• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CNN BLASTS STRZOK

This is so fascinating. Conservatives vehemently believe and argue that Papoudopoulus, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn, etc., who we know met with the Russians during an on going cyber attack on our democracy by the Russians, were inconsequential bit players that had no influence on Trump or the campaign and at the same time they believe vehemently that Peter Strzok, a mid level FBI case manager, is the key figure in a vast, deep-state conspiracy against Trump and the conservative movement.

All we have thus far is that he changed the phrase "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" in a report that was reviewed and approved by many other people in the FBI prior to publication, and that he texted his secret girl friend that he wanted to stop Trump from becoming President. I still want to know what he lied about. What did he lie about Sailor?
 
If catamount is this stupid and he attended a college, it’s pretty easy to see how the rubes with one “news” source get so lost.
 
06deacon said:
If catamount is this stupid and he attended a college, it’s pretty easy to see how the rubes with one “news” source get so lost.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe Strozk bias's effected his investigation, then you live in a world with your head in the sand to save face for your tribe.

Guys it is ok to say Strozk was clearly bias and an unprofessional asshole who shamed the FBI, BUT the Mueller investigation is still for on legitimate concerns. The length posters go through to protect tribe members undoes the greater credibility of legitimate arguments when all tribe members are above criticism.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
If you don't believe Strozk bias's effected his investigation, then you live in a world with your head in the sand to save face for your tribe.

Guys it is ok to say Strozk was clearly bias and an unprofessional asshole who shamed the FBI, BUT the Mueller investigation is still for on legitimate concerns. The length posters go through to protect tribe members undoes the greater credibility of legitimate arguments when all tribe members are above criticism.
Click to expand...

Please clarify, how did his bias affect his investigation? The only actual (potential) bias you've presented evidence of thus far are actions in favor of Clinton, nothing against Trump.

Also, if the investigation is legitimate regardless of his bias (which may or may not have affected the initial investigation) what does his bias matter? In a statistical context bias is something that directionally affects the accuracy of something you are trying to measure. If a bias does not affect the direction (i.e., positive or negative) of a measurement, the bias is deemed either not worthy of further study or assessment, or not actual bias.
 
birdman said:
Please clarify, how did his bias affect his investigation? The only actual (potential) bias you've presented evidence of thus far are actions in favor of Clinton, nothing against Trump.

Also, if the investigation is legitimate regardless of his bias (which may or may not have affected the initial investigation) what does his bias matter? In a statistical context bias is something that directionally affects the accuracy of something you are trying to measure. If a bias does not affect the direction (i.e., positive or negative) of a measurement, the bias is deemed either not worthy of further study or assessment, or not actual bias.
Click to expand...

Because Strozk refused to answer any questions congress asked him about his handling of the Mueller investigation it is impossible to say. We do know it ****affected**** his handling of the Clinton investigation because the investigation is now closed.

What we do know is Strozk clearly had strong personal bias against Trump and for Hillary. it is of my opinion that when someone holds that level of personal bias it will influence their professional bias whether it is happening consciously or not. It is also my belief that that is the overwhelming school of thought when it comes to this issue. I am willing to bet that after the Mueller investigation is closed it will become clear that it impacted his work, at this point though it is impossible to know. Same as how his bias impacted the Hillary investigation beyond the reason of doubt.

A racist cop is going to handle an interaction with a black person differently based on his predetermined biases, an old white lady in a elevator is going to clutch her purse in an elevator when a black dude comes in based on predetermined biases, and I think Strozk's handled his investigation of Trump differently based on his predetermined biases.
 
Seems like if you truly believe personal bias --> professional bias, we should be rooting out all people with any bias instead of focusing on one person. Do you think there is anybody in the FBI who had a strong personal bias against Hillary and for Trump? Let's get them too.
 
PhDeac said:
Seems like if you truly believe personal bias --> professional bias, we should be rooting out all people with any bias instead of focusing on one person. Do you think there is anybody in the FBI who had a strong personal bias against Hillary and for Trump? Let's get them too.
Click to expand...
That is already the established policy within the FBI.
 
everyone in this country has a stance on Clinton and Trump, including FBI agents, as is their right. should we only allow pro-Trump people on the investigation? a person is basically either/or these days.
 
PhDeac said:
Link? Where do they find these completely unbiased people?
Click to expand...

Spoiler alert: there is not such thing as an unbiased person.

I think that even moonz and sailor will stipulate that Strzok, regardless of what you think of him, is intelligent, coherent, and has a moral compass. When Trump was in the deepest part of his campaign, he said and did things that were grotesque, harmful, and outright incomprehensible to any person that had the aforementioned traits. He made fun of a disabled reporter, he insulted a Gold Star family, he was accused of (and admitted to) sexual assault. Any person that is intelligent, coherent, and has a moral compass would think that America, having proclaimed itself as the bastion of morality and democracy for decades, would reject such a candidate for the highest office in the nation. That's why Strzok used "we." He was not referring to "we" the FBI, he was referring to "we" the American people. If you can't understand that, then you were never actually going to listen in the first place. It's so fucking asinine to think that Strzok was this deep state agent that was running what would be the greatest American scandal in history, but here we are.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Because Strozk refused to answer any questions congress asked him about his handling of the Mueller investigation it is impossible to say. We do know it ****affected**** his handling of the Clinton investigation because the investigation is now closed.

What we do know is Strozk clearly had strong personal bias against Trump and for Hillary. it is of my opinion that when someone holds that level of personal bias it will influence their professional bias whether it is happening consciously or not. It is also my belief that that is the overwhelming school of thought when it comes to this issue. I am willing to bet that after the Mueller investigation is closed it will become clear that it impacted his work, at this point though it is impossible to know. Same as how his bias impacted the Hillary investigation beyond the reason of doubt.

A racist cop is going to handle an interaction with a black person differently based on his predetermined biases, an old white lady in a elevator is going to clutch her purse in an elevator when a black dude comes in based on predetermined biases, and I think Strozk's handled his investigation of Trump differently based on his predetermined biases.
Click to expand...

People are actually trained to set personal biases aside in professional settings and can get quite good at it. The key is to first acknowledge and become aware of your personal bias and continually assess whether it is interfering. That minimizes the probability of conscious and unconscious bias. I personally do this kind of thing all the time as a conservation focused statistical ecologist, who first and foremost believes that species preservation is paramount but sometimes the data indicate that protection is not warranted. Whether you believe it or not, mindful people are capable of this and the burden of proof should be on finding actual evidence that anti-Trump biased affected the investigation, rather than assuming it is there and must have had an effect. That is why I keep asking for some one to show some evidence of some actual actions that show he affected the investigation into Trump and Russia. Strzok is not a racist cop or an old white lady in an elevator, he is a trained professional that has a had a long and successful career in the FBI until a year ago. You have little to no evidence to support your final statement and I'd suggest your prior biases are clouding your opinion.
 
birdman said:
People are actually trained to set personal biases aside in professional settings and can get quite good at it. The key is to first acknowledge and become aware of your personal bias and continually assess whether it is interfering. That minimizes the probability of conscious and unconscious bias. I personally do this kind of thing all the time as a conservation focused statistical ecologist, who first and foremost believes that species preservation is paramount but sometimes the data indicate that protection is not warranted. Whether you believe it or not, mindful people are capable of this and the burden of proof should be on finding actual evidence that anti-Trump biased affected the investigation, rather than assuming it is there and must have had an effect. That is why I keep asking for some one to show some evidence of some actual actions that show he affected the investigation into Trump and Russia. Strzok is not a racist cop or an old white lady in an elevator, he is a trained professional that has a had a long and successful career in the FBI until a year ago. You have little to no evidence to support your final statement and I'd suggest your prior biases are clouding your opinion.
Click to expand...

We know he let his bias affect how he handled the Clinton email prob, so clearly the training in not working.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
If you don't believe Strozk bias's effected his investigation, then you live in a world with your head in the sand to save face for your tribe.

Guys it is ok to say Strozk was clearly bias and an unprofessional asshole who shamed the FBI, BUT the Mueller investigation is still for on legitimate concerns. The length posters go through to protect tribe members undoes the greater credibility of legitimate arguments when all tribe members are above criticism.
Click to expand...

Lol what a turd. Hey on the bright side, Trump sounded pretty good at that summit huh? Must be a proud day for you.
 
06deacon said:
Lol what a turd. Hey on the bright side, Trump sounded pretty good at that summit huh? Must be a proud day for you.
Click to expand...

I haven’t watched and am not a Trump supporter at all. I just try not to see the world through tribal lenses.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I haven’t watched and am not a Trump supporter at all. I just try not to see the world through tribal lenses.
Click to expand...

HEY GUYS! CATAMOUNT DOESN'T SUPPORT TRUMP. HE JUST THINKS HE'S BETTER THAN YOU FOR NOT SUPPORTING TRUMP.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I haven’t watched and am not a Trump supporter at all. I just try not to see the world through tribal lenses.
Click to expand...

What is this tribalism reference? What is tribal about being skeptical about the conclusion that Peter Strzok was an unprofessional biased ass-hat, when the only evidence we have of that is late night texts to his secret girl friend and one thing that he did to help Clinton? Seems like you are the only one that is putting forth a certain conclusion about the man and his actions that are largely based on after hours comments and political party affiliation, put another way, his tribe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top