Trump vs. Biden

[Jonny]

You mentioned Adam Schiff at some point. Are we to believe that his campaign to declare Trump illegitimately elected for 4 years (compared to Trumps 4 weeks) is because Schiff is a habitual liar drumming up false conspiracy theories? Is that the only other option besides actual Russian collusion? I'm not sure you can apply occcams razor between two choices like this.

The fact is that people make intuitive judgements and chase down evidence to vet those judgements, and if you're not going to blame people like Schiff for his intuitions, you can't blame people like D either. Schiff ran with it for four years, the least your people can do is give republications until innoguration day.

Can you provide me with some concrete, direct examples of what you’re talking about regarding Schiff?

 

[anticlimatic]

Can you provide me with some concrete, direct examples of what you're talking about regarding Schiff?

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts - WSJ

 

[anticlimatic]

I don't think the two can be compared. There was evidence to consider with respect to Russian interference in the elections. That's the difference here, evidence. It didn't start with Adam Schiff's unsubstantiated intuition, it started with reports and evidence. Even though the impeachment didn't bear fruit and the Senate didn't indict the President (not a surprise, all signs indicated as such), a special counsel's indictment of 34 people in the campaign inner circle means the claims, at bare minimum, carried significant weight. Sure, this interference didn't come in the form of ballot-flipping, and it's possible Trump still wins without this sort of interference. But, there was very compelling evidence he was willing to court that kind of help to give him an edge in the election and block investigations from within his own administration looking into these crimes. Contrast that to what's going on now; there is little to no evidence of what the Trump campaign is claiming took place with mail-in ballots, fraud, etc. Even before the election, when the administration incessantly attacked mail-in ballots and the post office, all their claims were disputed by election experts and local officials from both parties. Every claim they've brought to court so far has been proven to not be the case and taken out, again thanks to evidence presented by officials in both parties. So, what's more likely to be rooted in an unsubstantiated "intuition", the claims of Russian collusion or the fraud claims this administration is pursuing?

It all comes down to evidence, you're right about that. But what evidence was there of Russian collusion? The Steele dossier? Doesn't count. If there was actual evidence, the mueller report didn't find it after years of looking. I think we can all spare the Trump team all the impatient hypocritical hand wringing and just let the process play out. There's no threat to democracy in doing so. We still don't know if there is evidence or not. They're claiming so, and they will have their chance at delivering it. If the claims are hollow it won't do them any favors. There's no need for the pressure. The cookies come out of the oven in 25 minutes. It's only been 7. No amount of impatient chest thumping or standing joe Biden up next to a cardboard "office of the president elect" sign (which doesn't actually exist) are going to change anything. The fate of the election is on a one way track, and there's better things to discuss.

 

[Jonny]

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts - WSJ

I’m sorry, I wanted something direct and concrete. That’s an opinion piece by the WSJ Editorial Board.

You referenced a campaign by him to make Trump an illegitimate president. I want to know what you’re talking about, specifically.

Have you read any of the Senate Committee on Intelligence Report on Russia?

Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia - The New York Times

 

[anticlimatic]

I'm sorry, I wanted something direct and concrete. That's an opinion piece by the WSJ Editorial Board. You referenced a campaign by him to make Trump an illegitimate president. I want to know what you're talking about, specifically. Have you read any of the Senate Committee on Intelligence Report on Russia? Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia - The New York Times

I have not, but you can't complain about a WSJ opinion piece while linking to the New York Times in the same breath.

My point is that you can't support years long efforts at pursuing election malfeasance involving the Russians without any substantial evidence, and not even give the Trump campaign more than a few weeks to pursue its own suspicions. Lawyer your way out of having to see the parallel if you want, it's not going to prevent others from seeing it, and it's not going to have any effect on the outcome.

 

[ceecee]

I’m sorry, I wanted something direct and concrete. That’s an opinion piece by the WSJ Editorial Board.

You referenced a campaign by him to make Trump an illegitimate president. I want to know what you’re talking about, specifically.

Have you read any of the Senate Committee on Intelligence Report on Russia?

Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia - The New York Times

They don't know the difference between opinion and investigative reporting. My parents parrot the WSJ the same way, word for word, I can follow along by reading.

