By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
UnderstatedCornHole on 10 December 2016
Edit Thread
deskpro2k3 said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

If you are accepting the statement from the CIA that "Russia promoted Trump" with no further elaboration or any actual accusation then I don't really have anything to say as that is closed loop logic and there is no debate to be had.

I don't know what your talking about regarding Facebook/Youtube.

My "evidence" is that the statement is vague and there is no specific accusation.

Can you please tell me how you think Russia has interfered with the election? One example please that also didn't take place on the democratic side and thus create an unfair playing field.

I've already stated Morocco donated nearly 10 Million dollars behind closed doors and there is a history of Saudi Arabia doing the same, and more. But that's not the disucssion so please stick to the bolded and enlighten me as to why I am wrong and you are right to accept the CIA's vague statement with no facts.

 

If you are accepting the statement from the CIA that "Russia promoted Trump"..etc etc

First all of, I only report what I see from credible news sources, as you can see in the OP. oh and I made a small statement at the end. If you check my past threads, you'll see that I only report.

 

"I don't know what your talking about regarding Facebook/Youtube."

You said and I quote "I deal in knowns and work from there." I'm asking about where do you get your "knowns" so I can check them out as well to avoid going back and forth in this banter.

 

Can you please tell me how you think Russia has interfered with the election?

I'll leave that to the professionals to explain, In this case the CIA. you can bet I'll post it here as well, unless someone beat me to it first.

Right, we're getting to the bottom of this then.

I am not taking anything from "credible news sources". I am taking from the CIA statement, there is no other source that is relevant as "credible news sources" do not exist in politcs, they are all partisan and all funded by vestied interests, be that overseas or domestic politically or simply corporate being on the right side of the profit line.

Of course if news outlets, reputable or otherwise, it doesn't matter, have sources, substantiated sources that is then those would be used to formulate an argument. In this specific story there aren't any currently.

"Reputable" is not an absolute definiton and is a worthless word, all that is relevant is "sources". Of which the CIA is the only one.

So I come back to my original point.

You are accepting the word of the CIA that may not be bipartisan has made no specific allegation, provided no evidece whatsoever be it vague or specific.

You are accepting this without question and without any corroboration from a third party news outlet that can provide a substantiated source.

When I say "I deal in knowns", that is exactly what I mean. I'm not the one making the accusation based on complete fallacy, you are. My knowns are...

1. No sources from any news outlet.

2. No specific accusation from CIA

3. No evidence provided from CIA for vague statement.

4. CIA may or may not be partisan.

Based on that, I and nobody else using reasoned fleshed out logic can possibly condemn in my opinion. We aren't even at the point of smoking gun!

I'm not crticizing you for posting this thread, far from it, it's a good thread to bring up, and that's why I'm participating in it.

What are your knowns to make such sweeping condemnations? Do you know something I don't?