President Trump

[Bob001]

The implication isn't that California voters are worth less, and it's a bit dishonest to frame it that way. The implication is that the smaller states need a boost to be relevant in the union. You can argue for or against that proposition, but let's at least get the argument right.

That was the original argument for the electoral college, which is open to debate either way. When people say that Clinton's three million more votes than Trump don't mean anything because a lot of them came from California, that certainly demeans them. You could just as easily contend that voters from small, atypical states that produce nothing and are net drains on national resources should have limited impact on economic powerhouses like California and New York. But no one would do that, would they?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, I clearly understand what Emily's Cat is saying, and agree.

Can you say with absolute certainty that I don't?

Can you find a post of mine where I claimed with absolute certainty Trump colluded with Russia?

Do you know what Emily's Cat is referring to?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are describing lying by omission. That's a false representation of reality.

How so? I'm not seeing that in what I wrote, but of course, I'll always see what I intended.

 

[Sherkeu]

What are you talking about?

Did you even look at the link I posted?

A private firm/private investigator generated the report and gave it to lots of people.

The news media could have printed it at any time. The unverified nature of the reports caused them to pause. BuzzFeed chose to stop sitting on it.

Trump has accused the US Intelligence employees of leaking the report. He keeps repeating that.

IT DID NOT HAPPEN, no one employed by the intelligence agency leaked anything.

And why did buzzfeed "stop sitting on it" specifically on Jan. 10?

Jan10, morning. Intelligence report includes a summary. Obama says "What does this have to do with anything?". They say "Just a heads up that it's out there, in case it gets in the media."
Jan 10, after briefing. At least 2 persons with direct knowledge tell CNN about the summary being included. This is called a "leak". This is NOT supposed to be public information.
Jan 10, 4pm. CNN runs story.
Jan 10, 6pm. Buzzfeed publishes all 35 pages - referencing the leak and the CNN story.

Also, it turns out that the dossier summary wasn't part of the official briefing documents. They showed Obama and Biden as an "aside". Trump was later given only a verbal heads up 1-on-1 with Comey. His official briefing did not have the 2-page summary.
----------------------------------

As an alternative view, it's also equally possible that the reason it was shared in the briefing at all that day was because buzzfeed had already decided to publish. In writing the story, they would have reached out to the agencies for any comment. Knowing it would hit the public any minute, they whipped up a summary as an FYI.

Either way, the leak to CNN is problematic. Although CNN states that the dossier is full of completely unverified allegations, nowhere do we get the impression that it was included as a "heads up". The mere (leaked) fact that a summary, written by US intelligence officials, was provided to the president gives it a level of seriousness that it does not deserve. It makes it seem as if officials are really investigating it.

Obama's reaction should tell you where to file this one: snug between the faked moon landings and Pizzagate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And why did buzzfeed "stop sitting on it" specifically on Jan. 10?

Who knows and who cares?

Jan10, morning. Intelligence report includes a summary. Obama says "What does this have to do with anything?". They say "Just a heads up that it's out there, in case it gets in the media."
Jan 10, after briefing. At least 2 persons with direct knowledge tell CNN about the summary being included. This is called a "leak". This is NOT supposed to be public information.
Jan 10, 4pm. CNN runs story.
Jan 10, 6pm. Buzzfeed publishes all 35 pages - referencing the leak and the CNN story.

Also, it turns out that the dossier summary wasn't part of the official briefing documents. They showed Obama and Biden as an "aside". Trump was later given only a verbal heads up 1-on-1 with Comey. His official briefing did not have the 2-page summary.
----------------------------------

As an alternative view, it's also equally possible that the reason it was shared in the briefing at all that day was because buzzfeed had already decided to publish. In writing the story, they would have reached out to the agencies for any comment. Knowing it would hit the public any minute, they whipped up a summary as an FYI.

Either way, the leak to CNN is problematic. Although CNN states that the dossier is full of completely unverified allegations, nowhere do we get the impression that it was included as a "heads up". The mere (leaked) fact that a summary, written by US intelligence officials, was provided to the president gives it a level of seriousness that it does not deserve. It makes it seem as if officials are really investigating it.

Obama's reaction should tell you where to file this one: snug between the faked moon landings and Pizzagate.

I don't see your links so one can evaluate your claims and timeline.

Who leaked what to CNN? A private investigation firm gave the information to the press, there was no "leaking" involved except in Trump's made up version of reality.

 

[CapelDodger]

How do you know before the details of the extent of interference are out?

I was agreeing to the distinction between interference with the election by, say, hacking voting machines or stuffing ballot-boxes, and influencing the outcome by influencing voters. I'm not aware of any accusations of Russian interference in that sense.

