President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Well no, just before he was cut off, he was speaking very slowly and clearly, to give a concise rebuttal to the rant by the CNN hack, which the sane guy had just listened to very patiently.

Balance, as you seem to be suggesting was not awarded, is depended on each person playing by the same rules. They were each brought on to discuss the point, and instead he just dismissed it.

recedite wrote: »

This is a classic example of a very biased media corp. pushing their own agenda, and refusing to air any dissenting opinion.

No, this is a classic example of a person being given the opportunity to make their point but instead deciding that the discussion was not worthy of their time and leaving the pitch. Don't bother crying that you were cut off when you had no intention of debating the merits in the first place.

recedite wrote: »

So do you think the "news" that the hack was bringing to the public was valid news?

Whether any single person thinks it is news or not is irrelevant. The market will work that out. If CNN, or any company, spends it time doing things that consumers don't want they will quickly lose out.
I think in this instance, a discussion about the additional spending in travel and security costs being borne by US Taxpayers, whilst at the same time telling those same taxpayers that health care etc is unaffordable, is worthy. It is not Trumps money to spend, it belong to the American people, and at all times the people making the decision to spent it, how much and on what, should be open to question.

recedite wrote: »

Of course it costs a lot of money to maintain the secret service, and "the beast" (armoured limo) the motorcade, the helicopter, Air Force One etc...
Is this really news? Why wasn't it news when Obama was President? Or was it all free then?

Nobody is saying that money should not be spent on the security of the 1st family. The question being asked if why there is such a rapid increase in the spending. If reports are correct, $1m a day is being spend due to Melania's decision to stay in NY. You honestly don't think this is something that should be discussed?
Apparently it costs $3m each time Trump goes to Mar-De-Lago. Why? Why not stay in Washington? He is only 4 weeks into the job, claimed that he wouldn't take holidays and clearly there are things that need doing such as getting a replacement for NSA Flynn, finding a way to get all his cabinet appointees through, finding a replacement for Obamacare, finalising the budget etc etc.

His rebuttal seemed to be that this wasn't news. According to whom? Him? The President? Had he carried out a nationwide survey to gauge public opinion?

No, its seems, and the presenter called him up on this, that he was using the term Fake News to describe a story he didn't believe was relevant. Totally different. One , Fake News, is essentially a lie, the other is a story you don't think is worthwhile.

Are Trump and his supporters really claiming that the president should be the one to decide which news to run with?

Harika

demfad wrote: »

Read the article and comment on it please. The money behind CA is the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Mercer made his billions creating algorithms used in the Finance industry with Renaissance technologies.

I read the article and all those personality profiles are the modern snake oil. Sure you can say that after the OCEAN model you are this that and that, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof according to Bill Nye and all CA have is the claim, it never provided any proof that the technique was effective or that the company had the ability to execute it on a large scale.

demfad

recedite wrote: »

But Facebook is hardly an example of a "Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine".

The Propaganda machine refers to Cambridge Analytica which you would realise if you had actually tried to read the article instead of discrediting it because you feel its anti Trump/Putin. It operates on Facebook, twitter and other SM sites as well as through hundreds of specific small node sites as well as better known amplifier sites. It also uses bot-nets and troll armies to propagate 'news' and argue for/against candidates.

As an aside you are tying up a lot of genuine efforts at debate on this thread with rarely substantiated always pro-Trump/Putin sentiment. It all has a very familiar look to me. Please don't reply on this subject unless you have a reasoned or substantiated comment to make to me.

demfad

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-delivered-michael-flynn-plan-to-lift-sanctions-on-russia-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

More Russian worries for Trump.

Michael Cohen, Felix Sater and Andrii Artemenko met in a NY hotel to hammer out a 'peace deal' for Russia.
Cohen is Trumps Lawyer, Artemenko is a Ukranian opposition MP (Pro-Russian), and Felix Sater...Felix Sater is a mobster who was busted for a $40 million stock scam, spent a year in jail for glassing a man, was a CIA asset apparently, and was part of the Bayrock group who built Trump Soho and several other Trump towers. Bayrock are under investigation for money laundering to the value of $250 million in Trump Soho.

12. Using artifices to defraud architected by Roberts & Holland and Duval & Stachenfeld in conspiracy with them’, Arif, Satter, Scwharz arranged for up to $250,000,000 of Bayrock’s profit as the co-developer12 ofTrump SoHo to be laundered, untaxed, through a sham Delaware entity to Iceland (and reportedly then Russia), intending to evade up to $100,000,000 of U.S. taxation.

