Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

There is your answer: that it doesn't matter what the US intelligence community says they purport to think, because they are probably making it up.

Well, it's just the latest in a string of logical fallacies, so. The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't prove that they are lying now.

But no: it doesn't answer the question. When someone loudly and repeatedly demands evidence for something that, let's face it, pretty much everyone accepts is almost certainly the case, but won't even nail their colours to the mast by admitting they don't believe it themselves, then it's safe to say that they're engaging in a desperate game of deflection themselves.

To avoid accusations of further deflection myself: no, I haven't seen cast-iron proof that the intelligence community (snide comments about old folks' homes aside: it's a thing, look it up) believes that Russia interfered in the election. I think it's reasonable to assume that they do, indeed, believe that without demanding that they publish classified intelligence briefings to prove it.

If someone thinks that it's not reasonable to assume that, I'm curious as to why. If the best argument they've got is a rather feeble logical fallacy, then there's really very little point trying to have an intelligent conversation about it.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I dunno, seems to me Nate Silver and his fivethirtyeight had no f’*!&#ng idea. Why do ya’ll continue to try and give this thing credence?

Out of curiosity: if I was asked to predict one of two possible outcomes, and I gave it a 51% chance, would you say I had "no f’*!&#ng idea" if the other outcome came to pass? If I happened to be right, would that make me an undisputed expert?

It seems to me that most of the people criticising Nate Silver really had no clue what he was telling them.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Out of curiosity: if I was asked to predict one of two possible outcomes, and I gave it a 51% chance, would you say I had "no f’*!&#ng idea" if the other outcome came to pass? If I happened to be right, would that make me an undisputed expert?

It seems to me that most of the people criticising Nate Silver really had no clue what he was telling them.

A 51% chance... No, unless you developed that 51% by a flip of the coin. But as I recall fivethirtyeight only gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning. And they were touted, here anyway by so many and so often, as the experts.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Remember not too long ago I was noting that we should be seriously considering the IDP/TIPP poll that had Donald Trump holding a 2 point lead over Hillary Clinton? I had noted that the IDP/TIPP poll was also the most accurate poll in the 2012 election. Everyone kept throwing up the fivethirtyeight data as the national oracle of the gods.

Remember some of Silver’s articles over at fivethirtyeight?

Why Donald Trump Isn’t a Real Candidate, In One Chart
Donald Trump Is The World’s Greatest Troll
Donald Trump Is Winning the Polls—And Losing the Nomination
Was the Second Debate The Beginning of the End For Donald Trump?
Republicans Don’t Like Donald Trump As Much As They Used To
Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

I dunno, seems to me Nate Silver and his fivethirtyeight had no f’*!&#ng idea. Why do ya’ll continue to try and give this thing credence?

You have the 2 poll results handy? 2016 and 012.

Amerika

The Wisconsin recount is expected to conclude today, with virtually no changes. A federal judge halted Michigan's recount after only three days. And now a US. District Judge rejected Jill Stein’s lawsuit and said there were at least six grounds that required him to.

The recount efforts did do one thing useful, though… It proved that old adage of a fool and his money are soon parted.

https://www.apnews.com/322db08ce6eb49fb910d5a84de3cccb8/US-judge-rejects-Green-Party's-Pennsylvania-recount-case

Yourself isit

Christy42 wrote: »

Ah yeah http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-of-trumps-supporters-really-are-deplorable/

No need to use if when you can back it up.

Aside from anything they are a foreign military power secretly releasing information about one of the main parties in the states. To begin with they should not even have this information. Not encouraged to do it more. The issue is not the validity. It is that they can release things out of context (look at the number of bull $&#* arguments here over information from them taken out of context) and they can only release one sided information. I also mentioned the issue that people don't know where the information is coming from. If something is coming from so you can figure out biases and motives yourself. Think about it- why didn't the Russians release it themselves (again if it was them).

Both sides colluded with themselves he media- Hillary just colluded with some of the larger ones. I don't condone either. I also hate when a newspaper endorses a candidate. Any of them. However cnn never lied about them being the ones releasing the information and neither are they a major military power in the world. That is the key difference. Cnn don't have an aim to retake eastern Europe or any serious foreign policy goal relating to cnn itself that isn't just more viewers.

The US gets involved in elections all over the world. Has been known to overthrow elections if unhappy.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

You have the 2 poll results handy? 2016 and 012.

