The War Room Lounge v.8: Conor was Framed by the Deep State Edition

[Trotsky]

There is a long and well-known tradition in the War Room of Salty @Fawlty using bitch tactics such as attempting (poorly) to attack other posters without tagging said posters. He usually does this because his arguments are weak and he knows he is wrong.

This reads like a Trump tweet.

That's not a compliment by the way.

Yah.
You do realize people can see that you're circumlocuting here.

You write well, but what you write is often a shit sandwich.

He doesn't write well, though.

Viva and to a lesser extent Devout Pessimist come to mind as people who are fairly skilled writers but write shitty and logically unsound arguments.

 

[Trotsky]

I think he's capable of better than he's been showing lately. @waiguoren

It constantly feels like posters here are in an never-ending race to the bottom.

I pause to say anything even moderately complimentary to or defensive of anyone on the right, because I know the second I do they will make a shit post about how black people are addicted to welfare or how Trump is actually doing a really good job.

 

[Fawlty]

This reads like a Trump tweet.

That's not a compliment by the way.

I really wasn't trying to piss the guy off that much. I thought we were comfortable taking jabs at each other here and there. That was unhinged, I'd rather not make somebody feel bad for no good reason.

 

[Trotsky]

Applying Occam's razor: Putin probably preferred Trump to Clinton primarily because, during the campaign, the former made multiple statements about fixing relations with Russia while the latter used extensive anti-Putin rhetoric. Further, Russia had experience with Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Also, many people are performing huge logical leapsin asserting confidently that the Russia government stole DNC e-mails and deliberately released them to harm the Clinton campaign.

Aw, is that Salty Fawlty being a bitch again?

Salty, I'm happy to be a member of the #Elite 10%.

Occam's Razor:

the problem-solving principle that, when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions

Jacky is implying a convoluted narrative by which Russia offered to release Russian e-mails through Wikileaks in secret coordination with the Trump campaign in exchange for....who knows?

My narrative is: Trump's campaign emphasized a thaw in US-Russia relations, while Clinton's was much more antagonistic. Putin favored the less-threatening side

Lol, that purported application of Occam's razor is based on the false premise that no relationship between Trump and Putin existed prior to the general election, and it ignores that Russian bots had been promoting Trump and dividing Democrats for months before Trump was even the nominee. So you'll need to lay out a few more assumptions for why the Russians began attacking the Democrats and helping Trump before the general to make your central explanatory assumption coherent.

The principle of Occam's razor dictates that you choose rationale with the fewest assumptions. What it does not do is allow you to reduce the necessary assumptions by relying on an outright untruth. To demonstrate: just using one false assumption, that Trump and Putin are alien lifeforms seeking a ecological takeover of planet Earth, I can reconcile Putin's preference for Trump. And I'd have made only one assumption. #OccamsRazor

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

You @Cake4Breakfast where you at dog???


So, you were claiming that a guy who’s been known to buy his name atop a building would never pay money for influence. Care to expound on that? While you’re at it, why did the Clintons, despite agreeing to do so, neglect to disclose that payment?

Also, why did Bill Clinton receive 500k for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock, as well as meet directly in private with Putin?

Surely if trump received 500k for a speech from Russia, or met privately with Putin, you’d be screaming impeachment.








“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Bob, I am not a special education teacher, you can't expect me to repeat the same things over and over in every new thread just because you have forgotten how you lost the argument all of those other times. But since you are not going to read any of what I explained to you in the previous threads, or any of the articles I posted in the previous threads, how about you just get that tattoo we talked about:

"Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia." If you compare every question and implication you posed in your above post to your new tattoo, you will realize why Telfar, Bill and Hillary, or you and I are not having our lawyers' homes offices and hotels raided by the FBI, because there isn't anything there.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Update on my buddy's work place viewing of a WWE style cat fight.

No arrests.

Cops probably saw it as mutual affray. I’ve got a million ways to avoid a minor assault charge lmao.

 

[Quipling]

Lol, that purported application of Occam's razor is based on the false premise that no relationship between Trump and Putin existed prior to the general election, and it ignores that Russian bots had been promoting Trump and dividing Democrats for months before Trump was even the nominee. So you'll need to lay out a few more assumptions for why the Russians began attacking the Democrats and helping Trump before the general to make your central explanatory assumption coherent.

The principle of Occam's razor dictates that you choose rationale with the fewest assumptions. What it does not do is allow you to reduce the necessary assumptions by relying on an outright untruth. To demonstrate: just using one false assumption, that Trump and Putin are alien lifeforms seeking a ecological takeover of planet Earth, I can reconcile Putin's preference for Trump. And I'd have made only one assumption. #OccamsRazor

Ah, yes. Argumentum ab spacio. Never fails.