Note* Laundering in US, banking in Iceland was Standard pre crash Russian mob tactics.

The plan:
Andrii Artemenko claimed to be able to get compromising material on the Ukrainian prime minister. It is used, a new pro-Russian Govt installed, Peace called with East Ukraine 'leased to Russia for 50-100 years' as settlement.

Trump didn't know about this he said....

Bazzo

Trump isn't even bothering to hide the fact that he lifted his "Last night in Sweden" remark straight from a Fox news piece, in case anyone missed it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/833435244451753984

Perhaps the donald, despite the fact that he is such a great intellect, is under the impression that all news pieces are live broadcasts?

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Balance, as you seem to be suggesting was not awarded, is depended on each person playing by the same rules. They were each brought on to discuss the point, and instead he just dismissed it.

The guys last word was "because..." and the next sentence would have been the rebuttal. But we weren't allowed to hear it. That's not balance.

Harry Palmr

Bazzo wrote: »

Trump isn't even bothering to hide the fact that he lifted his "Last night in Sweden" remark straight from a Fox news piece, in case anyone missed it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/833435244451753984

Perhaps the donald, despite the fact that he is such a great intellect, is under the impression that all news pieces are live broadcasts?

I think we can safely say that whatever Trump's been watching the previous evening is likely to be mentioned by him the following day.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

The guys last word was "because..." and the next sentence would have been the rebuttal. But we weren't allowed to hear it. That's not balance.

He had his chance before hand. Given it is demonstrably not fake news I can guarantee with 100% confidence his argument was a not a good one. He was attempting to establish a lie (that the news about security spending on Trump's family was fake news) and therefore nothing he could have said could have proven it as it is incorrect.

That piece was not the full interview. He had his chance to explain before but instead went down the same bull**** statement as before. If someone keeps repeatedly lying and starts off with another lie then I have no issue with them being cut.

If you want balance find someone who won't repeatedly lie. Then a discussion can be had. Until then I see no reason to humour people who use lies to justify their bad political choices.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

The guys last word was "because..." and the next sentence would have been the rebuttal. But we weren't allowed to hear it. That's not balance.

"Your whole discussion is useless, made up and his driven by a political ideology where you won't accept the democratically voted president of the country" - You can basically use this to replace the phrase Fake News.

How is that a start to any discussion. What form did you think his rebuttal was going to take when he opening with that?

Would you accept that as an opening line from a colleague? "Well your budget is nonsense, you lack any ability to tell truth from lies, and you are failing". "Now, apart from that lets consider the merits of your argument"

But you are absolutely right that it is not balanced. But as I said, balance is not the right to spout any ol guff you want. Balanced if based on both (or more) parties bringing a certain level of acceptance, truth and integrity to t a debate. Of course there will be differences over interpretation of the facts but to start of by stating that the whole thing is fake and pointless pretty much is the end of his point.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

The guys last word was "because..." and the next sentence would have been the rebuttal. But we weren't allowed to hear it. That's not balance.

No it wouldn't have been a rebuttal. Unless you are trying to claim that he would have said there is no money being spent on the security of the president and his family.

The discussion was about money being spent on security. That is not fake news, money is being spent on security.
The points being made were presumably one side saying there is too much being spent and Trump is making a profit from it, and the counter point being there is not too much being spent on security and Trump isn't profiting from it. Neither point is "Fake news" though. They are just different opinions.

Fake news is whatever happened in Sweden, Bowling Green and the inauguration crowd being the largest ever. Those are the lies and fake news.

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

"Your whole discussion is useless, made up and his driven by a political ideology where you won't accept the democratically voted president of the country" - You can basically use this to replace the phrase Fake News.

How is that a start to any discussion. What form did you think his rebuttal was going to take when he opening with that?

Would you accept that as an opening line from a colleague? "Well your budget is nonsense, you lack any ability to tell truth from lies, and you are failing". "Now, apart from that lets consider the merits of your argument"

But you are absolutely right that it is not balanced. But as I said, balance is not the right to spout any ol guff you want. Balanced if based on both (or more) parties bringing a certain level of acceptance, truth and integrity to t a debate. Of course there will be differences over interpretation of the facts but to start of by stating that the whole thing is fake and pointless pretty much is the end of his point.

