*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1700 on: June 12, 2017, 07:00:42 PM »
No, it's not interesting. The Huffington Post polls are clearly not credible, and your excuses are irrational.
They weren't the only poll that failed to predict it.

Not even Fox was accurate, were they?
Do you have one that was?  That was consistent through and through?

Quote
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.
Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1701 on: June 12, 2017, 08:03:50 PM »
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).

i'm perfectly capable of having a conversation with anyone who has them in good faith.  you're just asking vague questions to manufacture a way to call me a liar.  nothing about my original statement was unclear, so stop with the aw-shucks-i-was-just-asking-a-question routine.  but hey at least you got to use it as a reason to call me stupid, too, so that's neat.

i answered your question very directly four separate times.  in the context of actual things that actually happened: yes, i am surprised.  i am surprised because one of them is not a threat.  i am surprised that anyone believes anything even close to "james comey is a more urgent threat to national security than russian intelligence."  i am surprised that the gop has the audacity to suggest that he is.

in the context of pretend things that didn't actually happen, like bizarre hypotheticals where dave mcsuperdave is gonna get shot during a chemical weapons attack or whatever, then i don't know or give a shit how some hypothetical americans may or may not estimate those make-believe threats.  are you fucking with me or something?

in case this isn't clear, i'm really only interested in talking about things that happened in reality.  at least in this thread.  i mean if you wanna talk star trek in the sci-fi thread or something, then i'm super down.

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!

the words that come after 'yes, i'm surprised' are the words that explain why i am surprised.  again, with respect to reality.  whether or not one of these hypothetical threats is actually real seems very relevant to the question of 'is it reasonable to fear one more than the other.'

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.

next time just say this instead of asking uselessly vague questions and insisting that they not be answered in the context of what i was actually talking about.

also, i get that the gop is manufacturing the notion of comey being a national security risk because it benefits them politically.  duh.  that's what i'm criticizing them for.

on a totally tangential side note: no, i don't think proximity is a meaningful parameter for quantifying risk.  probability, magnitude, and time-frame are what matter.


I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1702 on: June 12, 2017, 08:17:56 PM »
i'm perfectly capable of having a conversation with anyone who has them in good faith.
I'll wait until I see it. In your history in PR&S, I have yet to see you have an honest conversation with anyone who disagrees with you.

nothing about my original statement was unclear, so stop with the aw-shucks-i-was-just-asking-a-question routine.
It wasn't unclear, it was just either horribly misguided or deliberately misleading. Whether or not you'll internalise anything that's been said to you is your prerogative (I'm not holding my breath), but at least judging by Dave's response I was able to make a point here for other readers. Anything that sets your narrative-crafting back in favour of an open discussion is a win in my book.

but hey at least you got to use it as a reason to call me stupid, too, so that's neat.
Please, after such gems as "I get my news from a legal research aggregator", "Russia is an ally of the United States" or "Qing didn't exist", nobody needs more reasons.

i answered your question very directly four separate times.  in the context of actual things that actually happened: yes, i am surprised.
-Gary, do you like strawberry ice cream?
-Oh, let me tell you, I hate vanilla ice cream!
-Okay, but strawberry tho.
-Chocolate ice cream is GUUUUUUH-REAT!
-Right, but that doesn't answer my question
-wtf lmao I keep answering it, as I said plenty of times raspberry/strawberry ice cream isn't not un-terrible.
-You're coming across as very dishonest and obstructive right now.
-HAHA WHAT NONSENSE I AM OPEN TO DISCUSSION :D

10/10 would gary again. It's always hilarious to see you flounder when your narrative is questioned. Hell, it doesn't even need to be questioned, you just need to feel that it might get questioned any moment now to jump into this siege mentality.

i am surprised because one of them is not a threat.  i am surprised that anyone believes anything even close to "james comey is a more urgent threat to national security than russian intelligence."  i am surprised that the gop has the audacity to suggest that he is.
And that is the core of my message. You guys need to stop being surprised by it, acknowledge the elementary psychology behind it, and start doing something about it. Otherwise, you're going to continue acting against your own interest.

in the context of pretend things that didn't actually happen, like bizarre hypotheticals where dave mcsuperdave is gonna get shot during a chemical weapons attack or whatever, then i don't know or give a shit how some hypothetical americans may or may not estimate those make-believe threats.
No, it's just another simple rhetorical device that you chose to pretend not to understand.

are you fucking with me or something?
Sweetheart, not here. PM me and we'll get something going.

in case this isn't clear, i'm really only interested in talking about things that happened in reality.  at least in this thread.
You have yet to demonstrate that. So far, you're only interested in turning yes/no questions into multi-page diatribes, and forcing debates on the very nature of human communication every moment someone calls you out on your shit.

the words that come after 'yes, i'm surprised' are the words that explain why i am surprised.  again, with respect to reality.
-Is the idea that some people put peaches on pizza surprising to you?
-I am SO FUCKING SURPRISED that Belgian waffles even exists
-Okay but are you surprised by *this particular thing that I asked you about*
-I JUST TOLD YOU I'M SURPRISED WTF THE REST OF MY ANSWER WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION LOL