Not quite sure what you are asking for, but here are the results of the most accurate polls from 2016 and 2012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/?utm_term=.dfd01dbac081

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, it's just the latest in a string of logical fallacies, so. The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't prove that they are lying now.

But no: it doesn't answer the question. When someone loudly and repeatedly demands evidence for something that, let's face it, pretty much everyone accepts is almost certainly the case, but won't even nail their colours to the mast by admitting they don't believe it themselves, then it's safe to say that they're engaging in a desperate game of deflection themselves.

To avoid accusations of further deflection myself: no, I haven't seen cast-iron proof that the intelligence community (snide comments about old folks' homes aside: it's a thing, look it up) believes that Russia interfered in the election. I think it's reasonable to assume that they do, indeed, believe that without demanding that they publish classified intelligence briefings to prove it.

If someone thinks that it's not reasonable to assume that, I'm curious as to why. If the best argument they've got is a rather feeble logical fallacy, then there's really very little point trying to have an intelligent conversation about it.

Well you're assuming a few logical fallacies. One is argument to authority, in this case the CIA is the authority.

I'm not sure of the name (if any) of the logical fallacy referring to past actions not being predictive of future actions. That's a weak fallacy and doesn't work in the real world (court for instance). Proving the unreliability of a witness discredits the witness.

The CIA lies and acts politically. That's its job.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Not quite sure what you are asking for, but here are the results of the most accurate polls from 2016 and 2012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/?utm_term=.dfd01dbac081

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/

It wasn't the most accurate in 2012:
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/a-second-look-at-national-pollster-accuracy/

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

It wasn't the most accurate in 2012:
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/a-second-look-at-national-pollster-accuracy/

themonkeycage? Didn't they essentially go out of business in 2013 because, basically, nobody went there?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

A 51% chance... No, unless you developed that 51% by a flip of the coin. But as I recall fivethirtyeight only gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning.

So if a bookmaker gives 3/1 odds on a horse, and that horse wins, that proves that the bookmaker has "no f’*!&#ng idea" about horse racing?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Well you're assuming a few logical fallacies. One is argument to authority, in this case the CIA is the authority.

If you're going to undermine an argument from authority, you have to actually put forward some counter-arguments. For example: if you believe that the CIA are lying about this, you could start by explaining why they'd lie about it.

I'm not sure of the name (if any) of the logical fallacy referring to past actions not being predictive of future actions. That's a weak fallacy and doesn't work in the real world (court for instance). Proving the unreliability of a witness discredits the witness.

This isn't a court, despite people here being badgered for evidence of what's widely accepted to be true. If you think the CIA is lying, it's not enough to point out that they have lied in the past. Otherwise, I could point out that they have told the truth in the past, therefore they must be telling the truth now. Which I won't, because that's just stupid.

The CIA lies and acts politically. That's its job.

Actually, its job is to "collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security." It says so on their website.

So, if you believe they are lying about this, then you either believe that they are lying to the President about it, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or that they are lying on behalf of the President, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

themonkeycage? Didn't they essentially go out of business in 2013 because, basically, nobody went there?

Seems to have become part of WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/about-the-monkey-cage/

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to undermine an argument from authority, you have to actually put forward some counter-arguments.

Nah. I was no great Hitchens fan, but "that which was asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" I believe is how it goes.
Pretty much it right there.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, its job is to "collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security." It says so on their website.

O.M.G. So you won't mind if I read out the FSB's or Breitbart's mission statements and you 100% have to agree it's entirely factually correct? They're your rules right?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if a bookmaker gives 3/1 odds on a horse, and that horse wins, that proves that the bookmaker has "no f’*!&#ng idea" about horse racing?

If he was still giving those odds down the homestretch and approaching the finish line, then yes... along with being broke.

Hank Scorpio

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-walker-says-wisconsin-recount-proves-legitimacy/2016/12/12/402c1222-c098-11e6-a52b-a0a126eaf9f7_story.html?utm_term=.6122c9dc54fd#comments

"Republican Donald Trump’s victory in Wisconsin has been reaffirmed following a presidential recount that showed him defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than 22,000 votes."

I guess there was no Russian interference in the voting machines after all.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

If he was still giving those odds down the homestretch and approaching the finish line, then yes... along with being broke.

Your metaphor suggests that they gave those odds after the count started except that they stopped updating it then. They gave the odds before the votes started to be counted and that was it. Remember that while you can draw inferences and likelihoods nothing has really happened until the horse has left the blocks or people start voting. So the home stretch would be the last few states to be counted.

You still haven't commented on how the poll you said was accurate was about 4% off getting the national vote total correct.

