President Trump

Tools    





"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Thread Killer (Let's kill the threads tonight)
Can i ask you to stop posting stuff like this?

Your opinion will always be more valued, this is the stuff i'm not reacting well to.



Thread Killer (Let's kill the threads tonight)
Speaking of which; 'this' (I feel), holds some merit.



Also, maybe If the media didn't such a big deal out of him, or probably just refused to cover the majority of his campaign and didn't make such a big deal out of the smaller details. Maybe, he wouldn't have been President.



I was expecting this response, though hoping otherwise, provided this plainly represents an extremely narrow range of political candidates and specifically states that I disagree with Trump over 50% of the time on raw policy alone...


It certainly informs the likelihood of such of a claim.


True.


Show me your source.


Because I've never heard anything except hearsay to suggest otherwise, and I've specifically asked YOU to provided evidence of this claim and you've consistently offered me nothing but conjecture.


Give me 1 counter argument.


Give me 1 explanation.


And months ago I was also asking you to defend this claim. I've been ASKING you to persuade me. Repeatedly. And I've got back nothing but posturing.


I accused you first, that means I'm most right.


OH! Okay, so here's how this works:

Kaplan: *makes a claim*
Omnizoa: "Evidence please."
Kaplan: *insults intelligence*
Omnizoa: "Okay, here's a counter-argument."
Kaplan: "That's just a theory."
Omnizoa: "Okay, here's evidence supporting the counter-argument. Do I need to spoonfeed you?"
Kaplan: "That's been debunked."
Omnizoa: "Evidence please."
Kaplan: "Do I need to spoonfeed you?"

And with that Kaplan ends his magic routine by making the burden of proof... DISAPPEAR!


How do you know that's what I'm doing? How do you know I'm not just sitting here on the bed in my nightie, and waiting for you, whose got his pants down, stroking his ego over and over again in a desperate attempt to compensate for that lack of hard evidence.


Russians. They hack. It's what they do.


You mean the organizations you literally pay to keep secrets from you? You're right, my skepticism is entirely unfounded.


Literally could not matter less. Even if Russia was known for hacking every single other country's election besides the US, that would not be evidence in and of itself that Russia hacked the US election. This is really very basic syllogistic logic:

Russia hacks things.

The US election is hackable.

Therefor Russia hacked the US election.


But you do out of the kindness of your own heart and I appreciate it.


No you. (Seriously, if you're going to do this playground ****, why even play at intellectual superiority?)
There's a whole lot of nonsense, as I would expect from you. You made the claim that by posting some guy's theory that you've now debunked the consensus of the intelligence agencies. Yet you couldn't even do a few seconds of investigation to see if there were any problems with this guy's theory, that maybe even if he's right it still wouldn't prove anything. So here you go...

“In short, the theory is flawed,” said FireEye’s John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis and other cybersecurity services.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...probably-wrong (Funny, I wasn't making up stuff as I go. Imagine that.)

You will no doubt have some supercilious problems with this source, as you always do when something contradicts your already established worldview. The thing is my assessment of Trump is not dependent on establishing he colluded with Russia, so I don't have anything to fear from the conclusions of Mueller's investigation. You, on the other hand, have been railing against the investigation from the beginning, I can guess because it doesn't fit with your worldview. You disregard everything that contradicts your worldview, no matter how compelling, and generously accept any source that supports your worldview.

For the record I won't be dragging out this discussion. You made a claim (that this guy had debunked the hacking of the DNC by Russians). I refuted it (that no, this guy hadn't debunked anything). End of story. (And I'm not making any claims within the context of this discussion beyond the one that this guy's theory doesn't prove the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians. So don't create any straw man arguments based on claims I didn't make.) But whatever you write, if you choose to respond (prove to me that you're a better man than I give you credit for), I'll simply ignore, because I don't like wasting too much time dealing with irrational people on the internet.
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.



There's a whole lot of nonsense, as I would expect from you.
Not an argument.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
You made the claim that by posting some guy's theory that you've now debunked the consensus of the intelligence agencies.
It's not that hard really, "the consensus of intelligence agencies" means jack ****in' **** to me.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
Yet you couldn't even do a few seconds of investigation to see if there were any problems with this guy's theory, that maybe even if he's right it still wouldn't prove anything. So here you go...

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...probably-wrong
Thank you for the link.

Now let's address it:

Firstly, points for this article failing to link to the source it's specifically addressing.

Secondly,
“This theory assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer,” said Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk.

But, said Barger and other experts, that overlooks the possibility the files were copied multiple times before being released, something that may be more probable than not in a bureaucracy like Russian intelligence.
Still a complete assertion that this is a Russian thing, and what, "it could have been copied multiple times"?