11/10 gary overload

next time just say this instead of asking uselessly vague questions and insisting that they not be answered in the context of what i was actually talking about.
I already explained this, but let me try again: I cannot magically figure out what you're saying when your initial statement is vague. Therefore, I asked you a follow-up question. If you threw me a bone and responded in max. 4 characters (including a full stop), we could have carried on with the conversation. But you knew exactly what was going on, so you tried to derail it instead.

also, i get that the gop is manufacturing the notion of comey being a national security risk because it benefits them politically.  duh.  that's what i'm criticizing them for.
"haha jokes on you i was only pretending"

on a totally tangential side note: no, i don't think proximity is a meaningful parameter for quantifying risk.  probability, magnitude, and time-frame are what matter.
Since your most recent post suggests that I shouldn't ask questions and instead guess your position, I'll ignore the fact that you just said "risk" even though I was abundantly clear that I'm talking about urgency. In which case: Well, thank fuck you don't work in intelligence.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 08:26:16 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1703 on: June 12, 2017, 08:20:49 PM »
oh look a string of sarcasm and insults and virtually no content.  what a surprise.

here's how this conversation actually happened:
"i think the gop is being disingenuous."
"can you imagine a scenario in which they aren't?"
"sure i guess.  that's not relevant to what i said."
"you're such a liar."

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 08:27:40 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1704 on: June 12, 2017, 08:32:58 PM »
oh look a string of sarcasm and insults and virtually no content.  what a surprise.
Yeah, I know, it's a shame that I had to respond to it. I should have known better than that by now.
I know you are, but what am I?!

here's how this conversation actually happened:
"i think the gop is being disingenuous."
"can you imagine a scenario in which they aren't?"
"sure i guess.  that's not relevant to what i said."
"you're such a liar."
I said nothing about you imagining a situation. I asked you if you understand why it would matter to many people who aren't you. Instead, you kept talking about everything other than my question and acting all shocked when I kept asking you to actually respond. Note that when you actually answered, after I finally beat it into you to pick between "yes" and "no" as a response to a yes/no question, I explained my reasoning straight away, and (ignoring your further replies), the conversation moved in a productive direction with Dave. Again, this shit ain't hard.

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."
It's funny, because that analogy immediately explained my standpoint (or at least the difference between urgency and all the shit you chose to talk about instead) perfectly well to most everyone. But, of course, you understood it too. It's just inconvenient for you. Or at least you thought it might be.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 08:39:45 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1705 on: June 12, 2017, 09:04:14 PM »
Just ignore him, gary. He obviously has nothing to say.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1706 on: June 12, 2017, 09:08:57 PM »
Just ignore him, gary. He obviously has nothing to say.
Ah, yes, the "this guy ruined the narrative I wanted to spread, so I'll just pretend nothing was said" meme. A Saddam classic.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1707 on: June 12, 2017, 10:23:53 PM »
I know you are, but what am I?!
lol see now that was actually super funny.  you should roll like that instead of being a dick all the time.

you kept talking about everything other than my question and acting all shocked when I kept asking you to actually respond.

omg.  i am talking about your question.  that's literally all i've been talking about.  for like the umpteenth time now, as your question pertains to comey vs. russia, the answer is yes, it surprises me.  as your question pertains to not-comey-vs-russia, the answer is i dunno, it depends on the things.  or i don't care.  either way.

the very thing i find "fucking hilarious" is the gop characterization of comey's "leak" as a threat (and simultaneous dismissal of the russia threat).  that's my criticism.  so asking questions in the vein of "but what if we were talking about different threats," or "but what if he were a threat then wouldn't an internal threat be worse than an external threat," are irrelevant. 

or possibly:
"james comey is not a threat."
"but what about mcsuperdave and el trumpo."
"i don't care.  i'm talking about james comey."
"you are a liar."
It's funny, because that analogy immediately explained my standpoint (or at least the difference between urgency and all the shit you chose to talk about instead) perfectly well to most everyone. But, of course, you understood it too. It's just inconvenient for you. Or at least you thought it might be.

i am talking about urgency.  threats that aren't threats are not urgent.  threats that are real are urgent.  if one of the threats is real, and if one of them is not, then internal/external doesn't matter at all, because only one of them is actually threatening.  it's a nonsense distinction.  this is the one point i've been making the whole time.

also, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think both dave and trekky expressed the same sentiment that i did about the confusing and irrelevant nature of your question.

try this next time:
"Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?"

"it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power."

"That's not what I'm getting at.  What i'm getting at is that 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."

your point would've been perfectly clear, and the conversation could've proceeded instead of getting mired in your neuroses.

i mean i'm still totally stoked to let the conversation proceed and talk about all this shit.  i just dunno how the gop might characterize mcsuperdave held at gunpoint by nraman while about to get gassed by el trumpo while keeping the bus above 50mph.  i'm saying that however you *might* characterize comey's "leak," the way the gop *are* characterizing it is disingenuous and laughable.  lol what exactly is so dishonest about anything i'm saying?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 11:01:14 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1708 on: June 13, 2017, 02:58:39 AM »
Quote
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.
Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1709 on: June 13, 2017, 07:42:49 AM »

There is nothing irrational about feeling hatred for Trump, it’s in the blood. On the contrary, I don’t get how after spending a few minutes listening to the smug, arrogant hypocrite, everyone doesn’t want harm to befall him. It’s a benchmark almost in my life now. If someone expresses admiration for him, my response (usually internally) is, how interesting, how did you become such an arsehole? Almost the same reaction as when some cod psychologist starts on about “daddy issues”. 
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1710 on: June 13, 2017, 10:08:56 AM »
Quote
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.
Really?  Personal attacks?  That's what you're going for?

