CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails...

[DivineOb]

Right, so it's the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for clarifying.

First, it wouldn't be an ad hominem fallacy if it were true and relevant.

Secondly, I'm not engaging in that because I'm asking why I should believe your claims are well researched given that you are constantly throwing out totally baseless claims. If you care to change that behavior then I'll be more than happy to hear your arguments. I'm asking if this will be that time. It appears not.

[seanD]

MM, I've already demonstrated you to be totally unwilling to actually dig into the original data sources when drawing your conclusions (e.g. the supposed FBI docs which demonstrate lying and evidence withholding). Why should we assume you have actually looked in depth at the original sources in this case (e.g. the Mueller Report itself)?

DNC dump doesn't necessarily support Russian election meddling (even assuming Moscow was directly involved), and this is further countered by the fact that there may be info that Russia actually preferred Hillary over Trump. We don't know the intent of whoever dumped that info, whether they were trying to sway election results or they just didn't like the DNC, the democratic party, Hillary, everyone else exposed in the emails, or all the above, whether it was political or personal, etc. A lot of corrupt folks were exposed in those emails (and that was a good thing, regardless of whose hand it was). Hillary was at the center because she was the DNC goddess at the time, so a lot of the emails naturally revolved around her.

[DivineOb]

DNC dump doesn't necessarily support Russian election meddling (even assuming Moscow was directly involved),

I try not to cut up your messages these days but I have to stop you here. How *exactly* would Russia being directly involved in the hack not support the idea that Russia interfered?

and this is further countered by the fact that there may be info that Russia actually preferred Hillary over Trump. We don't know the intent of whoever dumped that info, whether they were trying to sway election results or they just didn't like the DNC, the democratic party, Hillary, everyone else exposed in the emails, or all the above, whether it was political or personal, etc. A lot of corrupt folks were exposed in those emails (and that was a good thing, regardless of whose hand it was). Hillary was at the center because she was the DNC goddess at the time, so a lot of the emails naturally revolved around her.

Life is not built around certainty. It is built around drawing the best conclusions supported by the evidence available to us. The evidence we have in front of us says Russia interfered because they preferred Trump. That is the opinion of *every one* of our intelligence agencies who have weighed in. If you have some *concrete* evidence to the contrary I will be more than happy to look at it. But just because there is some vague allegation on FLC I'm not obligated to conclude that "we can't know for sure." The evidence we have in front of us points *overwhelmingly* in one direction.

I *might* be a Mountain Man sock account! Should we "reserve judgement" just because the possibility, supported by nothing concrete, exists?

[seanD]

I try not to cut up your messages these days but I have to stop you here. How *exactly* would Russia being directly involved in the hack not support the idea that Russia interfered?



Life is not built around certainty. It is built around drawing the best conclusions supported by the evidence available to us. The evidence we have in front of us says Russia interfered because they preferred Trump. That is the opinion of *every one* of our intelligence agencies who have weighed in. If you have some *concrete* evidence to the contrary I will be more than happy to look at it. But just because there is some vague allegation on FLC I'm not obligated to conclude that "we can't know for sure." The evidence we have in front of us points *overwhelmingly* in one direction.

I *might* be a Mountain Man sock account! Should we "reserve judgement" just because the possibility, supported by nothing concrete, exists?

I don't have evidence against it because how can I prove a negative? I can't. I don't trust intelligence agencies because they have a history of untrustworthiness. As far as I'm concerned, they have zero credibility here. They always need an international boogieman to justify both their insane budgets and their global military meddling, so it would make sense they'd gin up as much fake or exaggerated intel as possible, because this is what they do. It was that way during the Bush admin (when it was Muslim boogiemen), and it's still that way. As far as the rest, I refer you to Ronson's post#27. There is a difference between Russians were involved and Russia was involved. The latter has more geopolitical ramifications.

[DivineOb]

I don't have evidence against it because how can I prove a negative? I can't. I don't trust intelligence agencies because they have a history of untrustworthiness. As far as I'm concerned, they have zero credibility here. They always need an international boogieman to justify both their insane budgets and their global military meddling, so it would make sense they'd gin up as much fake or exaggerated intel as possible, because this is what they do. It was that way during the Bush admin (when it was Muslim boogiemen), and it's still that way. As far as the rest, I refer you to Ronson's post#27. There is a difference between Russians were involved and Russia was involved. The latter has more geopolitical ramifications.

It is sad that you trust our government so little to do the right thing. I'd be happy to explore what reasons you have for distrusting our intelligence services so strongly. I fear that you're buying into more RWNJ hype. Do you really want to be in the same group which cheers Q on?

