Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[sunmaster14]

Agreed.

Speculative scenarios that are plausible but unsupported don't accomplish much except to give the impression of confirmation bias.

I disagree. First of all, that's how science works. You come up with plausible hypotheses and test them against the evidence. You discard the ones that are contradicted by the evidence (assuming the evidence is reliable). Second, it's fun to discuss and hash out speculative scenarios. That's in part what discussion forums like this are for. If somebody wants to provide evidence against the theory, or perhaps propose a more plausible version, then I am all ears (or eyes). But simply doing the internet message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you" is what really doesn't accomplish very much. Except perhaps to shut down discussion, which, admittedly, does seem to the primary goal of most of the liberals in USA Politics.

 

[jimbob]

I protest. If you are "to the manner born" you at least have some class and good taste. Trumpy has neither.

But yeah, given his record, he never would have been rich if it was not for Daddy's Money.

<derail>

Really?

Fabergé eggs are the ultimate aristocratic accessory. A proper aristocrat is someone who can name both their great great grandfathers, which is why the family fortune hasn't been diluted.

I always think that the Fifth Marquees of Anglesey* is the best example of "to the manor born" No idea of the worth of anything because they were utterly spoiled as children, lacking nothing except parental affection.



*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paget,_5th_Marquess_of_Anglesey

 

[CapelDodger]

I protest. If you are "to the manner born" you at least have some class and good taste. Trumpy has neither.

One is "to the manner born" as soon as one is warm, regardless of one's manners in later life.

But yeah, given his record, he never would have been rich if it was not for Daddy's Money.

Hell no. But then he wouldn't be Trump as is if he'd had to make it on his own in the mean streets on New York. Let alone Vietnam.

"Trump, you're on point."
"Again?"
(chorus) "Yes!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So....
The trump campaign told the russians where to spend their 44.000$ in facebook ads.

So what did they need the russians for? For the funds? If so (as ridiculous as that is) why didn't they make a super PAC to transfer the money? Each new revelation makes this look more ridiculous.

...

The Russians were running the bot farms and providing the results of their hackers.

You seem to think this is about Russians financing Trump's campaign. It was not.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would hope that you of all people would not want law enforcement to be sicked on innocent people through misrepresentation and lies.

I don't like people hoping things about me.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't like people hoping things about me.

That puts you on the side of the angels. The other side loves people to hope things of them.

 

[phiwum]

One is "to the manner born" as soon as one is warm, regardless of one's manners in later life.

Hell no. But then he wouldn't be Trump as is if he'd had to make it on his own in the mean streets on New York. Let alone Vietnam.

"Trump, you're on point."
"Again?"
(chorus) "Yes!"

Surely, it is "to the manor born"?

 

[CapelDodger]

The Russians were running the bot farms and providing the results of their hackers.

You seem to think this is about Russians financing Trump's campaign. It was not.

Whether it qualifies as a material contribution to the campaign is still, of course, moot.

 

[CapelDodger]

Surely, it is "to the manor born"?

As I understand it, it derives from the manner of address due to one's status. It emerged as the earning, rather than inheritance, of status became more common.

 

[jimbob]

Surely, it is "to the manor born"?

I hasn't even spotted the alternative in my reply in post above that.

Fabergé eggs are particularly appropriate to invoke in context, being bling enough for Trump and Russian.

 

[logger]

you mean skilled investigators and experienced former intelligence operatives, right?

Oh I see, former intelligence people selling dirt about others.

Because if you are just making **** up, you don't have to get off your chair.

Interesting that you believe everything in the “dossier”

 

[logger]

God, how can anybody not see that Trump's whole Anti Establishment routine is just a con to fool the suckers?

I suppose if you would recognize what they are doing to him you might answer your own question.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Interesting that you believe everything in the “dossier”

'Interesting'? How?

 

[xjx388]

Wouldn’t it be proper to apply some skepticism to what’s in the dossier? The fact that some of it has been confirmed (what, exactly because I have not seen confirmation ?) does not in any way confirm by osmosis anything else.

The fact that it was written by a former, respected intelligence officer does not in anyway offer proof of the veracity any more than a UFO story by the President (Carter) proves UFOs are aliens.

The dossier is nothing but unsubstantiated rumor until it’s demonstrated otherwise.

 

[logger]

Interesting
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/f...ma-admin-threatened-my-client-and-his-career/

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, and once again this is an educated extrapolation...

It's no less speculative than all the other unsupported stuff in this thread...

 

[Emily's Cat]

On a the level of strategy (putting aside history and charisma and all that stuff), Hillary's big problem was that her internal polling was wrong. That's not really her fault. By early November, she thought she had it in the bag and was more concerned about winning the popular vote by a large margin so as to make her inevitable victory more resounding.

Sure. But to be fair, by early November, everyone I knew also thought she had it in the bag... so it wasn't just her polling that was off. In retrospect I can see many plausible explanations for why she lost and Trump won, but I didn't see any of those before hand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I disagree. First of all, that's how science works. You come up with plausible hypotheses and test them against the evidence. You discard the ones that are contradicted by the evidence (assuming the evidence is reliable). Second, it's fun to discuss and hash out speculative scenarios. That's in part what discussion forums like this are for. If somebody wants to provide evidence against the theory, or perhaps propose a more plausible version, then I am all ears (or eyes). But simply doing the internet message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you" is what really doesn't accomplish very much. Except perhaps to shut down discussion, which, admittedly, does seem to the primary goal of most of the liberals in USA Politics.

If you're discussing it in the framework of fun speculations to kick around, I have no objection. Most of my objection in this thread has been to cases where that speculation has been treated as factual, and argued as such, in the absence of any supporting evidence.

"It makes sense to me" isn't sufficient evidence for me.

 

[phiwum]

If you're discussing it in the framework of fun speculations to kick around, I have no objection. Most of my objection in this thread has been to cases where that speculation has been treated as factual, and argued as such, in the absence of any supporting evidence.

"It makes sense to me" isn't sufficient evidence for me.

Perhaps this is my bias showing, but I don't recall anyone arguing that everything in the dossier is fact. At best, some have argued that it can't be dismissed without investigation.

On the other hand, logger has said that the dossier notations nothing but lies.

 

[Noztradamus]

Surely, it is "to the manor born"?

No it isn't (and don't call me Shirley.)

http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarg...ness/to-the-manor-born-or-to-the-manner-born/