Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheL8Elvis said:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you just eye roll your own strawman logic? If so, I agree with you.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well no. Something can be more unimpressive than something else. Like if you can rate impressiveness, and 100% is "utterly impressive", 50% would be "unimpressive" and 20% would be "highly unimpressive."
Click to expand...

Seems like "highly unimpressive" ought to be closer to the 100% end of the spectrum than the 0% end, wouldn't you say? I'd suggest somewhere around 75% unimpressive. At 20%, I'd probably want something more like "somewhat unimpressive" or "slightly unimpressive".
 
Seems like "highly unimpressive" ought to be closer to the 100% end of the spectrum than the 0% end, wouldn't you say? I'd suggest somewhere around 75% unimpressive. At 20%, I'd probably want something more like "somewhat unimpressive" or "slightly unimpressive".
Click to expand...

What? If 100% is highly impressive, then 20% would be highly unimpressive since it's closer to zero. What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I don't speak for any much less all liberals. I can speak for myself, however. The intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to interfere with the election via publication of false news articles, social media accounts posing as American voters, and so on. The ability to influence the information that voters use is new and troubling and well worth investigation.
Click to expand...
Yes, the intelligence agencies have agreed that this happened. What they haven't really disclosed is that such actions are neither novel, nor are they limited to Russia.

It does, however, make for really tasty news!
 
phiwum said:
Trebuchet's description was wrong, but Trump did work to change the GOP platform regarding Ukraine (especially regarding providing weapons to Ukraine), according to a number of reliable media outlets.
Click to expand...

Well, no, not even according to those reliable outlets. Trump's campaign staff (not Trump himself) are alleged to have been involved (no solid evidence exists for this) in changing the platform away from "We'll provide lethal weapons to Ukraine" to "We'll provide appropriate resources".

And let's see... how could providing lethal weapons backfire on us? I mean it's not like it's happened in the past right? Oh wait...
 
sunmaster14 said:
Of course I knew this, but why shouldn't I mock somebody who wastes my time with fake news? And why single me out for mocking? Pretty much everybody here does far worse than I do, including you.
Click to expand...

I would disagree on this. I mean, really, phiwum is one of the least egregious folks in here, as is trebuchet. They're both pretty even-keel in my opinion.
 
Argumemnon said:
What? If 100% is highly impressive, then 20% would be highly unimpressive since it's closer to zero. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see - I misread "utterly impressive" as being "utterly unimpressive". Given a re-reading and removing my errantly placed "un", then I agree that 20% would be "highly unimpressive".
 
Emily's Cat said:
Ah, I see - I misread "utterly impressive" as being "utterly unimpressive". Given a re-reading and removing my errantly placed "un", then I agree that 20% would be "highly unimpressive".
Click to expand...

Unimpressive would be zero. Giving a negative impression would be less than zero.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Unimpressive would be zero. Giving a negative impression would be less than zero.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'd say that the sign is irrelevant - it's an absolute value scale, which is fine. I mean, very negatively impressive is still impressive - it has an impression ;).

His scale was defined with 100% being perfectly IMpressive, and 0% being perfectly UNimpressive. 50% is essentially neutral, although he referred to it as "unimpressive", and I could see an argument that way, although it's really splitting hairs.

It's kind of like arguing over whether to classify zero as being neutral or being "non-positive". Both are true, it's a useless distinction with no practical value outside of a few very specific cases.

So I'm fine with 50% being labeled "unimpressive".
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nah, I'd say that the sign is irrelevant - it's an absolute value scale, which is fine. I mean, very negatively impressive is still impressive - it has an impression ;).

His scale was defined with 100% being perfectly IMpressive, and 0% being perfectly UNimpressive. 50% is essentially neutral, although he referred to it as "unimpressive", and I could see an argument that way, although it's really splitting hairs.

It's kind of like arguing over whether to classify zero as being neutral or being "non-positive". Both are true, it's a useless distinction with no practical value outside of a few very specific cases.

So I'm fine with 50% being labeled "unimpressive".
Click to expand...

Your argument is impressive.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes, the intelligence agencies have agreed that this happened. What they haven't really disclosed is that such actions are neither novel, nor are they limited to Russia.

It does, however, make for really tasty news!
Click to expand...

You are suggesting the actions of Russia last election are not novel nor limited to Russia. (I presume you're also suggesting that the quantity of Russian interference in 2016 wasn't noteworthy?)

Where do you get this information from?

ETA: already answered, with citations to US meddling in other elections. I'm not quite sure that's relevant. Let's suppose that the US has indeed been a terrible actor in this regard. Does this mean that we shouldn't investigate US meddling in our elections? I don't follow.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Well, no, not even according to those reliable outlets. Trump's campaign staff (not Trump himself) are alleged to have been involved (no solid evidence exists for this) in changing the platform away from "We'll provide lethal weapons to Ukraine" to "We'll provide appropriate resources".

And let's see... how could providing lethal weapons backfire on us? I mean it's not like it's happened in the past right? Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Whether or not the original suggested plank was wise, the fact is that Trump's change was beneficial to Russia. That doesn't mean it was quid pro quo, but merely that it could have been so.

I'll leave it to Mueller and others to investigate, rather than engage in guesswork.
 
phiwum said:
You are suggesting the actions of Russia last election are not novel nor limited to Russia. (I presume you're also suggesting that the quantity of Russian interference in 2016 wasn't noteworthy?)
Click to expand...
Relative to what I know the US has done in the past, the quantity doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me.

phiwum said:
ETA: already answered, with citations to US meddling in other elections. I'm not quite sure that's relevant. Let's suppose that the US has indeed been a terrible actor in this regard. Does this mean that we shouldn't investigate US meddling in our elections? I don't follow.
Click to expand...
Should we investigate it? Sure, just as we should expect other countries to investigate our meddling.

But to seemingly claim that such meddling is somehow unfair, and to imply that the president we have is only the president because of this meddling... To repeatedly come back to it as a battle-cry for the current crop of Anti-Trump folks seems disingenuous to me. Seems like just as much propaganda... only we're aiming it at ourselves.
 
phiwum said:
Whether or not the original suggested plank was wise, the fact is that Trump's change was beneficial to Russia. That doesn't mean it was quid pro quo, but merely that it could have been so.

I'll leave it to Mueller and others to investigate, rather than engage in guesswork.
Click to expand...

It was also beneficial to every other country around Ukraine, as well as any future countries against whom those lethal weapons might be turned, and it also benefits the US by not repeating the mistakes we've made in the past. Oh, and it *still* leaves us the option of providing lethal weapons if such is deemed appropriate... it just doesn't guarantee it.

But sure, yes, it benefits Russia, therefore it's bad :rolleyes: Because Russia are the bad guys, right?

Also, again, no evidence that it was Trump's change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom