US Election 2020 - Pt 3

Who do you think WILL win the 2020 US presidential election

  • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

    Votes: 52 44.8%
  • Donald J. Trump (R)

    Votes: 64 55.2%

  • Total voters
    116

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
No, this is what you said when I objected to your tone:
When you indicated my tone was unpalatable, I asked how, and in part of your response, you also said "You're drawing conclusions about the way the documents were presented, saying that the fact that they were OCRd is significant"

I had in fact used the word significant when discussing this very aspect of the situation, but what I actually said was "I don't think it is significant". If you allude to a word I actually used, how I am meant to know you were referring to something else? I also clarified that I am not drawing any conclusions in that regard, I was, in fact, doing the opposite. I'm happy to chat, but I will obviously point out when what I actually said is subsequently misunderstood or misrepresented.

"Extremely pertinent" is synonymous in meaning to "significant".
Yes, it is significant in the context of the theme of the discussion, being evidence, disinformation, how to verify claims, etc. It's not terribly important whether it was a lawyer or a journalist, but worthy of comment, since it's implacably logical that if a person is unable or unwilling to absorb extremely basic facts about the story (covered in the first half of the first sentence), it's entirely possible more important things are also missed. That the important stuff is being paid attention to is not a defence, since what we are talking about here is an article that can be read in a matter of minutes: there is not really any justification complaining about my observation in this regard when posting something and asserting strong claims about the content, if you have not, at the very least, merely taken a minute or two to actually read the whole item.

I'm not saying that you conceded something, I'm saying that given what you have said, if you're being consistent, you will concede that what you said can only reasonably be interpreted to mean, insofar as you intend to discuss the topic in the first place, that a non-nefarious motive is inconceivable to you, and therefore to the degree that you take issue with the quality of the evidence, there must be some degree of implicit suspicion that the motive is in fact nefarious.
I didn't say you said I conceded something. I responded to you asking me if I conceded something, and I explained why this was not the case. I've repeatedly said I can't ascribe any sense to what I am observing, and in the case of the OCR situation, if anything, it's more confounding if a nefarious motive was assumed, than a neutral one, but either way, I don't understand it. But I've not made any claims about the nature of the motives. If I have, please quote the relevant bit, so we can discuss it.

Because, as I said, without this presumption in place, there is no reason to conclude that the fact that you observed is significant.
But I didn't say it was significant, I said literally the opposite, way back at the beginning of our discussion, when you asked me why I thought it was significant.

You're introducing the expectation again. "It's expected that they would make it as ironclad as possible, the expectation has not been met and is in need of explanation in order for the account to be satisfying." That's the short version of what your claim here amounts to.
It was a question from my end. You can't take my statement and literally rewrite it to suit your point. I mean you can, but it's hard to have a sensible conversation with someone who tells you what you mean, instead of actually listening to what you are saying.

Let's also just perhaps clarify something about expectation, I've said this to you elsewhere already, but it bears repeating:

In some of the instances we are discussing, there is often an uncomfortably large gap between the specifics of the claim VS the presentation of the evidence, in light of what that evidence is said to be.

If there's an article, for example, that says: "A inadvertently heard a conversation between B and C, and the contents were newsworthy, for whatever reason", the closest we can reasonably get (at the time of reading) to assessing such a thing is "Sure, could be possible".

If an article says, on the other hand: "We've got an audio recording of the above conversation, here's a transcription", eyebrows should be sensibly raised.


Any claim that asserts proof is going to engender expectation, by its very existence. How else could we navigate the information we receive without having an expectation of the quality of proof provided? Further, if the proof is stated as incontrovertible, but presented in an unverifiable format, where the initial claim asserts possession of material that could in fact be verified more accurately (or in this case, stand any chance of being verified at all) dependent on how it is disseminated, is a burden for person in possession of the proof, and who is making the claim.

That I am questioning inconsistencies is not me forcing my expectations on anyone - I have no control whatsoever on how people present assertions to me, but it is perfectly normal to apply reasonable scepticism to any claim, and especially so when said claim is bolstered by evidence asserted as verifiable in the hands of the claimant, yet presented in a format that makes it impossible to do so.

Perhaps Hawley wishes to publish the ironclad proof somewhere where he'll actually earn revenue for the publication, considering he is a professional journalist after all...
At this stage I'm not asking for ironclad proof one this one, simply any proof at all would be fine. And should actual information be published it would make sense to discuss it then, rather than now where we have nothing to work with.
 

