US Officially Blames Russia

phiwum said:
No, please, don't say that. There is no logical difference between positive and negative claims in terms of burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Of course there is. "There is such a thing as a swan" is easy to check: find one. "There is no such thing as a swan" is virtually-impossible: look everywhere in the universe at once. This has been established a while ago by people way smarter than either of us.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I'd obviously forgotten. This version is nevertheless improved. The accusation made in the earlier reply, of being a shill, is ridiculous. Your vision is limited to people under the thrall of one camp and those of another. Binary, and limited. Further, that all motive is suspect when you are projecting is telling.
Click to expand...


LOL. In my reply I've used the words "WP apologist" in obvious, tounge-in-cheek, exact mirroring of what you started your confused "conversation" with, back then and now, namely calling a whole bunch of unspecified participants of this thread "RT apologists", which is kind of a conversation stopper. Now we know that what you really meant was "RT shills", thanks for the admission.

I suggest you keep those remaining tens of thousand words to yourself, for the greater good.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him

:popcorn1
Click to expand...

Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.
 
Last edited:
One of the funny things about this nonsense is that the clowns forwarding the "Russian Trolls" narrative have no idea what Troll means in Internet lingo - they use it as if it means "shill". But by now the Russians - UK Embassy, MFA, Kremlin spokespeople - are trolling them in the real meaning of the word. Hilarious.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.
Click to expand...


At least Teh Donald knows what a proper troll is. ;)
 
Argumemnon said:
Of course there is. "There is such a thing as a swan" is easy to check: find one. "There is no such thing as a swan" is virtually-impossible: look everywhere in the universe at once. This has been established a while ago by people way smarter than either of us.
Click to expand...

None of this has anything to do with burden of proof. If I assert that there are no swans, then it is up to me to give evidence. If you assert that there are, then you must give evidence.

There is absolutely no reasonable rule that, if your claim is hard or impossible to prove, then you don't have to.

The nonsensicality of "Burden of proof is on the positive claim" becomes obvious when we examine positive and negative claims that are equivalent or look at nested quantifiers.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Another reason that Trump is so hilariously unprepared for this job. The major implication here (besides the Russia thing itself) is that the intel chiefs and some powerful members of Congress now have this info, as well.

So what do you say, Mr. Trump? Would you like to play ball with us or would you like us to have some very public hearings about all of this so that Americans can watch us go through all of the opposition research with painstaking detail? Live. On C-Span. For the next 3 months.
Click to expand...

It sounds like everyone has read those.
 
NoahFence said:
That's from the FBI?
Click to expand...

It's unverified information sourced to anonymous figures whose existence has not been proven. I'm skeptical as this seems almost too perfect. There needs to be an independent probe into these long standing allegations but the Satanic Cheeto will never allow it.

ETA: It's almost too perfectly lurid. He allegedly hired prostitutes for a “golden shower” party on Ritz Moscow bed where Obama/Michelle slept. I wouldn't put it past him but he's a well known germophobe.

ETA2: "Trumped-up trickle down" is now a much better line than when it was used in the debates.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Not sure where Buzzfeed's copy is "from."

This goes back to just before election day:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
Click to expand...


If that's the FBI review of the information the former MI6 agent discovered while doing opposition research for Trump's Republican rivals, that was then passed along to McCain, it is plausible. CNN was reporting that this information (if this is the same information) was being verified by the FBI, and that other sources had corroborated much of it.

Of course it might not be. It might be all made up there. I mean, that's actual treason they're talking about.
 
tyr_13 said:
If that's the FBI review of the information the former MI6 agent discovered while doing opposition research for Trump's Republican rivals, that was then passed along to McCain, it is plausible. CNN was reporting that this information (if this is the same information) was being verified by the FBI, and that other sources had corroborated much of it.

Of course it might not be. It might be all made up there. I mean, that's actual treason they're talking about.
Click to expand...

What part do you claim is treason?
 
Argumemnon said:
And what does that have to do with the CIA? Are you lumping all "government" and "state institutions" in the same bowl? If one person is corrupt, they all are?
Click to expand...

There is an obvious perception they're corrupt.

You don't sense that people have a mistrust about them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom