Applying the false positive paradox

[ZNPaaneah]

The false positive paradox says that if I have a test that is 99% accurate in finding a lie, or evidence of evil and that this test only gives me a very slight chance for a false positive, say 2%, then if the occurrence of this lie or evil is very small, say 1 in 1,000 the odds of the false positive are much greater.

With the Bible there are a lot of verses. If out of 1,000 you find evidence of a lie or of evil using the test described above, then the odds of that verse actually being a lie or evidence of evil is less than 5%, the odds that it is a false positive is greater than 95%.

[2% of 1,000 verses is 20, 99% of 1 is 1].

Therefore when we see a verse that appears to be evidence of deceit or evil our first inclination should be that it is a false positive and that is what we should examine first.

The rule in the Bible is 2 or 3 witnesses. Imagine that each independent witness is 99% reliable in identifying a lie or evil and only makes a mistake in identifying an innocent person 2% of the time. Well in this case 1 witness will result in 20 false positives for each guilty party. But once you add a second witness the odds move to 2:1 in favor of the guilty party being guilty. A third witness confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[OBW]

But you have only established a statistical likelihood of truth or fact, not absolute truth or fact.

So the next question should be "does this particular thing really matter?"

Sort of like whether the story of the woman caught in adultery in John's gospel was actually there, or even happened. If you assume that the story is simply allegory added by someone else, does it rightly portray what we have learned and know of Jesus from what we are certain belongs? If it does, then it teaches nothing truly new, yet is consistent with the rest and is acceptable (with or without caveat).

I understand the situation of high incidence v low incidence, but in no case does it define the truth. It just makes the understanding of the claim of truth less certain, or more certain, depending on where on the scale you are looking. But not certain. Even your "3 witnesses = no reasonable doubt" does not make it so. Just statistically more likely.

But in the case of whether God was in some way involved in the inciting of David to take the action he did, we need to consider whether it is really something that must be so (or must not be so) else we lose our faith.

And I don't arrive at that problem.

But looking at the text provided, it appears that God was angry with the people. Seriously angry. So much so that it is probably reasonable to assume that some kind of punishment was called for. But rather than just take action, God gave David a task (indirectly). After the task was finished, David realized the error of it he says. "Oh no. I'm screwed." And God offers him three forms of punishment. David choses one and that is what is done.

David may have been unaware of all that was going on at the time. But God was set to dish out some punishment, and was restrained enough to let the choice of punishment be given to David who chose what he deemed to be the lesser punishment. While we can at least sort of see that now that it is written down, it still is not clearly what happened. But it does cause the whole of the passage to make more sense. It actually gives God acceptable (in our minds) cause to "incite David" to do what was clearly understood as sin. The purpose was not really to punish David, but to make him plead for the people without pleading for no punishment.


And it needs no statistics.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But you have only established a statistical likelihood of truth or fact, not absolute truth or fact.

So the next question should be "does this particular thing really matter?"

Sort of like whether the story of the woman caught in adultery in John's gospel was actually there, or even happened. If you assume that the story is simply allegory added by someone else, does it rightly portray what we have learned and know of Jesus from what we are certain belongs? If it does, then it teaches nothing truly new, yet is consistent with the rest and is acceptable (with or without caveat).

I understand the situation of high incidence v low incidence, but in no case does it define the truth. It just makes the understanding of the claim of truth less certain, or more certain, depending on where on the scale you are looking. But not certain. Even your "3 witnesses = no reasonable doubt" does not make it so. Just statistically more likely.

But in the case of whether God was in some way involved in the inciting of David to take the action he did, we need to consider whether it is really something that must be so (or must not be so) else we lose our faith.

And I don't arrive at that problem.

But looking at the text provided, it appears that God was angry with the people. Seriously angry. So much so that it is probably reasonable to assume that some kind of punishment was called for. But rather than just take action, God gave David a task (indirectly). After the task was finished, David realized the error of it he says. "Oh no. I'm screwed." And God offers him three forms of punishment. David choses one and that is what is done.

David may have been unaware of all that was going on at the time. But God was set to dish out some punishment, and was restrained enough to let the choice of punishment be given to David who chose what he deemed to be the lesser punishment. While we can at least sort of see that now that it is written down, it still is not clearly what happened. But it does cause the whole of the passage to make more sense. It actually gives God acceptable (in our minds) cause to "incite David" to do what was clearly understood as sin. The purpose was not really to punish David, but to make him plead for the people without pleading for no punishment.


And it needs no statistics.

I agree that in no way does this define the truth. Instead where I think it is important is in realizing the importance of not accepting an accusation against a person without two or three witnesses. The one witness may feel that they are 100% certain, and 99% accurate is really as accurate as you could hope for.

This is why this forum is so important. By ourselves we were each "one witness". Keeping us separate undermines credibility. But, once you hear two or three other witnesses it changes the equation dramatically.

Think about the debate concerning Watchman Nee and the book on his sins. If it is viewed as a single witness, chances of WN being guilty should be valued at less than 5%. If you couple it with the witness of the elders that disciplined him the chances jump to 65%. If you add to this the witness of Witness Lee, which many have overlooked. We all heard his spoken account of what took place, but see if you can find it in writing? That to me is the most telling. That to me is proof that Witness Lee knew he was lying.

[ZNPaaneah]

So today the National Security Advisor resigns because he had told the Russians they didn't need to worry about the sanctions that Obama was putting on them, presumably because he would undo them when Trump took office. To make things worse he lied about this to VP Pence.

Now what no one is talking about and I find outrageous is that this man would negotiate with the Russians without telling Trump! This tells me that he has no respect for the President. I guess he felt he was running the country, the President would just rubber stamp whatever he decided and he could easily manipulate the President once the time came.

No wonder he had to be fired! You can't go around representing what the President will do without even informing the president. Just one day ago Trump "had full confidence in him". Boy, he must really feel like he had been duped. Especially that tweet about the Russians being "smart".

But according to Kelly Ann the final straw was not the disrespect to President Trump but the fact that he misled the VP?! Who is in charge?

One wonders why it took Trump 16 days to figure this out. The Justice department tells Trump that he was not honest and was in danger of being blackmailed by the Russians. But that wasn't the key to why he was fired? He had negotiated with the Russians while Obama was in power without Trump knowing, he lied about it to the FBI, he was now open to being blackmailed by the Russians permanently crippling Trump's foreign policy. But none of that was the key to his being fired. Rather the key was that he misled the VP. Apparently, according to Spicer for the last sixteen days they were first looking into the legal issues but when they realized there were tapes of the phone calls it answered the legal questions. Now I am no legal expert but the legal question that is answered when you learn they have a tape of the phone call is "can we get away with denying this". Once they realized the FBI had the tape of the phone call that answered the question.

This is how liars apply this principle. They deny, deny, deny. In this case the appearance that something didn't add up occurred when the Russians didn't respond to sanctions which led the Justice department to find this phone call. But once you have hard evidence then the scandal explodes. Sixteen days to figure out how to cover this up. This is why the cover up is worse than the crime, it proves you have a bunch of liars.

Of course what is the most troubling thing that I learned from the entire episode is that our former National Security Advisor did not realize that phone calls with the Ambassador to Russia were being recorded.

So then, the application of the false positive paradox is not to reject one witness, but to use that one witness to prompt you to look for a second. If you don't find a second then that proves it was a false positive. On the other hand if you have found that liar, then you will find a second witness once you look. After all that first test just reduced the number from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 21. The second witness makes the odds 2:1 in favor and the third witness proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

This NSA resignation is now the first witness that makes me want to see Trump's tax records more than ever.

[ZNPaaneah]

Sure enough, we now know that the US intelligence services were monitoring phone calls between the Trump campaign and Russia during the Presidential campaign.

This is not the first witness. The NSA resignation was the first witness with a 99% accuracy of lies. These phone calls will then be the second, the point at which we go from less than 5% chance that Trump was involved in something impeachable to 65% chance that he was.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead where I think it is important is in realizing the importance of not accepting an accusation against a person without two or three witnesses.

