... much like their candidate.

A major difference exists between influence and manipulate. Influence is overt. Manipulate is covert and corrupt.

http://tinyurl.com/hram5mx


What a load of bs that story of the Russians hacking/influencing our election is. There is no upside to Trump winning from the Russian perspective. Clinton was easily blackmailable if she wouldn't play ball. Trump is not.

Talk about fake news!

How do I imbed a youtube video? I can never get that to work!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-uBdeEVF8

Here ya go ...

The guy (and reince priebus and Conway elsewhere) on the right hit several of the points in the poster at the top of the Debating. / Arguing thread. His/their flaws of logic are painful to watch. Trump's team is very selective, deliberately and carefully choosing what evidence and sources they reference when responding to the questions from interviewers.


And I think this news item is a typical illustration of the disconnect in our shared experience of the reporting of things that are going on in the world. It's sadly clear that different sides the issues also bring different rules and standards to the conversation. Senator McCain evoked Senator Moynihan today saying "facts are stubborn things" when he expressed his support for an investigation of this issue.

Extremist neo-cons say that when talk show hosts have told them how to think. Meanwhile professionals who do this stuff (ie Fort Meade) accurately say this is a great concern. Since extremists are so easily manipulated by such propaganda techniques. Since neo-cons do not know how to separate facts from emotional misinformation.

Same techniques also proved to most Americans that smoking cigarettes increase health. If most adults knew how to think for themselves, then those Russian antics would be irrelevant. But we know most adults are not officer material. Same type people were what Hitler called his brownshirts. So easily manipulated by misinformation, deception, context, and soundbytes.

We also know why Putin wanted Trump. Chess players easily manipulate and run circles around thin skinned, emotional, and not cerebral counter parties. He expects many good years running circles around the emotional, thin skinned, poorly educated, and Christie type bully Trump.

So he would have more opportunities to flirt with Melania. If Hillary had taken better care of herself, maybe got some plastic surgery even, we wouldn't be in this situation. But she let herself go, didn't she. :eyebrow:

Here's the problem, neo-conservatism is an ideology that started with conservative Democrats. The aggressive militarism espoused by them in foreign policy is not distinguishable from HRC's positions. Please update your scare words to match reality.

Wacko extremist Democrats who then became wacko extremist Republican. Neo-con extremism existed long before that. Another legendary example was Sen Joseph McCarthy whose extremist lies destroyed so many lives. Completely different from moderates - Democrats or Republicans. Stop foolishly dumping all in one pot.

Moderates learn facts; then make a conclusion. Wacko extremists (neo-cons) have a conclusion based in emotion (or rhetoric); first learning facts be damned.

Only the naive would believe Russian hacking is mythical or not a concern. Especially when so many adults are so easily manipulated even by fictional news sites or Bill O'Reilly that intentionally creates such lies. Especially when so many adults knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Or loved it when we massacred 5000 American soldiers on what was clearly a lie about Saddam's WMDs. Extremist lies (like speeches that promote hate) are dangerous when left unexposed.

Unfortunately many adults are not officer material; are easily manipulated by outright lies. Rhetoric taught them to disparage and hate; to not bother learning how the world works. Extremists even deny that Russians hacked to promote a thin-skinned and knee-jerk president.

So many concerned that Trump may be cozy with Russia had absolutely no problem with Obama telling Putin he'll be more flexible after the election (wink wink/nudge nudge) Oh, and remember Obama making fun of Romney in the debate for calling Russia a geopolitical threat.
Yeh, you're a mental midgit. Your predictable thin-skinned, knee-jerk posts are irrelevant. You can STFU now. Your hypocrisy is nauseating.

The Washington Post is reporting that scientists are unsure of a Trump presidency and beleive there is a decent chance he will remove climate data from government records. So there is now a coordinated effort underway to identify and prioritize all government hosted climate data and copy it and back it up to independent servers in other countries.

Maybe they are paranoid. Maybe they are wise.

Apparently a couple of days ago, Trump's transition team asked the Department of Energy for the names of everyone who has worked on climate change research in that agency, including private contractors. Why would they ask for that list of names? What possible motivation could they have?


Don't believe the press? This is the actual list of questions sent to the Department of Energy.

What are the names?

Attachment 58830

And what programs are important to Obama?


Attachment 58829

If the Washington Post makes a connection between not knowing why a question was asked of the Department of Energy, and a hysterical movement of a minority of scientists concerning data that is not developed or kept by the Department of Energy,

A) Is that news?

That's my only question. Because not knowing why a question was asked and drawing conclusions on that basis is not journalism. It's fucking conspiracy theory.

Hysterical? Conspiracy theory?

Only if you think that Trump and the people he appoints will be more restrained than Canadians.

link

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks!!!

News is "things happened and we told you they happened." News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country."

That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.

Oh! Oh! I wanna play the "this is my only question" game.

Okay, okay, THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION ( imagine I'm saying that in, like, a Batman voice )

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

...

( And no fair changing the subject, because THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION --so you have to respond specifically within the parameters that *I* want the conversation to be framed in !! )

Looks like a rhetorical question to me.

Wrong! You didn't answer my only question.

How do you feel about that?

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

Yes

Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!

UT is 100% on target here.

First off - a citizen is responsible for learning facts so as to make critical and informed decisions. We educated everyone to create informed (and therefore moderate) citizens. Who then first learn facts before concluding anything. Not everyone remembers their education. So we require everyone to be educated.

Second and unfortunately, too many are making "Trump will do this" conclusions. We know that Trump has a long history of doing what a "senior German government official" said. He has a set of "emotions and reflexes" rather than a foreign policy. Who can say what he will really do? He lied so often in his campaign that, for example, he now talks about Hilary in respectful tones. And has dismissed silly suggestions that Hilary should be jailed. He fully endorsed women's rights. When that did not get him political support, he quickly became an anti-abortionist. What does he really think? Nobody really knows. We only know he appears to have no long term thoughts. He is clearly not a chess player.

And that is the point. Nobody can really say what his every decision will be because he does not even admit to previous claims and accusations. His long history is to say anything that is convenient at the time. We have no idea what he will do.

Learn facts. Learn who he is hiring for his administration. Only that is news.

Does that say what he is going to do? That is not his history. He has a history (like other business school graduates such as George Jr) of not reading memos and National Security Briefings. Instead he states his current "emotion and reflex". What will he really do? Nobody here or anywhere in the world can say based in facts.

We are in for a wild ride on a roller coaster in the dark. Since Trump is a front man (much like George Jr). He does not know basic economic theory, foreign policy, National Security briefings, and what the generals know. His history is to not do homework.

We have no idea if the coaster will go screaming down a hole or just gently round a curve. Best anyone can do is only learn who the players will be. And then watch. We do not even yet know if the players will be permitted to make decisions.

Only useful news says who the players will be. Nothing more. UT is spot on correct.

All patriotic citizens spend time every day becoming informed. Lesser citizens do not. Are therefore easily manipulated by emotions. Where will Trump's emotions take him? Knee jerk reactions were successful at getting him rich at the expense of counter parties, no taxes, and other unproductive accomplishments. Will that strategy play well on the world stage? Be concerned. Nobody has a clue. We only know it will make this world more volatile.

Only useful news says who the players will be and their histories. Speculation is not news.

Yes it's news.

It reported the thing the scientists are doing, the reasons they give for doing it, and some relevant events. It remarked several times that the specific issue of data deletion hasn't been threatened, and is probably unlikely, but that a more pressing threat is preventing the collection of new data.

I'll agree that it's not a great article, since it didn't go too far into that threat, since there are any number of quotes they could have had from Republicans saying that the research under threat is a money-making scheme by scientists, and claims from the Trump campaign that they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".

That's excellent, I hope they are effective at it.

the full quote then

Maybe it's let NASA do space, NOAA do atmosphere. NOAA's more AGW-oriented anyway, if that's how it goes down.

You start out saying that scientists working in fields under political attack by Republicans are hysterical, and then say you hope that the Republicans are effective in steering scientists away from science the Republicans politically attack.

