US Election 2020 - Pt 3

Who do you think WILL win the 2020 US presidential election

  • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

    Votes: 52 44.1%
  • Donald J. Trump (R)

    Votes: 66 55.9%

  • Total voters
    118

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
Yes, and my criticism comes back to the only way to justify it is if the detail was material to my claims, and therefore I still maintain that the tone was not appropriate given the circumstances.
As I previously said - If you feel the tone was not appropriate, that's a feelings thing, and your emotions are yours to manage; I am unable to change that, so probably better to move on to more material items.

Just because you think I should verify better as a general working principle doesn't make your expectation valid.
Of course it's valid, as it's just an opinion I expressed. At the same time, my opinion/s can also be entirely ignored by external parties if they disagree with them and don't feel like challenging me.

Opinion noted. But again, I make no apologies whatsoever for skim reading the first few paragraphs.
Not once have I suggested you need to apologise for anything.

Well then I stipulate that the cause for the OCRing of the text is missing data, and feel that I should not have been addressing it in the first place.
I have no idea what the first half of you sentence means, but you've indicated you don't want to discuss the OCR thing, so no stress. Since you are the only person (I sincerely hope), who is able to dictate who and/or what you respond to, I'm not sure what relevance the latter half has to me.

No, it's not my problem. You're claiming it is my problem, and I'm rejecting your claim. I can get by just fine without answering the questions you started asking me.
Of course you can - I am in full agreement that you are under absolutely no obligation to respond to anything I say.

Because you kept asking me to explain myself, and then disputing the explanations.
Well of course I'm going to be persistent if you frame a response in a way that is not actually a reflection of what I said, or incorrectly conveys the opinion I hold. If it is bothersome, then just don't respond, and I'll have nothing to reply to, and that will be the end of that.

I don't think people reporting the evidence they've found in an article necessarily translates to claims of proof.
I am talking about Giuliani, Schweizer, etc (i.e. the people who are claiming to be in possession of original source material).

Right, I should have rather said that I do not wish to speculate at the outset and ignored the OCR aspect entirely, as well as everything that flowed from it. However, in the interests of politeness, I decided to try and entertain your questions as best as I could, because you did quote my posts, after all.
Yeah, but let's be clear - I posted the OCR thing, you asked me why I thought it was notable, and my response was that I did not think it was. No reason it couldn't have ended right there. As for speculation, all of this is, whether we like it or not, since there's simply no verifiable evidence available at this time. Finally, I am not just randomly quoting your posts - I am quoting your responses addressed to me, a chain which you decided to start, don't seem to want to continue, are the only person who has anyone control over when you choose to engage, and yet here we are.

Just to be clear, when I was talking about facts, I was talking about the facts you introduced, namely the OCRing of the document. You brought that up, and then you admonished me for not paying attention because I made the mistake of saying it was possible that the lawyer was inept at handling redactions after trying to discuss hypothetical answers to the questions you were raising. I'm really not interested in engaging with someone on those terms.
Well, that's not true - you were very clearly referencing the following (also, I am not asserting the OCRring of the document as fact, I just pointed out that it looks very much like it was OCRed and explained why [for clarity, this is not a fact, it is an observation]);

This is the entire statement to which you were responding to, for clarity:

1603040100655.png

Which you responded to with:

"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:"

I've subsequently cleared up your misunderstanding of paragraph 1, made it explicitly clear that what we are discussing in paragraph 2 is my need for evidence in the light of assertions being presented to me. I'm not the one making claims [often delivered, oddly, as factual].

You're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you've said so far gives me any reason think it is fitting to this situation, on the grounds that your standards are so strict that they invalidate the possibility of using witness testimony in a court of law.
If this is the parallel you would like to draw, then I am forced to ask you if courts of law tend to accept as evidence things like unverified screenshots on Twitter as evidence? Or bad-quality scrubbed PDFs of emails, without the actual email itself being anywhere to be found?

Duly noted.
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
17,203
Results are out.

View attachment 935110
Kevin McCullough's analysis is here

Thanks for sharing, from the other side of the aisle. Very very interesting, and for me, not unexpected.

