Eh? Haven’t heard that before - pretty sure there’s been no suggestion even from ‘anonymous intelligence officials’ that there was any interference with the vote.
Except that you’re not “refuting” anything. You’re simply doing the online equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting “lalalalalalalalalala” as loudly as you can. That’s not “refuting,” by any meaningful definition of that term.
Until there is good evidence
And the chances of acquiring that evidence are significantly reduced without an investigation, which is precisely what we are requesting. That is exactly what an investigation is intended to acquire: good evidence.
I’m not going to pretend like the rest of you that there’s something wrong or nefarious here to try and stop Trump and Putin reaching a detente.
ROFL… Since that describes the position of nobody here, forgive us if we take it as the irrelevant drivel that it is. Funny how you can’t actually find anyone like that, despite insisting over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that it describes everyone here.
You’re playing into the hands of people that want to keep the West and Russia at each other’s throats.
You’ve been trying this line for over a week now and it has fallen flat every time, for obvious reasons. You have zero evidence that this is the case and what you are saying flies directly in the face of what is being said by our intelligence agencies and our national media. Now what was someone saying above about stupid conspiracy theories without evidence?
And, of course, the irony is that if there really were an intent to have such tensions increase, that is something that an investigation would uncover. And yet, oddly enough, you remain opposed to such an investigation. Funny how that works.
I’d like to see tensions decrease, it seems democrats want a return to the cold (or perhaps a hot) war.
And another non sequitur. Would you, perhaps, like to address what people are saying rather than making shit up? We’ll be right here any time you learn to read.
No doubt in part because they’ve become almost irrelevant in national politics (not much better on a state and local level), and are looking for a boogeyman to distract and energise their supporters. Seems to be working, too.
ROFL… No comment needed. What’s hilarious about this post is that he is demonstrating exactly what he is accusing us of. And, unlike us, he’s doing so without any evidence at all. None. Zip. Zero. It’s a rather pathetic attempt to change the subject, to try to deny reality. And it is freaking hilarious!
2 Likes
With all due respect, I would recommend that you stop playing his game. When he introduces silly non sequiturs like these, it isn’t because he’s interested in a debate; he’s trying desperately to change the subject. Nobody here takes such accusations seriously, mostly because they’re transparently and self-evidently bullshit.
I’m talking about their hacking of emails and spreading propaganda.
1 Like
It depends on how you define “electoral system.”
“We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.”
1 Like
Trump pioneering detente with Russia, simply and entirely because he’s the master of geopolitical strategy of our time… rofl… sorry, this thread has gotten too ludicrous for words.
The degree to which otherwise intelligent people will rationalize and excuse the imbecility of Trump still amazes me, but I guess the compulsion of people today to need to use social media to “prove” to themselves that they have convinced others that they are the smartest person on the planet is just the nature of a beast we’ll have to live with.
Please. Continue to educate the 7.4 billion clueless that Trump and his continuing, existent, personal business ties are irrelevant.
Or maybe a nice game of tic-tac-toe.
Pretty much par for the course for this particular troll. I mean, this is an idiot who, after that widely-criticized press conference with Trump and Netanyahu, had this to say about Trump’s dreadful performance there: “Fantastic, love his approach here.”
Trump’s “approach” there, like his “approach” here, is one of total incoherence. There is nothing to “love” because there is nothing there.
2 Likes
Go back to the campaign debates. Trump was the little boy who hadn’t read the assignment and was bullshitting his way through indulgent self-importance.
Our nuclear defense? Well, we need a defense, and, let’s face it, nukes, eh? If I’m President we’re going to have nukes, everywhere, and believe me, we’ll be defended.
ROFLMAO… I apologize for hijacking the topic. I just can’t stop laughing. Trump, geopolitical genius…
His base will receive him graciously…
Sessions had em’ long before Trump ever uttered the word “rapist.”
Funny this post that provides a quote that proves @uk_observer is, ahem, misinformed is where he jumps ship.
Maybe he’s performing a public service by helping Dems hone their arguments? I’m sure that’s his intention.
Ha - @kumquat16 has a screw loose, as you may already know.
On a serious note, what Dems seem to conveniently ignore is what the CIA means by high confidence, despite it helpfully being defined in the report:
“High confidence generally indicates judgments based on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. However, high confidence judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.”
So the report provides zero compelling evidence AND admits their assessment may be wrong, which means that whatever top secret evidence they do have isn’t good enough for them to be completely sure.
That might be good enough for you to rely on their ‘assessments’, no doubt thanks to confirmation bias, but it isn’t good enough for me.
Ho ho ho. I know exactly what that report was. At least the declassified version was a bureaucratic product, not an analytical product. Taken by itself, one might argue there is the slightest sliver of doubt.
But then, you would have to ignore the boatloads of other information that one can find with just a little digging.
You, of course, have an interest in spreading doubt. Others have an interest in finding the truth.
Nothing a special prosecutor couldn’t settle.
1 Like
Yeah, let’s get Ken Starr on the case…
Everything you said there is wrong.
The report makes clear that the conclusions are identical to the classified version. Therefore unless you think it’s lying, even with the additional ‘evidence’ the CIA admits it could be wrong. If I recall the NSA had even less confidence in the conclusions. This must mean there’s no smoking gun proof, that’s my only point. There is real doubt, that you’ve convinced yourself otherwise speaks solely to your bias. As an aside, you’d have to hope the classified evidence is of much higher calibre than the laughable RT ‘evidence’ presented - I’d have been too embarrassed to release that, even as padding.
I don’t know what other evidence you have that you’ve been able to find with ‘a little digging’ that proves the case but that has eluded all your intelligence agencies. Maybe you should drop them a note? A further embarrassment for them that they missed it, no doubt.
On to more interesting matters - have you seen Trump is wildly popular amongst republicans, i.e. Half the population? That sort of split along partisan lines is fascinating, tells you that the other side is blinded by their bias. Naturally, that’s what the other side would say too. Food for thought.
So you claim and yet, somehow, like all of your other claims, you are unable to find any evidence to support that. Funny how that works.
On a serious note, what Dems seem to conveniently ignore is what the CIA means by high confidence
Oh, you mean like when someone on this thread blatantly lied about the report and insisted that “they admit to not actually knowing if Russia was involved?” I don’t think you’re in a position to be lecturing anyone on the contents of the report, given your determined efforts to misrepresent it.
So the report provides zero compelling evidence
Again with the blatant lying. Seriously, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself now.
AND admits their assessment may be wrong
Duh. All national security reports of this kind include that caveat.
That might be good enough for you to rely on their ‘assessments’, no doubt thanks to confirmation bias, but it isn’t good enough for me.
Dear heart, nothing would be “good enough for you,” as you’ve made clear on this and other threads. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
1 Like
LOL… Oh, the irony…
This must mean there’s no smoking gun proof, that’s my only point.
Dear heart, that’s why further investigation is warranted.
There is real doubt
Only in your fevered imagination and your desperate attempts to misrepresent reality.
that you’ve convinced yourself otherwise speaks solely to your bias.
ROFL… There’s that projection again…
On to more interesting matters - have you seen Trump is wildly popular amongst republicans, i.e. Half the population?
And another pathetic attempt to derail the discussion with irrelevancies. Just give it up.
Some good evidence would do the trick.
Terrific. That’s all provided above. We look forward to you actually looking at the evidence this time rather than blindly dismissing it, blatantly misrepresenting it, and coming up with wild conspiracy theories that are based on nothing at all.
1 Like
Oh, I looked at it. You actually admitted there was nothing more compelling than ‘stuff trump has said about russia’ (paraphrasing). Pretty poor. If there’s a piece of evidence you think is actually good, please do say.
I should also say I think you might be confused, there are two separate issues: 1. If russia hacked the dnc, and 2. If trump secretly colluded with Russia because he’s compromised in some way.
Your every post here says otherwise.
You actually admitted there was nothing more compelling than ‘stuff trump has said about russia’ (paraphrasing).
Blatantly lying about what I wrote when what I wrote is up there for all to see is really not making your case. But then, that’s pretty much your shtick here.
Pretty poor. If there’s a piece of evidence you think is actually good, please do say.
Already done, cupcake. Remember when I wrote, “We look forward to you actually looking at the evidence this time rather than blindly dismissing it, blatantly misrepresenting it, and coming up with wild conspiracy theories that are based on nothing at all?” Q.E.D.
Can you at least try to put up a good fight next time? This is just too easy.
2 Likes
deflecting