Quantifying the influence of Russia via its WikiLeaks arm is obviously difficult, given the decades already spent demonising the Clintons. Personally, I think the Comey intervention had the more significant effect but I'm sure historians will never stop arguing about it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Can you find a post of mine where I claimed with absolute certainty Trump colluded with Russia?

Do you know what Emily's Cat is referring to?

When you said, "Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't* coordinate with the Russians to cheat?" that is a classic shifting of the burden of proof. If you are making an assertion that Trump did coordinate with Russia, that's for you to provide evidence for, not for Emily's Cat to provide evidence against.

Or that's the gist I get from her argument.


*Italics mine

 

[CapelDodger]

Trump's instinctively brash responses and his accusations of various high-level people has only made the headlines worse for him.

That's going to be a repeating feature of this administration, I've no doubt.

 

[CapelDodger]

When you said, "Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't* coordinate with the Russians to cheat?" that is a classic shifting of the burden of proof.

A pleasure to see the ploy turned against Trump isn't it?

 

[CapelDodger]

The Dubai deal is off, according to Trump. I think he said he lost 2 billion dollars or something like that. Chris B.

I think we'd all expect Trump to say something like that.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The Dubai deal is off, according to Trump. I think he said he lost 2 billion dollars or something like that. Chris B.

"Something like that" = figure he made up out of random firing synapses.

 

[CapelDodger]

To me, turning down a 2 billion dollar deal would be a loss of the offered 2 billion, I don't know how you would see it if the same thing happened to you?

I don't think Trump was being offered 2 very large in cash, I think this is the return projected by a raging narcissist. Someone who went bankrupt running casinos.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Something like that" = figure he made up out of random firing synapses.

Exactly.

 

[CapelDodger]

You don't lose the win, you lose the game, and you do have to play the game to lose it. (hmm, can we stretch the analogy to forfeiting? not sure how that would work)

Best just stick it in Schroedinger's box and move on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wouldn't see it as a loss because I haven't lost anything. To lose something, you have to have it in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump can quite legitimately say that he has, in some way, sacrificed something by turning down the deal (though, we only have his word that is was going ahead in the first place). But it is wrong to describe it as a loss, it is simply a missed opportunity.

Devoting yourself to public service is to some degree a self-sacrificing choice. It is a choice made by millions of people all over the world, myself included. It does, of necessity, involve some sort of sacrifice.

Meh. In business finance, an opportunity cost is a real thing. A lost opportunity has financial implications, especially in a publicly traded corporation. I don't know what Trump's stuff is - is it privately held? I would suspect so, given the whole "passing it to his kids" thing. That wouldn't be the case if it were a publicly traded holding.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Given that she lost the electoral vote, it seems impossible that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country. I think you're misunderstanding what others are saying.

But, again, given that it wasn't a popular vote contest, who won the popular vote is not all that essential.

It is certainly possible that my inference is off.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you want to keep playing that game, you also have to note that Trump won many of his states by tiny margins. It's not as if everybody in Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin lined up behind him. The fact is that a majority -- literally -- of Americans voted for somebody OTHER THAN Trump. And it's pretty desperate to try to claim California voters count for less than anybody else.

Please quote where I have claimed that California voters count less.

Trump's margins weren't stellar, nor have I claimed they were. But his margins were more evenly distributed across the country, at least from a statistical perspective.


ETA: I recant that last statement. Re-reviewing the numbers, it was a pretty seriously polarized election.

 

[Sherkeu]

Who knows and who cares?

I don't see your links so one can evaluate your claims and timeline.

Who leaked what to CNN? A private investigation firm gave the information to the press, there was no "leaking" involved except in Trump's made up version of reality.

Can you agree on this? ---> When media get information from a reliable "source" relaying details of a highly classified meeting, that is called a "leak".

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

^^the leak in bold

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

^^same leak? different leak? after the fact? Doesn't say.

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

^^makes it sound like a credible document, no? That's not how Biden tells it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...cials-told-us-trump-allegations-leak-44737495

...the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.

^^ wow. Sounds like something supersupersecret CNN probably shouldn't be told, doesn't it? Yet multiple officials did tell CNN.

 

[phiwum]

Best just stick it in Schroedinger's box and move on.

What, next to Emily's cat?

 

[Distracted1]

Please quote where I have claimed that California voters count less.

Trump's margins weren't stellar, nor have I claimed they were. But his margins were more evenly distributed across the country, at least from a statistical perspective.

Clinton also had a large spike in New York - over a million and a half, and nearly a million in Illinois. I don't see what inference you are drawing by singling out CA.

This election was federal. The voters in CA, NY, Il, even Texas for that matter, were voting for President of the Federal government, not President of CA ( or NY, TX, Il, etc...) ,their geographical distribution is irrelavent as long as it is under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the U.S.