AlmightyBender

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
5,290
You know, they say you should be careful not to invoke the names of demons lest you inadvertantly summon them...
Oh no no no no no. You are giving him too much credit. Less a demon and more a seasonal cockroach. You, not being Xarog, should theoretically take no offense to this classification and hence me feeling so comfortable making it.
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
I'm not repeating his role because it has been spelled out. He contacted the FBI with the material because he thought it was relevant to the Ukraine scandal in the media.
That the Senate have demanded testimony from the FBI is testament to the authenticity. They would not have done this without some measure of due diligence or based on hearsay. Giuliani is basically secondary with regard to the media release of the material.
That's great and all, but wouldn't it just be so much simpler if the invoice was shown, and the lawyer claim verified instead of blithely stated as truth, with no basis for the claim?

I struggle to understand why anyone would not want to see these things, given how easily they could be produced, especially the invoice.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,001
When you indicated my tone was unpalatable, I asked how, and in part of your response, you also said "You're drawing conclusions about the way the documents were presented, saying that the fact that they were OCRd is significant"

I had in fact used the word significant when discussing this very aspect of the situation, but what I actually said was "I don't think it is significant". If you allude to a word I actually used, how I am meant to know you were referring to something else? I also clarified that I am not drawing any conclusions in that regard, I was, in fact, doing the opposite. I'm happy to chat, but I will obviously point out when what I actually said is subsequently misunderstood or misrepresented.
Sigh.

You can only say that my oversight is significant IF and ONLY IF the narrative I was spinning where it mattered who was lawyer and who was journalist was also significant, and that could only be significant IF and ONLY IF the OCRing of the documents was a significant fact worthy of discussion in the first place. Hence, the problem with your allegation that I missed an extremely pertinent fact is necessarily contingent upon the notion that the OCRing of the documents itself is significant, and I object to that, and it is no defence to then say "but I didn't say it was significant", because all you're doing at that point is claiming for yourself the right to be inconsistent. To be clear, you have not offered any alternative explanation for why the oversight was actually material to the issue at hand.

Yes, it is significant in the context of the theme of the discussion, being evidence, disinformation, how to verify claims, etc.
Whether Schweizer is Cooney's lawyer or journalist is not significant unless you can point to a fact that makes it significant.

It's not terribly important whether it was a lawyer or a journalist, but worthy of comment, since it's implacably logical that if a person is unable or unwilling to absorb extremely basic facts about the story (covered in the first half of the first sentence), it's entirely possible more important things are also missed. That the important stuff is being paid attention to is not a defence, since what we are talking about here is an article that can be read in a matter of minutes: there is not really any justification complaining about my observation in this regard when posting something and asserting strong claims about the content, if you have not, at the very least, merely taken a minute or two to actually read the whole item.
I'm not going to apologise for skim reading the first paragraphs unless you can show an oversight that is actually relevant to the claims I made rather than the claims you made and then asked me to account for without being able to substantiate that those claims are indeed significant.

And the claim that I was unwilling to absorb basic facts is patent nonsense. I accomodated the fact and self-corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention.

I didn't say you said I conceded something. I responded to you asking me if I conceded something, and I explained why this was not the case. I've repeatedly said I can't ascribe any sense to what I am observing, and in the case of the OCR situation, if anything, it's more confounding if a nefarious motive was assumed, than a neutral one, but either way, I don't understand it. But I've not made any claims about the nature of the motives. If I have, please quote the relevant bit, so we can discuss it.
Ok, to the degree that your lack of clarity as to the motives is not necessarily because there is a nefarious motive present, it follows that I am not obligated to dispel the lack of clarity in order for the story to indeed be accurate, right?

But I didn't say it was significant, I said literally the opposite, way back at the beginning of our discussion, when you asked me why I thought it was significant.

It was a question from my end. You can't take my statement and literally rewrite it to suit your point. I mean you can, but it's hard to have a sensible conversation with someone who tells you what you mean, instead of actually listening to what you are saying.
You have a question. You asked me, but I don't necessarily have an answer for you. You keep asking me WHY WHY WHY and then criticising the reasons that I give. I believe as things stand, I've responded to each of your criticisms, after TRYING to entertain your question in good faith.

I don't really have more to say regarding these questions. I'm not very interested in the OCR thing, maybe someone else in the thread wants to pick it up with you. I believe I have established to my satisfaction that the OCR thing is not something that need concern me at this point.

