8 ms·

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 Muel

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
    I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal. As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      > I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal. Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. There’s no good that can come from it. In this case it’s extra pointless because I agree with this person. Nothing in the Mueller report is going to convince them of anything. > As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election. The report doesn’t do anything of the sort. The report is entirely focused on assessing evidence of criminal liability. Since collusion isn’t an actual crime the report nothing directly to say on the matter, much less actually coming right out and concluding that it didn’t happen. That’s just ridiculous. There is evidence that is presented in the context of other matters of potential criminal liability that would be relevant to any discussion of “collusion”. One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. You would have to contort yourself pretty hard to rationalize this as something other than coordinating with Russias’s campaign of interference/assistance.
      - roenxi 4y ago
        > Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. The only reason you think you can anticipate my response is because I've correctly anticipated that you don't have an argument. If something comes up that is outside my predictions neither of us knows what I'd do. But I'm predicting a bluff and it has been a long thread of posts now. > One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. The Russians could hire a polling company at any time. American's don't keep their opinions quiet. How do you want to spin that in to something interesting? Since Manafort's team won the election, it was probably a "hey, we're serious candidates, you should be ready to negotiate with us if we win" thing. Since one of the president's official duties is negotiating with Russians to try and prevent escalations. Care to reference a page number for this one so I can make sure I'm dealing with the same topic?

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
  I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal. As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    > I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal. Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. There’s no good that can come from it. In this case it’s extra pointless because I agree with this person. Nothing in the Mueller report is going to convince them of anything. > As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election. The report doesn’t do anything of the sort. The report is entirely focused on assessing evidence of criminal liability. Since collusion isn’t an actual crime the report nothing directly to say on the matter, much less actually coming right out and concluding that it didn’t happen. That’s just ridiculous. There is evidence that is presented in the context of other matters of potential criminal liability that would be relevant to any discussion of “collusion”. One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. You would have to contort yourself pretty hard to rationalize this as something other than coordinating with Russias’s campaign of interference/assistance.
    - roenxi 4y ago
      > Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. The only reason you think you can anticipate my response is because I've correctly anticipated that you don't have an argument. If something comes up that is outside my predictions neither of us knows what I'd do. But I'm predicting a bluff and it has been a long thread of posts now. > One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. The Russians could hire a polling company at any time. American's don't keep their opinions quiet. How do you want to spin that in to something interesting? Since Manafort's team won the election, it was probably a "hey, we're serious candidates, you should be ready to negotiate with us if we win" thing. Since one of the president's official duties is negotiating with Russians to try and prevent escalations. Care to reference a page number for this one so I can make sure I'm dealing with the same topic?