It was not sufficient that God demanded it? Did you need to have a statistical analysis of the command of the Bible to accept it as important?

In who or what do you put your trust?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It was not sufficient that God demanded it? Did you need to have a statistical analysis of the command of the Bible to accept it as important?

In who or what do you put your trust?

Of course I can't speak for ZNP. But from what I gather so far bro ZNP trusts both the Bible and science. And he's trying like hell to make them gibe. He doesn't seem to know it yet, but methinks it's a fool's errand. From what he said on the God incited David to sin thread he's happy being that fool.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course I can't speak for ZNP. But from what I gather so far bro ZNP trusts both the Bible and science. And he's trying like hell to make them gibe. He doesn't seem to know it yet, but methinks it's a fool's errand. From what he said on the God incited David to sin thread he's happy being that fool.

I read that there are over 7 billion people in the world. It seems to me, that, according to ZNP's theory, a lot would depend on which 2 or 3 of them you select to be your "witnesses".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure enough, we now know that the US intelligence services were monitoring phone calls between the Trump campaign and Russia during the Presidential campaign.

I see this as much ado about nothing.

Obama and company did their best to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump and company, newcomers to political office, wanted to begin their agenda even before inauguration.

Obama sanctions the Russians in December without consulting Trump. Trump then instructs Flynn to tell the Russians not to worry. Russians, for the first time in history, do not retaliate. Pence, the good guy, gets left out of the loop so he can "lie" with a clear conscience.

Obama cronies still in power use encryption to leak out recordings to undermine the new administration. Trump now needs a scapegoat. Politics as usual. 8 years of Obama corruption, and the media treated him like the Teflon Don.

Unfortunately, most people consider the actual truth to be reflected by the volume of the media coverage. Nothing could be further than the truth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I read that there are over 7 billion people in the world. It seems to me, that, according to ZNP's theory, a lot would depend on which 2 or 3 of them you select to be your "witnesses".

A witness to whom, or to what? Are we talking a courtroom? Or can we bring 8 billion to the church as witnesses. Sounds all kinds of crazy to me. Did Jesus claim that the 3 witnesses were a universal law or truth?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see this as much ado about nothing.

Obama and company did their best to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump and company, newcomers to political office, wanted to begin their agenda even before inauguration.

Obama sanctions the Russians in December without consulting Trump. Trump then instructs Flynn to tell the Russians not to worry. Russians, for the first time in history, do not retaliate. Pence, the good guy, gets left out of the loop so he can "lie" with a clear conscience.

Obama cronies still in power use encryption to leak out recordings to undermine the new administration. Trump now needs a scapegoat. Politics as usual. 8 years of Obama corruption, and the media treated him like the Teflon Don.

Unfortunately, most people consider the actual truth to be reflected by the volume of the media coverage. Nothing could be further than the truth.

I agree that the transfer of power from Obama to Trump has been exceedingly ugly. I also agree that Trump should have been consulted on this as a matter of respect, not only for Trump but the future of the US.

That said Trump is in a very tenuous situation. They have Flynn on a felony with ironclad evidence. On the other hand you can be sure the investigators would be willing to offer him a good deal if he delivers up Trump. His testimony would be valuable in impeaching Trump but not absolutely necessary if the NSA has recorded communications between the campaign and the Russians. We know they were investigating them for several months during the campaign. So if you were a lawyer for Flynn you would want to push him to take the deal. Also, they now have both Spicer and Conway on record denying any communications with the Russians during the campaign. Therefore we could easily see them fired as well with new revelations and leaks. This is how you build a case against Trump if you aren't interested in Conway, Spicer or Flynn. You peal them off and turn them into witnesses for the prosecution.

The best way to know how they view this is to watch Pence. If he thinks he is going to become president you will see that he no longer acts like Trump's attack dog. Initially he went out on the talk shows to defend the administration. If he continues to do that then it may just be much ado about nothing. You will see Republicans break ranks and put distance between themselves and Trump, but politicians are notoriously cowards. Up to this point Pence has been the one to be the voice of reason, the one who calms the press down, if that stops I would argue that he realizes this is the beginning of the end for Trump. He should be the first to know the full inside scoop.

According to US intelligence Maniford and Flynn had frequent communication, they both initially strongly denied it. If they no longer speak publicly on this to deny this then you know they are in communication with lawyers and are preparing their defense. Not proof of guilt but surely proof that this is not "much ado about nothing".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u...rump.html?_r=0

[ZNPaaneah]

Dodging questions about Russian ties, firing top officials for their Russian ties, and refusing to release tax returns which might show Russian ties. This is a lot of smoke.

As a rule you don't dodge questions because this just makes the story bigger. This is another application of the "false positive paradox". When a story like this breaks if you are one of the 20 out of the 21 who is not actually guilty you need to get your side of the story out as soon as possible otherwise you appear guilty by default. On the other hand if you are guilty and they can prove it you can't say anything because the lies and coverup are often bigger crimes than the initial crime. Yesterday the major news networks were running clips of Trump looking like a fool as he is repeatedly asked questions concerning the NY Times article and the Intelligence report that his campaign was in frequent contact with Russian officials and all the while he sits there dumbly refusing to answer. This simply tells all the news reporters that this is a big story and you can be sure they are going to be jumping on it today.

Top Republican Senators on the Intelligence committee were questioned and they did not dispute any of the claims in the NY Times article. What is clear even to the President is that there is a coordinated campaign to leak this information. The President is threatening them which is only going to make the imperative to get the story out all the more urgent.

To ignore questions asked by reporters but then to tweet about it makes him look even more impotent and foolish. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. You cannot call this foolish, silly, a non story and then demonstrate that this is what you are focused on in your tweets.

I have to believe that Obama was able to get a thorough investigation done during the transition so that this cannot be buried or covered up. I also believe that the way in which this has been handled has been strategic to get key people in the campaign in a position where they will have to resign and could be threatened with felonies in exchange for their testimony. Flynn is clearly a very key target in their investigation. Now that they have a felony charge on them they can go ahead and legally subpoena all the documents relevant to the case and use them in court.

It seems to me that Comey will be the next shoe to drop, his behavior in light of this report is outrageous. At the same time he is investigating Trump's campaign for frequent contacts with the Russians he decides he needs to announce that they are reopening the investigation on Clinton? That announcement implied new evidence when there wasn't any. That announcement implied he had critical information the voters needed to know about yet was not at liberty to share. He didn't. All the while he did have critical information on Trump's campaign and he had new evidence on Trump's campaign.

It seems to me we are in the midst of a major scandal. The Titanic is going down on its maiden voyage.

[ZNPaaneah]

WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to assign a New York billionaire to lead a broad review of American intelligence agencies, according to administration officials, an effort that members of the intelligence community fear could curtail their independence and reduce the flow of information that contradicts the president’s worldview.

Here is step in a direction that is clearly towards an authoritarian dictatorship. If actions speak louder than words this one is screaming "Hitler"!

NY Times Editorial:

In history, this is where Congress steps in. During the Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran-contra scandal, when a president’s actions or policies crossed the line, Congress investigated and held the White House to account. The time has come for it to do so again.

In the last week alone, Americans have witnessed the firing of President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and learned with shock and incredulity that members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and inner circle were in repeated contact with Russian intelligence officials.

Coming on top of credible information from America’s intelligence agencies that Russia tried to destabilize and influence the 2016 presidential campaign, these latest revelations are more than sufficient reason for Congress to investigate what Moscow has been up to and whether people at the highest levels of the United States government have aided and abetted the interests of a nation that has tried to thwart American foreign policy since the Cold War.

Given that context, one might expect Mr. Trump to be clamoring for details that would eliminate any suspicion that his administration is in league with an enemy. Instead he has waged an unhinged attack on the intelligence agencies themselves, praising President Vladimir Putin of Russia at every turn and pointing fingers everywhere but at himself, while refusing to take a single step to resolve questions about his administration’s ties to Russia.