I just... know Trump will win. I can't explain why. Despite all of the negativity from the media about him, I know he will win.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,001
Not once have I suggested you need to apologise for anything.
No, but you did say that my self-correction was not very laudable, which does imply you were expecting more.

I have no idea what the first half of you sentence means, but you've indicated you don't want to discuss the OCR thing, so no stress. Since you are the only person (I sincerely hope), who is able to dictate who and/or what you respond to, I'm not sure what relevance the latter half has to me.
The first half of my sentence means that you invited me to speculate as to the reasons for the OCRing of the text. In other words, you were inviting me to speculate on missing data, because neither of us is in posession of the reason for the OCRing.

I am talking about Giuliani, Schweizer, etc (i.e. the people who are claiming to be in possession of original source material).
See my previous post regarding Steve Bannon's release strategy. Suffice it to say, given the situation they find themselves in, insofar as their evidence is legit, it should be released in a drip-drip fashion.

Yeah, but let's be clear - I posted the OCR thing, you asked me why I thought it was notable, and my response was that I did not think it was. No reason it couldn't have ended right there.
Indeed, as I said, I appear to have made a mistake in that regard.

Well, that's not true - you were very clearly referencing the following (also, I am not asserting the OCRring of the document as fact, I just pointed out that it looks very much like it was OCRed and explained why [for clarity, this is not a fact, it is an observation]);
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".
Well then, don't have the conversation. And just to be clear, assertions lacking evidence are not a facts, by any definition of the word.
There is no reasonable way you can infer from the way that I was speaking about the facts you raised, that I was also referring to what I thought was factual in general.

I've subsequently cleared up your misunderstanding of paragraph 1, made it explicitly clear that what we are discussing in paragraph 2 is my need for evidence in the light of being presented to me. I'm not the one making claims [often delivered, oddly, as factual].
Right, but your response that I took issue with, because it was misinterpreting the meaning of my statement, was in response to Paragraph 3 instead of 1 or 2. You said you're not quoting me randomly, right?

And to be clear, I initially indicated I didn't have the necessary expertise to make a judgement call one way or another regarding the OCR stuff; the only way to proceed with the conversation was to assume that it was factual. Otherwise I have no choice but to quite honestly say that I don't know what you're talking about.

If this is the parallel you would like to draw, then I am forced to ask you if courts of law tend to accept as evidence things like unverified screenshots on Twitter as evidence? Or bad-quality scrubbed PDFs of emails, without the actual email itself being anywhere to be found?
Courts of law accept witness testimony. In other words, if Person A says he saw a gun before it was destroyed, the claim is still considered in conjunction with the rest of the evidence. At this juncture, I am inclined to believe that the journalists involved are not lying about what they have observed. I give them a provisional benefit of the doubt until more information arrives, which likely will only happen if the need for an investigation because of public pressure because of public awareness becomes unbearable.
 
Last edited:

Pegasus

Executive Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
5,550
D E S P E R A T I O N.
Firstly, iCloud requires a small amount of set up. It's trivial, but there's no guarantee everyone wil have done it, or that they'll know the recovery procedure. It does not by default back up Applications, Preferences and a bunch of things. Also, assuming water damage and a neophyte user, the screens may not have been visible. This is someone with money who is accustomed to having people do things for him... it seems implied that he bought additional devices and went on with life. There's no ruling out that the tech in fact found iCloud or Time Machine backups and used them for the recovery.
It takes about 2 minutes to set up iCloud or Time machine.
Apple bug you to do these things.

Anyone with a laptop should enable these things, especially someone travelling the world who uses it for work.
We're talking about a highly educated high powered exec here.
It's crazy not to have backup.
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
R.H.B.
Honestly you sound like someone in total denial. Next you'll be asking for verification of the signature, then security camera footage etc. NO-ONE implicated has denied the authenticity.
People who are in denial ignore evidence, they don't ask for it.

I would bet that John Paul Mac Issac is waiting for the moment that someone tries to burn his home or shop down at this point. There are already photos of the shop circulating. I doubt he's going to pose with today's newspaper holding an orange etc...
If he can send a mail to a journalist (the one regarding Biden's lawyer), he can also send a copy of the invoice, to clear up potential confusion? And I mean, he seems happy to give out pictures of Biden's 'Disgusting' sex acts, emails and private pictures, etc, so I can't imagine he's going to get precious about an invoice. He can remove his details and such if he's worried, but the invoice from him, has better optics than that tragedy from what appears to be a random Twitter account.
 

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
We're talking about a highly educated high powered exec here.
You're talking about a high powered fixer on coke. Nothing is taken for granted. I know execs from tech companies who could not run fsck if asked. There are all levels of failure - MB, HDD controller down to the spinning platters or NVRAM chips. By default, unless Time Machine has backed up externally, you can indeed lose local data.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,001
It takes about 2 minutes to set up iCloud or Time machine.
Apple bug you to do these things.

Anyone with a laptop should enable these things, especially someone travelling the world who uses it for work.
We're talking about a highly educated high powered exec here.
It's crazy not to have backup.
Honestly, after reading some of the purported emails, I half wonder if Hunter didn't leave it lying around for someone to find out of spite. Just imagine you're basically at rock bottom in rehab, and your family starts falsifying your existence because they're trying to massage the situation for political reasons...
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
No, but you did say that my self-correction was not very laudable, which does imply you were expecting more.
No it does not. Do you know what laudable means? And even if it did, there is absolutely no indication anywhere that I asked for or expected you to apologise for anything, which is what you had raised.

The first half of my sentence means that you invited me to speculate as to the reasons for the OCRing of the text. In other words, you were inviting me to speculate on missing data, because neither of us is in posession of the reason for the OCRing.
Yeah, and as we've covered many times now, it doesn't matter in any event, and I was not making much of it, except to ask what is to me a perfectly reasonable question, and something I happened to find titillating.

Also, you invited the whole thread to speculate on things for which there is no data by posting the article, like, what were you expecting?

See my previous post regarding Steve Bannon's release strategy. Suffice it to say, given the situation they find themselves in, insofar as their evidence is legit, it should be released in a drip-drip fashion.
That's fine, they can do things however they like, and once they provide evidence that can be verified, to one extent or the other, things can move along from there.

Indeed, as I said, I appear to have made a mistake in that regard.
There is no reasonable way you can infer from the way that I was speaking about the facts you raised, that I was also referring to what I thought was factual in general.
I mean, I literally have posted the chain of comments, so I'm not even sure what the debate is here. Also, again, what facts have I raised in our entire discussion?

Right, but your response that I took issue with, because it was misinterpreting the meaning of my statement, was in response to Paragraph 3 instead 1 or 2. You said you're not quoting me randomly, right?
Yes, that is correct. I must confess I am having a hard time trying to read paragraph 3 in a way that agrees with your assertion that 'my facts' are the issue here. I didn't explicitly reference it, since it is patently obvious that you are referring to me wanting proof from you, so I'm not entirely understanding your train of thought here.

And to be clear, I initially indicated I didn't have the necessary expertise to make a judgement call one way or another regarding the OCR stuff; the only way to proceed with the conversation was to assume that it was factual. Otherwise I have no choice but to quite honestly say that I don't know what you're talking about.
If you don't know what I am talking about, it's better to say so, as it provides me an opportunity to clear things up.

Also, seriously, why are you still talking about the OCR stuff? You keep saying you don't want to, and in every subsequent reply you do. I mean, if it floats your boat, I'm just noting I am not the one who is persistently bringing it up.

Courts of law accept witness testimony. In other words, if Person A says he saw a gun before it was destroyed, the claim is still considered in conjunction with the rest of the evidence. At this juncture, I am inclined to believe that the journalists involved are not lying about what they have observed. I give them a provisional benefit of the doubt until more information arrives, which likely will only happen if the need for an investigation because of public pressure because of public awareness becomes unbearable.
Except in your analogy the gun is not destroyed, it's in the possession of the witness, who is talking about it, instead of providing the actual gun, which they keep saying they do in fact have in their possession during the course of their testimony.

"so, may we please see the gun"

"oh, yes, of course"

*takes out picture of gun

...

"what do you mean you can't run a ballistics test on a photograph?"
 

