4 ms·
> The real point is It depends on what you're trying to argue. If someone is saying "Hillary/DNC is excused from blame for losing because the Russians backed T
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> The real point is
It depends on what you're trying to argue. If someone is saying "Hillary/DNC is excused from blame for losing because the Russians backed Trump," they're wrong. If they're saying "the Russians backed Trump and there is clear evidence they backed Trump," then that's absolutely correct and I think is a "real point" standing on its own given that this intervention was invited by Trump himself.
I think "don't invite hostile intelligence services to meddle in our elections" is like table stakes for holding office in this country, but what do I know.
> If there is a credible report of a coup... then there must have been severe convictions at the highest levels.
This is not even remotely sound logic and frankly I don't believe you believe it either. I'll ask you again directly: have you read the January 6 report? Or was I supposed to interpret "I haven't seen evidence for XYZ" to mean "I deliberately avoid exposing myself to evidence for XYZ?"
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago(Too late to edit): Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Your heuristic is a self-defense mechanism, not a tool for thinking.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Not pursuing the charges after they were filed in many cases was a political decision made for purposes of reconciliation, not an indication of innocence. This is not an uncommon outcome of Civil Wars (neither is the opposite extreme, though.)
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoIn other words: the criterion is a bad one, for this reason among plenty of others. Lack of convictions is unrelated to lack of existence or lack of evidence.