3 ms·

> Right, but then you said Obama was doing the same thing. No. I didn't say anything like that. I literally said "people tried to accuse Obama of all kinds of

> Right, but then you said Obama was doing the same thing. No. I didn't say anything like that. I literally said "people tried to accuse Obama of all kinds of stuff" and my point was to the parent post who said "Its purely Trump hatred driving this". You missed the point because you don't like that I'm not blaming this entirely on Trump. I want an investigation into all of this. And other sketchy behavior surrounding the Trump campaign. But I was stating that I don't think the parent post was correct in saying that this is all about Trump. > You're trying to pretend like there's more ambiguity than there actually is. You're trying to pretend like there's more certainty than there actually is and that this is somehow all Trump's fault. I think that's dangerous because the Trump team keeps claiming that there's a witch hunt going on so when all new scandals are pinned to him it actually helps them as far as optics go. We need to investigate this all and get to the bottom of it and I hope Trump is exposed for the scam artist that he is in the process.

mike10010100 9y ago
> I literally said "people tried to accuse Obama of all kinds of stuff" and my point was to the parent post who said "Its purely Trump hatred driving this". Right, but that's still comparing the current amount of information we have on what the Trump campaign and CA did to mere baseless accusations. The comparison is implicit. > because you don't like that I'm not blaming this entirely on Trump. No, I don't like the fact that you're trying to cast this as mere accusation like the many false accusations against other prior campaigns. > But I was stating that I don't think the parent post was correct in saying that this is all about Trump. And I agree with that bit. Which is why I didn't engage it. Instead, I engaged the implicit false equivalence that the parent post was outright stating and that you were merely suggesting. > You're trying to pretend like there's more certainty than there actually is And yet you haven't refuted any of my statements, sources, or facts. > and that this is somehow all Trump's fault. Just like how it's the fault of the person composing and releasing doxxing info, not the fault of the person the dox is about for putting it online. So if it isn't Trump's fault, whose is it? Bannon's? CA? The Mercer's? > the Trump team keeps claiming that there's a witch hunt going on so when all new scandals are pinned to him it actually helps them as far as optics go Are you seriously suggesting that we not use new information as it comes out to paint a larger picture, simply because of the optics on the part of Trump? > We need to investigate this all and get to the bottom of it We are. The media is. And this is what is coming out. What, are we not supposed to connect the very obvious and extremely public dots? Are we just supposed to pretend that the Paradise Papers don't exist and don't show money being moved around from sanctioned, Kremlin-owned finances, through shell companies residing in tax havens, and finally on to various American/European companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?
- wybiral 9y ago
  We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I agree with you on most of these points but until the proper investigations proceed not much will happen. And this administration will attempt to block or obstruct any investigations that they think are part of a "witch hunt" so putting too much emphasis on Trump himself seems risky in the meantime. Let the investigators put those dots together. Also, Trump is just the tip of the iceberg in this story of corruption. Companies like CA and groups like Internet Research Agency need to share this blame because Trump didn't create them. He just benefited from them (because he has no morals). PS: If you haven't contacted your representatives (or candidates) to ask them to support ongoing investigations into these particular issues (like the Special Counsel one). Do it please. Especially if you have a representative up for reelection.
  - mike10010100 9y ago
    > We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I did. I'm just more concerned with giving an accurate picture of what happened than trying to pass off some kind of false equivalency. > but until the proper investigations proceed not much will happen. And this administration will attempt to block or obstruct any investigations that they think are part of a "witch hunt" so putting too much emphasis on Trump himself seems risky in the meantime. Let the investigators put those dots together. On the contrary, its necessary that we connect these dots. IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation. We the people need to democratize this information and disseminate it whenever possible. This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book, the likes of which we've never seen before, and winning because of it. Every party involved deserves to be punished, but the fact of the matter is that while we can't do much to stop people from putting together intel via publicly available data sets, we sure as heck can do something about corrupt politicians using said data sets. In much the same way, we punish the doxxer for using the dox, not the target for putting said information online in the first place, or the social networks for giving them the outlets to publish said information. Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this (in as far as investment money/advice from Russian sanctioned industries/individuals).

mike10010100 9y ago

> I literally said "people tried to accuse Obama of all kinds of stuff" and my point was to the parent post who said "Its purely Trump hatred driving this". Right, but that's still comparing the current amount of information we have on what the Trump campaign and CA did to mere baseless accusations. The comparison is implicit. > because you don't like that I'm not blaming this entirely on Trump. No, I don't like the fact that you're trying to cast this as mere accusation like the many false accusations against other prior campaigns. > But I was stating that I don't think the parent post was correct in saying that this is all about Trump. And I agree with that bit. Which is why I didn't engage it. Instead, I engaged the implicit false equivalence that the parent post was outright stating and that you were merely suggesting. > You're trying to pretend like there's more certainty than there actually is And yet you haven't refuted any of my statements, sources, or facts. > and that this is somehow all Trump's fault. Just like how it's the fault of the person composing and releasing doxxing info, not the fault of the person the dox is about for putting it online. So if it isn't Trump's fault, whose is it? Bannon's? CA? The Mercer's? > the Trump team keeps claiming that there's a witch hunt going on so when all new scandals are pinned to him it actually helps them as far as optics go Are you seriously suggesting that we not use new information as it comes out to paint a larger picture, simply because of the optics on the part of Trump? > We need to investigate this all and get to the bottom of it We are. The media is. And this is what is coming out. What, are we not supposed to connect the very obvious and extremely public dots? Are we just supposed to pretend that the Paradise Papers don't exist and don't show money being moved around from sanctioned, Kremlin-owned finances, through shell companies residing in tax havens, and finally on to various American/European companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica?

wybiral 9y ago
We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I agree with you on most of these points but until the proper investigations proceed not much will happen. And this administration will attempt to block or obstruct any investigations that they think are part of a "witch hunt" so putting too much emphasis on Trump himself seems risky in the meantime. Let the investigators put those dots together. Also, Trump is just the tip of the iceberg in this story of corruption. Companies like CA and groups like Internet Research Agency need to share this blame because Trump didn't create them. He just benefited from them (because he has no morals). PS: If you haven't contacted your representatives (or candidates) to ask them to support ongoing investigations into these particular issues (like the Special Counsel one). Do it please. Especially if you have a representative up for reelection.
- mike10010100 9y ago
  > We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I did. I'm just more concerned with giving an accurate picture of what happened than trying to pass off some kind of false equivalency. > but until the proper investigations proceed not much will happen. And this administration will attempt to block or obstruct any investigations that they think are part of a "witch hunt" so putting too much emphasis on Trump himself seems risky in the meantime. Let the investigators put those dots together. On the contrary, its necessary that we connect these dots. IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation. We the people need to democratize this information and disseminate it whenever possible. This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book, the likes of which we've never seen before, and winning because of it. Every party involved deserves to be punished, but the fact of the matter is that while we can't do much to stop people from putting together intel via publicly available data sets, we sure as heck can do something about corrupt politicians using said data sets. In much the same way, we punish the doxxer for using the dox, not the target for putting said information online in the first place, or the social networks for giving them the outlets to publish said information. Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this (in as far as investment money/advice from Russian sanctioned industries/individuals).