1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Bernnie Federko, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    No. You're moving the goalpost as usual. I'm not here to break down the study. You guys post something as fact and it takes 2 seconds to show that's not true. It wasn't an official government study. This quote from the study is all you need to know

    "even though we don’t have all the names or know exactly how they died"

    So they added people into their numbers who they don't know they are....or how they died. what? How could it not be accurate! bahahaha.
  2. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    You're not backing up your own claims then.

    I'll just have to consider your suspicion of the study to be baseless partisan spin on solid science, since you havent backed your own claim that the methodology is not sound science. So far we'll have to consider your claim that we should not trust the study to be unproven and unsubstantiated.
  3. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    Asking people to support their own claims is not goalpost moving.

  4. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    I'll consider bolded part this a lie from spaboy (that he never "walked through" the relevant research), since someone who has "walked through" the research? Would at least be able to give a cole's notes based on the walk through they took, that they admonish everyone else in the thread they should take.

    Why won't you help us walk in your footsteps spaboy? You'll "walk through" research for yourself but not share any of your thoughts/perspective from that walkthrough?

    I'll correct the record and update myself: spaboy didn't mendaciously lie about having "walked through" the research to make a rhetorical point! But only once you show us what you learned so I know you did what you lectured all of us to do.
  5. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    i explained it clearly. They can't identify who ppl are or how they died. You wouldn't consider that a big part of the study?
  6. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    why would i walk through info the people that wrote the report say they can't even quantify? You guys can't decipher the difference between partisan hackery and actual data.
  7. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    walk through this information that can't conclude what we're telling you happened. Like what is wrong with you guys? You're smarter than this. They tell you it's an estimate. And that there estimate includes ppl they can't name or determie how they died. Trump is completely logical to call this out. Because it's not fucking data.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
  8. Bernnie Federko

    Bernnie Federko TRIBE Member

    Attorney General William Barr has provided only a glimpse of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the inquiry into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election, with details expected when the document is finally released.
  9. Bernnie Federko

    Bernnie Federko TRIBE Member

    Here are five things to look for when the report is issued:

    Perhaps the biggest political risk for Trump is the special counsel’s supporting evidence behind Mueller’s assertion that while the report does not conclude the Republican president committed the crime of obstruction of justice it “also does not exonerate him” on that point.
    According to Barr’s March 24 letter, Mueller has presented evidence on both sides of the question without concluding whether to prosecute. Barr filled that void by asserting there was no prosecutable case. But Barr’s statement in the letter that “most” of Trump’s actions that had raised questions about obstruction were “the subject of public reporting” suggested that some actions were not publicly known.
    Democrats in Congress do not believe Barr, a Trump appointee, should have the final say on the matter. While the prospect that the Democratic-led House of Representatives would begin the impeachment process to try to remove Trump from office appears to have receded, the House Judiciary Committee will be looking for any evidence relevant to ongoing probes into obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power by the president or others in the administration.
    Barr’s comment that most of what Mueller probed on obstruction has been publicly reported indicates that events like Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director in May 2017 when the agency was heading the Russia inquiry are likely to be the focus of this section of the report.

    The report will detail indictments by Mueller of two Kremlin-backed operations to influence the 2016 election: one against a St. Petersburg-based troll farm called the Internet Research Agency accused of waging “information warfare” over social media; and the other charging Russian intelligence officers with hacking into Democratic Party servers and pilfering emails leaked to hurt Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
    With those two indictments already public and bearing no apparent link to the president, the focus may be on what Mueller concluded, if anything, about other incidents that involved contacts between Russians and people in Trump’s orbit. That could include the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower in New York in which a Russian lawyer promised “dirt” on Clinton to senior campaign officials, as well as a secret January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles investigated as a possible attempt to set up a back channel between the incoming Trump administration and the Kremlin while Democrat Barack Obama was still president.
    Any analysis of such contacts could shed light on why Mueller, according to Barr’s summary, “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    In the weeks before Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced in March to 7-1/2 years in prison mostly for financial crimes related to millions of dollars he was paid by pro-Russia Ukrainian politicians, Mueller’s team provided hints about what their pursuit of him was really about.
    Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann told a judge in February that an Aug. 2, 2016 meeting between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, a consultant Mueller has said has ties to Russian intelligence, “went to the heart of” the special counsel’s investigation.
    The meeting included a discussion about a proposal to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in terms favorable to the Kremlin, an issue that has damaged Russia’s relations with the West. Prosecutors also said Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, although the significance of that act remains unclear.
    One focus will be on what Mueller ultimately concluded about Manafort’s interactions with Kilimnik and whether a failed attempt to secure cooperation from Manafort, who was found by a judge to have lied to prosecutors in breach of a plea agreement, significantly impeded the special counsel’s work.