If Ronson or anyone thinks the decision to directly interfere in an American election were undertaken without the direct approval of Putin then they don't know what they're talking about or the first thing about how Russia works. Not worth my time.

[Juvenal]

DNC dump doesn't necessarily support Russian election meddling (even assuming Moscow was directly involved), and this is further countered by the fact that there may be info that Russia actually preferred Hillary over Trump.

There is substantial evidence that Putin would never have supported Hillary under any circumstances.

[seanD]

It is sad that you trust our government so little to do the right thing. I'd be happy to explore what reasons you have for distrusting our intelligence services so strongly. I fear that you're buying into more RWNJ hype. Do you really want to be in the same group which cheers Q on?

If Ronson or anyone thinks the decision to directly interfere in an American election were undertaken without the direct approval of Putin then they don't know what they're talking about or the first thing about how Russia works. Not worth my time.

I've always distrusted intelligence, as you once did after we all discovered the BS surrounding the Iraq war, remember? It's just I've been consistent about it. And I find it kind of funny you guys are focused on Russia instead of the content of the emails. Obviously if Russia had the intention of sabotaging Hillary's election chances by dumping those emails, they apparently knew beforehand how corrupt she and DNC was which necessitated exposing those emails via the hack in the first place.

[DivineOb]

I've always distrusted intelligence, as you once did after we all discovered the BS surrounding the Iraq war, remember? It's just I've been consistent about it. And I find it kind of funny you guys are focused on Russia instead of the content of the emails. Obviously if Russia had the intention of sabotaging Hillary's election chances by dumping those emails, they apparently knew beforehand how corrupt she and DNC was which necessitated exposing those emails via the hack in the first place.

I have never stated that I completely distrust our intelligence services due to Iraq at any time. There were intelligence failures relating to Iraq but the lion's share of the blame lies with Cheney et al.

Why would Russia have to *know* or even *suspect* that HRC was corrupt beforehand? That makes no sense. Odds are you will find private emails from *any* politician which, when selectively leaked and spun by RWNJ "news", will appear damning. I go through training every year at my job about things not to say over email because of what would happen if there were a lawsuit and those emails were exposed. Besides which, what corruption was actually "exposed" in the email leak? This seems to hit the major points, none of which sounds *that* bad. And none of it would have been known to the Russians prior to the hack in any case.

[seanD]

I have never stated that I completely distrust our intelligence services due to Iraq at any time. There were intelligence failures relating to Iraq but the lion's share of the blame lies with Cheney et al.

Why would Russia have to *know* or even *suspect* that HRC was corrupt beforehand? That makes no sense. Odds are you will find private emails from *any* politician which, when selectively leaked and spun by RWNJ "news", will appear damning. I go through training every year at my job about things not to say over email because of what would happen if there were a lawsuit and those emails were exposed. Besides which, what corruption was actually "exposed" in the email leak? This seems to hit the major points, none of which sounds *that* bad. And none of it would have been known to the Russians prior to the hack in any case.

I get yet another kick how you and carp think this is all just rightwingism. A whole lot more people were combing over the emails and marveling at the corruption of Hillary and the DNC than just the political right. Either you're just dense in regards to that or you're being dishonest like carp is about these things just to score cheap tweb points. Cheney worked in collusion with a lot of the CIA intel chiefs. Look up Lawrence Wilkerson and get his perspective of it. I was also referencing what went down with all the torture and CIA completely fabricating intel docs to justify it (not to mention the fact they destroyed torture tapes). Educate yourself and then back to me when you're up to snuff. I'm done with you for now until you can show me you're not just ignorant about these things.

[DivineOb]

I get yet another kick how you and carp think this is all just rightwingism. A whole lot more people were combing over the emails and marveling at the corruption of Hillary and the DNC than just the political right. Either you're just dense in regards to that or you're being dishonest like carp is about these things just to score cheap tweb points. Cheney worked in collusion with a lot of the CIA intel chiefs. Look up Lawrence Wilkerson and get his perspective of it. I was also referencing what went down with all the torture and CIA completely fabricating intel docs to justify it (not to mention the fact they destroyed torture tapes). Educate yourself and then back to me when you're up to snuff. I'm done with you for now until you can show me you're not just ignorant about these things.

I linked you what I thought was a fairly comprehensive article. If there are items you think at missing from that list of 18 please loop me in. I was a Bernie or Buster back in those days so I doubt you know of much I haven't already heard of.

Ok, I guess you're done with me. Well, if you're up for giving me another walloping we can dig more into what you think I need to learn about the torture program. I admit to not knowing much about it since I was opposed to it because I don't like torture (unlike Republicans) and already know that torture doesn't work. Is using "enhanced interrogation" out of vogue now? Is torture not cool now that 24 is off the air?