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
And I mean, he seems happy to give out pictures of Biden's 'Disgusting' sex acts, emails and private pictures, etc, so I can't imagine he's going to get precious about an invoice. He can remove his details and such if he's worried, but the invoice from him, has better optics than that tragedy from what appears to be a random Twitter account.
I'm not sure if you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Beyond giving the drives to the FBI and Giuliani, Mac Isaac was not responsible for the public leak of the contents. That came from Giuliani, the NY Post and those downstream. The Senate have been briefed on what is on there. The Post clearly has more information that it is holding back on. Law Enforcement officers have seen what is on there:
Bernard B. Kerik, 40th Police Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, has declared that Joe Biden and his family "belong in handcuffs" after revealing that he has "personally" reviewed the contents of Hunter Biden's hard drive.

No one owes you an archived mbox or backupdb or whatever ridiculous bar you will ultimately set, partially because of the national security concerns.

Mac Isaac stated "I Wanted It Out Of My Shop":
“I just don’t know what to say, or what I’m allowed to say,” Isaac said. “I know that I saw, I saw stuff. And I was concerned. I was concerned that somebody might want to come looking for this stuff eventually and I wanted it out of my shop.”
“If I’m somebody that has no journalistic ability, no detective ability or investigative ability and I was able to find stuff in a short period of time, somebody else should have been able to find something to show."
Isaac contacted an “intermediary” about the laptop, and the intermediary then contacted the FBI. Isaac said the intermediary is somebody whom he has known “for decades”, and declined to identify him beyond saying he was an American citizen. According to Isaac, the FBI first made a forensic copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it. After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney, Robert Costello.
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
57,011
I'm not sure if you understand how ridiculous this sounds? Beyond giving the drives to the FBI and Giuliani, Mac Isaac was not responsible for the public leak of the contents. That came from Giuliani, the NY Post and those downstream. The Senate have been briefed on what is on there. The Post clearly has more information that it is holding back on. Law Enforcement officers have seen what is on there:


No one owes you an archived mbox or backupdb or whatever ridiculous bar you will ultimately set, partially because of the national security concerns.

Mac Isaac stated "I Wanted It Out Of My Shop":
Just so that we are clear - How do you think the mail from Bidens's lawyer > computer guy, ended up with a journalist?
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
44,110
So that woman's entire experiences, her entire life, mean nothing to you?

Interesting how quickly you discard something when it goes against your bias of liberal=good, conservative=bad.

Here we have liberal people clearly behaving badly, but you'll overlook it rather than confront the fact that liberals can be assholes too.
Yet more caricatures and lazy generalisations. How apt! So intolerant of you, Ancalagon. Just bad faith and mispresentation.

Of course liberals can be assholes. And leftists. You can find assholes everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: STS

hexagon

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
526
Just so that we are clear - How do you think the mail from Bidens's lawyer > computer guy, ended up with a journalist?
Mac Isaac was interviewed and he showed it to journalists. He had every right to. It was the part of the story that specifically related to him. None of that was privileged.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
44,110
Those were really, really great actually. Good to watch.

One thing struck me while listening to the first one.

I think this is the first time that a candidate for the Supreme Court has had their religion used against them. You know, in ages past, it would have been a good thing, a noble thing, to be religious. Now it isn't seen that way anymore, and it makes me a little sad.
How was her religion used against her?

Also, lol @ pretending to care about this when the GOP and Trump supports candidates who think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to hold public office.
 

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
1,001
No it does not. Do you know what laudable means? And even if it did, there is absolutely no indication anywhere that I asked for or expected you to apologise for anything, which is what you had raised.
Not praiseworthy. Therefore not what you were looking for. To the degree that you claimed that there was a fundamental fault, it is unreasonable for you to claim that you were not looking for some gesture of contrition insofar as you thought your claim was legitimate.

Yeah, and as we've covered many times now, it doesn't matter in any event, and I was not making much of it, except to ask what is to me a perfectly reasonable question, and something I happened to find titillating.
Yeah, maybe someone else can help you, sorry.

Also, you invited the whole thread to speculate on things for which there is no data by posting the article, like, what were you expecting?
I did. I don't think I'm inclined to abide by the standards you advocate, but to the degree that you make certain claims, it's not unreasonable of me to ask you to treat me consistently with those claims, not so?