FatherTed

Yourself isit wrote: »

The US gets involved in elections all over the world. Has been known to overthrow elections if unhappy.

Yes but that is not a bipartisan issue. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have done that.

I'm just surprised Republicans(except the likes of McCain who've complained) are just fine and dandy with the Russian hacking. No need for an investigation or have any Congressional hearings(God know they're experts at that). I suppose the ends justify the means. Reagan must be turning in his grave.

Supposedly they also hacked the RNC so we'll see how quickly the Republicans will change their tune once the Russian/Wikileaks start releasing that stuff.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

themonkeycage? Didn't they essentially go out of business in 2013 because, basically, nobody went there?

It was the link for 2012 in the very article you linked to.

K-9

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-walker-says-wisconsin-recount-proves-legitimacy/2016/12/12/402c1222-c098-11e6-a52b-a0a126eaf9f7_story.html?utm_term=.6122c9dc54fd#comments

"Republican Donald Trump’s victory in Wisconsin has been reaffirmed following a presidential recount that showed him defeating Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than 22,000 votes."

I guess there was no Russian interference in the voting machines after all.

Indeed, nor were they rigged as claimed by Trump and some of his followers.

osmiumartist

FatherTed wrote: »

I'm just surprised Republicans(except the likes of McCain who've complained) are just fine and dandy with the Russian hacking.

That's like saying you're surprised Republicans are just fine and dandy with the moon being made of cheese.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

Your metaphor suggests that they gave those odds after the count started except that they stopped updating it then. They gave the odds before the votes started to be counted and that was it. Remember that while you can draw inferences and likelihoods nothing has really happened until the horse has left the blocks or people start voting. So the home stretch would be the last few states to be counted.

You still haven't commented on how the poll you said was accurate was about 4% off getting the national vote total correct.

I noted it was the most accurate in 2012 from most accounts, and just about the only poll that indicated Trump might win in 2016.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

I noted it was the most accurate in 2012 from most accounts, and just about the only poll that indicated Trump might win in 2016.

This is supplying only part of the information to give an impression that it is the best poll (or at least it gives the impression, I should not try and assume your motives).

They were the most accurate but changed their methodology a lot so their past record is invalid. This should be encouraged so we can see how it does over time but it shouldn't be taken seriously as we don't know how good the poll is. They will probably tweak it after this election from what they have learned.

Many polls gave Trump a chance of winning. Most poll aggregators had Clinton at +3.5% or so. What most failed to account for was Trump's advantage in the electoral college which meant a relatively low error rate could lead to a Trump win. They also didn't account for the numbers of undecideds (except 538) which meant that the chance of a late move was higher.

The individual polls themselves certainly showed that Trump could win but that Hillary was the favourite. A fair assessment I feel. Remember if someone said Trump would win because the Trump is shorter than Clinton they would both have been right and an idiot. Trump did win but their way of figuring it out is wrong. This means that they are unlikely to be right consistently. This is why we look at the details such as percentage vote each predicted for different candidates.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

I noted it was the most accurate in 2012 from most accounts, and just about the only poll that indicated Trump might win in 2016.

Nope, Trump didn't win the popular vote but it was presumably within the margin of error. A few other polls were more accurate in 012.

Fr Tod Umptious

Interesting piece from the Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/12/14/harvard-professor-republican-members-of-electoral-college-are-considering-turning-on-trump

Harvard professor: Republican members of Electoral College are considering turning on Trump


By Dialynn Dwyer 10:44 AM
Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig said Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are thinking about voting against President-elect Donald Trump, Politico reports.

Lessig is a co-founder of Electors Trust, a group that offers free legal counsel to any member of the Electoral College who wants to vote for a candidate different from the one who won their state. The constitutional scholar, who briefly ran for president in 2015, told Politico the number of electors who have told his group they are considering breaking from Trump could tip the scales away from the president-elect.

“Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same,” Lessig said. “We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote.”



According to Politico, it was not clear whether any of the electors leaning away from Trump are from states with laws that bind them to vote for the state’s election winner.

There have been bids by Democratic electors to challenge those state laws, as part of a movement called the Hamilton Electors, which is pushing for the Electoral College to rebel against Trump’s presidency.

Though he won the Nov. 8 election with 306 electors to Hillary Clinton’s 232, Trump must still capture support from 270 of the electors to win the presidency.

Ten electors, including four from New Hampshire, recently signed a letter asking that the members of the Electoral College receive an intelligence briefing on whether there is an ongoing investigation into ties between Trump and possible attempts by Russia to tip the election.

