Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

looksee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

Ah yes, the ongoing problem, getting an answer. So just going back to one of the many many things that have not got an answer, can we have the names of some of the swamp-dwellers that have been drained? (Or, indeed, are being drained).

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4

Speaking of getting an answer.

Hey Pete, what's your opinion of Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine until they announced an investigation into Biden?

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4

Hey Pete,

Seeing as how you're looking for answers, can you explain why the direct transcript of Trump's Ukraine call (yes that one) was moved to a codeword-level secure server?

Quin_Dub

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Following Kuppermans no show before congress today, what's to stop Schiff declaring him in contempt right now? Why all the 'may be in contempt...' "we will consider..."

As I understand it from reading a number of articles , the Democrats have decided not to get into multiple rounds of time-wasting legal battles over any no-shows and will just log them as part of a separate article of Impeachment based around " Obstruction of Justice/Congress".

If they find a no-show in contempt , it goes to court , then it goes to the appeals court etc. etc. probably all the way to the supreme court , taking months and months and running out the clock before the election.

Aretheymyfeet

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a widely accepted fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 US election. All US intelligence agencies support it. Even Trump has acknowledged it several times (often followed by some quick backtracking due to the investigation)

https://time.com/5341137/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russian-meddling-correction/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/30/donald-trump-acknowledges-russia-helped-his-election-then-backtracks/1221107001/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/trump-admits-russia-helped-him-win-denies-it-20-minutes-later

Widely accepted by the usual establishment media, political and Intel agencies. You seem to think these have any credibility, are some kind of independent at arbiters of truth and should have their claims taken at face value? Ridiculous.

Not one single piece of actual evidence of Russian State interference in the US election has ever been made public. Not one. You clearly believe there has been. Provide it so. Saying all US intel agencies agree Russia interfered is simply saying, yes, a load of known to be corrupt organisations with a vested interest in portraying Russia as the bogie man, make the claim Russia interfered, and you all swallow it whole. They didn't even have to provide you with any evidence.

Aretheymyfeet

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I kinda formed that opinion when he kept saying the Mueller report "didn't contain any actual evidence", as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'.

In that respect he was absolutely right - "The Mueller report did not contain any evidence!!"

Of course, it described in some detail all the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election. These were not allegations: these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond. Anyone who questioned this was free to challenge the report through the courts. However, no one has done so.

No. You clearly do not understand my basic question. I say, the claims of Russian interference have never been supported by any evidence. You claim they have, yet are completely incapable of providing this evidence.

"as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'" Eh no. The Report doesn't actual detail any evidence of Russian State interference in the US election. If you believe it does, please tell us where and what that evidence is.

You say "the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election". Ok, provide your evidence for this claim.

"these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond" Please tell us which of these convictions had anything to do with Russia and Russian State interference in the US election.

Again, I'll repeat, you are all incapable of discerning between narrative and objective fact. The US intelligence agencies are a vested interest. Their claims have no validity unless they substantiate them with actual evidence. The idea anyone would Just believe something because the US intel agencies say so is so utterly naive and misguided.

Aretheymyfeet

PropJoe10 wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense of the highest order. Russia's interference in the US electoral process has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency multiple times. Unless you work for one of these agencies, which I personally doubt, then you are the one engaging in conspiracy theories.

Again, "Russia's interference in the US electoral process has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency multiple times." Why do you believe any one should believe the US intel agencies claims? Seriously? They are proven liars with a vested interest in portraying Russia as the bogey man. Why should anyone be expected to take their claims at face value. Without them supporting their claims with evidence, they are just claims.

Professor Moriarty

Dunno if there is any point in engaging with posters who ask for evidence, and when given a link to that very evidence, refuse to open the link. I opened Dupo's link and it was full of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sure one can waffle on about the MSM, the Intelligence Agencies and Homeland Security not having any evidence (sounds familiar) but if one refuses to read actual evidence then it would seem that one has no real interest in having a political discussion. Maybe all one wants to do is to rant.

Aretheymyfeet

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I kinda formed that opinion when he kept saying the Mueller report "didn't contain any actual evidence", as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'.

In that respect he was absolutely right - "The Mueller report did not contain any evidence!!"

Of course, it described in some detail all the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election. These were not allegations: these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond. Anyone who questioned this was free to challenge the report through the courts. However, no one has done so.