[ZNPaaneah]

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham

"If there's contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials outside the norm, that's not only big league bad, that's a game changer," Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview on "Good Morning America."

He continued, "Because if it is true, it is very very disturbing to me, and Russia needs to pay a price when it comes to interfering in our democracy and other democracies, and any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price."

There is no way this is "much ado about nothing". This is much ado about something and the longer Trump allows this to fester without dealing with it decisively the more guilty he is. This is something that is going to completely split this country and cause the government to grind to a halt. He needs to clear this up immediately.

[Evangelical]

Probably an impeachment coming or resignation. I just listen to Michael Moore, he is often right as he was about the election. His logic is simple and makes sense - Trump is a narcissist and narcissists don't play by the rules (they break laws) and Presidents who break laws get the boot. Trump has struggled going from being a business man who gets what he wants because he has money and influence, and a President who is more or less a servant of the country/people (in theory, anyway).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably an impeachment coming or resignation. I just listen to Michael Moore, he is often right as he was about the election. His logic is simple and makes sense - Trump is a narcissist and narcissists don't play by the rules (they break laws) and Presidents who break laws get the boot. Trump has struggled going from being a business man who gets what he wants because he has money and influence, and a President who is more or less a servant of the country/people (in theory, anyway).

I thought his press conference was hilarious. One minute he tells us his administration is not in chaos, it is a fine tuned machine. The next minute he is asking a reporter if she knows someone on the CBC and if she could set up a meeting with him.

And then he says he received more electoral votes than any president since Reagan, only to be corrected that Obama in both elections and both George Bush's received more. To which he replies "these were the numbers given to me"?! His administration is running like a fine tuned machine and yet they are handing him numbers to intentionally make him look like a buffoon?

This would be hilarious if it wasn't for his discussion of blowing the Russian ship out of the water or of how bad a nuclear war would be as though he just learned about this in an earlier briefing.

[ZNPaaneah]

NY Times Editorial:

In December, a Huffington Post article featured a letter written by three prominent psychiatry professors that cited President Trump’s “grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality” as evidence of his mental instability. While stopping short of giving the president a formal psychiatric diagnosis, the experts called for him to submit to a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by impartial investigators.

A practicing psychologist went further in late January. He was quoted in a U.S. News and World Report article titled “Temperament Tantrum,” saying that President Trump has malignant narcissism, which is characterized by grandiosity, sadism and antisocial behavior.

I don’t doubt that these experts believe they are protecting the country from a president whose behavior they — like many of us — see as dangerous. A recent letter to the editor in this newspaper, signed by 35 psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, put it this way: “We fear that too much is at stake to be silent.” It continued, “We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.”

If the President makes one alarming statement in a six month period, that might be viewed as false positive. He does it twice, you have moved the odds in favor of there being something very serious behind it. He does it three times and you are moving towards proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have personally been alarmed by much more than 3 of the statements made by Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

According to ABC News, Trump received a big, fat gift from China this week in the form of a 10-year trademark on his name for construction. The award marks a sudden reversal of fortunes for Trump, who had reportedly been trying to win the valuable rights to his name for a decade. Interestingly, the Chinese government came through for him one month after he took the oath of office and a week after his conversation with Chinese president Xi Jinping during which he endorsed the One China policy. After years of battling to take back the rights to his name from a man named Dong Wei, Trump’s registration was made official on Tuesday and announced by China’s trademark office on Wednesday. • BY EMILY JANE FOX FEBRUARY 16, 2017 9:25 AM, Vanity Fair

Now we know why Trump has been focused on a trade war with China. Gave him leverage to get this deal.

[awareness]

I live in Kentucky. Ky has been all in for Trump. All my extended family was all in. But I'm noticing they're now becoming disenchanted with him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to ABC News, Trump received a big, fat gift from China this week in the form of a 10-year trademark on his name for construction. The award marks a sudden reversal of fortunes for Trump, who had reportedly been trying to win the valuable rights to his name for a decade. Interestingly, the Chinese government came through for him one month after he took the oath of office and a week after his conversation with Chinese president Xi Jinping during which he endorsed the One China policy. After years of battling to take back the rights to his name from a man named Dong Wei, Trump’s registration was made official on Tuesday and announced by China’s trademark office on Wednesday. • BY EMILY JANE FOX FEBRUARY 16, 2017 9:25 AM, Vanity Fair

Now we know why Trump has been focused on a trade war with China. Gave him leverage to get this deal.

Would be hard to prove cause though on this one.

[ZNPaaneah]

all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court. (Lenin)

Eliot A Cohen, counsellor to former Republican Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said: "The language of an aspiring tyrant. *And no, not a joke, and not an exaggeration, and not a thought spasm from a disordered intellect."

The expression was also a favourite of Mao, who died in 1976.**The Chinese leader, who quoted the term to denounce anyone who criticised his policies,*created the Great Famine that killed an estimated 36 million Chinese.
When David Axelrod, former chief strategist for Barack Obama, noted on Twitter that no other president would have used the term,*Li Yuan, a journalist in China, pointed out:*"Chairman Mao had. Every dissenting voice was "the enemy of the people" under Mao."

(Taken from the Telegraph)

[Ohio]

As Jay Sekulow informed Hannity last night, in their final days, Obama, Clapper, and Lynch signed an Executive Order allowing 16 gov't agencies share top level wire tap info. Sekulow called it a "soft coup."

Our "constitutional lawyer" prez just shredded the constitution.

The rules were dramatically changed overnight. And Trump, Flynn, and Company never were informed.

And you blame Trump for this piddly stuff? He was never given a chance.

The last thing Democrats want is true democracy.

Watch this short clip if you dare to know how sleazy this past admin was.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As Jay Sekulow informed Hannity last night, in their final days, Obama, Clapper, and Lynch signed an Executive Order allowing 16 gov't agencies share top level wire tap info. Sekulow called it a "soft coup."

Our "constitutional lawyer" prez just shredded the constitution.

The rules were dramatically changed overnight. And Trump, Flynn, and Company never were informed.

And you blame Trump for this piddly stuff? He was never given a chance.

The last thing Democrats want is true democracy.

Watch this short clip if you dare to know how sleazy this past admin was.

How convenient. If Trump can't make America great blame former president Blackenstein.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

As Jay Sekulow informed Hannity last night, in their final days, Obama, Clapper, and Lynch signed an Executive Order allowing 16 gov't agencies share top level wire tap info. Sekulow called it a "soft coup."

Our "constitutional lawyer" prez just shredded the constitution.

The rules were dramatically changed overnight. And Trump, Flynn, and Company never were informed.

And you blame Trump for this piddly stuff? He was never given a chance.

The last thing Democrats want is true democracy.

Watch this short clip if you dare to know how sleazy this past admin was.

We will ultimately know the truth. At the moment we know that there are "leaks" from the intelligence community which is a violation of protocol, perhaps of laws. However, if it turns out that the worst of the possible scenarios is true (Trump has coordinated with the Russian spy agencies to fix the US election in exchange for some deals) then I don't think anyone will prosecute those involved in the leaks.

But regardless of how it ultimately turns out it is not "piddly stuff". Those who are involved in the leaks have risked their careers to get this out. Obama has obviously used his last two months to make sure the information on Trump and his campaign could not be buried or hidden.

If you are correct that Obama "shredded" the constitution then he has shredded his legacy and that truth will be released, after all Trump is president and has 4 years to deal with his "enemies".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We will ultimately know the truth. At the moment we know that there are "leaks" from the intelligence community which is a violation of protocol, perhaps of laws. However, if it turns out that the worst of the possible scenarios is true (Trump has coordinated with the Russian spy agencies to fix the US election in exchange for some deals) then I don't think anyone will prosecute those involved in the leaks.

But regardless of how it ultimately turns out it is not "piddly stuff". Those who are involved in the leaks have risked their careers to get this out. Obama has obviously used his last two months to make sure the information on Trump and his campaign could not be buried or hidden.

If you are correct that Obama "shredded" the constitution then he has shredded his legacy and that truth will be released, after all Trump is president and has 4 years to deal with his "enemies".