Can Americans Tell Factual From Opinion Statements in the News? | Pew Research Center

The Senate Intelligence committee found interference. So did all the intelligence agencies. There is no concrete evidence of collusion so in the eyes of everyone on the right, that not only absolves Trump, it makes the entire investigation a figment of the imagination. I bet there are all kinds of people being found guilty in a court of law that also use that same idiotic logic.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I feel sorry for you. Truly I do. You just threw away two oportunities from two different people to give any real evidence that you're not just gaslighting people and trolling. that you actually stand for what you claim to. And you just swat it aside to shoot your own self in the foot. It's like you're compelled to invalidate your own argument preemptively. I suppose it makes about as much sense as anything else you're saying. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you in life to make you this way. But I dont think I can invest the emotional energy into you anymore where this is concerned. Good luck with life, I hope you find some measure of peace.

I don't understand why you guys keep giving so much oxygen to people who have consistently proven they want to take it for granted and use you for some kind of convoluted soap box (or railroading practice, or *whatever* they get out of it). It's not that I think it's wrong to attempt communication, but doing so with people who have consistently (for years now) demonstrated the same parasitic tendencies - without laying down concrete boundaries - just turns into enabling (which, since I'm not involved, is neither here nor there for me personally except that it junks up the landscape with trolling).

It looks like Jonny was close to successfully doing a boundary thing (asking plainly and directly for very specific support for claims), but he also added a periphery emotional plea that got latched onto and stretched as far as it could. (I assume. I stopped reading. But if the behavior followed the exact same pattern of the past few years, then it's a safe assumption.)

Gaslighting - the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.

When trying to define gaslighting, it's important to include that the person doing the gaslighting feels a sense of entitlement to overwrite the reality of other people (whether they're aware of it or not , and that they do it - according to Robin Stern, who coined the term for modern psychology use and wrote the first book about it - ultimately because not being perceived by others as always having the right answer is so painful that they have to resort to manipulating other's perception and memory to uphold a status of "being right" in other's eyes). Strong evidence can rightfully "force [people] to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them," and that in itself is not invariably an unhealthy experience (in fact, the capacity to have that experience with the right evidence can indeed be a mark of emotional/intellectual health). The difference between healthy dialogue and interacting with a gaslighter is that the latter is about power games. I'm not sure how to qualify the character of gaslighting off hand - to effectively separate it from the more honest approach of presenting compelling/pursuasive evidence - except that it often relies on ad hominems and perjoratives instead of clear evidence (e.g. "You're projecting", "TDS", etc).

Stern has said that being gaslighted often has a feeling of 'unreality' accompanying it, and/or has an aftermath of feeling slimed; the consequent feeling of actual healthy dialogue, on the other hand, is very distinct and feels securely like actual growth. (If you're dealing with someone who tells you that the only reason you're not feeling like a conversation is leading securely to actual growth because something is wrong with you: that's a solid red flag you're dealing with a gaslighter).

 

[The Cat]

I don't understand why you guys keep giving so much oxygen to people who have consistently proven they want to take it for granted and use you for some kind of convoluted soap box (or railroading practice, or *whatever* they get out of it). It's not that I think it's wrong to attempt communication, but doing so with people who have consistently (for years now) demonstrated the same parasitic tendencies - without laying down concrete boundaries - just turns into enabling (which, since I'm not involved, is neither here nor there for me personally except that it junks up the landscape with trolling).

It looks like Jonny was close to successfully doing a boundary thing (asking plainly and directly for very specific support for claims), but he also added a periphery emotional plea that got latched onto and stretched as far as it could. (I assume. I stopped reading. But if the behavior followed the exact same pattern of the past few years, then it's a safe assumption.)



When trying to define gaslighting, it's important to include that the person doing the gaslighting feels a sense of entitlement to overwrite the reality of other people (whether they're aware of it or not , and that they do it - according to Robin Stern, who coined the term for modern psychology use and wrote the first book about it - ultimately because not being perceived by others as always having the right answer is so painful that they have to resort to manipulating other's perception and memory to uphold a status of "being right" in other's eyes). Strong evidence can rightfully "force [people] to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them," and that in itself is not invariably an unhealthy experience (in fact, the capacity to have that experience with the right evidence can indeed be a mark of emotional/intellectual health). The difference between healthy dialogue and interacting with a gaslighter is that the latter is about power games. I'm not sure how to qualify the character of gaslighting off hand - to effectively separate it from the more honest approach of presenting compelling/pursuasive evidence - except that it often relies on ad hominems and perjoratives instead of clear evidence (e.g. "You're projecting", "TDS", etc).

