Planet Rugby Forum

Santa wrote:I can only hope that I have at last killed this thread.

ManInTheBar wrote:

Santa wrote:I can only hope that I have at last killed this thread.

Apparently not

Had the claim of Russian interference marketed itself as "scientific" then your argument from the lack of falsifiability would have carried weight. Happily this is not the case.

The Russsians appear to think it had an effect (else why would they do it?); the FBI and Congress appear to be concerned that it COULD have worked even if no-one can prove it one way or the other as you have tried to demonstrate.

There is an argument that you have burnt your own straw man but that would be too Edward Woodward eh?

Donger wrote:

Santa wrote:

Donger wrote:

Santa wrote:

Donger wrote: I understand all that. so you seem to be postulating that it was ineffective, but you cannot prove it.

or are you arguing something else?

Nope. I'm saying nobody knows whether it was effective or if it was effective how effective it was. On that basis I'm skeptical of any claims about its effectiveness.

that's not quite how you posit your arguments. but glad we have it clear.

I reckon I was clear but have no evidence that I was.

not really. you went to the Glenn Beck/Big Tobacco school of argument.

Santa wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:

Santa wrote:I can only hope that I have at last killed this thread.

Apparently not

Had the claim of Russian interference marketed itself as "scientific" then your argument from the lack of falsifiability would have carried weight. Happily this is not the case.

The Russsians appear to think it had an effect (else why would they do it?); the FBI and Congress appear to be concerned that it COULD have worked even if no-one can prove it one way or the other as you have tried to demonstrate.

There is an argument that you have burnt your own straw man but that would be too Edward Woodward eh?

Gibberish. Just because something thinks something is effective does not mean that it is effective otherwise homeopathy would work.

It's certainly not a straw man to say that there is no evidence that Russian activity was effective. I suggest you don't understand what a straw man is. Or even a wicker man.

The science discussion was about the need for evidence. It had nothing to do with how Russian activity was executed.

Honestly guys, this is basic basic stuff.

Santa wrote:
I'm going to destroy you now with quotes from my posts. Are you ready to be destroyed?

ManInTheBar wrote:

Santa wrote:

ManInTheBar wrote:

Santa wrote:I can only hope that I have at last killed this thread.

Apparently not

Had the claim of Russian interference marketed itself as "scientific" then your argument from the lack of falsifiability would have carried weight. Happily this is not the case.

The Russsians appear to think it had an effect (else why would they do it?); the FBI and Congress appear to be concerned that it COULD have worked even if no-one can prove it one way or the other as you have tried to demonstrate.

There is an argument that you have burnt your own straw man but that would be too Edward Woodward eh?

Gibberish. Just because something thinks something is effective does not mean that it is effective otherwise homeopathy would work.

It's certainly not a straw man to say that there is no evidence that Russian activity was effective. I suggest you don't understand what a straw man is. Or even a wicker man.

The science discussion was about the need for evidence. It had nothing to do with how Russian activity was executed.

Honestly guys, this is basic basic stuff.

Oh dear.

You are stating that there is a need for evidence, no-one else. That is your straw man.

Basically.

penguin wrote:Russia spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on marketing campaigns in specific locations, and targeting certain demographics. The fact we have no way to know exactly how many votes were swayed is largely irrelevant. It was a two way vote, to all intents and purposes, and the margins of victory in those states were very narrow. If the campaign had any impact at all then it was a major factor. To say it had no impact would require more evidence than saying it had some impact - we know marketing campaigns work, so for it to have no impact would be the unlikely option. Nate Silver understands the context and thinks it was an important factor, which seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion to me.

Not being able to perfectly measure does not stop us from making decisions - I dread to think what marketing budgets would look like if it was all on the basis of perfect attribution.

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

You criticised Nate silver for pulling numbers out of his arse. He was asked to rate whether he thought it was an important factor, and he did. I'm saying that based on the evidence I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If it was a factor, it was an important one.

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

You criticised Nate silver for pulling numbers out of his arse. He was asked to rate whether he thought it was an important factor, and he did. I'm saying that based on the evidence I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If it was a factor, it was an important one.