No *a* scientist is hysterical, believing that federal data will suddenly become unavailable without warning or recourse.

*Published* Federal data, suddenly unavailable. It'll be erased from everyone's hard drive by the NSA.

Make a wager; I'll give you 10 to 1 odds up to $200. We'll give it a month, if any of the data is taken offline by Feb. 20....

Here's the thing man.

Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.

The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.

I'm not making any bets on what Trump will do in any regard.

But if I were in the situation where the ante for the bet was "make the backup", winning the bet was "I have the backup", and losing was "I didn't need the backup", I'd make the bet.

If their interest is in the science, sure.

But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.

It would be great for ALL of the stereotypes of the opposition!

Do you believe the end of the data would mean they win the argument? How would that work, exactly?

Wouldn't the argument just get bigger?

It most certainly would not end the argument, just the loss of valuable data we spent a fortune to document.

Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean it doesn't apply to someone, and many elected officials and Trump nominees explicitly want to promote fossil fuel production, prevent environmental regulation, or have said that climate change is a scheme for scientists to get grant money. I've only heard Trump use the Chinese hoax line, and who knows what he actually thinks, except he certainly thought it would be a line that worked with his audience.Drawing out the argument even longer IS a win for those trying to stave off environmental regulations.

Ending the science is a win for those who think that climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax to get grant money.

OK well I do tire of this and am willing to admit your Kung Fu is stronger than mine, or whatever it was was just on display by us.

In any case, per Trump, the full court press of the press is now on to find the worst possible alarm bell to ring at all times. As if they didn't notice the bare result of the alarm bell of the last four months: his election.

~ could it be we might be able to think - you know, exercise our critical thinking skills - if they turned off the incessant and, in the end, useless alarm bell? ~

Poor losers are incapable of critical thinking. Their thoughts can be safely dismissed.

I have little doubt that Trump is a terrible person and possibly a bad President, but roughly 1/4 of the potential electorate voted for him looking for, once again, hope and change. Hillary voters, again roughly only 1/4 of the electorate, need to realize that a push to disregard the election in favor of their chosen establishment candidate is in no way a valid outcome. If the electoral college decides that Trump is too nutty the Hillary electors have to get behind a consensus Republican who isn't establishment. Last I checked that person does not exist. /opinion from someone in the other 50%

They also call others names, like extremists and mental midgets... :evil2:

Scanned the article, it appears to have two components.

1) First component: Definitely news, according to your definition.

In this case, the "things" are that the scientist/s did/said things, and the actions/statements were reported as happening. That's news. (Was it relevant that the things happened? That's actually debatable. But they did happen.)

2) The second component (about the scientists' name request) actually also fits the "things happened and we told you they happened" criteria, however they seemed to have been tacked on to the second half of the first article without announcing the journalistic intention of why the two events are being suggested as being related events. This kind of article leaves to the readers imagination a correlation between the two events, which could understandably be characterized as journalistically irrsponsible (at best), and journalistically disingenuous/purposefully misleading (at worst). Conversely, the correlation between the two events being suggested could be considered relevant, under the "related recent events" umbrella, but even in this case, the lack of a new heading announcing what the correlation is suggested to be creates the appearance of impropriety (which even if not in itself a wrongdoing, must be understood by the speaker to be corrosive to the perception of integrity).



Taken as a whole, is it "news"? By the letter of the definition, it is a reporting of events that occurred. In this case, yes.

In the larger context of journalistic integrity, is it "news" that had been executed to the highest standards? I'm erring on the side of "it could have been done better" --and the central question is, is it better to announce a questionable correlation and directly attempt to mislead the reader, or NOT announce a questionable correlation, which could variously be described as 1) misleading the reader by sleight-of-hand, or 2) letting the reader exercise their own critical thinking skills (in which case, NOT announcing the questionable correlation would be necessary).

My personal opinion is that they should have explained the questionable correlation with a new sub-heading, in essence a new "subject" being announced. At best, in this case, it should have been a new article. If left as the part of the same article, the correlation should have been explicitly called out, and the article should have been published as an opinion piece. In this case, it would not be "news" --but since the correlation wasn't explicitly called out, I can't make that determination.

