3 ms·

I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling, and this indicated that core parts of the evid

I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling, and this indicated that core parts of the evidence need closer scrutiny and that the case is not as straightforward as NYT etal has claimed. I am saying this as a libertarian that was upset about the election result. I personally thought something smelled fishy earlier given how the evidence was presented and believed what I read in NYT etal.

learc83 9y ago
No you're failing to engage in a discussion. "the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling" How does that have anything to do with my assertion that this "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't make it any less likely that Russia interfered in the election? You still haven't showed why "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." decreases the likelihood that Russia successfully interfered in the election. You don't seem to be actually reading what I'm writing. If you want to continue debating please respond with why Russia spending even more money after a successful ad campaign is evidence that they didn't impact the election. If you'd rather not then good day.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  You never made a real connection as to why post ad spend means pre-election subterfuge, so your fact is not a fact. What you are stating is a theory you haven't proven at all, and all your subsequent arguments and defenses don't hold or mean anything. You have no evidence to your claim. All you have done is make a theory and expect the rest of us to accept it as fact. If you come back with actual proof instead of just a theory maybe we can consider further discourse.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >You never made a real connection as to why post ad spend means pre-election subterfuge, so your fact is not a fact This shows me that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. >You have no evidence to your claim. What is my claim? Based on the above you don't seem to have any idea.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      > This shows me that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. > What is my claim? Based on the above you don't seem to have any idea. After your comment on me not engaging in discussion and not understanding what you said I actually sent this thread to someone that is professionally trained in debating to gain better understanding. There is no point in being right on the internet, and a learning opportunity is always worthwhile. The professional debater I sent this thread to got the same impression as me on what your line of argument was and suggested I respond in the way I did. If you mean something else then I am therefore not the only one at a loss, and like me I suggest that you introspect so that you can improve. Show this thread to someone you trust to be good at discourse and get feedback. We are all fumbling when formulating our thoughts and that is ok. What is not ok is to act rudely.
      - learc83 9y ago
        I've been debating on internet forums since the late mid 90s, and I'm going to be completely honest with you--this takes the cake for the most absurdly petty debate tactic I have ever seen. This isn't sarcasm I am actually pretty shocked by this. Seriously? You're right because an unseen "professional debater" agrees with you?
        asabjorn 9y ago
        I give up. How did you get that from what I said? What I am talking about is process to bridge the problem of you saying your viewpoint is not getting across and how I’ve engaged in the same process. I am not saying I am right or you are wrong, I was making a constrictive suggestion on how to further the debate after I had exhausted my options for understanding what you mean by your claims being misunderstood. However, I believe the arguments I thought you made to be entirely unsupported by the facts provided although I have to trust you that your viewpoint is not getting across so commenting on that is irrelevant. As part of showing you how far I’ve gone to introspect I explained to you the lengths to which I’ve gone. I think it’s unconstructive to take offense to someone telling you how they’ve tried to show empathy and respect your feedback. Good luck with other debates and peace out.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling Sure, and the initial evidence implicating specific Russian individuals and organizations in that has been presented to a grand jury which has found probable cause, hence the indictments which have been issued. We also have at least one guilty plea of a Trump campaign staffer for lying to the feds specifically about attempting to coordinate with the Russians on the election. That's not just an indictment, it's a confession. And the evidence keeps advancing.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  Yes, I am watching that one as well with great interest. It will be interesting to see what evidence comes out of that around any pre-election efforts to manipulate the results.

learc83 9y ago

No you're failing to engage in a discussion. "the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling" How does that have anything to do with my assertion that this "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." doesn't make it any less likely that Russia interfered in the election? You still haven't showed why "The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election." decreases the likelihood that Russia successfully interfered in the election. You don't seem to be actually reading what I'm writing. If you want to continue debating please respond with why Russia spending even more money after a successful ad campaign is evidence that they didn't impact the election. If you'd rather not then good day.

asabjorn 9y ago
You never made a real connection as to why post ad spend means pre-election subterfuge, so your fact is not a fact. What you are stating is a theory you haven't proven at all, and all your subsequent arguments and defenses don't hold or mean anything. You have no evidence to your claim. All you have done is make a theory and expect the rest of us to accept it as fact. If you come back with actual proof instead of just a theory maybe we can consider further discourse.
- learc83 9y ago
  >You never made a real connection as to why post ad spend means pre-election subterfuge, so your fact is not a fact This shows me that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. >You have no evidence to your claim. What is my claim? Based on the above you don't seem to have any idea.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    > This shows me that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. > What is my claim? Based on the above you don't seem to have any idea. After your comment on me not engaging in discussion and not understanding what you said I actually sent this thread to someone that is professionally trained in debating to gain better understanding. There is no point in being right on the internet, and a learning opportunity is always worthwhile. The professional debater I sent this thread to got the same impression as me on what your line of argument was and suggested I respond in the way I did. If you mean something else then I am therefore not the only one at a loss, and like me I suggest that you introspect so that you can improve. Show this thread to someone you trust to be good at discourse and get feedback. We are all fumbling when formulating our thoughts and that is ok. What is not ok is to act rudely.
    - learc83 9y ago
      I've been debating on internet forums since the late mid 90s, and I'm going to be completely honest with you--this takes the cake for the most absurdly petty debate tactic I have ever seen. This isn't sarcasm I am actually pretty shocked by this. Seriously? You're right because an unseen "professional debater" agrees with you?
      - asabjorn 9y ago
        I give up. How did you get that from what I said? What I am talking about is process to bridge the problem of you saying your viewpoint is not getting across and how I’ve engaged in the same process. I am not saying I am right or you are wrong, I was making a constrictive suggestion on how to further the debate after I had exhausted my options for understanding what you mean by your claims being misunderstood. However, I believe the arguments I thought you made to be entirely unsupported by the facts provided although I have to trust you that your viewpoint is not getting across so commenting on that is irrelevant. As part of showing you how far I’ve gone to introspect I explained to you the lengths to which I’ve gone. I think it’s unconstructive to take offense to someone telling you how they’ve tried to show empathy and respect your feedback. Good luck with other debates and peace out.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I think you are missing the point of my comment; the burden of proof is on the entity claiming election meddling Sure, and the initial evidence implicating specific Russian individuals and organizations in that has been presented to a grand jury which has found probable cause, hence the indictments which have been issued. We also have at least one guilty plea of a Trump campaign staffer for lying to the feds specifically about attempting to coordinate with the Russians on the election. That's not just an indictment, it's a confession. And the evidence keeps advancing.

asabjorn 9y ago
Yes, I am watching that one as well with great interest. It will be interesting to see what evidence comes out of that around any pre-election efforts to manipulate the results.