The electors meet on Dec. 19 to select the next president.

20 is a huge number to turn, it's unlikely to happen but this is the election that keeps giving and giving.

ligerdub

It's his, don't waste your time with this rubbish.

Hank Scorpio

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Interesting piece from the Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/12/14/harvard-professor-republican-members-of-electoral-college-are-considering-turning-on-trump



20 is a huge number to turn, it's unlikely to happen but this is the election that keeps giving and giving.

They might want to mix in the old civil factor before deciding to turn their back on voters. I have no doubt in my mind that's what would happen.

osmiumartist

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Interesting piece from the Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/12/14/harvard-professor-republican-members-of-electoral-college-are-considering-turning-on-trump



20 is a huge number to turn, it's unlikely to happen but this is the election that keeps giving and giving.

Amazing that it always seems to be news outlets in states that voted Clinton that run these stories.

Rainman16

If the electoral collage can get enough faithless electors, They would most likely just abstain from voting for Trump and not vote for Clinton. Thereby creating a situation where neither candidate has 270.

In that senerio, It is the United States House of Representatives that elects the president, which has a Republican Majority.

In order for Trump not to win, Republicans would have to turn on him on mass and vote for another republican to be president.

ligerdub

Not........................going.......................to............happen.

Hank Scorpio

Apparently telling citizens the truth about their Government influenced the election. Good.

The spin of the left is that the Russians have been hacking US systems for decades, which in all likelihood is true, and also true the US have been doing the same to many other countries. So based on that, they've decided to declare they influenced Trump winning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKx8s8otZ30&feature=youtu.be&t=147

They have NO evidence linking Wikileaks to Russia, what they're saying is systems have been hacked before, but we don't know what the Wikileaks source is.

This is yet another spin by the twisted left and the owned MSM to propagate a false narrative led by hacks at the Washington Post.

Even if it was TRUE, which it's not, is it no excuse for the corruption. First it was their influence on the voting machines, now this. It's utter desperation and an attempt to deflect from Clinton using an unencrypted private email server containing several top secret documents. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. Change your electoral vote for me! Forget I've been highly negligent and hacked with high certainty according to the FBI.

The Russians might have given Wikileaks information that is true which exposed corruption in our government, now go turn your back on the American voters. No wonder Podesta crawled out from under his rock telling the electoral voters he'll show them some powerpoint slides, which of course would be in no way biased. The only people still trying to influence people is the left establishment. Electoral voters have been receiving death threats and bribes to change the vote ever since Trump won. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/banerian-death-threats-cnntv/ The tolerant left indeed.

It makes me gag the depths these people will sink too, from paying mentally ill people to incite violence ( EVEN AT SCHOOLS RALLIES ) Wikileaks exposed so much and now we're seeing it again. Forget about the alt right and there pepe memes, the conniving and decetefulness of the left masked by the MSM is downright disgusting.

Rant over

Hank Scorpio

Bluff is being called, starts @ 40 seconds in.

Edit: More updates.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

This won't help the Seth Rich conspiracy.

Amerika

Just in 2014 alone... The White House was hacked, the State Department was hacked, the US Postal Service was hacked, the Office of Personnel Management was hacked, the Government Printing Office was hacked, the Government Accountability Office was hacked, HealthCare.gov was hacked, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was hacked, the Energy Department was hacked, and the Census Bureau was hacked. And those are just the federal government departments that the public has been told about. What else was hacked? Where was Democratic outrage? Where were the calls for investigations?

Amerika

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bluff is being called, starts @ 40 seconds in.

Edit: More updates.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

This won't help the Seth Rich conspiracy.

And back in August, Julian Assange suggested that Seth Rich, a 27 year-old Democratic staffer, was the source for the leaked DNC emails. Rich was murdered in DC back in July. The killer or killers took nothing from him, leaving behind his wallet, watch and cell phone. The killer or killers were never found.

Too many things seem to be linked together for the CIA not to investigate, IMO. But what if it was true that Rich was killed because of what he did, and the DNC was involved? It would absolutely destroy the DNC as a political party if they had any involvement in his murder. If true that the DNC was involved, would we ever know? Perhaps it is better for the country to just blame the Russians or some other boogieman. The Democrats are accustomed to that sort of thing... remember the video and Benghazi?

osmiumartist

Astounding that Clinton fans are insisting Trump be done for treason when the CIA are passing information anonymously to sympathetic media while refusing to co-operate with their own oversight committee. 100% rogue. Even without decades of known lies from them, why would anybody believe a word of their shyte?