In this case, with the correlation left unstated, it doesn't technically qualify as an opinion piece. As a "news" article, with no correlation suggested, it appears to be two unrelated news articles crammed together with no explanation.

If it isn't the function of a journalist to leave unspecified correlations to the reader's imagination, then it isn't "news".

If it's okay for a journalist to present unrelated events as long as they DON'T specify the correlation, then it is "news".

So as far as I can tell, this comes down to definitions of journalism that I don't know exist as anything other than opinions.

My personal opinion, I would call this "bad" news, because I like correlations to be explained. It seems irresponsible (at best), in my opinion, to drop "hints" to the reader (unless you're calling it an opinion piece), and at worst a trend in "bad" news which waters down the concept of using discernment in digesting new information (if, which is debatable, this can even be considered the responsibility of a for-profit news industry).



...


...


...


* * * I DON'T HAVE A SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY REPLY. * * *

Good thing that was UT's only question; otherwise, you'd have to quit your job to have time for answering more.

Coming back to the Cellar is hard. This is the second time UT has had an issue with me not replying soon enough. Am I in the penalty box, or are there now time limits on conversations?

You are required to log in daily.

Bailiff, wack his pee-pee.

Trump with...

I had heard of these, and I just got one.

Anyone else getting ads on FB from Trump giving away tickets to his inauguration?

Attachment 59161

Apparently it stands for "58th Presidential Inaugural Committee 2017".

Without knowing that, it certainly seems like a scam, like an email from fhjklwhejklhsdl.zx claiming to be from your bank.

With knowing that, it's a nice way for them to get your contact info.

Why would they have chosen that picture? That has to be put together by someone not directly involved.

This sounds fun.

It's actually a video where he says he's inviting me personally to the inauguration. (Not by name). I just grabbed a screen shot at random.

What is going on with Trump asking the Nat'l Guard general to resign while they are deployed for the inauguration? It just looks banana republicie.

So much weird shit. The Betsy DaVos pick is terrible. It's one thing to represent an ideology but she knows literally nothing about public education.

Yeah. Submitting those letters of resignation is one of those weird DC rituals every time a Pres is leaving. I don't remember it ever being handled this awkwardly before. I don't think it's malicious on Trump's part, just lacking in competence.

I skimmed an article in the Post a few days ago about it, and it was a little too boring for me to really get my mind into. My takeaway though was that the Trump team just didn't understand how things work and they are focused on other stuff.

Yeah... super-awesome when she insisted that the states should be able to decide whether they follow federal disability law. Which she initially didn't even know existed. In response to a congresswoman who has a disabled son.

i understand there is enormous concern over who these secretaries are

being unable to name the current secys of all departments except state, i think i shall misplace my box of fucks again. the one where i keep all the fucks that i give

That's fine as long as you aren't nominated to run one of the departments you can't remember the name of.

Currently interesting are some who literally contradict what Trump believes. That includes a proposed Sec of Defense and UN Ambassador. Both have accurately defined a major threat by Putin. Putin was successfully impeded by international economic sanctions promoted by Obama, created by US financial industry, and fully endorsed / supported by the rest of the world.

Trump even wants to end that - so as to enable / restart an invasion of Ukraine. Some of his proposed administration appointments have clearly stated that would be disastrous - openly disagreeing with Trump. Curious. Who's beliefs will win out?

Word.

Putting it simply, I hope Trump and Pence die soon and I don't care how.
And if you're not part of one or more of the groups that Trump has already spoken negatively about, shut the fuck up about what you think of my statement.

that's fucked up right there

Is this fucked up?

Fucked up? Not hardly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.379ee08058b7

The climate change page disappeared also.:(

You want him dead for that?

That's the usual desire for arch-enemies... except super heroes, they just lock them away. Can't fuck up the sequels, you know.

Well just the eight more years.

For many reasons. He's a proven serial liar, a traitor to this country, a sexual predator, homophobe, hate and fear-monger piece of shit.
Yes, I want him dead and I hope it hurts like hell when it happens.

Does that answer your question?

But he would be replaced by a worse option. :eyebrow: