CIA Found Putin's Direct Order to Help Trump

One of the axiomatic cornerstones of Aristotelian logic is:

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

If the people putting forward these claims refuse to support the claims with any kind of evidence, or allowing the claim maker to face scrutiny, then the public at large has no choice but to dismiss the claims without further analysis.

The cornerstone of the WR is to pretend a story about collusion is completely false because someone from the FBI hasn't personally briefed them on the investigation.

A smart person would read this and take from it what seems to reasonably fit with what's apparent. A dipshit would immediately dismiss all of it because they don't like what it implies.
 
what seems to reasonably fit with what's apparent.

This isn't evidence. This is just a meaningless word salad to justify a preconceived notion.

If you're so convinced, show everyone the evidence that convinced you. You did arrive at this conclusion from analysing some kind of evidence, didn't you?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/






Some interesting reading. And Trump is trying to undo the sanctions Obama put in place against Russia, though I believe congress recently voted to maintain them.

this_is_bullshit_the_wire.gif
 
This isn't evidence. This is just a meaningless word salad to justify a preconceived notion.

If you're so convinced, show everyone the evidence that convinced you. You did arrive at this conclusion from analysing some kind of evidence, didn't you?

Do you wanna tell me what conclusion you're assuming I've reached, or do you wanna back up and realize my issue was people dismissing anonymous sources because they're anonymous?

It's amazing how many people in here start arguing against stances they've imagined someone has taken....
 
Do you wanna tell me what conclusion you're assuming I've reached,
Your language indicates you still give the theory some weight, despite a lack of evidence.

or do you wanna back up and realize my issue was people dismissing anonymous sources because they're anonymous?
That's fine, but as I said before:

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

If someone makes a claim and refuses to put any time or effort into supporting it, then everyone else has little choice but to dismiss the claim with the same time and effort that the claimant put in.
 
Your language indicates you still give the theory some weight, despite a lack of evidence.

My language indicates my ears remain open. Anyone dismissing these apparent connections as easily as others assuming it's always nefarious, is equally wrong.

That's fine, but as I said before:

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

If someone makes a claim and refuses to put any time or effort into supporting it, then everyone else has little choice but to dismiss the claim with the same time and effort that the claimant put in.

That's a lazy approach to knowledge that relates to the leadership of the world. We shouldn't sit back and expect perfect information to be delivered. We should be actively seeking and refining it. Don't dismiss, call for more info. Find more info. Then act.
 
ok, so where's the crime? I mean Trumps, not Hillarys.
 
My language indicates my ears remain open. Anyone dismissing these apparent connections as easily as others assuming it's always nefarious, is equally wrong.
What evidence leads you to believe that these connections are apparent?

That's a lazy approach to knowledge that relates to the leadership of the world. We shouldn't sit back and expect perfect information to be delivered. We should be actively seeking and refining it. Don't dismiss, call for more info. Find more info. Then act.
That's how Aristotelian logic works.

Evidence-based judgement doesn't require perfect information and it never has, just some level of verifiability.

If someone makes a claim and refuses to give evidence to support it, the logical answer is to dismiss the claim. Digging deeper on a claim without supporting evidence is the actions of someone who wants a claim to be true.
 
This isn't evidence. This is just a meaningless word salad to justify a preconceived notion.

If you're so convinced, show everyone the evidence that convinced you. You did arrive at this conclusion from analysing some kind of evidence, didn't you?

His movies are good and weird. I definitely liked those types of movies a lot better when I smoked weed. Now, I don't like those types of movies quite as much. My tastes have actually been dumbed down when it comes to movies, music, and art in general, ever since I stopped smoking weed.

I am going to ask the same as I did the other one.

What do you want to do. What do you want this country to be?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/






Some interesting reading. And Trump is trying to undo the sanctions Obama put in place against Russia, though I believe congress recently voted to maintain them.

1. Who is the source and why did it take so long to release?
2. It says nothing about collusion between Trump and Putin. Only that Putin didn't want Hillary to get into office (which supposedly was already common knowledge).
 
What evidence leads you to believe that these connections are apparent?

....I don't need evidence for apparent business relationships and statements of record from accused parties. If you think there's nothing evident linking russia to the goal of getting Trump elected, you're dismissing too much.

That's how Aristotelian logic works.

Evidence-based judgement doesn't require perfect information and it never has, just some level of verifiability.

You've set the bar of verifiability to a personal level. If you're not appeased it's not credible. But your level sucks. I'm guessing you think Flynn resigned because something slipped his mind, right?

If someone makes a claim and refuses to give evidence to support it, the logical answer is to dismiss the claim. Digging deeper on a claim without supporting evidence is the actions of someone who wants a claim to be true.

If someone points at smoke and yells "fire!", I'm not gonna say "I dismiss your claims until I see fire". That's how you burn to death.
 
Trump is president because Hillary supporters are stupid & lazy, not because of Russia
 
this would only be true if the news organization leaking it was not trying to influence the election.

So you feel American owned and run news agencies are more a threat than external governments.

Do you feel the same about fox? Clearly you can't deny their long standing bias.
 
Let's say this claim is 100% true. Still don't see any evidence that Trump has done anything illegal. Unless Trump asked or helped Putin in some way to perform the cyberattack, he hasn't done anything illegal or worth impeachment.

Yeah, to be honest I doubt you'll ever get a direct link to Trump. The implication I've gleaned from all this from the beginning is that Putin either thinks Trump is stunningly divisive and incapable, or he has many friends amongst his campaign team and those most likely to have major roles in a Trump White House. It could also be both. I'm ready to move on to discussing all the terrible ideas coming out of the House, Senate, and White House though, we'll see when Mueller is done whether there's anything there.
 
The cornerstone of the WR is to pretend a story about collusion is completely false because someone from the FBI hasn't personally briefed them on the investigation.

A smart person would read this and take from it what seems to reasonably fit with what's apparent. A dipshit would immediately dismiss all of it because they don't like what it implies.

You're still pushing the Russian collusion angle? LMAO. Never change libs.
 
So you feel American owned and run news agencies are more a threat than external governments.

Do you feel the same about fox? Clearly you can't deny their long standing bias.
these are state owned? how do you know they are american owned?

are you saying every american has your best interests at heart? of course not, so why would you think that it is a great litmus test?
 
Back
Top