The problem with engaging a moron in an exchange or debate is that he doesn't even know when he's been eviscerated. The whole exercise becomes rather pointless. And so, I will leave you with your participation trophy.
Art Of The Deal
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
Actually, if that's your last post then it looks like you were wrong again. The moron did realize he was eviscerated!
Adios, Freddie. Would love to discuss this again sometime if - ever - you have proof to share on those nasty Russians.
Not one scintilla of real, hardcore evidence in the whole article....
The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.
It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election.
The dispute cuts to core realities of intelligence analysis. Judgments are often made in a fog of uncertainty, are sometimes based on putting together shards of a mosaic that do not reveal a full picture, and can always be affected by human biases.
“This is why I hate the term ‘we speak truth to power,’” said Mark M. Lowenthal, a former senior C.I.A. analyst. “We don’t have truth. We have really good ideas.”
Both intelligence and law enforcement officials agree that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Russian hacking was primarily aimed at helping Mr. Trump and damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
More generally, the Russian government has blamed Mrs. Clinton, along with the C.I.A. and other American officials, for encouraging anti-Russian revolts during the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. What Americans saw as legitimate democracy promotion, Mr. Putin saw as an unwarranted intrusion into Russia’s geographic sphere of interest, as the United States once saw Soviet meddling in Cuba.
I tried to explain this to him, but he's desperate to be believed. As usual, the article he shows as proof is just something he googled quickly, and didn't read. Supports the opposite view of what he is attempting to prove.
And so, you boys will support and defend Putin against "overwhelming circumstantial evidence." Because that's where your allegiances lie. You will be quick to condemn and vilify a Democrat on mere innuendo and wishful thinking, but you'll defend Putin until the end. Thanks for the heads-up.
Hey, Freddie is back! Welcome back, Freddie.
Judges and juries don't rule on circumstantial evidence, why should we? As far as I'm concerned, both Russian and American politicians are full of lies. So why should I believe one over the other? Show me the proof.
It's difficult to overstate how wrong the media/government analysis has been. While we can all see that the russian fingerprints on the wikileaks disclosures are faint at best, apparently there have been a series of far more serious cyber hacks, eg OPM, Defense Department, even the White House. None drew much in the way of outrage from the administration. Shrugged shoulders was more the response.
Only when the core principles of the democrat party, ie obtaining power so insiders like Podesta can get fabulously rich off rent-seeking, were threatened was there a response. Then the compliant house media obliged with faux outrage over the "interference" but at the same time ignored the sordid details that were disclosed. A few chairs were rearranged to make it appear that people were punished, but the hard left protects its soldiers, unlike republicans.
No doubt the details were deeply embarrassing to the mainstream media, assuming they even have the capacity for embarrassment. After decades of mocking accusations of media bias, their own emails convicted them of virtual coordination with the democrats. The unctuous tone of their emails confirmed how desperately they craved approval from party hacks. We used to joke that the DNC sent out instructions to the media. The actual truth was not very far removed.
Blaming the leaks on the evil russkies also gave the media a convenient rationale for its utter hypocrisy where leaks are concerned. Leaks are essential for democracy when they embarrass a republican president. When the shoe is on the other foot, things get trickier and there are lots of things to weigh in the balance apparently. However, if you can point to he Russians, then we can just skip past all that and shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Only when the core principles of the democrat party, ie obtaining power so insiders like Podesta can get fabulously rich off rent-seeking, were threatened was there a response. Then the compliant house media obliged with faux outrage over the "interference" but at the same time ignored the sordid details that were disclosed. A few chairs were rearranged to make it appear that people were punished, but the hard left protects its soldiers, unlike republicans.
No doubt the details were deeply embarrassing to the mainstream media, assuming they even have the capacity for embarrassment. After decades of mocking accusations of media bias, their own emails convicted them of virtual coordination with the democrats. The unctuous tone of their emails confirmed how desperately they craved approval from party hacks. We used to joke that the DNC sent out instructions to the media. The actual truth was not very far removed.
Blaming the leaks on the evil russkies also gave the media a convenient rationale for its utter hypocrisy where leaks are concerned. Leaks are essential for democracy when they embarrass a republican president. When the shoe is on the other foot, things get trickier and there are lots of things to weigh in the balance apparently. However, if you can point to he Russians, then we can just skip past all that and shoot the messenger and ignore the message.