3 ms·

Is Google also going to ban all the people who pushed the baseless Russia-made-trump-win nonsense? What a giant waste of time and money that was. Do it equally

by ksk 6y ago

Is Google also going to ban all the people who pushed the baseless Russia-made-trump-win nonsense? What a giant waste of time and money that was. Do it equally for everyone, or don't do it at all.

chillwaves 6y ago
We don't know if Russia made Trump win, we only know that they helped him. Likewise, we don't know if Trump himself worked with Russians, we only know his campaign chairman Paul Manafort did. These are both facts that have been verified by the Republican controlled Senate Intel Committee. You are free to read their report yourself. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
- ksk 6y ago
  >We don't know if Russia made Trump win, we only know that they helped him. That's a bit like saying we know there is election fraud in 2020 because we found 2 voting irregularities. Minor voting irregularities happen in every election and are also facts. Sorry, it goes both ways. Both sides need to provide evidence and prove it in court before making such statements. If you don't know, then the right thing to do is to say nothing unless it has been proven.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    Have any democrats been implicated in voter fraud? You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It's impossible to know what the effect was, but we know for sure they tried, which is illegal. Can you find any example of a "voter irregularity" that has the same level of intent and coordination with an official of the Democratic party? It only "goes both ways" when you are blatantly lying and discounting reality. Many of the states in question are run by Republicans. Are you saying that Republicans conspired to steal the election from Trump?
    - ksk 6y ago
      >You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... >It's impossible to know what the effect was, but we know for sure they tried, which is illegal. If you don't know what the effect was, what is your point again? >It only "goes both ways" when you are blatantly lying and discounting reality. Childish name-calling? Nice.. >Many of the states in question are run by Republicans. Are you saying that Republicans conspired to steal the election from Trump? Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically.
      - chillwaves 6y ago
        To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling". > No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. Here, try this: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... Ctrl+F "manafort" if you are having trouble finding it. > Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically. Bro, is this not name calling? At least I am actually offering evidence. All you is your sense of superiority. Also, the whole cover of partisanship is just so intellectually lazy. You can literally dismiss any evidence or reality just by claiming partisanship. I am sure partisanship is involved, but that is not a rebuttal to the evidence presented. What a poor use of time to have a conversation with you.
        ksk 6y ago
        So you keep posting the same old tired link claiming its "evidence". I don't think you understand what that document actually says. I don't rebut evidence, I accept it, if courts accept it when used as evidence in a case. I don't know what rebutting evidence means, or what that would accomplish. After four years of nonsense investigations there were no indictments on this so called "collusion". This fact alone makes anyone involved in making those allegations look completely nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment No indictment = no charges = no case = no conviction = innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of this report, if Dems had solid evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd bet my life savings that they'd have brought cases by now, and we'd know about it.

by ksk 6y ago

Is Google also going to ban all the people who pushed the baseless Russia-made-trump-win nonsense? What a giant waste of time and money that was. Do it equally for everyone, or don't do it at all.

chillwaves 6y ago

We don't know if Russia made Trump win, we only know that they helped him. Likewise, we don't know if Trump himself worked with Russians, we only know his campaign chairman Paul Manafort did. These are both facts that have been verified by the Republican controlled Senate Intel Committee. You are free to read their report yourself. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

ksk 6y ago
>We don't know if Russia made Trump win, we only know that they helped him. That's a bit like saying we know there is election fraud in 2020 because we found 2 voting irregularities. Minor voting irregularities happen in every election and are also facts. Sorry, it goes both ways. Both sides need to provide evidence and prove it in court before making such statements. If you don't know, then the right thing to do is to say nothing unless it has been proven.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  Have any democrats been implicated in voter fraud? You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. It's impossible to know what the effect was, but we know for sure they tried, which is illegal. Can you find any example of a "voter irregularity" that has the same level of intent and coordination with an official of the Democratic party? It only "goes both ways" when you are blatantly lying and discounting reality. Many of the states in question are run by Republicans. Are you saying that Republicans conspired to steal the election from Trump?
  - ksk 6y ago
    >You are completely ignoring the high level of coordination that has been proven, between the Trump campaign and the Russians. No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill... >It's impossible to know what the effect was, but we know for sure they tried, which is illegal. If you don't know what the effect was, what is your point again? >It only "goes both ways" when you are blatantly lying and discounting reality. Childish name-calling? Nice.. >Many of the states in question are run by Republicans. Are you saying that Republicans conspired to steal the election from Trump? Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically.
    - chillwaves 6y ago
      To claim something false is lying. To point out lying is not "name calling". > No high level of co-ordination to steal the election was "proven". I don't know what kind of "news" you read. Here, try this: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... Ctrl+F "manafort" if you are having trouble finding it. > Actually, I'm claiming both sides are in their own bubble clutching their little (R) and (D) flags and waving them frantically. Bro, is this not name calling? At least I am actually offering evidence. All you is your sense of superiority. Also, the whole cover of partisanship is just so intellectually lazy. You can literally dismiss any evidence or reality just by claiming partisanship. I am sure partisanship is involved, but that is not a rebuttal to the evidence presented. What a poor use of time to have a conversation with you.
      - ksk 6y ago
        So you keep posting the same old tired link claiming its "evidence". I don't think you understand what that document actually says. I don't rebut evidence, I accept it, if courts accept it when used as evidence in a case. I don't know what rebutting evidence means, or what that would accomplish. After four years of nonsense investigations there were no indictments on this so called "collusion". This fact alone makes anyone involved in making those allegations look completely nutty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment No indictment = no charges = no case = no conviction = innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of this report, if Dems had solid evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd bet my life savings that they'd have brought cases by now, and we'd know about it.