    While Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy with Russia, according to Barr, there is a chance the report will detail behavior and financial entanglements that give fodder to critics who have said Trump has shown a pattern of deference to the Kremlin.
    One example of such an entanglement was the proposal to build a Trump tower in Moscow, a deal potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars that never materialized. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, admitted to lying to Congress about the project to provide cover because Trump on the campaign trail had denied any dealings with Russia.
    In the absence of criminal charges arising from Mueller’s inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has shifted his focus to whether Trump is “compromised” by such entanglements, influencing his policy decisions and posing a risk to national security.
    Some legal experts have said the counterintelligence probe Mueller inherited from Comey may prove more significant than his criminal inquiry, though it is not clear to what degree counterintelligence findings will be included in the report. Barr also has said he planned to redact material related to intelligence-gathering sources and methods.

    Another focus is whether Mueller will disclose anything from his inquiries into Middle Eastern efforts to influence Trump.
    One mystery is what, if anything, came of the special counsel’s questioning of George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman and consultant to the crown princes of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia who started cooperating with Mueller last year.
    Nader attended the Seychelles meeting. He also was present at a Trump Tower meeting in August 2016, three months before the election, at which an Israeli social media specialist spoke with the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., about how his firm Psy-Group, which employed several former Israeli intelligence officers, could help the Trump campaign, according to the New York Times. Mueller’s interest in Nader suggested the special counsel looked into whether additional countries sought to influence the election and whether they did so in concert with Russia.
  10. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    why didn't you ask for the DNC server if you're all about transparency? The DNC can hire a private firm and refuse to turn it over to the FBI and that's fine with guys. Your consistency is always amusing.
  11. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    You only asserted that issue of identification - you never "walked through" the study with clear reference to study pages and methodology. You didn't even offer any credible expert opinions for us to know if you were doing anything more than hand-waving away a study who's conclusion you didn't like.

    For instance, perhaps their techniques of estimation were well founded, backed up by methodology of similar studies (for instance, people measure "excess deaths" in war and so on all the time) - and all you're doing is poisoning the well without having "walked through" any of the relevant research in this field, let alone this single study.

    Mostly i think you're just making shit up cause its politically convenient for Trump to imagine his own actions lead to less death in Puerto Rico than they otherwise may have (according to the study).

    Spaboy Claim Status: Still Unsupported - Claim Can Be Ignored Until Spaboy Comes Back To Support Himself with References
  12. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member

    No. I'm calling out a study that contradicts itself. We can't prove it but here's our guess.

    That report should be questioned is my point. You saying Trump lied about it is just disingenuous. Totally reasonable to question the validity of an outcome the authors can't even stand by. Hence the cop out conveniently at the end of the article.
  13. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    You've only hand waved at the study spaboy - if you say it contradicts itself its easy to say, but you mentioned we shouldnt just take things at face value and "walk through" the research.

    I can only conclude you have done no such walk through and are just poisoning the well on a study you haven't actually looked that closely at after all.
  14. spaboy

    spaboy TRIBE Member


    -not a government study. Independant my a George Washington University
    -Claims more people died than the OFFICIAL statistics
    -then says it's finding are an estimate and they can't id people or determined how they die.

    It's an opinion piece imho. But calling someone out for questioning it is what we're really talking about. And it's completely valid to question that independent study. That's why it's not official. It's a hypothesis.
  15. ndrwrld

    ndrwrld TRIBE Member

  16. Mondieu

    Mondieu TRIBE Member

    ...says the child who’s spent the past 2 weeks prematurely gloating and hurling blanket insults on this forum, over the results of a federal report that he hasn’t read.

    Grow the fuck up, Cheap-seats.

    You’re the poster child for “DING-DING-DING! Your pizza pops are ready and mommy needs her lap-top back now”.
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2019
  17. Mondieu

    Mondieu TRIBE Member

    Why don’t YOU ask for it, DING-DING-DING?