I was just posting my observations. I am sorry if it touched you personally.
It did.
I looked up to you.  I saw you as a father figure here.  A mentor.  An example for all of the forum to follow. 

But this?  You've sunk low, Tom.  I've lost my faith in you.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1711 on: June 13, 2017, 01:33:50 PM »
based on the ranting i see on facebook and social media, i have found that this irrational devotion to trump seems to be the strongest in the dummies who use phrases like "daddy issues" to explain why people vote as they do.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #1712 on: June 13, 2017, 01:36:54 PM »
ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1713 on: June 13, 2017, 01:50:14 PM »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1714 on: June 13, 2017, 02:09:08 PM »
ITT the bipartisan divide is strong

no doubt, but fwiw i don't genuinely think trump supporters are dumb.  just wanted to poke fun at tom.

also tbh my dislike of trump is unique to him.  i dig the swing of the political pendulum, and i was looking forward to rooting for a republican again.  even if trump were advocating all my favorite policy positions, i'm like 99% sure i'd still hope he dies in prison.

we should change the age requirements to 35-45.  no more old people.  young, cool presidents only.  and maybe a be-good-looking requirement.  you gotta be a 7 or above.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1715 on: June 13, 2017, 03:44:10 PM »
ITT the bipartisan divide is strong
we should change the age requirements to 35-45.  no more old people.  young, cool presidents only.  and maybe a be-good-looking requirement.  you gotta be a 7 or above.

I'm glad to see that there are people out there worrying about the most important issues, like vanity and how much they are liked by the Trevor Noah demo (is there one?)

I'm more in favor of raising the voting age to 25 so that people who have never actually experienced the world don't have undue influence on the laws governing it.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1716 on: June 13, 2017, 04:56:49 PM »
i was being mostly facetious.  at this point i'd take almost any president who a) has any idea what he or she is doing, and b) displays at least some regard for telling the truth.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1717 on: June 13, 2017, 05:01:40 PM »
so asking questions in the vein of "but what if we were talking about different threats," or "but what if he were a threat then wouldn't an internal threat be worse than an external threat," are irrelevant. 
I clarified time and time again that this was not what I was doing. I can't stop you from pretending that that didn't happen, but I can try pointing it out a few more times in the foolish hope that you'll come to your senses.

ITT the bipartisan divide is strong
But the side that isn't my side is evil and hates America.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1718 on: June 13, 2017, 05:27:24 PM »
then i genuinely don't understand what you're asking or getting at.  i took you to be saying that the gop is trying to build a narrative that james comey is an intelligence threat comparable to, or worse than, the russia hacks, because he is an insider leaking shit he shouldn't leak, and insider threats are more urgent than outsider threats.  correct/not correct?

as usual, if you think i'm not getting you, just be like "that's not what i mean, i mean this."  like, in your next post you can just be like "what i mean is this and this and this."  and then i'll be like "oh ok well then i think this and this and this."  if you just reply with a bunch of sarcasm but don't actually clarify what you're asking, then i can't do anything with that.

example: the gop for whatever reason starts being like "tfes fora are a threat to national security this is some serious shit they are breaking the law by talking about the flat earth."  i think this is a totally manufactured threat.  tfes obviously isn't a threat to national security, and the gop would have to basically just be lying about it doing anything illegal or improper.  at the very least, they'd know better.  so, if you were asking me something like "but aren't internal threats generally more ugrent than external threats," then my response would be basically the same: who cares?  the very thing i'm criticizing the gop for doing is manufacturing a threat.  that's what i'm saying is wrong.  obviously their agitprop might work, and they may convince people that tfes is an internal threat more urgent than an external threat, but since tfes hasn't actually done anything threatening, then i fail to see the relevance to what i'm saying.  i feel like this has been pretty clear since my first response to your question.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 05:38:23 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1719 on: June 13, 2017, 05:52:36 PM »
then i genuinely don't understand what you're asking or getting at.  i took you to be saying that the gop is trying to build a narrative that james comey is an intelligence threat comparable to, or worse than, the russia hacks, because he is an insider leaking shit he shouldn't leak, and insider threats are more urgent than outsider threats.  correct/not correct?
That is what he's saying but he's not saying it in a "My side is right, yours is wrong" simply pointing out that this is a strategy that, based on human behavior, results in people looking at Comey as someone that needs to be dealt with first.  Drawing attention away.  Whether this is an intentional strategy is up for debate or if Comey is a legitimate threat is up for debate.  A debate he's not having right now.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.