Yeah sure.

Then why did Obama wait 7 years, 11 months, and 13 days to make sure all the dirt on his administration remained hidden? Remember the James Rosen investigation into Obama Administration leaks? Benghazi? IRS?

Don't you think myriads of conservatives would also risk their careers? How about if White House and State Dept. internal conversations concerning Benghazi had been leaked out 4 years ago?

ZNP, try to listen to the news critically. The stench of liberal bias is so prevalent that fresh air appears non-existent in Wash DC. It's main stream media and the progressive left that needs the EPA to come in and clean their house.

And there was far more Democratic voter fraud than the Russians ever achieved. Which Russian ever voted illegally? Did you hear about all those dead Democrats and Republicans who voted for Hillary? Of course, the "prestigious" NY Times missed that story.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah sure.

Then why did Obama wait 7 years, 11 months, and 13 days to make sure all the dirt on his administration remained hidden? Remember the James Rosen investigation into Obama Administration leaks? Benghazi? IRS?

Don't you think myriads of conservatives would also risk their careers? How about if White House and State Dept. internal conversations concerning Benghazi had been leaked out 4 years ago?

ZNP, try to listen to the news critically. The stench of liberal bias is so prevalent that fresh air appears non-existent in Wash DC. It's main stream media and the progressive left that needs the EPA to come in and clean their house.

And there was far more Democratic voter fraud than the Russians ever achieved. Which Russian ever voted illegally? Did you hear about all those dead Democrats and Republicans who voted for Hillary? Of course, the "prestigious" NY Times missed that story.

Flynn's resignation is not liberal bias.

Andrew Puzdner withdrew because of a lack of conservative votes.

Vice Admiral Robert Harward is not a liberal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah sure.

Then why did Obama wait 7 years, 11 months, and 13 days to make sure all the dirt on his administration remained hidden? Remember the James Rosen investigation into Obama Administration leaks? Benghazi? IRS?

Don't you think myriads of conservatives would also risk their careers? How about if White House and State Dept. internal conversations concerning Benghazi had been leaked out 4 years ago?

ZNP, try to listen to the news critically. The stench of liberal bias is so prevalent that fresh air appears non-existent in Wash DC. It's main stream media and the progressive left that needs the EPA to come in and clean their house.

And there was far more Democratic voter fraud than the Russians ever achieved. Which Russian ever voted illegally? Did you hear about all those dead Democrats and Republicans who voted for Hillary? Of course, the "prestigious" NY Times missed that story.

I guess conspiracy theories are those alternative facts I keep hearing about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Flynn's resignation is not liberal bias.

Oh really?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Flynn's resignation is not liberal bias.

All bad things are because of the liberals. In fact, the word liberal and bad are synonymous, and can be used interchangeably.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

All bad things are because of the liberals. In fact, the word liberal and bad are synonymous, and can be used interchangeably.

And a hearty "amen" to that!!

Now we can fellowship together!

But still, we must not forget ... God loves rePublicans and sinners.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh really?

He lied to the FBI. They had the phone records. It was a felony. How is that "liberal bias"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And a hearty "amen" to that!!

Now we can fellowship together!

But still, we must not forget ... God loves rePublicans and sinners.

I went to make hot chocolate but the milk was lumpy. I said, "Oh crap, the milk has gone liberal."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He lied to the FBI. They had the phone records. It was a felony. How is that "liberal bias"?

The FBI had the phone records illegally, never obtaining a court order.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The FBI had the phone records illegally, never obtaining a court order.

As a matter of procedure we record conversations with Russian officials. It is not necessary for the CIA or NSA to monitor those calls.

If the phone records are not admissible in court then that may help Flynn out in a trial. But evidence that is not admissible in court is routinely seen by Presidents and Senate hearings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The FBI had the phone records illegally, never obtaining a court order.

While I must agree with the need to maintain at least the appearance of legality in police actions of any kind, I am also hard-pressed to state that what is known as the result of such can simply be ignored as if the wrong of the means of having the information makes the facts in the information OK.

That just stinks.

And I think that an administration has to act based on what is known without giving the means of knowledge any material sway in the inquiry.

But in terms of prosecution, there has to remain a limit to use of illegally-obtained information, and reasonable prosecution of those who knowingly use such illegal means to get information. Otherwise there is too much incentive to get the information any way possible despite the law.

So if you have the information and it is true, you have to act on it in every way except in a court of law. So for the media to characterize something as a felony using illegally obtained information is not necessarily barred by any law. But then that presumes that the characterization itself is more than just a claim of what someone thinks ought to be without due deference to the actual laws that would apply. (And I am not weighing-in on the correctness of any particular claim.)

But simply saying that the information was illegally obtained does not absolve guilt. Just potentially bars prosecution.

I would rather be on the side where the actions in question are righteous so that any unrighteous digging by others will only find nothing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I must agree with the need to maintain at least the appearance of legality in police actions of any kind, I am also hard-pressed to state that what is known as the result of such can simply be ignored as if the wrong of the means of having the information makes the facts in the information OK.

That just stinks.

And I think that an administration has to act based on what is known without giving the means of knowledge any material sway in the inquiry.

But in terms of prosecution, there has to remain a limit to use of illegally-obtained information, and reasonable prosecution of those who knowingly use such illegal means to get information. Otherwise there is too much incentive to get the information any way possible despite the law.

So if you have the information and it is true, you have to act on it in every way except in a court of law. So for the media to characterize something as a felony using illegally obtained information is not necessarily barred by any law. But then that presumes that the characterization itself is more than just a claim of what someone thinks ought to be without due deference to the actual laws that would apply. (And I am not weighing-in on the correctness of any particular claim.)

But simply saying that the information was illegally obtained does not absolve guilt. Just potentially bars prosecution.

I would rather be on the side where the actions in question are righteous so that any unrighteous digging by others will only find nothing.

Politics is a crooked business, but they at least must be able to fight fairly.

What Obama did in his last month in office was to change the rules.

Now what if the Atlanta Falcons at halftime of SB51 were able to change the rules so that no more passes could be thrown, only running plays. Would that be fair?

That's what thems liberals didst!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Politics is a crooked business, but they at least must be able to fight fairly.

What Obama did in his last month in office was to change the rules.

Now what if the Atlanta Falcons at halftime of SB51 were able to change the rules so that no more passes could be thrown, only running plays. Would that be fair?

That's what thems liberals didst!

He had one month, why not wait? It wasn't a "half", it was 1/48th of his term, so it would be more like the Atlanta Falcons running two running plays for a total of 80-90 seconds, perhaps after Julio Jones catches the ball on the 25 yard line. Instead after the first running play was stopped they went to the pass?! (holding penalty -- stopped clock) followed by sack (timeout stopping the clock). RUN THE BALL!! KICK THE FIELD GOAL!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He had one month, why not wait? It wasn't a "half", it was 1/48th of his term, so it would be more like the Atlanta Falcons running two running plays for a total of 80-90 seconds, perhaps after Julio Jones catches the ball on the 25 yard line. Instead after the first running play was stopped they went to the pass?! (holding penalty -- stopped clock) followed by sack (timeout stopping the clock). RUN THE BALL!! KICK THE FIELD GOAL!!

And you wonder why other posters misunderstand what you write!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The FBI had the phone records illegally, never obtaining a court order.

Snowden exposed this sort of thing. But FISA is really broad, especially if there's something shifty going on with foreign governments. So I doubt the FBI was gathering these phone records illegally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Snowden exposed this sort of thing. But FISA is really broad, especially if there's something shifty going on with foreign governments. So I doubt the FBI was gathering these phone records illegally.

Everything we say or do electronically, including talking to our TV remotes, is recorded forever in the cyber vaults of the NSA.

Remember -- politics always trumps legality, and politics is everywhere.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everything we say or do electronically, including talking to our TV remotes, is recorded forever in the cyber vaults of the NSA.

They say this isn't true. Wink. Wink.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

They say this isn't true. Wink. Wink.

I'd trust Snowden and Assange before most politicians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yeah sure.