Yourself isit

Rainman16 wrote: »

If the electoral collage can get enough faithless electors, They would most likely just abstain from voting for Trump and not vote for Clinton. Thereby creating a situation where neither candidate has 270.

In that senerio, It is the United States House of Representatives that elects the president, which has a Republican Majority.

In order for Trump not to win, Republicans would have to turn on him on mass and vote for another republican to be president.

Could happen though. Certainly the McCain wing of the party would like to see him out.

The electors vote on Monday. On Tuesday stories of Russian hacking will disappear.

Yourself isit

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bluff is being called, starts @ 40 seconds in.

Edit: More updates.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

This won't help the Seth Rich conspiracy.

Yes. The fact that the leaks happened during the DNC primaries and seemed to benefit sandars to begin with has been conviently forgotten.

nice_guy80

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yes. The fact that the leaks happened during the DNC primaries and seemed to benefit sandars to begin with has been conviently forgotten.

Bernie has been left as the only real opposition voice to Trump

Clinton has disappeared

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi7MGM_xFC8

alan partridge aha

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi7MGM_xFC8

Well you have no respect for the American people who made the decision to elect Donald. Get over it or get out as some promised to do.

osmiumartist

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Well you have no respect for the American people who made the decision to elect Donald. Get over it or get out as some promised to do.

I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton... what a f**king joke! Half the twats in that video campaigned for her!

Hande hoche!

That's an absolutely dire video. Having flashbacks to Josh Whedon's dreck.

FreudianSlippers

osmiumartist wrote: »

Astounding that Clinton fans are insisting Trump be done for treason when the CIA are passing information anonymously to sympathetic media while refusing to co-operate with their own oversight committee. 100% rogue. Even without decades of known lies from them, why would anybody believe a word of their shyte?

CIA engaging in espionage somehow surprises you... isn't that their entire purpose?

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

Could happen though. Certainly the McCain wing of the party would like to see him out.

The electors vote on Monday. On Tuesday stories of Russian hacking will disappear.

Moderate and socially liberal Republicans do not like Trump. He's not going to have the easy ride in the Federal Legislature that people seem to be suggesting.

osmiumartist

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

CIA engaging in espionage somehow surprises you... isn't that their entire purpose?

Engaging in espionage and lying to the American people is the CIA's entire purpose? You sure about that?

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

Engaging in espionage and lying to the American people is the CIA's entire purpose? You sure about that?

You seem very sure that they're lying.

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem very sure that they're lying.

You seem very sure they aren't lying.
They have produced zero evidence, so please tell us exactly what part of nothing at all convinced you?

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

You seem very sure they aren't lying.

I don't know whether or not they're lying. I think that deflecting the conversation to one about whether or not they are lying is one fairly effective way of changing the subject away from what it is they're saying.

Do you think they are lying? If so, what (apart from the logical fallacy of "they've lied before therefore they're lying now" or the rather more obvious "I disagree with them therefore they're lying) makes you think so?

And if you do think they're lying...

oscarBravo wrote: »

...if you believe they are lying about this, then you either believe that they are lying to the President about it, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, or that they are lying on behalf of the President, which is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Bear in mind we're not just talking about the CIA; we're talking about all seventeen intelligence agencies. So, again: if you believe the entire intelligence community (did you look that up yet?) is lying, do you believe that they're lying to or on behalf of the President? And why do you believe that?

osmiumartist

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know whether or not they're lying. I think that deflecting the conversation to one about whether or not they are lying is one fairly effective way of changing the subject away from what it is they're saying.

Deflection? Laughable. Who cares "what they are saying" if it's lies, with no evidence whatsoever to back it! We should focus on "what creationists are saying" now too should we? What about "focus on what the flat earthers are saying"?
No, sorry, I'm not having such a woeful attempt at evasion. We're not allowed to consider whether they're lying because that's "changing the subject away from what it is they're saying."
That's pretty close to the worst one I've ever heard tried online TBH.

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

We're not allowed to consider whether they're lying because that's "changing the subject away from what it is they're saying."

Only in a Trumpian, post-fact world could someone respond to a post containing, inter alia, "I don't know whether or not they're lying... Do you think they are lying? If so, what... makes you think so? And if you do think they're lying... if you believe [they are] lying..." with "We're not allowed to consider whether they're lying..."

No deflection here, no sirree bob.