I'm not asking you to address the missing data, that would be impossible, since you are not in possession of the information, and as things stand, neither of us are able to know whether it exists.
Put differently, why were you not asking the impossible of me according to your own argument?

I mean, I literally have posted the chain of comments, so I'm not even sure what the debate is here. Also, again, what facts have I raised in our entire discussion?
My chain of comments correctly reflects how you cut my post up. What you quoted was the entire thing together, not how you cut the quotes up in order to reply to it. So the debate is about how one should reasonably construe the meaning of the statements insofar as they're interposed between the paragraphs you quoted as a whole.

Yes, that is correct. I must confess I am having a hard time trying to read paragraph 3 in a way that agrees with your assertion that 'my facts' are the issue here. I didn't explicitly reference it, since it is patently obvious that you are referring to me wanting proof from you, so I'm not entirely understanding your train of thought here.
Very simply: You asked me about your OCR, inviting me to speculate, despite appearing to concede elsewhere that you were asking the impossible of me. Then, when I inevitably fail to perform to your satisfaction, in this instance because my hypothetical manufacturing of possibilities happened to fail because of a trivial fact that I did not notice in the initial article, you proceed to complain that I have made some sort of fundamental mistake, which is just plain wrong.

Now from where I sit, this experience, where I try to accomodate the circumstances you wish to address, where I can only speak to what you said by assuming that you were telling me the truth, ended rather abruptly with you criticising me for daring to not have had the foresight to read the whole article before trying to respond to facts observations you raised because the performance was not perfectly consistent even though I conceded the shortcoming the instant that it was brought to my attention. The only thing I was trying to explain was the truth of the claim you said was mystifying to you, because you wanted to discuss this mistifying thing. So lesson learned, this puppy's nose is going nowhere near your rolled up newspaper any time soon. Ok?

If you don't know what I am talking about, it's better to say so, as it provides me an opportunity to clear things up.
I honestly can't see what you're talking about. However, the fact that some parts of the email chain has been blacked out could explain the scanning, since doing the redacting digitally can be unreliable.
I understand what you're talking about in principle, but I just don't see the difference in quality that you indicate. I'm not disputing that it's possible.
Please indicate what parts of these responses was lacking in that respect, as there is obviously a defect here that I would very much like to correct in future.

Also, seriously, why are you still talking about the OCR stuff? You keep saying you don't want to, and in every subsequent reply you do. I mean, if it floats your boat, I'm just noting I am not the one who is persistently bringing it up.
All I am doing at this point is substantiating the basis for my viewpoint to the degree that I believe that you do not understand it. I have zero interest in discussing the OCR itself, and never did.

Except in your analogy the gun is not destroyed, it's in the possession of the witness, who is talking about it, instead of providing the actual gun, which they keep saying they do in fact have in their possession during the course of their testimony.

"so, may we please see the gun"

"oh, yes, of course"

*takes out picture of gun
...

"what do you mean you can't run a ballistics test on a photograph?"
Changing my analogy so that the analogy no longer addresses the issue I raised isn't addressing my point. You may choose not to believe the reporter because you think his documentation is ****, but that in no way invalidates the notion that his observations regarding what he experienced legitimate and can be deemed trustworthy. Refusing to address the idea that his testimony could be credible is not how you address the claim I made that your standards are so stringent that they exclude the validity of witness tesimony, especially not if you're going to change the analogy so it revolves around the legitimacy of forensic goddamn evidence.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
17,203
Yet more caricatures and lazy generalisations. How apt! So intolerant of you, Ancalagon. Just bad faith and mispresentation.
By me? I wasn't the one who dismissed this woman's experiences as "Lazy caricatures,ridiculous generalisations".

That was you. You did that. You should own it.

And you get angry with me for pointing it out? Ha ha! Time to look in the mirror buddy, I just held it up to your face.

Of course liberals can be assholes. And leftists. You can find assholes everywhere.
Worse than that, they can be racist too! Bet you never saw that one coming! Or, perhaps bet that you don't like to admit it.
 
Top