Stern has said that being gaslighted often has a feeling of 'unreality' accompanying it, and/or has an aftermath of feeling slimed; the consequent feeling of actual healthy dialogue, on the other hand, is very distinct and feels securely like actual growth. (If you're dealing with someone who tells you that the only reason you're not feeling like a conversation is leading securely to actual growth because something is wrong with you: that's a solid red flag you're dealing with a gaslighter).

Yeah. It's a shame though. -_-

 

[Jonny]

I have not, but you can't complain about a WSJ opinion piece while linking to the New York Times in the same breath.

My point is that you can't support years long efforts at pursuing election malfeasance involving the Russians without any substantial evidence, and not even give the Trump campaign more than a few weeks to pursue its own suspicions. Lawyer your way out of having to see the parallel if you want, it's not going to prevent others from seeing it, and it's not going to have any effect on the outcome.

I make a distinction between an opinion piece and factual reporting. The WSJ editorial board would not have couched that piece in their opinions section if it were anything more than opinion.

For example: Senate Report Affirms U.S. Intelligence Findings on 2016 Russian Interference - WSJ

I linked the NYT only as an executive summary of the key findings. The report is online and available for you to peruse at your leisure.

 

[Jaguar]

.

You people . . .

 

[anticlimatic]

I make a distinction between an opinion piece and factual reporting. The WSJ editorial board would not have couched that piece in their opinions section if it were anything more than opinion. For example: Senate Report Affirms U.S. Intelligence Findings on 2016 Russian Interference - WSJ I linked the NYT only as an executive summary of the key findings. The report is online and available for you to peruse at your leisure.

Nothing the Times publishes, opinion or otherwise, will ever be anything but discarded and ignored from anyone right of center moving forward. Which is their own fault.

Doesn't matter, we both had the exact same idea respective to our linking of media.

- - - Updated - - -

.

You people . . .

The man has fine taste in eyewear.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Merrick Garland Among Biden Candidates For Attorney General, Sources Say

Huh. A potential downside that immediately comes to mind is that, since Trump will still be feeding his legion of minions a divisive narrative at every turn, this situation is ripe for "he's just angry about not getting SCOTUS" surfacing constantly about his decisions. But then Trump always manages to pull SOMETHING out of his ass about everyone, so it's probably a redundant downside.

 

[Jonny]

Nothing the Times publishes, opinion or otherwise, will ever be anything but discarded and ignored from anyone right of center moving forward. Which is their own fault.

Doesn't matter, we both had the exact same idea respective to our linking of media.

- - - Updated - - -


The man has fine taste in eyewear.

The point remains, however. You mentioned Adam Schiff, and I asked for specific examples of what you're talking about when you accuse him of orchestrating some campaign to delegitimize Donald Trump's presidency. The only evidence you provided was an opinion piece by the WSJ editorial board, which by the way doesn't provide any compelling evidence to substantiate their headline.

Here is what Adam Schiff said:

And if you were to read both the Mueller report and the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence:

VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
VOLUME 2: RUSSIA'S USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
VOLUME 3: U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES
VOLUME 4: REVIEW OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES

You'll find that what he said was corroborated by either the independent special counsel, the Republican lead committee, or both. The idea that Russian interference in the 2016 election (and ongoing) is anything remotely like the wild accusations of election fraud spouted by the Trump administration is, as far as I can tell, not supported by the available evidence.

This is not a your-side-my-side thing. This is a truth-vs-lies thing. What Trump and his team are doing now is without precedent in modern times. Not that I think he will succeed, but I find your continued defense of his actions and whataboutism to be, again, not supported by the available evidence.

Here's the other side:

If you can watch all of these videos the entire way through and still come to the conclusion that these are equivalent I would be extremely surprised based on my understanding of you as a person.

 

[Jonny]

 

[Jaguar]

Is this the new trend - losers of senate races creating scenes to get attention?

GOP's John James asks Board of State Canvassers to delay action

The same thing happened in Georgia - some loser in a senate race named Collins.