Alright, 3 rebuttals to this:

1.) The files were published on July 22nd, the earliest Date Modified times are July 5th. You're suggesting that "Russia" "hacked" these files and over the course of 17 days simply sat on this information before handing it over to WikiLeaks to share? Why?

2.) This doesn't explain the even copy times:

"The last modification dates indicate that the .rar files were built on 9/1/2016 and all the other files were copied on 7/5/2016. Note that all the times are even (accurate only to the nearest 2 seconds);" ... "Windows FAT formatted volumes are constrained to represent times only to the nearest two (2) seconds. USB flash drives are typically formatted FAT or FAT32."

3.) This still doesn't make Russian hacking any more probable than a DNC staffer copying this **** down onto a flash drive. All this suggests is that after Russia hacked their system they could have copied it onto a flash drive at some point which would explain a couple the issues raised, that does not in ANY WAY justify this article title: "Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong"

“A hacker might have downloaded it to one computer, then shared it by USB to an air gapped [off the internet] network for translation(1), then copied by a different person for analysis(2), then brought a new USB to an entirely different air gapped computer to determine a strategy(3) all before it was packaged for Guccifer 2.0 to leak,” said Barger.
Yes, this is possible, but probabilistically, even leaving all other factors aside, this theory is at least 3 orders of magnitude less likely than what Forensicator proposed.

Hultquist said the date that Forensicator believes that the files were downloaded, based on the metadata, is almost definitely not the date the files were removed from the DNC.

That date, July 5, 2016, was far later than the April dates when the DNC hackers registered “electionleaks.com” and “DCLeaks.com.” Hulquist noted that the DNC hackers likely had stolen files by the time they began determining their strategy to post them.
That is entirely conjecture. "Almost definitely" based on the domain registrations of websites which we're assuming "the DNC hackers" created based on what? How do we know they were made by the same people? How do we know they must have had the files before registering those domains? We don't, we're just assuming.

The July date is also months after the DNC brought in FireEye competitor CrowdStrike to remove the hackers from their network and well after Crowdstrike first attributed the attack to Russia.
It is also prior to the DNC "hack", a completely separate occasion which we're assuming are the same people because reasons.

Seriously ****ing think about this for a second, Kaplan:

If I get a funny email that asks me for my password and I later find out that I accidentally gave away my email password to some Chinese scam artists then MONTHS LATER I find out someone has copied files from my SHARED DESKTOP, does it really make sense that I should draw a connection between these events and go "Those ******* Chinese hacked my computer!"

I mean jesus christ, I need merely open my email's spam folder and I could accuse DOZENS of different countries of the exact same ****.

And if an insider removed files from the DNC on July 5, it could just as likely be a second, unrelated attack to the Russian one.
And boom, there ya go, they even admit it themselves in their own article.

Even if there were no other scenarios that would create the same metadata, experts note that metadata is among the easiest pieces of forensic evidence to falsify. It would be far more difficult to fabricate other evidence pointing to Russia, including the malware only known to be used by the suspected Russian hackers, and internet and email addresses seen in previous attacks by that group.
...before immediately proceeding to contradict itself again by presuming a connection.

Forensicator’s claim that 20 to 25 megabyte per second downloads would be impossible over the internet also raised eyebrows.

John Bambenek, threat systems manager at the security firm Fidelis, noted that while home internet, where uploads are much slower than downloads, would not allow that speed, corporate and cloud networks could do so.
Overseas? Has anyone here ever tried to load up mainstream East Asian websites? I've got scriptblockers on and they still chug to hell.

The DNC would not provide details about its upload speeds in July of 2016.
I bet it hurt to type that.

Other companies independently discovered evidence that linked the attacks to the same culprit. SecureWorks found an improperly secured URL shortening account used by Fancy Bear while investigating other attacks by the group. That account contained evidence of nearly 4,000 phishing attacks Fancy Bear waged against Gmail addresses
Again, this is presuming a connection between two distinctly separate events, this is pure speculation predicated upon the first security intrusion being related to the second security intrusion.

The intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, also claims to have evidence the attacks were coordinated by Moscow, though they have not released their evidence to the public.
Gee, can't imagine why I shouldn't just take them at their word.

“I find it interesting that people are so eager to believe that Dmitri Alperovitch is biased, but willing to accept the forensics of an anonymous blogger, with no reputation, that no one knows anything about,” said Hultquist.
And who the **** are you? I don't give a **** about anyone's reputation here, I give a **** about what makes the most sense.

“When this many brands agree on something, come together to provide several different aspects of the attack, sometimes it’s true.”
"Several aspects", you mean several speculations and assumptions. There's no evidence here, the DNC has refused investigations, and the intelligence agencies defending it have refused to provide evidence to support it, all anyone here has done is parrot this collusion conspiracy theory with no regard whatsoever for it's probability or it's logical coherence.