What do you expect from the party which brings us such wonders as "Teach The Controversy"? :rolleyes:

robinph

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I think we can safely say that whatever Trump's been watching the previous evening is likely to be mentioned by him the following day.

I am now finding myself waiting eagerly every afternoon to see what idiocy pops up on Twitter for a good laugh, and hoping that it is a tweet with plenty of CAPS LOCK so that you know it was Trump himself writing it and not one of his minions who make more legible sentences.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

I read the article and all those personality profiles are the modern snake oil. Sure you can say that after the OCEAN model you are this that and that, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof according to Bill Nye and all CA have is the claim, it never provided any proof that the technique was effective or that the company had the ability to execute it on a large scale.

Big data companies already use profiles based on individual users. There is no issue with getting the data on people. The issue is with what they do with the data. Predicting responses and changing behaviour is what is new. The propaganda network (real) and the use of bots/trolls is new. This complete architecture is laid out in the article. This hasnt been done before.

“They [the Trump campaign] were using 40–50,000 different variants of ad every day that were continuously measuring responses and then adapting and evolving based on that response,” Martin Moore, director of Kings College’s Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power, told The Guardian in early December. “It’s all done completely opaquely and they can spend as much money as they like on particular locations because you can focus on a five-mile radius.”

demfad

robinph wrote: »

I am now finding myself waiting eagerly every afternoon to see what idiocy pops up on Twitter for a good laugh, and hoping that it is a tweet with plenty of CAPS LOCK so that you know it was Trump himself writing it and not one of his minions who make more legible sentences.

The only thing he is in any way consistent about is his foreign policy to Russia but maybe because someone else is in charge of that

Harika

demfad wrote: »

Big data companies already use profiles based on individual users. There is no issue with getting the data on people. The issue is with what they do with the data. Predicting responses and changing behaviour is what is new. The propaganda network (real) and the use of bots/trolls is new. This complete architecture is laid out in the article. This hasnt been done before.

Great that it hasn't been done before, yeah data is there no question, the point is "it never provided any proof that the technique was effective or that the company had the ability to execute it on a large scale."

The claim of them popped up days after the election, where a scientific approach to verify their own claim cannot be ready, as it is such a large extensive claim, that it would take at least months (more likely years) to create a proper paper on it, that than can be verified. Have they provided something like this already? No? Then it is like the big bad wolf and nothing to be afraid of.
And not to share too much of your data should be reasonable for everyone since Snowden anyway.

recedite

robinph wrote: »

No it wouldn't have been a rebuttal. Unless you are trying to claim that he would have said there is no money being spent on the security of the president and his family.

Obviously he would not have said that. We don't know exactly what he was going to say because he wasn't allowed to say it.

That money is being spent is not valid news. If an inordinate amount of money was being spent, that would be news.
Obama's recent Christmas trip expenses to Hawaii (one of many) cost $4.8M. I would not begrudge him that though.
The cost of running the WH according to various estimates runs fairly consistently between about $2M -$4M per day factoring in everything.

When (and if) figures come in showing that the Trump presidency has grossly exceeded that, then we can call it news. Trump has a larger family than Obama, and they don't all live under one roof, which is going to require more secret servicemen to protect, but again I would not begrudge the man for that.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

The claim of them popped up days after the election, where a scientific approach to verify their own claim cannot be ready, as it is such a large extensive claim, that it would take at least months (more likely years) to create a proper paper on it, that than can be verified. Have they provided something like this already? No? Then it is like the big bad wolf and nothing to be afraid of.
And not to share too much of your data should be reasonable for everyone since Snowden anyway.

Read the article.

According to Zurich’s Das Magazine, which profiled Kosinski in late 2016, “with a mere ten ‘likes’ as input his model could appraise a person’s character better than an average coworker. With seventy, it could ‘know’ a subject better than a friend; with 150 likes, better than their parents. With 300 likes, Kosinski’s machine could predict a subject’s behavior better than their partner. With even more likes it could exceed what a person thinks they know about themselves.”

The Ocean test needs only to be done on a representative population based on an upcoming election. Think it was 30,000 for Brexit.