 

[Trotsky]

Ah, yes. Argumentum ab spacio. Never fails.

Haha, I have no idea what that is

 

[Quipling]

Haha, I have no idea what that is

Bad Latin for "argument from space."

 

[waiguoren]

And personally I find people tagging me just so I can see their dumb insults to be annoying. If I don't respect the poster, I don't click on the tag anyway. I'd like to see someone spell out the etiquette and justification on tagging.

It's like real life. If a man talks shit about another man behind his back, the first guy needs to called out as a bitch. That's an important social function.

Yes @Fawlty, I am referring to you. The other boys on your team aren't so catty. Man up.

 

[waiguoren]

Nah.
There are several who only shitpost and have proven that none of what they have to say is worth it. One clown always tagged me to mention my daughter. Gone.

Others I simply don't respond to. But I advertise that I have a list. The few who populate it earned their way there.

Only one guy on my list. It's that rat turd who always posts Rob Ford hot dog gifs to pollute every thread. I feel like the War Room would benefit by banning gifs. @HomerThompson is the guy.

 

[HomerThompson]

Only one guy on my list. It's that rat turd who always posts Rob Ford hot dog gifs to pollute every thread. I feel like the War Room would benefit by banning gifs.

You're such a dishonest pussy. Grow up.

 

[Fawlty]

It's like real life. If a man talks shit about another man behind his back, the first guy needs to called out as a bitch. That's an important social function.

Yes @Fawlty, I am referring to you. The other boys on your team aren't so catty. Man up.

You need to let this go.

 

[waiguoren]

that purported application of Occam's razor is based on the false premise that no relationship between Trump and Putin existed prior to the general election

False premise? I seriously doubt Trump and Putin had a relationship before Trump became president. Make your case.

Here, I'll help you: Washington Post: How well does Trump Know Putin? A Chronology

and it ignores that Russian bots had been promoting Trump and dividing Democrats for months before Trump was even the nominee

Even if what you say were a fair representation, it wouldn't invalidate anything in the most parsimonious argument: Putin preferred Trump because Trump had a history of statements favoring a US-Russia thaw. Clinton had a history of bellicose statements toward Russia.

The principle of Occam's razor dictates that you choose rationale with the fewest assumptions. What it does not do is allow you to reduce the necessary assumptions by relying on an outright untruth

I chose the rationale with the fewest assumptions, all of which were accurate. @Jack V Savage is choosing a vague and convoluted narrative with multiple hidden assumptions.

 

[waiguoren]

You need to let this go.

Not sure what you mean. I was responding to another poster. You need to vent again?

 

[Fawlty]

Not sure what you mean. I was responding to another poster. You need to vent again?

Well,

Yes @Fawlty, I am referring to you..

 

[waiguoren]

Well,

Yes, in response to another poster who was asking. Didn't want to attack you behind your back, as that would be bitch behavior.

 

[Trotsky]

False premise? I seriously doubt Trump and Putin had a relationship before Trump became president. Make your case.

Here, I'll help you: Washington Post: How well does Trump Know Putin? A Chronology

Did you just post that to preempt the obvious disproving of your conscious fibbing?

I mean, just so we're clear, just because you post it doesn't erase what's inside, namely multiple public reports of meeting Putin and getting to know him well, dating back more than three years before the election.

I chose the rationale with the fewest assumptions, all of which were accurate. @Jack V Savage is choosing a vague and convoluted narrative with multiple hidden assumptions.

Do I need to go over the principle again?

As said before, your assumptions were few because you used one knowingly false assumption (that Russia didn't start going after the Dems and shilling for Trump until after Trump starting publicly rim jobbing Vladimir) to unrealistically limit the conversation.

 

[waiguoren]

I mean, just so we're clear, just because you post it doesn't erase what's inside, namely multiple public reports of meeting Putin and getting to know him well, dating back more than three years before the election.

"Public reports of meeting Putin"...no. They are public reports of Trump claiming to be best buds with Putin, even though one of them was proven false. Trump exaggerates and even lies a lot, you know.

your assumptions were few because you used one knowingly false assumption (that Russia didn't start going after the Dems and shilling for Trump until after Trump starting publicly rim jobbing Vladimir)

As the Washington Post article notes, Trump has been making positive statements about Putin since at least 2013. My assumption is accurate.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Is the war room still worth it? Is it worth taking serious

<{cruzshake}>