 

[anticlimatic]

The point remains, however. You mentioned Adam Schiff, and I asked for specific examples of what you're talking about when you accuse him of orchestrating some campaign to delegitimize Donald Trump's presidency. The only evidence you provided was an opinion piece by the WSJ editorial board, which by the way doesn't provide any compelling evidence to substantiate their headline. Here is what Adam Schiff said:

And if you were to read both the Mueller report and the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence: VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS VOLUME 2: RUSSIA'S USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS VOLUME 3: U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES VOLUME 4: REVIEW OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES You'll find that what he said was corroborated by either the independent special counsel, the Republican lead committee, or both. The idea that Russian interference in the 2016 election (and ongoing) is anything remotely like the wild accusations of election fraud spouted by the Trump administration is, as far as I can tell, not supported by the available evidence. This is not a your-side-my-side thing. This is a truth-vs-lies thing. What Trump and his team are doing now is without precedent in modern times. Not that I think he will succeed, but I find your continued defense of his actions and whataboutism to be, again, not supported by the available evidence. Here's the other side:

If you can watch all of these videos the entire way through and still come to the conclusion that these are equivalent I would be extremely surprised based on my understanding of you as a person.

I appreciate the vote of confidence and I'll take your word on it. I don't want to get into right wing stuff ripping on Adam Schiff to debate this point, since you said you knew him and might have positive personal feelings in the matter. It was only to leverage the idea that vetting allegations with evidence and allowing the legal time to do so is not a big deal.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is very entertaining to watch him shift from complaining about how the other side won't accept the results to watch him not accepting the results.

In his own words, he has to go away now.

 

[Jonny]

Is this the new trend - losers of senate races creating scenes to get attention?

GOP's John James asks Board of State Canvassers to delay action

The same thing happened in Georgia - some loser in a senate race named Collins.

Trump is establishing a new Republican tradition, it seems.

I really didn't fathom the extent of Trump's potential impact on the Republican party when he won back in 2016. I remember texting my mom to congratulate her on her candidate winning, and thinking to myself, "Well, I guess he did it. I hope he can bring some positive change to the country." Boy was I wrong.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

It is very entertaining to watch him shift from complaining about how the other side won't accept the results to watch him not accepting the results.

In his own words, he has to go away now.

I truly believe he started his project in good faith years ago to try and open up honest intellectual conversation. How far he has fallen since. Such a good-looking man, such a vapid worldview. How sad. But, my sympathy is minimal for Rave Dubin.

 

[Jonny]

I appreciate the vote of confidence and I'll take your word on it. I don't want to get into right wing stuff ripping on Adam Schiff to debate this point, since you said you knew him and might have positive personal feelings in the matter. It was only to leverage the idea that vetting allegations with evidence and allowing the legal time to do so is not a big deal.

I would agree with the bolded in principle, but I think the way Trump and his team are engaging with it is unacceptable. This is not, by the way, an opinion that is contained exclusively within the Democratic party or liberal groups.

This wasn't entirely unexpected (posted on November 4th):

If Biden wins this thing, I'm curious what Trump will do in the coming days, weeks, months. Will he ever call Biden to concede?

He telegraphed during the campaign that any Biden win would be viewed as illegitimate and the result of fraud. He seems to be playing that out now. Watching him tweet is something else. People gave Hillary Clinton shit for waiting until the next day to give her concession speech (though she called him that night I believe), and for supporting the Russia investigation. But to me those things pale in comparison to his blatant attempts to change the (apparent) results of the election (we don't actually know if Biden will win yet). He wants PA, GA and NC to be frozen "as is" and he wants AZ and NV to be counted. And he's passing around conspiracy theories about manipulated votes and the like. The irony though, is that the Dems would somehow be masterful enough to pull that off while also neglecting to do the same thing for their Senate chances. Very odd.

In the longer term, I do suspect that he will utilize Giuliani and others to slander Biden and dig up all kinds of dirt on him in an attempt to delegitimize his presidency. Again, one might point to the Russia investigation and say tit for tat. But his is not going through the proper channels and it is really just about public perception. Mueller, et al. were very tight-lipped about the specifics of the investigation, and it certainly wasn't disclosed before he was inaugurated.

But we know this about Trump. He's a gracious winner, and a sore loser. He'll be nice to you and loyal so long as you serve his purpose, but he would readily discard you for his own benefit if it came down to it. He doesn't respect Biden, and he would hate the thought of losing to him.

He is truly a case study in some sort of psychological disorder, made manifest into our very system of government. I think it will be frankly shocking (in a good way) to experience what a normal, well functioning human is like occupying that office. I have hope for a Biden presidency...if he manages to win.

And, of course these gems:

One would think he could have fixed this "problem" in his 4 years as president.