On FB: If you say 'yes' to one of those online 'personality' tests then Cambridge will have access to your data and depending on your security, your friends data, possibly friends friends. They can then add this to other social media personal data. Cambridge will also buy other online data from companies that gather it and collate all the data. Your comment about people choosing not to share information is pointless. Everyone can see that there is enough online personal data for websites to personalise advertising.
As explained in the article the site can also get information from anyone who clicks on one of the network links.....'23,000 pages and 1.3 million hyperlinks.'
We know attack ads work therefore we can assume psycho analysed attack adds work better. So if you hit a Floridan Haitian with an ad saying The Clinton Foundation pocketed 7 billion dollars in Haitian relief it will have an effect. If all that community sees it, and variants of the theme they may not vote for Trump, but they wont vote for Clinton either.

We know that fake news networks work we know that vast troll and bot armies influence opinion. Russia has been doing this extensively and densly in Europe and beyond.

Now Trump/Bannon want Cambridge Analytica in the whitehouse: Trump would have access to all records of citizens. all security records. He could plug it in to Cambridge. He could use it for re-election (he is already an official candidate). He could use it to sell Merchandise.

He could give the output to Moscow.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Obviously he would not have said that. We don't know exactly what he was going to say because he wasn't allowed to say it.

He already said it was fake news. Obviously he would have said it because that is what fake news means. You are denying that he said that security costs are 0 but that is exactly what calling the story fake news means. (Or I guess that CNN lied about the specific costs but no one has made this claim).

You then go on to say why you feel it is uninteresting news but the man in the interview did not say that. He said fake news. Stop with the deflection. Either argue why it is fake news or admit that the man was lying.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

When (and if) figures come in showing that the Trump presidency has grossly exceeded that, then we can call it news.

These are the figures that were under discussion!

Trumps trips (3 weekends in a row) to his business in Florida cost 3m a pop. Melania doesn't want to live in the same state as Trump (understandably) so that's a million a day. Trumps sons are getting protection while they travel the world boosting Trumps personal businesses. Much of this money ends up with Trumps businesses like Mar-a-lago and Trump Tower.

Trump is on track to spend more per month than Obama spent per year.

And Trump objected to the amount Obama spent. He claimed he would "seldom" leave the White House because there would be so much work to do, yet here he is costing 10 times as much and lining his own pockets in the process...

Harika

demfad wrote: »

Read the article.

The Ocean test needs only to be done on a representative population based on an upcoming election. Think it was 30,000 for Brexit.

<-snip->.

Yeah all great, still there is only the claim, no proof whatsoever. We are in a circle now, I leave the CA circle here now for good.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Obviously he would not have said that. We don't know exactly what he was going to say because he wasn't allowed to say it.

That money is being spent is not valid news. If an inordinate amount of money was being spent, that would be news.

Glad to see that you are in agreement then and that what was being discussed was in no way "fake news".

You can have the view that there is no merit in talking about it, and that is perfectly fine (if a daft view to take when you've been invited in to talk about that topic). That is completely different to saying that something is "fake news" though. The anchor did explain to him what "fake news" meant, but he immediately went back to trying to shouting "fake news" and clearly not about to talk about the topic at hand.

If he wanted to say that it was a pointless topic to talk about then that is exactly what he should have said, and given his reasons for why the costs didn't matter.

recedite wrote: »

Trump has a larger family than Obama, and they don't all live under one roof, which is going to require more secret servicemen to protect, but again I would not begrudge the man for that.

No problem with any of that, but there is an issue to be talked about in terms of the Trump family profiting from having security personnel follow them around the globe and paying to stay in Trumps hotels and if that should be permitted.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

Yeah all great, still there is only the claim, no proof whatsoever. We are in a circle now, I leave the CA circle here now for good.

If there is any of the article you disagree with please cite it and explain why you disagree. The people in the article have researched it.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

When (and if) figures come in showing that the Trump presidency has grossly exceeded that, then we can call it news.

But we already know that money is being spent on Melania security that was not required for Obama. It is reported at $1m per day, $365m a year.

You don't think that even warrants a discussion?

We already know that Trumps trips to Mar-de-Lago cost $3m a pop and there has been 3 of them, equally the annual cost for Obama. You think we need to wait for him to spend 52 weekends there before questions are asked?

recedite wrote: »

Trump has a larger family than Obama, and they don't all live under one roof, which is going to require more secret servicemen to protect, but again I would not begrudge the man for that.