Then why did Obama wait 7 years, 11 months, and 13 days to make sure all the dirt on his administration remained hidden? Remember the James Rosen investigation into Obama Administration leaks? Benghazi? IRS?

Don't you think myriads of conservatives would also risk their careers? How about if White House and State Dept. internal conversations concerning Benghazi had been leaked out 4 years ago?

ZNP, try to listen to the news critically. The stench of liberal bias is so prevalent that fresh air appears non-existent in Wash DC. It's main stream media and the progressive left that needs the EPA to come in and clean their house.

And there was far more Democratic voter fraud than the Russians ever achieved. Which Russian ever voted illegally? Did you hear about all those dead Democrats and Republicans who voted for Hillary? Of course, the "prestigious" NY Times missed that story.

Obviously I was the only poster troubled by Obama's last minute pardons and pathetic executive orders.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously I was the only poster troubled by Obama's last minute pardons and pathetic executive orders.

No, but every president behaved in similar manner.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Everything we say or do electronically, including talking to our TV remotes, is recorded forever in the cyber vaults of the NSA.

Remember -- politics always trumps legality, and politics is everywhere.

You've come a long way from Christ being everything.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, but every president behaved in similar manner.

Not only so, but you know that with someone leaving in less than a month they can't do any real lasting damage. It isn't the same thing when a new president starts a term, 4 years can be a very long time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not only so, but you know that with someone leaving in less than a month they can't do any real lasting damage. It isn't the same thing when a new president starts a term, 4 years can be a very long time.

I beg to differ.

I would like it if he would take a long vacation. No prez in history has stuck around and fomented unrest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I beg to differ.

I would like it if he would take a long vacation. No prez in history has stuck around and fomented unrest.

OK, I missed something. What did Obama do after the election that will have a lasting negative effect on US policy?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, I missed something. What did Obama do after the election that will have a lasting negative effect on US policy?

I posted that link, which referenced his executive order. What Seculow called a "soft coup," Obama's attempt at sabotaging the Trump administration.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I posted that link, which referenced his executive order. What Seculow called a "soft coup," Obama's attempt at sabotaging the Trump administration.

17 days before he leaves office he signs an order allowing the raw data to go to 16 government agencies. This has created a situation where leaks are much more likely and much harder to discover.

So then, why can't Trump just sign a presidential order undoing this? If he is not impeached there is no "coup". If he is impeached with a majority of Republicans voting then it is due to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Again, I can see why people are complaining about Obama's behavior, but I don't see how that behavior has resulted in a long term negative effect on policy.

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't think people fully appreciate Trump's brilliance. After Snowden much of the world has come to distrust and even fear US intelligence.

However, after the Bowling Green massacre and Sweden Terrorist attacks I think much of the world has been reassured that US intelligence is not something they need to worry about.

Just think about it, the most powerful man in the world asks a reporter to set up a meeting for him with the Congressional Black Caucus. Got to reassure those who were fearful of him. It is almost as though Mel Brooks were writing his scripts when he says that "[Russia] is a very powerful nuclear country and so are we". It is very hard to worry about the "intelligence" of a world leader that tells you "lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things" and that is his brilliance. Yesterday we were afraid of US intelligence, how I long for yesterday.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think people fully appreciate Trump's brilliance. After Snowden much of the world has come to distrust and even fear US intelligence.

However, after the Bowling Green massacre and Sweden Terrorist attacks I think much of the world has been reassured that US intelligence is not something they need to worry about.

Just think about it, the most powerful man in the world asks a reporter to set up a meeting for him with the Congressional Black Caucus. Got to reassure those who were fearful of him. It is almost as though Mel Brooks were writing his scripts when he says that "[Russia] is a very powerful nuclear country and so are we". It is very hard to worry about the "intelligence" of a world leader that tells you "lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things" and that is his brilliance. Yesterday we were afraid of US intelligence, how I long for yesterday.

Oh yes, return us to the days when our President traveled the country reading teleprompters and tickled our ears with sweet nothings.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh yes, return us to the days when our President traveled the country reading teleprompters and tickled our ears with sweet nothings.

Thinking more of fireside chats and Presidents who charged up San Juan hill.

[zeek]

What has any of this to do with the false positive paradox?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What has any of this to do with the false positive paradox?

I second the question.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

What has any of this to do with the false positive paradox?

I assume you are referring to post #51.

If there is a single example of Trump causing a misdirection where the media is obsessed with what he says and disregards something more controversial that he did, then that could be dumb luck. Still, according to the false positive paradox, although you shouldn't take that to mean he did this intentionally, you should take this to investigate further. With Trump we have seen numerous examples of this behavior, far too many to attribute to "dumb luck".

Almost a year ago I expressed concern and alarm with Trump and was "assured" by another Teacher that the Republicans wouldn't nominate him. Likewise everyone seemed assured that he wouldn't be elected. According to Sun Tzu you don't underestimate your enemy.

Too many people are looking at Trump like he is an idiot again, and again, and again.

His statements during the campaign seemed idiotic, yet they got all the news, he got free publicity, ran a campaign on the cheap, drowned out all other voices, and mopped the floor with the republican wannabees. Clinton was supposed to be a shoe in and she lost, even though he insulted a war hero and said some of the most offensive things I have ever heard from any candidate.

If you were a foreign country it would be very easy to get a read on Obama and predict how he would react. But what about Trump, does anyone know how he is going to react? If he makes a major blunder would we even know? If you are familiar with the concept of setting the bar low, could Trump have set it any lower. At this point if he doesn't start WWIII many people will be happy. His poll numbers can't go lower.

I have been trying to convey a balanced approach whereas most people are not balanced. You go to the doctor, they do a test and according to the test you have cancer. The test is 99% accurate, only 2% of cases are false positive. You think that because of this test you must have cancer. Not true, because of that test it is still very unlikely that you have cancer, maybe 1 in 21. However, what is definitely true is that the odds of you having cancer is now much, much greater than the average person who might have a 1 in 1,000 chance. Therefore one positive test doesn't prove anything other than you need to see the results from another test.

What I found truly absurd was how reasonable people were willing to continually dismiss Trump's odds. It didn't make sense. When there were 16 candidates maybe, but once there were 3 and he was the front runner you should have tossed those conclusions out. This guy has passed far too many tests at this point to continue thinking they are "false positives".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Almost a year ago I expressed concern and alarm with Trump and was "assured" by another Teacher that the Republicans wouldn't nominate him. Likewise everyone seemed assured that he wouldn't be elected. According to Sun Tzu you don't underestimate your enemy.

Too many people are looking at Trump like he is an idiot again, and again, and again.

His statements during the campaign seemed idiotic, yet they got all the news, he got free publicity, ran a campaign on the cheap, drowned out all other voices, and mopped the floor with the republican wannabees. Clinton was supposed to be a shoe in and she lost, even though he insulted a war hero and said some of the most offensive things I have ever heard from any candidate.

I just don't think you "get it." Coming from NYC, or the coastlines, it's hard to understand the mindset of heartland USA. I am speaking about working class folks, who value faith and family, who are NOT on the government dole, and who are struggling financially. Some of us do NOT have health care, yet have too much income to get Obamacare.

Even in my community, relatively conservative and republican, most people were afraid to publicly endorse Trump. I saw way more Clinton signs. Of course, most folks including me had reservations, but compared to the alternatives, the choice was ridiculously easy. Yet we were forced to speak in hushed tones due to PC backlash. Trump sounded idiotic to the liberal global elites, but not to all of us. He sounded like a leader we had sorely be missing in the WhiteHouse. He was a business man who could get things done.

One neighbor of mine said the same thing about Trump starting WW3, as if he were some neurotic despotic Kim-Jung-Un. It's just incredible how many liken him to Hitler, when the Clinton's have a trail of victims stretching back decades. The more mainstream media demonizes Trump, the more supporters he will have. I would not be surprised if one's like WV senator Joe Manchin changes parties or becomes an independent. He saw first hand how Obama destroyed his coal industry with a single EO, and Clinton planned to continue.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I just don't think you "get it." Coming from NYC, or the coastlines, it's hard to understand the mindset of heartland USA. I am speaking about working class folks, who value faith and family, who are NOT on the government dole, and who are struggling financially. Some of us do NOT have health care, yet have too much income to get Obamacare.