Overall, Kaplan, I think your article is a **** debunk. How's that?

Originally Posted by Kaplan
(Funny, I wasn't making up stuff as I go. Imagine that.)
I never suggested you were, I just want you to source your ******* claims, but it's like pulling teeth out of a grizzly bear.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
You will no doubt have some supercilious problems with this source, as you always do when something contradicts your already established worldview.
Didn't even mention it.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
The thing is my assessment of Trump is not dependent on establishing he colluded with Russia,
Oh I'll bet.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
You, on the other hand, have been railing against the investigation from the beginning,
Because it's patently absurd.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
I can guess because it doesn't fit with your worldview.
My worldview is one in which the laws of reality aren't casually broken by the sensationalist whims of a Twitter mob, yes.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
You disregard everything that contradicts your worldview,
Then why did I become vegan?
Then why am I typing this on a Dvorak keyboard?
Then why am I even on this website administrated by a person who forced me to reconsider my epistemological arguments for morality?

My motto is "Leave your taboos at the door, nothing is immune to criticism, Question Everything". I regularly confront that which challenges my worldview, and I've been having far more pleasant conversations with Communists and Nazis than I've ever had with YOU, Kaplan.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
no matter how compelling, and generously accept any source that supports your worldview.
I've never seen one of those, but sources which support my suspicions with evidence and reason and citations? Yes, I rather prefer those.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
For the record I won't be dragging out this discussion.
You already have, the moment you made an assertion and continued to defend it without supporting it with hard evidence or coherent logic is the moment you intellectually forfeited this argument.

That was months ago, and here we are. You're still dodging my points and I've still holding your feet to the fire.

You say Russian hacked the DNC. PROVE IT.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
You made a claim (that this guy had debunked the hacking of the DNC by Russians).
Oh, so I should defend my claims, but you shouldn't have to defend yours? I see.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
I refuted it
And I refuted your "refutation".

Originally Posted by Kaplan
And I'm not making any claims within the context of this discussion beyond the one that this guy's theory doesn't prove the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians.
You claim the DNC was hacked by the Russians.

That is your claim.

Originally Posted by Kaplan
So don't create any straw man arguments based on claims I didn't make.)
Playing the denial game again, huh? Alright, where's that post I made... AH! Here it is:

All of your claims in chronological order:

"all the Russian connections and circumstantial evidence that very clearly shows the need for an investigation."

"[the DNC leak] has been determined to have been done by Russia."

"Russia has done this to other countries, most recently France,"
Originally Posted by Kaplan
But whatever you write, if you choose to respond (prove to me that you're a better man than I give you credit for), I'll simply ignore, because I don't like wasting too much time dealing with irrational people on the internet.
Dealing with irrational people on the internet is all I do, so feel free to respond to my criticisms and I'll continue to deconstruct your arguments piece by piece, OR you can spare me the hassle and either give up or give me that evidence I've been asking you for for half a year now.

Either put up or shut up.
__________________
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel
Movies / Anime / Ultimate Showdown / Veg*nism / Action 2015



Was scrolling back through this thread and saw people citing Keith Olbermann. Talk about somebody who shouldn't be tweeting, they swear and insult people more than I do and I got ****in' banned.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	OlbX.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	360.7 KB
ID:	38569  



Let's see.

Trump backed Roy Moore.
Trump has been reported as doubting the Access Hollywood Tape.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas".
Trump hired a CFPB Acting Director after one was already assigned.
And Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich.

Jesus Palomino.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.



This is what people should be concentrating on.
You mean the fact that he wants to cut taxes for everyone and people should stop telling half the story, right?
__________________
Letterboxd



Let's just skip to the end of this one, since every argument about taxes goes the same way:

1. [Republican] wants to cut taxes for the rich!
2. They're cutting them for everyone.
3. But they're getting cut more for the rich.
4. Because they pay more to begin with, so even an "even" tax cut in terms of rate nominally cuts theirs more.

Obviously, people can argue that the rich should not get the same rate cut as everyone else, if they want, but that should be stated upfront. Line #1, by itself, isn't an honest representation of the policy or the debate surrounding it.
__________________



Let's just skip to the end of this one, since every argument about taxes goes the same way:

1. [Republican] wants to cut taxes for the rich!
2. They're cutting them for everyone.
3. But they're getting cut more for the rich.
4. Because they pay more to begin with, so even an "even" tax cut in terms of rate nominally cuts theirs more.

Obviously, people can argue that the rich should not get the same rate cut as everyone else, if they want, but that should be stated upfront. Line #1, by itself, isn't an honest representation of the policy or the debate surrounding it.
Amen. I would like to add, and I would scream it if I could. Business tax rates are different than income tax for a reason! Business is what stimulates our economy, and if you owned a small business wouldn't you want the same break Wal-Mart gets.