Santa wrote:

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

You criticised Nate silver for pulling numbers out of his arse. He was asked to rate whether he thought it was an important factor, and he did. I'm saying that based on the evidence I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If it was a factor, it was an important one.

What evidence? For crying out loud, what f.ucking evidence?

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

You criticised Nate silver for pulling numbers out of his arse. He was asked to rate whether he thought it was an important factor, and he did. I'm saying that based on the evidence I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If it was a factor, it was an important one.

What evidence? For crying out loud, what f.ucking evidence?

The money spent advertising on Facebook.

Santa wrote:

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:

penguin wrote:

Santa wrote:
Who said it has no impact?

Nobody said anything about perfect measurement. The point was that there is no measurement at all.

You criticised Nate silver for pulling numbers out of his arse. He was asked to rate whether he thought it was an important factor, and he did. I'm saying that based on the evidence I think it's a reasonable conclusion. If it was a factor, it was an important one.

What evidence? For crying out loud, what f.ucking evidence?

The money spent advertising on Facebook.

Jesus. Are you able to hold down a job?

paddyor wrote:

shanky wrote:People admiring Donald's deal-making abilities should probably be aware that he didn't even have to make this deal.

He could have left DACA to Congress and then marched in later to rescue it.

Making a deal you didn't have to make, and sacrificing your core support base to do it - is not the sign of a great deal-maker. It's a sign of the opposite.

Not sure he could have. He was being sued by GOP State AGs and Sessions had said the DOJ wouldn't defend it. I think it was coming to his doorstep anyway.

Santa wrote:
What are you on about?

...make shit up based on no evidence and then expected people to accept your argument based solely on your expertise. ...

shanky wrote:

paddyor wrote:

shanky wrote:People admiring Donald's deal-making abilities should probably be aware that he didn't even have to make this deal.

He could have left DACA to Congress and then marched in later to rescue it.

Making a deal you didn't have to make, and sacrificing your core support base to do it - is not the sign of a great deal-maker. It's a sign of the opposite.

Not sure he could have. He was being sued by GOP State AGs and Sessions had said the DOJ wouldn't defend it. I think it was coming to his doorstep anyway.

I take your point, but this is America, people are always suing the President. He could have waited (even a few months) until it was well and truly Congress' problem

I reckon he blinked because he's got a soft spot for 'the children'. Probably Ivanka got in his ear.

Turbogoat wrote:How long is a piece of string?

The Gerasimov doctrine isn't about destroying the opposition, it's about keeping the opposition and friendly allies off balance, in a weakened state and in a bit of turmoil dealing with internal issues, rather than being a fully strengthened competitor to Russia for political, financial, and influential gain.

Just creating enough strife, stoking the already sparking fires of partisan hackery is more than effective at tweaking the shitstorm. They don't need major results, there's a good theory that they didn't want/expect T-Rump to win, they just wanted enough to weaken the Hillary Presidency and keep her wrapped up in Benghazi/email hearings throughout her tenure.

They get normal people squabbling over all sorts of shit, just like a very effective troll on the internet does. They just prod a few sensitive points and allow the real people to then do all the shit-fighting, while they sit back and watch the shit show.

Russia is just trolling. You can't put a measure on that, but you can appreciate an effective troll when you see one.

Turbogoat wrote:How long is a piece of string?

The Gerasimov doctrine isn't about destroying the opposition, it's about keeping the opposition and friendly allies off balance, in a weakened state and in a bit of turmoil dealing with internal issues, rather than being a fully strengthened competitor to Russia for political, financial, and influential gain.

Just creating enough strife, stoking the already sparking fires of partisan hackery is more than effective at tweaking the shitstorm. They don't need major results, there's a good theory that they didn't want/expect T-Rump to win, they just wanted enough to weaken the Hillary Presidency and keep her wrapped up in Benghazi/email hearings throughout her tenure.

They get normal people squabbling over all sorts of shit, just like a very effective troll on the internet does. They just prod a few sensitive points and allow the real people to then do all the shit-fighting, while they sit back and watch the shit show.

Russia is just trolling. You can't put a measure on that, but you can appreciate an effective troll when you see one.

Uncle Fester wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:How long is a piece of string?

