I guess it’s like “Crime statistics would be much better if the police would just stop investigating stuff.”
Ah, I see what happened. You think I am agreeing with Ale’s particular theory. I wasn’t clear. I am saying in general if one believes that Putin/foreign powers are controlling Trump, that fits the definition of a conspiracy theory.
Fair enough that you might think this given my not being clear. But I assure you, I don’t make that type of illogical leap.
This reminds me of a classic in a gun control thread a few months ago. Someone wanted to argue that the death rate because of guns wasn’t all that high in the US compared to Australia or somewhere. He said something like, well, if you remove all the gun deaths from the ten cities with the highest rates, then the US rate is comparable to other nations. Well, yeah, dumbass, I thought, but you can’t just manipulate statistics like that. 
Believing trump is not being influenced by foreign powers is a conspiracy theory the way i understand the term. It’s reaching and stretching and avoiding the truths in front of one to avoid an unwanted reality.
“Conspiracy theory from Wiki: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations seem more probable.”
The most probable explanation is that he is being controlled. It would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise. So occams razor and wikipedia don’t help.
You need to have a more probable reason for dts behavior to be able to call that a CT.
Then we believe the exact opposite. As I started the thread and have made statements as to why I believe what I do, maybe you would like to back up your argument. Btw, perhaps you have in this thread, I’d have to go back and check.
But here is an Occam’s razor argument. I just came up with it quickly. Show me where I am wrong though.
Occam’s razor says the argument with the least assumptions is usually best. My Occam’s razor argument, as briefly as possible, involving myriad crimes Trump is supposed to have committed:
Trump has committed illegal acts. He believes Putin has information on these acts. He acts in favor of Putin so Putin won’t expose him.
OR
Trump has committed illegal acts. Putin has information on these acts. Putin communicates to Trump to act in his favor, that is, he is actively blackmailing him. Trump acts the way he does so Putin won’t expose him.
The first case is therefore the most plausible. ETA: Now, mind you, this is just an example based on other “stuff” people have mentioned, namely that Trump has committed crimes. To be clear, I don’t necessarily believe he has.
There’s another possibility: Trump acts the way he does so “Ivan” doesn’t show up to break his legs.
Both are equally valid using the Occam’s Razor argument as there have been multiple well-documented instances where the President of the United States met alone with Putin and his representatives with not a single American present, including once in the White House. So the complicating question of “how would Trump, if compromised, even receive these instructions” is, as it turns out, not that complicating at all.
Putin would still have to have information on Trump, which is an assumption unless you have evidence he actually does. In the first case, only Trump has to actually know crimes were committed. Assuming Putin has it, sure, it could have been communicated then. But there is still that first assumption.
Well, in fact it would be enough if Trump believed that Putin had information on him.
However, Trump does not seem to have a well-developed sense of what actually legal and illegal. Personally, given Trumps lack of care for legality in his dealings, his many connections with Russia, and the stuff they told us about the Soviet Unions surveillance back during security training way back when (its **all **bugged. Everywhere you stay as a westerner will be bugged as a matter of course) I consider it far more probablte that he is compromised than not.
Point of order here - blackmail only works as long as it’s a secret. When evidence becomes public, then it isn’t blackmail anymore. It’s not much of an argument to challenge people for evidence of something that is, by definition, secret.
Blackmail leverage doesn’t necessarily need to be a crime; it could merely be something embarrassing. For example - Trump widely wants everyone to believe he’s a billionaire, he’s a successful ladies man, and that he made his money on profitable deals. Evidence suggests this is very likely untrue to an embarrassing degree.
It’s not a crime to be less than a billionaire, or to make bad business deals, or to be sexually undesirable. For most of us it’s not even embarrassing, it happens. But Trump seems to see this as a highly sensitive secret to be protected with lawsuits, NDAs, and physical threats. Potentially everyone he’s done business with has some form of this non-criminal blackmail, and none bigger than Putin.
Is this related to that secret subpoena to a state owned company from few months back?
“Turkish Bank Charged In Manhattan Federal Court For Its Participation In A Multibillion-Dollar Iranian Sanctions Evasion Scheme”.
What trunp “believes” is based on private conversations wth Putin with no other officials present. So are you saying that Putin doesn’t mention it in the convos, but trump feels compromised by just being in his presence?
Occams razor in that situation would say that vlad let him know by some means.
Occams razor for donald is a little different. We have a lot of data and we don't need to start with a blank slate.He’s got the Secret Service to handle situations where someone might want to “show up to break his legs.” It is practically impossible to exert influence over the POTUS by threatening him with physical harm. He is among the best-protected people on the planet.
Physical harm is nothing. Trump has at least 3 or 4 other sources of harm to him that are much more treacherous. Legal, financial, psychological. They are coming on so fast he will not be able to tell the difference between them and actual physical pain. They’re going to meld.
Agreed, it does not have to be illegal, and in fact I think if Trump’s tax returns are ever made public, it won’t reveal crimes, but embarrassing details such as him being nowhere near as rich as he has said.
As for Occam’s razor, the main thing I wanted to get across with that post was to suggest that it is not *unequivocally *the case that it supports blackmail. I think Occam’s razor could go either way depending on how one sets up the argument. I could even go back to where I said “[Trump] believes Putin has information on these acts”, and say there are actually two assumptions there, the other being we have to assume Trump knows who Putin is anymore, and refute my own argument. That is a silly example perhaps, but I’m merely saying that what counts as an assumption is suggestive. All of this is to say, I probably shouldn’t have brought it up because it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.
Well, no. That was just an example off the top of my head. I have no idea what either one actually thinks.
Occams razor does not allow two results. It may reveal insufficient facts but not two answers.
Here you come down on that donald is more likely innocent than guilty of direct control. This is a big thing. It’s not just a notion wafting by. It is the position of the OP, who is you. Why deny it? The example should stand until you replace it. I think it was a good example.
You are asuming dts innocence way beyond where occam left off.
No offense but you are denying the whole meaning of your own thread.
Any response on this must be informed by the personalities of the principals. Trying to apply Occams razor to this is foolish without that aspect.
Protection doesn’t mean shit if Putin has one of his goon friends along during one of those private meetings.
Hell, a high-ranking member of the Obama Administration was able to smuggle Anthrax into the Oval Office as a test of security.