You guys seem to think that the US establishment, be it the Political parties Rep and Dems, or the media, or the intelligence agencies are some kind of honest brokers. Are you living in the real world? These are some of the most corrupt organisations and institutions in existence today. The US isn't rampaging across the Middle East and North Africa spreading democracy and freedom.

Stallingrad

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Why should anyone be expected to take their claims at face value. Without them supporting their claims with evidence, they are just claims.

Maybe you would believe Putin that Russians may have been involved over all the US intel?

June 1, 2017 - In public remarks, Putin says that hacking may have been carried out by patriotic Russian citizens who felt compelled to respond to perceived slights against Russia from America. Putin says, however, that the Russian government played no role in the cyberattacks.

You could read this but the last time you were presented with something to digest you spent some time arguing why you shouldn't bother. In this case no doubt because it is CNN (and facts).

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html

Igotadose

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno if there is any point in engaging with posters who ask for evidence, and when given a link to that very evidence, refuse to open the link. I opened Dupo's link and it was full of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sure one can waffle on about the MSM, the Intelligence Agencies and Homeland Security not having any evidence (sounds familiar) but if one refuses to read actual evidence then it would seem that one has no real interest in having a political discussion. Maybe all one wants to do is to rant.

Seems like it. It's really trivial to find evidence online, in fact, here's a handy quote, just one of many incidents of the word 'evidence' in one volume of one report (of 5) produced by the Senate (GOP-majority committee.)
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

---

"the Committee found ample evidence to suggest
that the Russian government was developing and implementing capabilities to interfere in the 2016 elections, including undermining confidence in U.S. democratic institutions and voting processes."
--

If you begin based on a premise that 'all information from the US government is illegitimate,' there's really no way to have a discussion. Are you going to provide Russian government information confirming their activities? Or are the Blorgoz from planet Nphasodef going to warp in and do it for you?

Professor Moriarty

Stallingrad wrote: »

Maybe you would believe Putin that Russians may have been involved over all the US intel?

June 1, 2017 - In public remarks, Putin says that hacking may have been carried out by patriotic Russian citizens who felt compelled to respond to perceived slights against Russia from America. Putin says, however, that the Russian government played no role in the cyberattacks.

You could read this but the last time you were presented with something to digest you spent some time arguing why you shouldn't bother. In this case no doubt because it is CNN (and facts).

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html

If one doesn't accept facts from MSM, Rep or Dem politicians or the Intel Agencies, then I'm at a loss as to how one might inform oneself.

duploelabs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno if there is any point in engaging with posters who ask for evidence, and when given a link to that very evidence, refuse to open the link. I opened Dupo's link and it was full of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Sure one can waffle on about the MSM, the Intelligence Agencies and Homeland Security not having any evidence (sounds familiar) but if one refuses to read actual evidence then it would seem that one has no real interest in having a political discussion. Maybe all one wants to do is to rant.

One can point all they want to the evidence that's in the public forum, yet if one as that poster claims they haven't, refuses to read said evidence then all we can do is let them go back to their realm of cognitive dissonance and unreasonable debate, hopefully far from here as they provide no insight or objective viewpoint to differ

Aretheymyfeet

Christy42 wrote: »

Note at this point there was little evidence that there was interfence in the election.

Second of all Obama is referring to rigging the votes directly which is not the official version which is a different accusation of interference (I know some have accused Russia of directly vote hacking but that has never been the official version).

Finally you know well that Obama was the first to accuse Russia of interference. Obama is not one such individual and to state as such is flat out wrong. Obama does believe that Russia interfered with the election. He has stated this many times so why would you state the opposite?

Finally your argument adds little. There is no discussion as to why the findings from multiple intelligence agencies from across the western world are all wrong (noting France and Germany reported interference in their own election but we're better prepared to deal with it having seen what happened in the US). It seems to boil down to my view is reasonable because because.

You say "noting France and Germany reported interference in their own election". Except, on both occassions those claims were subsequently rejected by their own cyber security departments. Although the msm didn't give this the same level of coverage.

France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron
 https://www.apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

Germany: German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/europe/german-election-russia.html

duploelabs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If one doesn't accept facts from MSM, Rep or Dem politicians or the Intel Agencies, then I'm at a loss as to how one might inform oneself.

So without MSM, Rep or Dem politicians, the Intel Agencies, house committees, or court documents, where does one get their information from and what have the romans ever done for us?