Even in my community, relatively conservative and republican, most people were afraid to publicly endorse Trump. I saw way more Clinton signs. Of course, most folks including me had reservations, but compared to the alternatives, the choice was ridiculously easy. Yet we were forced to speak in hushed tones due to PC backlash. Trump sounded idiotic to the liberal global elites, but not to all of us. He sounded like a leader we had sorely be missing in the WhiteHouse. He was a business man who could get things done.

One neighbor of mine said the same thing about Trump starting WW3, as if he were some neurotic despotic Kim-Jung-Un. It's just incredible how many liken him to Hitler, when the Clinton's have a trail of victims stretching back decades. The more mainstream media demonizes Trump, the more supporters he will have. I would not be surprised if one's like WV senator Joe Manchin changes parties or becomes an independent. He saw first hand how Obama destroyed his coal industry with a single EO, and Clinton planned to continue.

I did get it, which is why I saw his chances of winning long before it happened.

I also value faith and family, hence my abhorrence of some of Trump's statements and pattern of behavior. I also refused to vote for Clinton.

I agree that Obamacare is a failure, but blame both parties for this failure. I lived in England for a year and lived in Taiwan for a lot longer than that. I would go for the health care in either country over the health care here. The only people who should prefer out healthcare system are CEO's in the health care industry and the top 5% income earners.

Because I live in NYC I have watched Trump operate his entire life. I saw him drive an entire industry into bankruptcy in his attempt to make money. I see a comparison between him and other abusive billionaires with his incredible number of lawsuits. We watched him in action during the campaign in his lawsuits. He takes advantage of contractors because they don't have lawyers on retainer. On the other hand I saw the way he took care of our ice skating rink in Central Park. He did a great job with that and could do a great job nationally with construction projects.

I watch his daughter hawk goods during government press briefings, I see him absolutely refuse to release his tax records despite constant and continual requests, I see the Chinese now allow him to put his name on buildings in China despite laws they had prior to his election making that illegal. I have seen every single intelligence agency agree that Russia hacked our election.

I lived in Texas for years and have seen the border. I never understood anyone who said we couldn't build the "wall". Of course we can, at the very least we can increase the investment in the existing "wall" and make it better. Use of drones and lasers could make this much more secure. I also understand that this won't stop the drug dealers, but it will help the border security focus on them and not waste all their time rounding up non felons. So I don't have an issue with his goal of a more secure border. I also no issue with him enforcing existing legislation about immigration. I have already said we should use TR as our model, enforce laws even if you don't like it. If the law is bad you change the law.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I did get it, which is why I saw his chances of winning long before it happened.

I also value faith and family, hence my abhorrence of some of Trump's statements and pattern of behavior. I also refused to vote for Clinton.

I agree that Obamacare is a failure, but blame both parties for this failure. I lived in England for a year and lived in Taiwan for a lot longer than that. I would go for the health care in either country over the health care here. The only people who should prefer out healthcare system are CEO's in the health care industry and the top 5% income earners.

Because I live in NYC I have watched Trump operate his entire life. I saw him drive an entire industry into bankruptcy in his attempt to make money. I see a comparison between him and other abusive billionaires with his incredible number of lawsuits. We watched him in action during the campaign in his lawsuits. He takes advantage of contractors because they don't have lawyers on retainer. On the other hand I saw the way he took care of our ice skating rink in Central Park. He did a great job with that and could do a great job nationally with construction projects.

I watch his daughter hawk goods during government press briefings, I see him absolutely refuse to release his tax records despite constant and continual requests, I see the Chinese now allow him to put his name on buildings in China despite laws they had prior to his election making that illegal. I have seen every single intelligence agency agree that Russia hacked our election.

I lived in Texas for years and have seen the border. I never understood anyone who said we couldn't build the "wall". Of course we can, at the very least we can increase the investment in the existing "wall" and make it better. Use of drones and lasers could make this much more secure. I also understand that this won't stop the drug dealers, but it will help the border security focus on them and not waste all their time rounding up non felons. So I don't have an issue with his goal of a more secure border. I also no issue with him enforcing existing legislation about immigration. I have already said we should use TR as our model, enforce laws even if you don't like it. If the law is bad you change the law.

OK. I definitely agree. All politicians are crooks and liars.

Treat our southern states like a prison, and put barbed wire fence around them.

To me health care will never improve. I turn off the news whenever they discuss that topic. I think we need a two-tier system. One for the rich and the politicians, and one for the rest of us, modeled after Canada or the Brits. Everything else is that way.

I have no issue with Trump's tax returns. If there were issues on his taxes, Lois Lerner and the IRS would go after them. I'm surprised they have not been leaked to the media.

So Trump got China to back down? Good for him!

Billionaires are all alike. I remember my uncle telling me the story of how they built the baseball stadium in Cleveland (he was electrician) and then refused to pay the unions, finally giving them a fraction of the contract. Many sub-contractors went out of business. My Dad suffered a similar disaster in the early 70's. This is why I don't trust lawyers either. Billionaires use lawyers to screw others who can't afford to defend themselves. Forget what you hear about blind justice.

The difference with Trump is that he appears to be patriotic, can get things done, and has surrounded himself with conservatives.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. I definitely agree. All politicians are crooks and liars.

Treat our southern states like a prison, and put barbed wire fence around them.

To me health care will never improve. I turn off the news whenever they discuss that topic. I think we need a two-tier system. One for the rich and the politicians, and one for the rest of us, modeled after Canada or the Brits. Everything else is that way.

I have no issue with Trump's tax returns. If there were issues on his taxes, Lois Lerner and the IRS would go after them. I'm surprised they have not been leaked to the media.

So Trump got China to back down? Good for him!

Billionaires are all alike. I remember my uncle telling me the story of how they built the baseball stadium in Cleveland (he was electrician) and then refused to pay the unions, finally giving them a fraction of the contract. Many sub-contractors went out of business. My Dad suffered a similar disaster in the early 70's. This is why I don't trust lawyers either. Billionaires use lawyers to screw others who can't afford to defend themselves. Forget what you hear about blind justice.

The difference with Trump is that he appears to be patriotic, can get things done, and has surrounded himself with conservatives.

We really won't know what "the difference with Trump is" until we have the 20/20 vision of hindsight. That is why I think we need to be vigilant. As Reagan said "trust but verify".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We really won't know what "the difference with Trump is" until we have the 20/20 vision of hindsight. That is why I think we need to be vigilant. As Reagan said "trust but verify".

I agree, but ... our 20/20 vision of hindsight depends on whether we are reading Fox or CNN.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree, but ... our 20/20 vision of hindsight depends on whether we are reading Fox or CNN.

I'm thinking more of the likes of John Toland and Rick Atkinson.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree, but ... our 20/20 vision of hindsight depends on whether we are reading Fox or CNN.

What if you read both, and lots of other sources? They all sold out for Bush and his lying to get us into Iraq ... except Peabody. I don't trust any of them. And they can't know what's really going on anyway, because they can't be in the Top Security Clearance circles, where all the real action happens.

But they are all we've got. I spend most of my time in the news weeding out the biases. And they all have them, one way or the other, and in between, I like to compare liberal and conservatives news sources. I'm a mugwump, so I figure if I want to know the dirt on the liberals listen to the conservatives, and vice versa. Hey, the Bibles' got Jesus the Democrat, and God the Republican ... so it's not really an either or. If you want it all, it's both.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What if you read both, and lots of other sources? They all sold out for Bush and his lying to get us into Iraq ...

When did Bush lie? The Iraqis wiped out whole cities of Kurds with poison gas -- WMD's. Read your history again.

Why don't you trash LBJ too? He used false flags to escalate Nam. Far more people died there.

