By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - [Update] CIA & FBI Report: Russia did things to help get Trump elected

UnderstatedCornHole on 13 December 2016
Soundwave said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

I'm not disputing the notion that there exists potential motive for abuse of power.

I'm arguing that's all there is. You and a few others here seem to think that potential motive = guilt.

That's a liberal fallacy that I have grown out of, one I do not subscribe to, if it benefits my beliefs or discredits them.

Use some freaking common sense, lol. 

It's not a "liberal fallacy", if Saudi Arabia was doing the same (active hacking Trump's emails and then getting a Secretary of State elected that was three feet up their asshole) there would be large raising of eyebrows on the right and I would AGREE with that too. 

This whole situation is fairly troubling. I notice none of you guys have much to say either when it comes to Trump choosing several high level Goldman Sachs folkes for his cabinet either (including the freaking president of Goldman Sachs), after spending months hammering Trump's opponents for ties to Goldman Sachs. War on elitists my ass. 

Good lord, what's your conclusion then and why. This is just more hysteria.

The only facts you have are that there is a potential motive for abuse of power. That could be found in any cabinet pick, you are presuming that Russia has interfered in the election and then because Trump has picked someone who has had ties to Russia that the latter proves the former.

The former has yet to be proven or evidence shown, your argument falls flat on it's face as a result for the latter.

That is logic fallacy, please address it.

 

 

 



Around the Network
Zanten on 13 December 2016
UnderstatedCornHole said:

So he's currently innocenct and guilty of nothing and no troubling connections have been found.

But somehow, he needs to be cleared.

Witch hunt much.

So, Trump is innocent because... He says he is?

Gee, think of how much time we'd save if we applied this to the rest of the legal system!

"Did you kill this man?"

"Nope!"

"Well, shit, we were going to, like hold an investigation and examine the evidence and stuff, but you said you didn't do it, so guess that's the end of that!"

 

Trump has not been found legally culpable of anything yet, absolutely. This is why he shouldn't be thrown in jail, or suffer any consequences BEFORE a full, formal investigation has determined if he is, in fact, guilty. But at this point enough has happened where an investigation is in order- bipartisan being the best- especially because, let me reiterate, Trump is a world-class liar. Culpability CANNOT be based on what he says, because he invariably says whatever benefits his aims the most, even if it is wildly divorced from reality.



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

UnderstatedCornHole on 13 December 2016
Zanten said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

So he's currently innocenct and guilty of nothing and no troubling connections have been found.

But somehow, he needs to be cleared.

Witch hunt much.

So, Trump is innocent because... He says he is?

Gee, think of how much time we'd save if we applied this to the rest of the legal system!

"Did you kill this man?"

"Nope!"

"Well, shit, we were going to, like hold an investigation and examine the evidence and stuff, but you said you didn't do it, so guess that's the end of that!"

 

Trump has not been found legally culpable of anything yet, absolutely. This is why he shouldn't be thrown in jail, or suffer any consequences BEFORE a full, formal investigation has determined if he is, in fact, guilty. But at this point enough has happened where an investigation is in order- bipartisan being the best- especially because, let me reiterate, Trump is a world-class liar. Culpability CANNOT be based on what he says, because he invariably says whatever benefits his aims the most, even if it is wildly divorced from reality.

Absolutely agree, that's what I have already said countless times.

(provided there is bi-partisan support for it, any potential abuse of this nature and scale should be looked at with a fine toothcomb)



Thuglas on 13 December 2016
pokoko said:
Thuglas said:

So lets take the Podesta emails as an example. In your earlier post you say the issue here isn't about which candidate you support, it is about government security right? but do you know how this hack occured? Russian spies didn't infiltrate a government building at night dressed in all black to retrieve this info. They didn't break into John Podesta's house. Hell, this leaked information isn't even government information, it is from Podesta's PERSONAL gmail account lol. This hack of Podesta's gmail was carried out by a simply scam that said something like "your password has been compromised, follow this link to change it immediately." and his tech support told him it was legit and to follow that email's direction. It wasn't a breach in US security, it wasn't even a breach of GOOGLE security for fuck sakes! John Podesta should have been using 2-step authentication for anything that can be linked to his work. Before even starting the apllication for the lowest level of government security clearance you are HIGHLY encouraged (though not mandated) to use a 2-step authentication program. Podesta acted foolishly