The Gerasimov doctrine isn't about destroying the opposition, it's about keeping the opposition and friendly allies off balance, in a weakened state and in a bit of turmoil dealing with internal issues, rather than being a fully strengthened competitor to Russia for political, financial, and influential gain.

Just creating enough strife, stoking the already sparking fires of partisan hackery is more than effective at tweaking the shitstorm. They don't need major results, there's a good theory that they didn't want/expect T-Rump to win, they just wanted enough to weaken the Hillary Presidency and keep her wrapped up in Benghazi/email hearings throughout her tenure.

They get normal people squabbling over all sorts of shit, just like a very effective troll on the internet does. They just prod a few sensitive points and allow the real people to then do all the shit-fighting, while they sit back and watch the shit show.

Russia is just trolling. You can't put a measure on that, but you can appreciate an effective troll when you see one.

I've asked this before but why don't the West respond in kind?
Putin would either be out on his ear within a year or too busy putting out fires in his own shitholes that he wouldn't have time to be meddling in external affairs.

How Democrats won the presidency

By Kathleen Parker Opinion writer September 15 at 8:17 PM
Rarely, if ever, have so many presidential winners and losers been so incessantly chatty.

Hillary Clinton — who lost the 2016 election, in case you weren’t sure — is on a book tour with her campaign memoir, “What Happened.” (Hint: She’s a woman, the Comey letter.)

President Trump — who is still campaigning despite having won — is chatting up Democrats to try to get something done. Anything! By week’s end, he was recanting every mean thing he ever said about illegal immigrants and was softening his vow to send “dreamers” (children brought here by their parents) back to their point of birth.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, who already had his turn but can’t quite quit the presidency, is still talking.

Finally, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who lost the Democratic nomination to Clinton, is still running and still ranting about Medicare for everyone. Given the likely eventuality of a single-payer health-care system, he and Larry David may as well take a victory lap. It’s beginning to seem that Sanders won after all. As did the Democrats.

On the losing side are the Republicans who put their faith in a guy who promised the moon but has managed only to deliver a galaxy of tweets and several significant staff replacements. Trump the Republican was always a strain to credulity, but people can make themselves believe just about anything, as thousands of years of ritual sacrifice and snake dances confirm. Trump the salesman has always known this, either instinctively or as the result of his first successful con.

There are two things to know about con artists: One, they’re having fun; two, once a bluffer tastes the sweet satisfaction of scamming a sucker — one’s born every minute, you know — he can’t stop. Once The Donald realized people would buy his brand of unction, he couldn’t resist. No matter what he said or did, people of good (and not so good) faith donned their protective glasses and refused to see.

Trump was never ideologically driven, though he did surround himself with ideologues as helpmates. Or were they the biggest suckers of all?

This thought finally began to take shape when Trump recently met with the enemy — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). Depending on whose version one prefers, they discussed making a deal on both the future of hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants and what Trump called “extreme security.”

Almost instantly, Breitbart slapped Trump with a headline and a nickname: “Amnesty Don.” How quickly Stephen K. Bannon shape-shifted from White House chief strategist and Trump’s personal Pravda to his antagonist. Other Republicans, presumably speaking for the base, declared Trump’s presidency kaput.

Then again, maybe Trump decided it was time to get something done. Maybe hidden deep within, he has a heart. Or, more likely, he saw polls saying that most Americans think children brought here not of their own accord should be allowed to stay in the country where they grew up.

Maybe he gets his wall in the process, maybe not. But what seems increasingly clear is that, while Clinton tries to purge her demons by explaining how she lost, Trump is busy fashioning a perfect world for Democrats to prevail. Which is to say, he may get more accomplished for the Democratic Party than Clinton could have with a Republican-dominated Congress.

Consider: Immigration reform is beginning to look a lot less draconian and a lot more pope-ish. Bannon, a Catholic, notably remarked during a recent “60 Minutes” interview that the church has been “terrible” on immigration, encouraging forgiveness rather than wall-building, because, he said, it needs illegal immigrants to fill the pews. Such a charmer, that one.