    Your dedication to the orange clown is OUTSTANDING. You’re obviously willing to go to the mat for him. I’ve never seen your level of deflection before. ...and I’ve seen some shit. ...but you’re a special specimen. Not a stake in the game but willing to go all-in for a dirty, lying, scum-bag rip-off artist.

    You’ve already got a foot and 4 toes in the bin. How low can you go?

    I already know the answer but will have a good chuckle over watching you continue your pursuit of the ISOS title! ;)
  18. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    I agree it's valid to question, just not valid to hand wave it away without actually examining the methodology and digging deeper into the actual paper. You're really just mud slinging.

    How do you know the official stats aren't undercounted?

    The methods used to find excess deaths, like looking at how many bodies turned up at the morgue for example, are recognized ways to truly count impacts from disasters.

    For instance we know there's a body count from Fukushima not so much from the effects of radiation but from the effects of evacuation - all the old and medically ill people who can't handle travel and a loss of power and life giving heat/medical equipment. We know that hundreds of thousands of civilians died in the Iraq War 2 from looking at rates of death in hospitals and morgues not just from body counts at the intersections where there was a fight or an apartment building hit by a cruise missile.

    I think you'd find, if you examined the study and others like it instead of dismissing it out of hand, quite strong and recognized reasons for including the deaths they did.

    Your response also makes no mention of undercounting in the official count, the methods and reasons why they might be under counted are not even considered in your response.
    Mondieu likes this.
  19. Mondieu

    Mondieu TRIBE Member

  20. Mondieu

    Mondieu TRIBE Member

    You’re clearly putting effort into your responses to the child. Thats fine. Just don’t go into that effort expecting anything logical in return, You can’t engage in a rational discourse with someone who’s entire base of knowledge is rooted in memes.

    Gets a wee tad silly, doesn't it?
  21. ndrwrld

    ndrwrld TRIBE Member

    Ding Ding Ding.
    Nearly spit my drink out. Awesome.
  22. praktik

    praktik TRIBE Member

    Ya - im actually interested in science communication and how studies become political ping pong balls - lots of bullshit in the worlds of diet, agriculture, heck - acupuncture too

    There's a lot of stuff that's not-science dressed up in "science clothing" - woo woo people are getting REALLY good at dressing up the unscience with the trappings of science: "papers", sometimes even claiming to be "peer reviewed" - science words - FOOTNOTES!

    So to spaboy's point, it behooves all of us to be a little skeptical about the hot takes we get on studies from other people and in snippets online and on tv. Can't even stop at the study abstract right - gotta dig at least a little deeper unless the abstract itself is filled with red flags. Sometimes it isn't, and you might need access to the full paper or at least some expert commentary from people that HAVE seen the full paper to get a better for feel for the quality of the science. Even the marquee of a major media organization is nothing to really count for much - i mean from The Guardian to MSNBC to Fox to CNN to Investor's BUsiness Daily - not all these are created equal but they are all equally prone to letting bad science hit their pages/screens, since I dont think these orgs have *really* cultivated the ability to understand and process science.

    All of this to say, I was genuinely interested in this convo and the best spaboy could offer - I imagined he had found a good critical source and would unload a lot of devastating points about the study from someone in the Trump-o-sphere.

    But looks like it was a lot of bluster and he hadn't actually done what he admonished us to do: walk through the study. Having studied the impacts of war for my undergraduate often enough, I am acquainted with some of the methods the study team used to measure the true death count (or as close as you can be) since many of the same are used to measure the true impact of war (not just people killed by bombs and guns, but by the *deprivations* of war). That similar methods could be used to find a bigger body count than official figures in Puerto Rico is, a priori, a highly plausible premise based on this kind of work done around the globe in conflict zones.

    I'll look for good takes on this study and the study itself if its available, i'll go self directed on it though since spaboy doesn't seem to have much to offer.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  23. The Kid

    The Kid TRIBE Member

    You really are a sad little troll. Why any Canadian would support a US leader like Trump who very transparently doesn't give a shit about anything but his (and USA's) own interests and who's trade policies harm both Canadian companies and the Canadian economy is beyond me. You should move to the mid-west, or Florida.

  24. Bernnie Federko

    Bernnie Federko TRIBE Member

  25. wickedken

    wickedken TRIBE Member

    Are these Trump's eating preferences? Thought he was a burger and fries type with those "feasts" for winning football teams...

Share This Page