Let's also just perhaps clarify something about expectation, I've said this to you elsewhere already, but it bears repeating:

In some of the instances we are discussing, there is often an uncomfortably large gap between the specifics of the claim VS the presentation of the evidence, in light of what that evidence is said to be.

If there's an article, for example, that says: "A inadvertently heard a conversation between B and C, and the contents were newsworthy, for whatever reason", the closest we can reasonably get (at the time of reading) to assessing such a thing is "Sure, could be possible".

If an article says, on the other hand: "We've got an audio recording of the above conversation, here's a transcription", eyebrows should be sensibly raised.


Any claim that asserts proof is going to engender expectation, by its very existence.
Please quote any claim of proof. So far as I can tell, I have only claimed that it is evidence, which I am personally inclined to credit. That's not claiming it's proof, and if you're going to start talking about proof, then you've just smuggled in the criterion of certainty, and I imagine you'll wish to avoid that. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect people to only believe that which can be proven, and if you do, well, I say it's up to you to demonstrate it.

I'm not interested in entertaining a discussion where it's presumed that the discussion and questions will entail some sort of performance aimed at giving proof. If that's what you want, give me investigatorial powers inside the United States and the manpower necessary to actually see what's what and then we can talk again.

I'm certainly not interested in a conversation where you just keep noting facts that haven't been explained and then continuing to ask and ask until you find a contradiction, at which point you proclaim "aha!" like you've already done once, as if the performance that is to be expected on my end is some sort of attempt at proof, where I'm supposed to discharge all of your objections or else it isn't "proof". :sleep:

How else could we navigate the information we receive without having an expectation of the quality of proof provided?
Again, you are a finite creature that has to confront combinatorial explosion. It's unreasonable to expect entities constrained by these conditions to only believe what is provable. The world is too big to verify everything for yourself, and trying to live your life that way just leads to madness.

At this stage I'm not asking for ironclad proof one this one, simply any proof at all would be fine. And should actual information be published it would make sense to discuss it then, rather than now where we have nothing to work with.
Well then we have nothing to work with, I suppose. Until another time, perhaps.
 
Last edited:

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,001
Oh no no no no no. You are giving him too much credit. Less a demon and more a seasonal cockroach. You, not being Xarog, should theoretically take no offense to this classification and hence me feeling so comfortable making it.
Well, I don't know, it seems there are people around who like to RBP that sort of thing en masse, so maybe you might want to be careful about that kind of language.

Although given everything that is said about this Xarog character, I imagine he wouldn't be offended at being called a seasonal cockroach, so I'm not sure my lack of offense really counts for anything. :unsure:
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
8,773
Well, I don't know, it seems there are people around who like to RBP that sort of thing en masse, so maybe you might want to be careful about that kind of language.

Although given everything that is said about this Xarog character, I imagine he wouldn't be offended at being called a seasonal cockroach, so I'm not sure my lack of offense really counts for anything. :unsure:
Jirre, denial is a thinkg. *

Are you him...
... you are him ...


Just spotted, I had to laugh: https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...to-murder-viktor-shokin-part-2.1067148/page-4

:X3::ROFL:

/Edit: See https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/us-election-2020-pt-3.1103859/post-26264834
 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
5,550
Totally agree with this.


The election is still 18 days away but Democrats are already drawing battle lines over what a Biden administration ought to look like.
Left-wing House members including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Katie Porter, Ayanna Pressley, Raúl Grijalva and candidate Jamaal Bowman along with 39 progressive groups signed a letter, obtained by POLITICO, arguing that no C-suite level corporate executives or corporate lobbyists ought to have Senate-confirmed positions in a Biden administration.
“One of the most important lessons of the Trump administration is the need to stop putting corporate officers and lobbyists in charge of our government,” they wrote. “As elected leaders, we should stop trying to make unsupportable distinctions between which corporate affiliations are acceptable for government service and which are not.”


The letter, which was delivered to Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell on Friday morning, called on both parties to adopt this standard, but organizers told POLITICO it was also intended to send a message to Joe Biden’s transition team as it vets potential candidates
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
8,773
Totally agree with this.

Yet peeps liken the Reps to our local ANC?

Watch this ... exactly where the crap will hit the fan:
The clashes between the left-wing and the center — particularly over economic policy — have eased over the past several months as the factions unite to defeat President Donald Trump but are likely to reignite if Biden is victorious.

Biden would be forced to manage a potentially unwieldy coalition of aggressive left-wing Democrats and a new class of more moderate swing district Democrats from the suburbs.
Sleepy Joe is just a figurehead Don.
 
Top