US Officially Blames Russia

[thaiboxerken]

I don't buy this supposed skepticism about the CIA claims. The skeptical parties are for the most part either extreme left Putin sycophants, or extreme right Trumpistas - who, by the way, had no problem when the FBI head said there might be some emails on a computer somewhere. It's selective skepticism at the best of times, and is simply not credible.

For the rational people out there: we're not going to see the evidence, so we can simply stop speculating. Instead, it's a matter of trust. The US intelligence agencies, various bi-partisan senators and the POTUS or Donald "Pussygrabber" Trump and Vladimir Putin.

But the intelligence community is made up of a bunch of liberals appointed by Obama. (even those who have been working there for 20+ years). Someone needs to take Obama's time-machine away.

 

[The_Animus]

Is there evidence yet?

We're 9 pages in and I still haven't seen evidence

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there evidence yet?

We're 9 pages in and I still haven't seen evidence

All we have are conclusions from the intelligence community. They do not want to disclose the evidence to the public because it would hinder their lines of evidence-gathering. However, I think we can all agree that it is better to trust Trump and Breitbart on this, as they are more reliable sources on inforamation.

 

[The_Animus]

All we have are conclusions from the intelligence community. They do not want to disclose the evidence to the public because it would hinder their lines of evidence-gathering. However, I think we can all agree that it is better to trust Trump and Breitbart on this, as they are more reliable sources on inforamation.

As a skeptic I prefer evidence over blind trust of anyone. I know many here disagree.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As a skeptic I prefer evidence over blind trust of anyone. I know many here disagree.

Is it blind trust? These are vetted, non-partisan organizations that also cross-check each other. There is also the fact that much of Russia's attempt to influence elections were out in the open. As a skeptic, I weigh the conclusions of the intelligence community over the conclusion of Trump and his conspiracy theorist colleagues. Also, I trust Obama because he has a history of being trustworthy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Is it blind trust? These are vetted, non-partisan organizations

Certainly not vetted nor non partisan. They are more like police. They are simply not a credible assessor of facts.

 

[Reheat]

Is it blind trust? These are vetted, non-partisan organizations that also cross-check each other. There is also the fact that much of Russia's attempt to influence elections were out in the open. As a skeptic, I weigh the conclusions of the intelligence community over the conclusion of Trump and his conspiracy theorist colleagues. Also, I trust Obama because he has a history of being trustworthy.

Hehehehe then the sound of howling laughter.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Health Care costs will go down for everyone.
There's not a smidgen of corruption in the faux IRS scandal.
The attack was the result of a protest, not a planned attack.
The line in the sand was only imaginary
Hillary did nothing wrong

Evidently, your definition of trustworthy is different from mine...

 

[Reheat]

Is it blind trust? These are vetted, non-partisan organizations that also cross-check each other.

At some point in the past, I believe they were non-partisan, but not any more...
Vetted by whom?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hehehehe then the sound of howling laughter.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

True for over 98% of the population.

 

[caveman1917]

Is there evidence yet?

Nope. Well, interestingly enough, there is evidence in the thread that RT is providing better[*] coverage of it than the Washington Post. But to be fair, that's hardly a standard anyway.

* a strict superset along both the axes of amount of information and verifiability.

 

[caveman1917]

They do not want to disclose the evidence to the public because it would hinder their lines of evidence-gathering.

Evidence?

 

[caveman1917]

As a skeptic, I weigh the conclusions of the intelligence community over the conclusion of Trump and his conspiracy theorist colleagues.

You may be doing that, but how would you be doing that, specifically, as a skeptic? Especially since you even seem to fail to identify the conspiracy theory in the first place (hint: it's a theory which involves a conspiracy).

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You may be doing that, but how would you be doing that, specifically, as a skeptic? Especially since you even seem to fail to identify the conspiracy theory in the first place (hint: it's a theory which involves a conspiracy).

I see a conspiracy theory in which anyone who doesn't uncritically accept the intelligence community's assertions is a Trump scyophant, Breitbart fan, conspiracy loon, 'speculating wildly', 'stupid', not 'rational', etc.

This is apparently another area in which I find a lot of emotional flak being thrown up at anything less than full and unconditional support for the party orthodoxy. What's funny to me is that I'm way off to the left of the political frame of the U.S., but my expressing some reservations apparently places me with 'them'.

In the Obama era, I've sometimes corrected people who identify me as liberal with a "well, not quite" and a bit of a grin. I'm quickly approaching the point where I want to scoff and say "not even close."

 

[Reheat]

True for over 98% of the population.

Evidence?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Hehehehe then the sound of howling laughter.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
Health Care costs will go down for everyone.
There's not a smidgen of corruption in the faux IRS scandal.
The attack was the result of a protest, not a planned attack.
The line in the sand was only imaginary
Hillary did nothing wrong

Evidently, your definition of trustworthy is different from mine...

Evidently, my definition of a logical argument is different from yours, but I have a serious question: How do you personally "normalize" the fact that our next Commander in Chief is a sociopathic liar?

 

[Reheat]

Evidently, my definition of a logical argument is different from yours, but I have a serious question: How do you personally "normalize" the fact that our next Commander in Chief is a sociopathic liar?

How bout, first you tell me when you stopped beating your wife.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How bout, first you tell me when you stopped beating your wife.

Trump lies on a very frequent basis, more so than any political figure in modern history. Carry on.

 

[WilliamSeger]

How bout, first you tell me when you stopped beating your wife.

OK, I'll put you down as "denial," thanks. Can I ask another? How do you "normalize" the fact that the next Executive over the NSA, FBI, CIA, DoJ, etc. is obsessed with his own fragile ego and takes positive delight in revenge against the "enemies" who have injured it?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Evidence?

Here is a collection of estimates from the time

https://www.propublica.org/article/health-policy-canceled-what-we-know-and-dont-know

The most aggressive estimate is 80% of 14 million. 11 million/318 million people=3.4%. I went with a more middle estimate.

The reason so few people were affected as this primarily targeted the private insurance market. That was the smallest portion of the market.

 

[caveman1917]

What's funny to me is that I'm way off to the left of the political frame of the U.S., but my expressing some reservations apparently places me with 'them'.

Their minds are too small to even conceive of politics which doesn't fit into the tiny bit of wiggle room between the moderate and far right that is called the "political spectrum" in the US.