Also, please check what you pay in taxes before you start complaining about how little the rich pay. In my experience the people complaining the most end up paying 0% after breaks at the end of the year.

Don't like waiting till the end of the year, vote for a Republican who wants flat taxes.



http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/27/news...oor/index.html


Great example of the half truths we get on tax issues. Although I think calling this a half truth is being generous. Getting rid of a federally mandated tax is a tax increase? Bizzaro world.



Getting rid of a federally mandated tax is a tax increase? Bizzaro world.
Even that's tame by Washington rhetoric standards. If you've ever heard a politician say someone else wanted to "cut funding" for something, there's a pretty good chance that "cut" meant "increase at a lower rate than planned," or even "increase at a lower rate than other things we're increasing." Not even kidding.



Even that's tame by Washington rhetoric standards. If you've ever heard a politician say someone else wanted to "cut funding" for something, there's a pretty good chance that "cut" meant "increase at a lower rate than planned," or even "increase at a lower rate than other things we're increasing." Not even kidding.
Ha, yes I have definitely noticed that a time or two.



Let's just skip to the end of this one, since every argument about taxes goes the same way:

1. [Republican] wants to cut taxes for the rich!
2. They're cutting them for everyone.
3. But they're getting cut more for the rich.
4. Because they pay more to begin with, so even an "even" tax cut in terms of rate nominally cuts theirs more.

Obviously, people can argue that the rich should not get the same rate cut as everyone else, if they want, but that should be stated upfront. Line #1, by itself, isn't an honest representation of the policy or the debate surrounding it.
True. But I do want to say that line 1 gets close-ish to the point for some people though:

[Republican] would prefer the rich have (keep) more money!

(Because she thinks it's better for the economy, or because it's "just fair" that they keep what they earn, or even she's paid off by big business, the goal is the same)

I've talked around here before that I'd rather Dems actually fight for the real reasons that redistribution is good (that it's 'better for the economy' as vague as that is, root watering vs trickle down and all that) rather than arguments that resemble resentment because I actually think the base reasons are REALLY GOOD and it's sad that they (sometimes) put out bad reasons because those arguments will move more feet (in the short term).

But on the flip side, Reps have to own that they think that money is better suited in the hands of the rich (either because they are the proper class for wealth, because they are the ones that 'most earned' it [often dubious to me], or some other reason).

Dems want downward pressure on distribution, Reps want upward pressure (or possibly maintaining the current distribution). But even people that boil down the argument to line 1 don't own dishonesty/mischaracterization on this one.

Not a rebuttal, just adding. Agree with your sentiments.

Also not excusing it, they shouldn't reduce the argument to that bit when they care about the upstream policy intentions anyway.

Part of the 'problem' is that there are legitimately people who don't care about the base arguments. Even if they were presented with competing ideas about redistribution causes X amount of economic growth (and they might know most of it anyway) it won't matter, they don't want the rich to have more money, they don't want to lose their money. And honestly, those people still get to weigh in, and still deserve to be discussed with, even if all they care about is the 'surface level'.

(Surface level being: downward redistribution for its own sake, upward redistribution for its own sake. Both of which are valid, if missing the point from my perspective.)



@Slappydavis I always rep your posts because I appreciate the thoughtfulness and honesty that goes into them. I would rather talk politics with you than 9 out of 10 conservatives I come in contact with. That's because I agree with you that I don't think the motivations from either side are as pure as they make them sound. For example I don't believe for a minute that Trump gives a flip about the middle and lower class of this country. I think you are right in saying that opinions shouldn't be devalued just because of the place they are coming from either. Everyone should have their say.

Obviously you are 100 times smarter than me and on economic matters I have to listen to people much smarter than me talk about these matters and then decide where I fall. At the end of the day I just agree with the smart people who talk about trickle down more than the ones that talk about root watering (a term I love by the way).



At the end of the day I just agree with the smart people who talk about trickle down more than the ones that talk about root watering (a term I love by the way).
Most of the things I believe are taken from people smarter than me (at least in the area they talk about), so I think this is reasonable.

While I'll never be someone who comes up with a unified theory of anything, I do like talking at the margins with individuals.

Glad you said something, because more and more I've withdrawn from talking politics and gotten into talking about art stuff more and more. And it's not because I'm really valuing art more, it's just that I like discussion and art seems to be one of the areas that's still okay to be individualized.

But that's my fault, and I should get down and dirty with political issues. Let it be personal to me, be the change and whatnot.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!


I want Sorkin to do a Resevoir Dogs remake, here is the opening shot.
funny.
Clicking this thread dropped me right on your last post. Without reading your comment, I immediately started humming Little Green Bag's bass line.

;P
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel