With the Russian/Trump Connections in the Media (again)...

[Revoltingest]

Sure, in the same way evolution isn't fact. Just all the evidence points to it, and most experts agree.. but we could be wrong.

There's a enormous difference.
Evidence for evolution is publicly available, is experimentally verifiable, & is well established.
The Russian conspiracy theory is based upon secret evidence, is unverifiable, & is a recent accusation with partisan overtones.

Against a pol, or against an ignorant leader who talks trash about agencies he knows nothing about?

Intelligence agencies should be above politics.
J Edgar Hoover is a good example of a bad example.

 

[Stevicus]

You're right but my point still stands. Russia is creating instability in the regions of influence. You can't argue against that. Sorry.

I don't see it the same way as you do. I never did buy in to all that "evil empire" talk associated with Russia.

The US has invaded other countries (Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.), yet we still see ourselves as generally peace-loving and wanting to have stability. I don't see why Russia should be held to a standard different from what we hold to ourselves. It's attitudes like that which lead to instability more than anything else.

 

[Quetzal]

The US has invaded other countries... (SNIP)

Take your own advice...

Stop moving the goalposts, and perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion on this matter. Or maybe not.

 

[Underhill]

There's a enormous difference.
Evidence for evolution is publicly available, is experimentally verifiable, & is well established.
The Russian conspiracy theory is based upon secret evidence, is unverifiable, & is a recent accusation with partisan overtones.

Right, and the fact that we now know Trumps people had been talking to Putins obviously is unrelated.

At some point the mountain of 'circumstantial' evidence becomes overwhelming. I suspect you will come around. You are still living in denial but it will happen.

Intelligence agencies should be above politics.
J Edgar Hoover is a good example of a bad example.

I would agree. Funny thing is, there is little evidence of them being partisan against Trump. There is evidence of them being pissed at Trump for some of his statements aimed at the agencies, but if anything, I would say these agencies have been more pro republican historically than pro democrat.

 

[metis]

If you play with fire, expect to get burnt. Trump took on the intelligence community, so is it any surprise that some in the community are fighting back? Unfortunate, yes; unexpected, no.

BTW, Trump has said he likes leaks, lest anyone forget what the Groper-In-Chief said on quite a few occasions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, and the fact that we now know Trumps people had been talking to Putins obviously is unrelated.

Because you think (hope) it might be, that's not enuf reason to treat it as fact.
Think of it as being like the deaths surrounding Hillary. Many claimed that this
pattern meant she had them murdered. Don't be like those people.

At some point the mountain of 'circumstantial' evidence becomes overwhelming. I suspect you will come around. You are still living in denial but it will happen.

You're saying something is true because you predict it will be shown true.
This is faith based belief.

I would agree. Funny thing is, there is little evidence of them being partisan against Trump. There is evidence of them being pissed at Trump for some of his statements aimed at the agencies, but if anything, I would say these agencies have been more pro republican historically than pro democrat.

It all remains to be seen what remains when the dust settles.

 

[Stevicus]

Take your own advice...

You suggested that a country which invades other countries is proof of intent of creating instability. I say that, because the US has invaded other countries and does not intentionally create instability, you are obviously incorrect. Are you willing to elaborate further to back up your point that invading countries is proof of intentionally creating instability? You said that I "can't argue against your point," but are you capable of arguing for your point? Apparently not...

 

[Underhill]

Because you think (hope) it might be, that's not enuf reason to treat it as fact.
Think of it as being like the deaths surrounding Hillary. Many claimed that this
pattern meant she had them murdered. Don't be like those people.

It may not be as concrete as evolution, but that is not even remotely true. Criminal prosecutors all over the country, experts in their field, aren't claiming in droves that the evidence shows she in all likelihood had them murdered.

You're saying something is true because you predict it will be shown true.
This is faith based belief.

It's like anything else in politics. I voted for GWB the first time. But eventually I woke up to the reality of the situation based upon exactly the same kind of evidence.

It all remains to be seen what remains when the dust settles.

I think the dust is settling before our very eyes.

 

[Quetzal]

I think the dust is settling before our very eyes.

The real question is what kind of evidence would it take to be enough for supporters of Trump to begin to consider the possibility that it is true? My fear is that any evidence would not be enough regardless of its strength or source.

 

[Underhill]

The real question is what kind of evidence would it take to be enough for supporters of Trump to begin to consider the possibility that it is true? My fear is that any evidence would not be enough regardless of its strength or source.

For those on the far right that is probably true. But I think that isn't more than half the party. Just look at President Bush's numbers. Sure, a fair number stuck with him, but his numbers definitely sagged. The question is, will they sag enough for Trump to lose re-election. We shall see.

 

[Quetzal]

For those on the far right that is probably true. But I think that isn't more than half the party. Just look at President Bush's numbers. Sure, a fair number stuck with him, but his numbers definitely sagged. The question is, will they sag enough for Trump to lose re-election. We shall see.

They are currently under 40%. Impressive how quickly it tanked.

 

[Revoltingest]

It may not be as concrete as evolution, but that is not even remotely true. Criminal prosecutors all over the country, experts in their field, aren't claiming in droves that the evidence shows she in all likelihood had them murdered.

I don't think she had them murdered either.
But the parallel is that partisans see a pattern, & then claim what what is possible has happened.

It's like anything else in politics. I voted for GWB the first time. But eventually I woke up to the reality of the situation based upon exactly the same kind of evidence.

And yet, there's no evidence about Russian involvement to even examine.

I think the dust is settling before our very eyes.

Tis hubris to claim one's predictions as fact.

 

[Underhill]

They are currently under 40%. Impressive how quickly it tanked.

The larger question I keep asking myself is that if he manages to 'accomplish' getting rid of Obamacare and deporting illegals, will that be enough to bring his numbers back up. After all, that is what he campaigned on. I suspect a lot of Americans don't care as much about the impact of these things as they do about the act itself.

 

[Quetzal]

The larger question I keep asking myself is that if he manages to 'accomplish' getting rid of Obamacare and deporting illegals

Nah. You would be surprised how many people are against "Obamacare" without understanding that they, themselves, are a participant in the ACA. As far as illegals, it depends how much it raises taxes in the process.

 

[Underhill]

I don't think she had them murdered either.
But the parallel is that partisans see a pattern, & then claim what what is possible has happened.

So you say. I say the FBI, the CIA and numerous other agencies, as well as private experts in the field, believe it was the Russians based upon the accumulated expertise they have acquired through years in the field that we do not have. I'm going to take them at their word over a keyboard jocky named revolt, no matter how witty his banter...

 

[Revoltingest]

The real question is what kind of evidence would it take.....

First it would have to be the revealed kind...something we could evaluate.
Second, it would have to be cromulent...something more than circumstantial evidence claimed so far.

......My fear is that any evidence would not be enough regardless of its strength or source.

Don't be frightened.
As I've pointed out before, even if Evil Ivan did hack the DNC, we should thank
them for exposing (rather than perpetrating) corruption of our election, eg, DNC
plot against Bernie, secretly feeding Hillary debate questions in advance.

The USA has done far far worse to foreign governments, so Democrats are
extremely hypocritical in their faith based condemnation of Russia.

 

[Quetzal]

As I've pointed out before, even if Evil Ivan did hack the DNC, we should thank
them for exposing (rather than perpetrating) corruption of our election, eg, DNC
plot against Bernie, secretly feeding Hillary debate questions in advance.

Sure, but a big concern for me is the current actions of the administration under questionable Russian influences. At least, that was the original scope of the OP diagram. Might be lost forever by now.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you say.

I sure do!

I say the FBI, the CIA and numerous other agencies, as well as private experts in the field, believe it was the Russians based upon the accumulated expertise they have acquired through years in the field that we do not have. I'm going to take them at their word over a keyboard jocky named revolt, no matter how witty his banter...

It's fine for them to believe in the likelihood of the Evil Ivan conspiracy.
But we've been mislead by agencies before, so I'm skeptical.
Still....where's the harm?
Sure, sure...in general we don't want ferriners influencing our elections.
But when such influence is to expose corruption, I don't get offended.

 

[Quetzal]

Sure, sure...in general we don't want ferriners influencing our elections.

Think about it... do we want the likes of @Laika poking around?! NO! No, we don't!

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but a big concern for me is the current actions of the administration under questionable Russian influences. At least, that was the original scope of the OP diagram. Might be lost forever by now.

I say Russian influence over Trump is pure partisan paranoia.
(Like my alliteration?)
Look at Trump's ego....he would bristle at anyone telling him what to do.
Instead, I saw him as recognizing mutual interest in detente,
while Hillary saw conflict with Russia as either necessary or useful.
It's possible they hurt Hillary in order to help him...but this is not control.

If Hillary had won, would you worry about Europistan controlling her?
After all, they openly favored her to win.
Perhaps the Germans or the French have some leverage against her.
It's possible.
Perhaps she really did order murders over the decades. She could be
vulnerable to extortion by those in the know.
If it's possible, should it have been feared?
I don't worry about wraiths.