All that is very reasonable, but that is not what he said. He started off by decrying it fake news, a non story. Thus not worthy of discussion. He should have made that point and entered into a discussion, asking what the others felt was a reasonable amount was, and what, if they felt it was too high, they would do to reduce it? Simple. He was offered the chance to start again, to actually partake in the debate and instead took the childish option skin to sticking his fingers in his ears and going "lalalalalala I can't hear you".

Would you continue to debate that?

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Glad to see that you are in agreement then and that what was being discussed was in no way "fake news".

It does not fit the exact definition of Fake News, but if I had to choose a category, either Real News or Fake News, I would choose the latter.
Its part of a biased CNN anti-Trump agenda, which is what the man objected to. Perhaps he was about to explain that.

If he wanted to say that it was a pointless topic to talk about then that is exactly what he should have said, and given his reasons for why the costs didn't matter.

He could not, because he was cut off abruptly.

but there is an issue to be talked about in terms of the Trump family profiting from having security personnel follow them around the globe and paying to stay in Trumps hotels and if that should be permitted.

That is a valid issue, but its not what the CNN hack was focusing on. And maybe that issue will be brought up later by some real news corporation, and dealt with using balanced interviews. If Trump wants to stay at his usual haunts, then the secret service will also have to be there too. A reasonable solution would be for any Trump owned hotel to charge a discount rate for secret servicemen and other staff. They would have to be charged some amount though; it would not be right either to bankrupt the hotel by block booking it with non-paying guests.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

It does not fit the exact definition of Fake News, but if I had to choose a category, either Real News or Fake News, I would choose the latter.
Its part of a biased CNN anti-Trump agenda, which is what the man objected to. Perhaps he was about to explain that.


He could not, because he was cut off abruptly.
That is a valid issue, but its not what the CNN hack was focusing on. And maybe that issue will be brought up later by some real news corporation, and dealt with using balanced interviews. If Trump wants to stay at his usual haunts, then the secret service will also have to be there too. A reasonable solution would be for any Trump owned hotel to charge a discount rate for secret servicemen and other staff. They would have to be charged some amount though; it would not be right either to bankrupt the hotel by block booking it with non-paying guests.

Were real news and fake news the only terms he was allowed to say?

I don't care what he followed up with. His initial statements that it was fake news was a flat out lie. A complete and utter lie that you keep trying to dance around to try and give out about CNN. Hey it was your side lying but still gotta give out about cnn.

For example an sample of fake news would be the claim of a terrorist attack in bowling green.

Dig up. You have utterly failed to explain why it was fake news. You have selected repeatedly to whether it is relevant news (which we can debate after if you like) but at no point have you explained how the claim that it was fake news is not a lie.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

We already know that Trumps trips to Mar-de-Lago cost $3m a pop and there has been 3 of them, equally the annual cost for Obama.

Where are you getting these Facts from? That article by the Independent? Which was citing the Washington Post? These are notoriously biased sources.

Even Obama's most recent Christmas holiday was estimated at $4.8M alone.
Anyway its hard to separate out the "extra" cost of individual trips from the overall White House running costs.

Professor Moriarty

At least one world leader is standing up for Trump. Robert Mugabe. Wonder if The Donald will tweet how great he thinks The Robert is.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

It does not fit the exact definition of Fake News, but if I had to choose a category, either Real News or Fake News, I would choose the latter.

It doesn't fit any definition of "fake news" in the slightest. There is absolutely nothing at all fake about the story being discussed, other than the claim that it was "fake news".

Can't believe that this has to be asked, but do you know what the words "fake" and "real" mean?

recedite

Christy42 wrote: »

Were real news and fake news the only terms he was allowed to say?

CNN claims to be a news channel. If its not reporting real news, then its reporting something that purports to be news, which could loosely (though not entirely accurately) be referred to as "fake news".
I wouldn't get too hung up on the label. The important thing to note there is that a dissenting view, and Free Speech itself, was crushed on their "news" channel.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Where are you getting these Facts from? That article by the Independent? Which was citing the Washington Post? These are notoriously biased sources.

Even Obama's most recent Christmas holiday was estimated at $4.8M alone.
Anyway its hard to separate out the "extra" cost of individual trips from the overall White House running costs.

From your own link the President's (Obama at the time of writing) holiday's cost 85 million so <11.2 million a year.

Trump is running at more than that a month. Trump is also going to his own properties giving his own businesses a cut. Surely that looks incredibly dodgy to everyone.