Also, the wall is not, in fact, getting built, though repairs are currently being made to existing wall-like structures. Ditto health care, which, instead of being repealed and replaced, likely will be an Obamacare fix, followed by the single-payer system that Democrats wanted all along and that Trump supported before he became a “Republican.”

Thus, it would seem that Democrats really won the election and that Trump, despite his faux-angry campaign promises, is a pretty good Democrat after all. Congratulations, Mr. President, on your best performance yet. Congratulations are also owed to former president Obama, whose chief legacy survives. Congratulations, Sen. Sanders: Your day is nigh.

Finally, congratulations, Madame Secretary: Everybody knows you won, as well as why you lost. You get the last word, a great haircut, and you didn’t have to take the worst job in the world. Not a bad day’s work.

Uncle Fester wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:How long is a piece of string?

The Gerasimov doctrine isn't about destroying the opposition, it's about keeping the opposition and friendly allies off balance, in a weakened state and in a bit of turmoil dealing with internal issues, rather than being a fully strengthened competitor to Russia for political, financial, and influential gain.

Just creating enough strife, stoking the already sparking fires of partisan hackery is more than effective at tweaking the shitstorm. They don't need major results, there's a good theory that they didn't want/expect T-Rump to win, they just wanted enough to weaken the Hillary Presidency and keep her wrapped up in Benghazi/email hearings throughout her tenure.

They get normal people squabbling over all sorts of shit, just like a very effective troll on the internet does. They just prod a few sensitive points and allow the real people to then do all the shit-fighting, while they sit back and watch the shit show.

Russia is just trolling. You can't put a measure on that, but you can appreciate an effective troll when you see one.

I've asked this before but why don't the West respond in kind?
Putin would either be out on his ear within a year or too busy putting out fires in his own shitholes that he wouldn't have time to be meddling in external affairs.

Bowens wrote:Fox the conservative racist you mean

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl ... e-on-race/

bleacher wrote:

wamberal99 wrote:He will try, will he? Or will he continue to blunder along, only making sense when he reads a speech prepared by his staff.


He kind of reminds me of the old Vietnam War quote. We had to destroy the village to save it. ...

FFS. That quote was concocted by Peter Arnett, an anti-American, pro-Hanoi (and by extension pro-Khmer Rouge) NZ journalist.
The Vietnam War was the start of the whole fake news thing, with myth after myth perpetuated by the exact same suspects as today, The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, and with CBS filling in for today's CNN.
And as with their coverage of Triumph, over 90 per cent of their reportage of the conflict was negative, being anti-American and anti-war.
And when more Indochinese subsequently perished in just the first four years of peace under communist rule than had died in the entire frenetic preceding 15 years of all-out warfare including all the B-52 bombing then those news outlets and the goonish Western masses they'd led around by the nose all just looked the other way.

bleacher wrote:

wamberal99 wrote:He will try, will he? Or will he continue to blunder along, only making sense when he reads a speech prepared by his staff.


He kind of reminds me of the old Vietnam War quote. We had to destroy the village to save it. ...

FFS. That quote was concocted by Peter Arnett, an anti-American, pro-Hanoi (and by extension pro-Khmer Rouge) NZ journalist.
The Vietnam War was the start of the whole fake news thing, with myth after myth perpetuated by the exact same suspects as today, The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, and with CBS filling in for today's CNN.
And as with their coverage of Triumph, over 90 per cent of their reportage of the conflict was negative, being anti-American and anti-war.
And when more Indochinese subsequently perished in just the first four years of peace under communist rule than had died in the entire frenetic preceding 15 years of all-out warfare including all the B-52 bombing then those news outlets and the goonish Western masses they'd led around by the nose all just looked the other way.

Santa wrote:

Donger wrote:

Santa wrote:

Donger wrote:

Santa wrote: Nope. I'm saying nobody knows whether it was effective or if it was effective how effective it was. On that basis I'm skeptical of any claims about its effectiveness.

that's not quite how you posit your arguments. but glad we have it clear.

I reckon I was clear but have no evidence that I was.

not really. you went to the Glenn Beck/Big Tobacco school of argument.

I'm going to destroy you now with quotes from my posts. Are you ready to be destroyed?

Donger wrote:
you will be hung on your own petard.