Podesta was being an idiot and his GMAIL got hacked by some guy in the Ukrain who gave his shady secrets to Wikileaks. Our national cyber security hasn't been compromised and this hack didn't include government information. I haven't looked into how the earlier hacks occured but the Podesta email was the main one that got Trump elected so i just talked about that.

also don't preach "Question everything--especially if you want to believe it." and then blindly believe representatives claiming that anonymous CIA agents are showing them mountains of evidence in secret.  I find it funny that you preach that yet the people you are bashing are the ones who are waiting on the evidence before believing the claims in OP article. Do you not see something wrong with your thinking? There is absolutely zero evidence available for me and you to see that supports your claims about this. We only have the word of anonymous CIA officials versus the word of Julian Assange.

Don't give me that bullshit strawman argument.  The people I'm "bashing" aren't waiting for evidence, they're saying that they don't care because it didn't hurt their side.  This thread is full of comments to that effect and you're lying if you're telling me otherwise.  That's a childish attitude and I have no idea why you would defend that.  

In your first post you didn't quote anybody and just made a general statement of people who discredit this. your first comment I reffered to said this

"It's absolutely astounding that people are trying to discredit this simply because they supported Trump. Get over yourself."

I personally think this whole  Russia hack claim is bs until I see evidence (only evidence out there for us to see points the opposite way). I discredit this and according to your first post it must be simply because I I dont want Trump to look bad. This is why I responded, your statement was broad and would include me as well. Also how is this a strawman? Im  not changing your argument nor saying those people don't exist, im simply addressing the contradictions in your post. I pointed out the hyprocrisy of you bashing people for not being as skeptical as yourself saying things like "Question everything--especially if you want to believe it." yet you are rushing to believe this Russian hack claim without access to a single ounce of evidence. Come on man. do you not think you are jumping the gun just a little?

also about the people not waiting for the evidence. How can you even know that? there currently is absolutely no evidence and these people are rightfully skeptical. It could be they don't want to believe anything anti Trump.  True, that could be the case. OR they could simply be waiting on the evidence since these people who claim this aren't exactly the most credible. You are claiming to know their true motives. So yeah, I disagree on that argument as well. I don't assume things about people based on my feelings. If evidence comes out and those people do NOT change their positions then you can start bashing them.

 

Reading through this thread again, nobody even discredited this article before your first post. So you were making a BROAD statement about the people who dont believe this. there is nothing wrong with being skeptical, I actually like that quote "Question everything--especially if you want to believe it." and I understand it is extremely hard to do that. Everyone fails to be skeptical at some point and will believe something simply based on trust of the one claiming it.  If you see people doing this, try to reason with them as that would be the only way to make them think critically in the future. Sorry for long posts, I dont post a lot and like to say everything I am thinking when I do.



FunFan on 13 December 2016

Trump is innocent of what? What is he being accused?



“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).

"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)

Around the Network
UnderstatedCornHole on 13 December 2016
FunFan said:
Trump is innocent of what? What is he being accused?

Whatever sticks.



Soundwave on 13 December 2016

Saying "no witch hunts please" from a campaign that ran on "Lock Her Up" as one of its most popular slogans is rich.



UnderstatedCornHole on 13 December 2016
Soundwave said:
Saying "no witch hunts please" from a campaign that ran on "Lock Her Up" as one of its most popular slogans is rich.



Soundwave on 13 December 2016
UnderstatedCornHole said:
Soundwave said:
Saying "no witch hunts please" from a campaign that ran on "Lock Her Up" as one of its most popular slogans is rich.

You won't find many of these with Donald in, and before you say "Donald's a man", don't be sexist.

Which proves my point? Precious little Donnie can't handle the scrutiny when it goes the other way. 



UnderstatedCornHole on 13 December 2016
Soundwave said:
UnderstatedCornHole said:

You won't find many of these with Donald in, and before you say "Donald's a man", don't be sexist.

Which proves my point? Precious little Donnie can't handle the scrutiny when it goes the other way. 

Has there ever been anyone scruitinized more closely than Mr Trump?

Here we are now scruitinizing him for no apparent reason and the poor fella has already had 18 months of it.