Professor Moriarty

duploelabs wrote: »

So without MSM, Rep or Dem politicians, the Intel Agencies, house committees, or court documents, where does one get their information from and what have the romans ever done for us?

Dunno. Maybe they gave us fake news and conspiracy theories?

Quin_Dub

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Widely accepted by the usual establishment media, political and Intel agencies. You seem to think these have any credibility, are some kind of independent at arbiters of truth and should have their claims taken at face value? Ridiculous.

Not one single piece of actual evidence of Russian State interference in the US election has ever been made public. Not one. You clearly believe there has been. Provide it so. Saying all US intel agencies agree Russia interfered is simply saying, yes, a load of known to be corrupt organisations with a vested interest in portraying Russia as the bogie man, make the claim Russia interfered, and you all swallow it whole. They didn't even have to provide you with any evidence.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

No. You clearly do not understand my basic question. I say, the claims of Russian interference have never been supported by any evidence. You claim they have, yet are completely incapable of providing this evidence.

"as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'" Eh no. The Report doesn't actual detail any evidence of Russian State interference in the US election. If you believe it does, please tell us where and what that evidence is.

You say "the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election". Ok, provide your evidence for this claim.

"these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond" Please tell us which of these convictions had anything to do with Russia and Russian State interference in the US election.

Again, I'll repeat, you are all incapable of discerning between narrative and objective fact. The US intelligence agencies are a vested interest. Their claims have no validity unless they substantiate them with actual evidence. The idea anyone would Just believe something because the US intel agencies say so is so utterly naive and misguided.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Again, "Russia's interference in the US electoral process has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency multiple times." Why do you believe any one should believe the US intel agencies claims? Seriously? They are proven liars with a vested interest in portraying Russia as the bogey man. Why should anyone be expected to take their claims at face value. Without them supporting their claims with evidence, they are just claims.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You guys seem to think that the US establishment, be it the Political parties Rep and Dems, or the media, or the intelligence agencies are some kind of honest brokers. Are you living in the real world? These are some of the most corrupt organisations and institutions in existence today. The US isn't rampaging across the Middle East and North Africa spreading democracy and freedom.

##Mod Note#

This is an utterly circular argument.

If statements from US Government , Intelligence agencies , Multiple Congressional committees et al are "not credible" - What exactly would meet your criteria for "credibility" and evidence?


We've now had 100+ posts on this topic without any progress being made - Let's all agree to disagree and move on.

mcmoustache

I don't know if this was posted already because the last few pages seem to be bunged up with nonsense and I just skimmed past them.

Anyway, here's the opening statement from Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman who will be testifying today. This man is credible and more importantly, was listening in on that famously perfect phonecall so maybe Graham can finally shut up about hearsay and second-hand info.

The first thing that jumps out is that he contradicts Sondland's claims in his opening that nobody voiced any concerns about what was going on. Sondland said:

Sondland wrote:

But if Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, or others harbored any misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later.

...while Vindman claims the opposite. More importantly, Vindman's version could be backed up with both Hill's and Bolton, should he testify.

Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb.
Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into
the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his
statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son
had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not
something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the
room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

Luckily for Sondland, he and his legal team were back in Congress yesterday to review his testimony. I don't know if there were any "corrections" involved but it would have been a good idea from his point of view.

Aretheymyfeet

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems like it. It's really trivial to find evidence online, in fact, here's a handy quote, just one of many incidents of the word 'evidence' in one volume of one report (of 5) produced by the Senate (GOP-majority committee.)
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

---

"the Committee found ample evidence to suggest
that the Russian government was developing and implementing capabilities to interfere in the 2016 elections, including undermining confidence in U.S. democratic institutions and voting processes."
--

If you begin based on a premise that 'all information from the US government is illegitimate,' there's really no way to have a discussion. Are you going to provide Russian government information confirming their activities? Or are the Blorgoz from planet Nphasodef going to warp in and do it for you?

"the Committee found ample evidence to suggest
that the Russian government was developing and implementing capabilities to interfere in the 2016 elections, including undermining confidence in U.S. democratic institutions and voting processes." Did the Committee actually provide any of this Ample evidence to support
this CLAIM or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Again, you post someone making a claim and treat it as if its evidence or that they are some kind of honest brokers and arbiters of truth.

Please explain why anyone should take such a claim at face value?

"If you begin based on a premise that 'all information from the US government is illegitimate" Yes, governments, Intel agencies, media, vested interests lie. Welcome to the real world. Where they make a claim, it should not be believed unless supported by evidence. A million Iraqis died because these very same interests you expect us to believe, told a big fat lie. They all lied together. Libya was destroyed based on lies. The number of times these organisations have been caught lying is numerous. I even provide examples to support my claim of their lying!

Go to YouTube and search Pompeo, we lied, we cheated. "I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it's, it was like, we had entire training courses".

"Are you going to provide Russian government information confirming their activities?" What activities by the Russians have I claimed? Yes, I always will support my position with documented evidence.

Aretheymyfeet

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note#

This is an utterly circular argument.

If statements from US Government , Intelligence agencies , Multiple Congressional committees et al are "not credible" - What exactly would meet your criteria for "credibility" and evidence?


We've now had 100+ posts on this topic without any progress being made - Let's all agree to disagree and move on.

Mod reply. The idea that statements by vested interests, institutions and organisations with long histories of lying should simply be believed is ludicrous. These claims must be supported by objectively verifiable evidence i.e. evidence that objectively verifies the event or issue without having to involve faith based belief. That you are a mod on a site and cannot understand this basic principle is ridiculous.

"We've now had 100+ posts on this topic without any progress being made" Yes, because the other posters refuse to admit the clear fact that they have not one single piece of actual evidence to support their claims of Russian State interference in the US election.

It is clear that your own belief in such interference in colouring your ability to recognise this simple fact. Claims are not evidence.

I'll move on now but it's clear you are not qualified to moderate much. Ban me if you wish. You'll be confirming my point on your personal bias.

Aretheymyfeet

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note#

This is an utterly circular argument.

If statements from US Government , Intelligence agencies , Multiple Congressional committees et al are "not credible" - What exactly would meet your criteria for "credibility" and evidence?


We've now had 100+ posts on this topic without any progress being made - Let's all agree to disagree and move on.

"statements from US Government , Intelligence agencies , Multiple Congressional committees et al are "not credible" eh, those 'statements' as you say, would need evidence to support them. Why is this very simple concept so difficult for to comprehend? Simply saying "We believe Russia interfered" is an opinion piece until they say, we believe this because we identified this this and this which evidences Russian State interference in the US election.

Professor Moriarty

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Mod reply. The idea that statements by vested interests, institutions and organisations with long histories of lying should simply be believed is ludicrous. These claims must be supported by objectively verifiable evidence i.e. evidence that objectively verifies the event or issue without having to involve faith based belief. That you are a mod on a site and cannot understand this basic principle is ridiculous.

"We've now had 100+ posts on this topic without any progress being made" Yes, because the other posters refuse to admit the clear fact that they have not one single piece of actual evidence to support their claims of Russian State interference in the US election.

It is clear that your own belief in such interference in colouring your ability to recognise this simple fact. Claims are not evidence.

I'll move on now but it's clear you are not qualified to moderate much. Ban me if you wish. You'll be confirming my point on your personal bias.

Okay let's turn it around. Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election? Do you have proof that the evidence put forward in the indictments is false? Do you have evidence that the MSM, Intel Agencies and Rep/Dem politicians are lying about this interference?

aloyisious

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

No. You clearly do not understand my basic question. I say, the claims of Russian interference have never been supported by any evidence. You claim they have, yet are completely incapable of providing this evidence.

"as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'" Eh no. The Report doesn't actual detail any evidence of Russian State interference in the US election. If you believe it does, please tell us where and what that evidence is.

You say "the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election". Ok, provide your evidence for this claim.

"these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond" Please tell us which of these convictions had anything to do with Russia and Russian State interference in the US election.

Again, I'll repeat, you are all incapable of discerning between narrative and objective fact. The US intelligence agencies are a vested interest. Their claims have no validity unless they substantiate them with actual evidence. The idea anyone would Just believe something because the US intel agencies say so is so utterly naive and misguided.

Putting it another way, would you have trust in any state intelligence agency which left footprints of its skulduggery leading straight to its door, seeing as how the agency is entrusted by its bosses to carry out uncertifiable deeds AND NOT to leave a confirmable evidence trail? The secrecy and uncertifiability of deeds done is the raison d'etre of said agencies.