Anyways, this discussion goes nowhere. You bash every conservative, and give every liberal a pass, then tell us you read lots of sources. OK, fine. Have at it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What if you read both, and lots of other sources? They all sold out for Bush and his lying to get us into Iraq ... except Peabody. I don't trust any of them. And they can't know what's really going on anyway, because they can't be in the Top Security Clearance circles, where all the real action happens.

But they are all we've got. I spend most of my time in the news weeding out the biases. And they all have them, one way or the other, and in between, I like to compare liberal and conservatives news sources. I'm a mugwump, so I figure if I want to know the dirt on the liberals listen to the conservatives, and vice versa. Hey, the Bibles' got Jesus the Democrat, and God the Republican ... so it's not really an either or. If you want it all, it's both.

I have a solution that can eliminate all this vitriol. On one hand we have those who trust CNN, others trust Fox, still others (the worst of the lot) read lots of sources weeding out the the biases (what are you some kind of news junkie?)

So here is my solution, why not just let the President ban all news agencies that have a view different from his. This would eliminate them from stoking the public at large to ask questions. I for one have been influenced by leaks reported by NYT and CNN. It isn't good enough to just ban them from the Whitehouse, they'll still show up at town halls and report controversies that serve little purpose other than to get everyone else angry. Nope, you have to ban them from reporting on any National news.

Also, can we please stop comparing Trump to Putin. Would Putin attack the KGB? No way. Also let's stop comparing him to Hitler. For all his failings as the worst megalomaniac / mass murderer, Hitler did fight on the front lines during WWI.

Hope this helps.

[ZNPaaneah]

From 2004 to 2007 Trump borrowed money from Russians when he was unable to get loans locally.

During the campaign Russia hacked the emails of the Democrats and leaked it via wikileaks in order to help Trump’s campaign.

Rex Tillerson — Secretary of State has ties to Russia and Putin.

Wilbur Ross — ties to Russia

Flynn — National Security Advisor — discussed sanctions with Russia during the transition and advocated removing them. He resigned.

US intelligence agencies suspect collusion between Trump and Russia.

From May to September two Russian servers were communicating with the Trump organization.

The Trump Campaign kept in regular contact with Russia.

Trump, Sessions, Carter Page, J.D. Gordian and Jared Kushner all met with Kislyak

4 US intelligence officials have asserted that Trump’s campaign and associates regularly talked with senior Russian intelligence officers.

Trump and his administration have repeatedly falsely claimed there have been no contacts.

Trump and his administration asked investigators to falsely claim no contacts.

There are allegations of a sex tape that the Russians have as well as bribery.

Trump’s stated opinion of Putin is very troubling.

Trump’s change of policy toward Russia is troubling.

Russias purchase of Trump real estate is troubling.

British and Dutch intelligence agencies have also offered evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Sad to say there are actually quite a few more allegations.

How does a president make these incredible claims of a President pulling a Watergate type scandal without giving us any evidence to support this claim and with his press secretary trying to twist this claim into any form of surveillance of any person prior to the election without any evidence that would support Trump's claim?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The false positive paradox says that if I have a test that is 99% accurate in finding a lie, or evidence of evil and that this test only gives me a very slight chance for a false positive, say 2%, then if the occurrence of this lie or evil is very small, say 1 in 1,000 the odds of the false positive are much greater.

With the Bible there are a lot of verses. If out of 1,000 you find evidence of a lie or of evil using the test described above, then the odds of that verse actually being a lie or evidence of evil is less than 5%, the odds that it is a false positive is greater than 95%.

[2% of 1,000 verses is 20, 99% of 1 is 1].

Therefore when we see a verse that appears to be evidence of deceit or evil our first inclination should be that it is a false positive and that is what we should examine first.

The rule in the Bible is 2 or 3 witnesses. Imagine that each independent witness is 99% reliable in identifying a lie or evil and only makes a mistake in identifying an innocent person 2% of the time. Well in this case 1 witness will result in 20 false positives for each guilty party. But once you add a second witness the odds move to 2:1 in favor of the guilty party being guilty. A third witness confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course the corollary of this is if you have someone who is continually telling lies, then the mere assumption that something they said is a lie means that it is very likely that it is. This is why a lawyer will attempt to destroy the credibility of a person.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that in no way does this define the truth. Instead where I think it is important is in realizing the importance of not accepting an accusation against a person without two or three witnesses. The one witness may feel that they are 100% certain, and 99% accurate is really as accurate as you could hope for.

This is why this forum is so important. By ourselves we were each "one witness". Keeping us separate undermines credibility. But, once you hear two or three other witnesses it changes the equation dramatically.

Think about the debate concerning Watchman Nee and the book on his sins. If it is viewed as a single witness, chances of WN being guilty should be valued at less than 5%. If you couple it with the witness of the elders that disciplined him the chances jump to 65%. If you add to this the witness of Witness Lee, which many have overlooked. We all heard his spoken account of what took place, but see if you can find it in writing? That to me is the most telling. That to me is proof that Witness Lee knew he was lying.

Forecasting -- 10 rules

1. Do not predict uncertainty, move back on the continuum to “risk”. Forecasting is about calculating the risk. Do not predict who will win the world series in 2050, predict who will win in 2019. Likewise, don't predict who "the false prophet is" but rather if this particular person is "a false prophet".

2. Break the seemingly unknowable problem into smaller, knowable questions. How does the pitching staff compare, how does the hitting, defense, etc. In this case what are the criteria for a false prophet, does this person fit that criteria.

3. Balance your estimate between inside and outside views. The outside view is average risk that such an occurrence happens. For example, if you were calculating the risk that the Yankees would win the world series this year the outside view would be your calculation of how likely they were to win in any year. The inside view is what their team looks like this year. Jesus said that "many false prophets have gone into the world". That should readjust our "outside" view that this might be a rare occurrence and instead raise it to the level of probably or even highly probable.

4. Bayesian updates — once you have broken the big question into the smaller knowable questions and have put together a rough bayesian calculation of the risk looking at both the outside and inside views you can then update this calculation with each new bit of information. If a trade is made that might tweek your calculation, an injury, etc. If a book comes out on Watchman Nee exposing lies and deceit that would tweek your calculations.

5. Look for clashing causal forces — you can’t calculate the Yankees odds without also looking at the odds for the Cardinals, Redsocks, and Giants. Listen to Drake and others, hear their arguments, weigh them.

6. Try to calculate the degrees of doubt. What you are trying to do is to put a number on each factor rather than a vague “good chance” instead 60% is far more helpful. Instead of saying that WL's ministry was based on a fabricated story, be more precise. His claim to being a MOTA was based on being the #1 coworker to WN, and to WN's claim. So then what is the degree of doubt that WL could claim MOTA status without the link to WN? 10%? What is the degree of doubt that there is such a thing as a MOTA? 10%? What is the degree of doubt that if there is such a thing as a MOTA that WN was one? 10%? Using Bayesian analysis on those three questions you would come up with a 99.9% odds that WL was not a MOTA.

7. Balance between prudence and decisiveness. The Yankees have won 23% of the world series, so giving them a 10% chance is probably too prudent, and giving them a 35% chance is probably too decisive. However, they have not won in 9 years, if they win in 2019 it will be a 10 year gap. That is not their longest gap, but is certainly much more than the average. If you feel there is a 50% chance that in any given age there is a "leading" minister with "the ministry" and you feel that in this age there are less than 10,000 ministers that might qualify then your anchor estimate for WL being it would be 0.001 x .5 that would mean you are 99.95% sure he isn't. That is without looking at any specific information about his ministry and life.

8. Keep score — you have to ultimately make a choice, explain why, and then later in the reflection determine if your various judgements were flawed. If you determine there is a 33% chance the Yankees win this year and they lose you are neither right nor wrong. But if out of 1,000 predictions with this calculation you are right 40% of the time then you are being too prudent.

9. Listen to others. If you are going to be serious you would make friends of fans of both the Redsocks and the Cardinals and listen to the reasons they think their team will win.

