4 ms·

Read the Mueller report. Read the Report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections from the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. The differe

Read the Mueller report. Read the Report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections from the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. The difference is that one has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence. The other has none.

roenxi 4y ago
Here is [0] a copy of the Muller report. It is vague, as is usual for political hit jobs. There is hard evidence that someone leaked truthful statements out of the DNC, which is a major political scandal (honest accounting of what the {R|D}NC if thinking? Available to the public?! heaven forfend, that is not how journalism is done). Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out. The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific. [0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  You’re responding to “Read the Mueller report.” With [I’m not going to read the Mueller report]. Thanks for letting me know. I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    I've got a few pages left in me. I'm pretty sceptical you can find anything that I'll admit is evidence of anything that is even abnormal, let alone concerning (I'm anticipating stuff like "presidential candidate talks to Russians!" as though it isn't the presidents job to negotiate with Russians, or those hilariously small amounts of money that got spent on posting social media articles). Which section do you think is the most powerful? What in the document upsets you? It is pretty normal in my experience that people pretty quickly walk back from pretending that the report actually contains anything, because they can't point to it and rely on the fact that there is this fake consensus that something evil happened so there is no need to provide any evidence of anything specific. If you want to point at something I'll read it, but I think you're bluffing on a weak hand here - this report is political swill. Nobody cites from it when they have a point to make against Trump or the 2016 election. PS: And I'll just add - telling people to "go read a 450 page document to convince yourself I'm right" is an unreasonable ask. I read a lot of that report at the time it was released and I'm pretty convinced there was nothing in it.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      I seems like maybe you’ve decided to read more into my original comment than what’s actually there. The entirety of what I’m saying right now is “Both the Mueller and Senate Intel committee reports contain pretty extensive evidence and detailing of a significant interference campaign by the Russians on the 2016 election”. I was responding in regards to “blaming Russians” which was far from a baseless conspiracy theory.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        And yet you've now made it through 3 posts without doing anything as gauche as mentioning what that evidence is, providing a sample of it or articulating what the Russians have done that you don't like apart from being foreign. As alluded to previously, the biggest complaint most have seems to be that they were allegedly [^] bringing honesty into a political context. They have no power to influence US elections, as shown by their inability to do anything apart from one push in 2016. Look how they couldn't manage "interference" in 2012 and it magically disappeared by 2020. Possibly Russians can be defeated with concentrated Democrat fanfiction [&]? One momentary peak of Russian power that you are struggling to narrow down to an example, despite having a 450 page report that you don't feel like quoting from because, presumably, nobody thinks the issue is important enough to explain to the doubters. You've got nothing. The Muller report is a high-class version of exactly the same conspiratorial gibber that Jones is pumping out. [^] And although I don't care on the point, I haven't seen the evidence for this either, I assume all the intelligence agencies have tools to pretend to be other agencies when hacking things. I expect even on this point it isn't clear it was the Russians but if it was I support them for good journalism. [&] Which is what the Muller report seems to be. Rather steamy, no plot.
        bandyaboot 4y ago
        I’ve made it through now 4 posts having chosen not to engage with you on topic because you made it clear from the outset that you’re not capable of having a good faith exchange on this. You pre-dismissed anything I might have cited. You say things like I’m bluffing on a weak hand, I’ve got nothing, and I’m supposed to say to myself “Yes, this person is worth expending effort on, let’s have a totally real open minded debate.” Get over yourself.
philliphaydon 4y ago
The major conspiracy theory was that trump colluded with Russia to win the election. As far as I’m aware the Mueller report said Russia stood to benefit from a trump presidency but Trump didn’t collude. So Trump won legitimately. Even if people voted with the wrong information. And the losing side threw its toys out of the cot. Then when Biden won, the losing side threw its toys out of the cot. In both cases there’s conspiracy theories. Russian collusion and rigged elections.

roenxi 4y ago

Here is [0] a copy of the Muller report. It is vague, as is usual for political hit jobs. There is hard evidence that someone leaked truthful statements out of the DNC, which is a major political scandal (honest accounting of what the {R|D}NC if thinking? Available to the public?! heaven forfend, that is not how journalism is done). Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out. The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific. [0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...

bandyaboot 4y ago
You’re responding to “Read the Mueller report.” With [I’m not going to read the Mueller report]. Thanks for letting me know. I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.
- roenxi 4y ago
  I've got a few pages left in me. I'm pretty sceptical you can find anything that I'll admit is evidence of anything that is even abnormal, let alone concerning (I'm anticipating stuff like "presidential candidate talks to Russians!" as though it isn't the presidents job to negotiate with Russians, or those hilariously small amounts of money that got spent on posting social media articles). Which section do you think is the most powerful? What in the document upsets you? It is pretty normal in my experience that people pretty quickly walk back from pretending that the report actually contains anything, because they can't point to it and rely on the fact that there is this fake consensus that something evil happened so there is no need to provide any evidence of anything specific. If you want to point at something I'll read it, but I think you're bluffing on a weak hand here - this report is political swill. Nobody cites from it when they have a point to make against Trump or the 2016 election. PS: And I'll just add - telling people to "go read a 450 page document to convince yourself I'm right" is an unreasonable ask. I read a lot of that report at the time it was released and I'm pretty convinced there was nothing in it.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    I seems like maybe you’ve decided to read more into my original comment than what’s actually there. The entirety of what I’m saying right now is “Both the Mueller and Senate Intel committee reports contain pretty extensive evidence and detailing of a significant interference campaign by the Russians on the 2016 election”. I was responding in regards to “blaming Russians” which was far from a baseless conspiracy theory.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      And yet you've now made it through 3 posts without doing anything as gauche as mentioning what that evidence is, providing a sample of it or articulating what the Russians have done that you don't like apart from being foreign. As alluded to previously, the biggest complaint most have seems to be that they were allegedly [^] bringing honesty into a political context. They have no power to influence US elections, as shown by their inability to do anything apart from one push in 2016. Look how they couldn't manage "interference" in 2012 and it magically disappeared by 2020. Possibly Russians can be defeated with concentrated Democrat fanfiction [&]? One momentary peak of Russian power that you are struggling to narrow down to an example, despite having a 450 page report that you don't feel like quoting from because, presumably, nobody thinks the issue is important enough to explain to the doubters. You've got nothing. The Muller report is a high-class version of exactly the same conspiratorial gibber that Jones is pumping out. [^] And although I don't care on the point, I haven't seen the evidence for this either, I assume all the intelligence agencies have tools to pretend to be other agencies when hacking things. I expect even on this point it isn't clear it was the Russians but if it was I support them for good journalism. [&] Which is what the Muller report seems to be. Rather steamy, no plot.
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        I’ve made it through now 4 posts having chosen not to engage with you on topic because you made it clear from the outset that you’re not capable of having a good faith exchange on this. You pre-dismissed anything I might have cited. You say things like I’m bluffing on a weak hand, I’ve got nothing, and I’m supposed to say to myself “Yes, this person is worth expending effort on, let’s have a totally real open minded debate.” Get over yourself.

philliphaydon 4y ago

The major conspiracy theory was that trump colluded with Russia to win the election. As far as I’m aware the Mueller report said Russia stood to benefit from a trump presidency but Trump didn’t collude. So Trump won legitimately. Even if people voted with the wrong information. And the losing side threw its toys out of the cot. Then when Biden won, the losing side threw its toys out of the cot. In both cases there’s conspiracy theories. Russian collusion and rigged elections.