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

"statements from US Government , Intelligence agencies , Multiple Congressional committees et al are "not credible" eh, those 'statements' as you say, would need evidence to support them. Why is this very simple concept so difficult for to comprehend? Simply saying "We believe Russia interfered" is an opinion piece until they say, we believe this because we identified this this and this which evidences Russian State interference in the US election.

Who do you trust as a reputable source of information?

Aretheymyfeet

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay let's turn it around. Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election? Do you have proof that the evidence put forward in the indictments is false? Do you have evidence that the MSM, Intel Agencies and Rep/Dem politicians are lying about this interference?

"Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election" Jesus, is this playschool debating? Are you serious? You ask me to prove a negative, seriously? Do you have any evidence that you're not a raging paedophile? Just like you, I won't substantiate my claim with any evidence. See how utterly ridiculous your demand is?

The onus or burden rests with those making the claim to prove it. It doesn't rest with anyone else to disprove a claim you have singularly failed to prove. You all claim Russian State interference in the US election. I have asked you to support this claim with evidence. I've had lots of "These guys said so, and these other guys said so' nonsense replies. Nobody can actually provide actual evidence.

Boards.ie is like debating for the slow of thinking. You don't understand basic debating rules nor basic concepts like objective evidence and how this is NOT the same as allegations.

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

"Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election" Jesus, is this playschool debating? Are you serious? You ask me to prove a negative, seriously? Do you have any evidence that you're not a raging paedophile? Just like you, I won't substantiate my claim with any evidence. See how utterly ridiculous your demand is?

The onus or burden rests with those making the claim to prove it. It doesn't rest with anyone else to disprove a claim you have singularly failed to prove. You all claim Russian State interference in the US election. I have asked you to support this claim with evidence. I've had lots of "These guys said so, and these other guys said so' nonsense replies. Nobody can actually provide actual evidence.

Boards.ie is like debating for the slow of thinking. You don't understand basic debating rules nor basic concepts like objective evidence and how this is NOT the same as allegations.

You have been presented with multiple sources of evidence many times yet refuse to read it as you claim

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Why would I waste my time looking for something I don't believe exists?

If this is the case, how do you form this belief? What sources do you use to affirm this belief?

Stallingrad

duploelabs wrote: »

Who do you trust as a reputable source of information?

This is a very good question, if you disbelieve so many sources you should explain where you get your information and how do you test its veracity?

A lot of credible, informed people here are citing multiple sources, and you simply discredit them all, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

Who do you trust as a reputable source of information?

Documentary evidence. If the organisations you all are quoting provide evidence instead of claims (none of you seem capable of comprehending this basic distinction, which is bizarre) I'll assess that. For example, Wikileaks provides metadata backed emails and in ten years has a 100% record of accurate and verifiable data. No fake emails essentially. Objective evidence you could present in a court and would not rely on belief or faith to verify it's authenticity and accuracy. This is pretty basic stuff guys. What age are you all?

Professor Moriarty

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

"Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election" Jesus, is this playschool debating? Are you serious? You ask me to prove a negative, seriously? Do you have any evidence that you're not a raging paedophile? Just like you, I won't substantiate my claim with any evidence. See how utterly ridiculous your demand is?

The onus or burden rests with those making the claim to prove it. It doesn't rest with anyone else to disprove a claim you have singularly failed to prove. You all claim Russian State interference in the US election. I have asked you to support this claim with evidence. I've had lots of "These guys said so, and these other guys said so' nonsense replies. Nobody can actually provide actual evidence.

Boards.ie is like debating for the slow of thinking. You don't understand basic debating rules nor basic concepts like objective evidence and how this is NOT the same as allegations.

So you have no evidence. As I thought.

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Documentary evidence. If the organisations you all are quoting provide evidence instead of claims (none of you seem capable of comprehending this basic distinction, which is bizarre) I'll assess that. For example, Wikileaks provides metadata backed emails and in ten years has a 100% record of accurate and verifiable data. No fake emails essentially. Objective evidence you could present in a court and would not rely on belief or faith to verify it's authenticity and accuracy. This is pretty basic stuff guys. What age are you all?

Which documentary evidence? I have provided evidence, in the form of a court document that resulted in the indictment of 12 russians, yet you refuse to even read it. Hard to debate a goon that plugs their fingers in their ears and goes lalalalalalala