10. Deliberate practice — attitude is not to hang everything on a single forecast, but rather to hang it on the process of getting better and better, just like someone sanding a table with finer and finer sandpaper.

Now this has a direct relationship to the false positive. But I will put that in the next post.

[ZNPaaneah]

Too many people will take one idea and give it far more weight than it is worth. This is similar to the false positive which says if we have 1,000 possible observations and we base our decision on 1 observation we will have far more false positives.

For example, Climate Change. The basic science says that in geologic history climate change will take place over 30,000 years and in the more extreme cases millions of years, whereas human induced climate change is taking place much faster. 100 years is much, much faster than 30,000 years or 1 million years. Yet when you listen to people talking it seems they are talking about a time frame of 5 years. This has actually been proven. If you don't see a noticeable change in 5 years you feel nothing is happening and then the opposite is you make forecasts for what is going to happen in 5 years which are not anchored in reality.

So let's predict next years winter.

1. Not so far away as to be unrealistic, but certainly way outside the 10 day weather forecast.

2. Smaller, knowable problem -- will the average temperature be warmer, colder, or the same? Will we have another "polar vortex", will we have floods and fires in California, etc.

3. Outside view -- we are seeing a relatively steady increase in temperature year on year, so predicting a slight increase in the average is the outside view. Inside view would be things like solar flares, volcanic eruptions, and the forecast for hurricanes.

4. Bayesian updates -- oil prices dropping, world GDP rising, etc. Each of these could result is very slight tweeks to your forecast.

5. Clashing causal forces -- solar and wind power adoption, methane hydrates bubbling up, etc.

6. Calculate these estimates into numbers. Instead of likely that the average is slightly more next winter, look at the mean average increase over the last 10 years, last 5 years, and assume a recession to the mean is most likely.

7. Try to be as decisive as the numbers allow.

8. Listen to Fox news and the naysayers.

9. Keep score.

10. Reflect on how you did, return to your model, adjust your algorithm, and repeat.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yet when you listen to people talking it seems they are talking about a time frame of 5 years.

That's because the rule-of-thumb timeframe for doomsayers is roughly 5 years. Near enough to make people worry about it, but distant enough for them to have forgotten about it when it doesn't happen.

[ZNPaaneah]

One aspect is confirmation bias. This forum is definitely in danger of confirmation bias since virtually everyone is in agreement on certain issues. The way to combat that is to put a question on its head.

So instead of asking "Was WL a false prophet" which we have asked and examined, we should ask "What evidence is there that WL was ministering God's up to date speaking?"

A good example of an alternate view of WL's teaching:

Here is why your assertions about them being erroneous is unfounded. They are analogies, not free allegories as you claim. I am not aware of any allegories that Witness Lee created. Allegories are Bunyon's Pilgrims Progress, C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. An allegory does allow a lot of latitude to fit in the storyline. I have read all the allegories above and they are useful but not necessarily theologically accurate in a strict literal sense.

Witness Lee's messages are rife with analogies and that is why they are called "Life-Studies". They are theologically accurate but not intended to be strict literal interpretation in every sense of the word. Yet, Brother Lees teaching on topics such as God's plan with Israel do follow the structure of Daniels 70 weeks. You apparently have missed the major point of the Life-studies though you read them all cover to cover.

Here is a life analogy I might make up if I were so inspired: Goliath was a big ugly guy who wanted to kill people, God's people to be precise. Yet, God used the unlikeliest of all to bring the big guy down, a boy with some stones. Maybe there is a Goliath in your life, don't be afraid, instead look for God to send the unlikeliest of all to slay that giant.

That is the literary asset called analogy and it is a valid and useful way to apply scripture as a help, an interpretation, a teaching, a correction, for instruction in righteousness and encouragement in life. All scripture, Old Testament and New, may be applied that way.

Drake Post 158 — Major errors of Witness Lee’s teaching

[ZNPaaneah]

After reading the book on super forecasters, which I will need to read again, I am reading a book on the Enron crisis (Conspiracy of Fools). This is amazingly appropriate.

Enron's business model was predicated upon forecasting. To make things worse they were forecasting the oil and gas industry which is probably the most complex market to forecast. To make things even worse still they decided to highly leverage themselves putting themselves at huge risk in the event of a 10% movement in the market which is typical for the oil and gas industry. They also decided to use the same tool that resulted in the mortgage meltdown, a tool that few people understand and which allows you to double and triple your risk without even realizing it. Fastow set it up, specialized in LBO, and was in his 30s.

As I read this I see them falling into many of the traps that forecasters fall into. Lay and Skilling build a team of likeminded people -- risking group think. They continuously complain about the calcified thinking of corporate America, yet forecasters learn that a regression to the mean is the most likely outcome in any forecast, hence successful businessmen can appear "calcified". They replace those that disagree with them with young 30 somethings that don't. And finally everyone they bring in has all kinds of special knowledge base except for the oil and gas industry. He should have had at least one really knowledgeable, experienced oil and gas man to be the nay sayer. As a result they charged ahead where the more prudent would have feared to tread.

What they found out in studying forecasts is that a team always has the potential to do significantly better than an individual, but that is as long as it doesn't fall into some of these pitfalls. The average forecast of a large group of average forecasters can approach the forecast of a super forecaster, but they did have a number of super forecasters that beat that average. Putting average forecasters into teams often did not improve the forecast at all, rather it is putting super forecasters together into teams that makes the improvement.

Why? Super forecasters do not let someone else do the work. Often when they get into teams they each work harder, rather than let someone else carry the load. This may be because they were all getting individual marks as well as a grade for the team, so if their personal forecasts fell they might fall out of the ranks. Being on the team improved their personal forecasts as well because they learned from each other. Super forecasters are not invested in the forecast, they are invested in the process. So, it is easy for them to adjust and change their forecast with new information. Each of them has special strategies and techniques, so when they work in a group they share these with each other and it makes the team better as well. Also, they stick to their guns. The teams were set up so that they don't attack the person, rather they question and challenge the forecast. That is a process which makes the forecast better.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Enron's business model was predicated upon forecasting.

To try and make this really simple, Enron was a pipeline company that delivered gas. They thought they could buy gas reserves, still in the ground that would take 20 years to pump out. They wanted to then sell the contract for 20 years of gas. And they wanted to use mark to market accounting. That means when they sold the contract they would claim the 20 years of profit at that moment.

One implication of this approach is that a fortune 500 company could not afford any changes in the law, new energy taxes, new regulations, a carbon tax, making natural gas illegal, etc. They have already written contracts for the next 20 years.

So if you thought that these were decisions that could be made by the government or by the will of the people you were wrong, the decisions concerning energy were already made by these corporations.

[ZNPaaneah]

The errors made by Enron were hilariously obvious in hindsight.

The salesmen in the company were paid a bonus based on how much revenue they forecasted a project they sold would make over the next 20 years. Talk about "prophet for hire". The higher your forecast, the bigger the bonus.

All they needed was an independent audit group in the company that would do these forecasts. This group would have to be somewhat anonymous as these salesmen would view them as their enemy, but they would be paid based on the accuracy of their forecasts at the end of each year. So their forecasts would be measured on their precision and would be time based. They would be a team, they would have different skill sets, and their bonus would be based on two metrics -- first the team would get a bonus based on the accuracy of the team, second each individual would get their share of the bonus based on their own score. Team members would be given a range, as long as I fall within the "A" range I get a full share, a "B" range and I get a reduced share, a "C" range doesn't reduce my share further, instead it puts me on a probationary status where I could get dropped from the team.

The second problem they faced is the problem that David solved (those fighting the battle and those guarding the stuff). There are two aspects to the job, selling contracts for big projects, and then completing and running those projects. The team that sold the projects got huge bonuses, but then since the projects were forecasted to do much better than they did and since they were riddled with crushingly bad contracts that come out in the wash, those left running them became very angry. Instead the two teams should share equally. The salesmen need to have a stake in the projects working, and those running the projects need to be cheering on the salesmen. Again, this accounting group would divy up the bonus pool equally among the two groups, just as David did.