested an overwhelming Clinton victory: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president

Towards the bottom we read that the 98% figure was based on Huffington Post's allegedly credible polls, which consistently predicted a Clinton win even in the face of Wikileaks and everything else.

Interesting isn't it?
Should be interesting to see just how far this Russian thing goes.  We were told that the voting machines weren't tampered with, that the efforts failed.

But what if they didn't?

Pure speculation, obviously.  But just interesting to see how so many polls got it wrong without any reason then we find out Russia tried to influence the election.  Probably a coincidence.

No, it's not interesting. The Huffington Post polls are clearly not credible, and your excuses are irrational.

Based on the ranting I see on Facebook and Social Media I have found that this irrational hatred for Trump seems to be strongest in people who have pathological daddy issues. They were either abandoned by their fathers at a young age, or had a terrible father.

[Pete Svarrior]

You claim this GOP strategy, which, by the way, I don't see any evidence of from Congressional Republicans, is working "spectacularly well." If this strategy is even happening within the GOP, the polls indicate it's not working anywhere near "spectacularly."

Comments on the ridiculous inadequacy of the data behind your argument aside (Tom is doing a great job there, no need for me to echo him), your own data suggests that most Republicans stand by Trump. It's working fantastically, and you already claim to accept a poll that shows it.

Trekky, you've one-upped yourself. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You can do so much better than that.

What the GOP is instead saying is one of either (a) Trump is new to this, he didn't know better, (b) What Comey said Trump did is not actually wrong, or (c) they're focusing on other things, like Trump not being under investigation or the actions of Loretta Lynch. The only people claiming Comey lied or is a threat is the Trump administration, not the mainstream GOP.

ITT: It's impossible to push several non-conflicting narratives at the same time.

Trekky, this discussion started with Gary pointing out that the GOP are "pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos". Whether or not this is happening is subject to bilateral agreement. If you think it isn't happening despite literally having been televised live, then I don't know what to say to you other than "You really need to start reading/listening to people before commenting on what is being said."