> The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof.
I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).
Especially considering:
- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:
- The dishonest reporting we've been reading in the Russian Hacker news for several years now (claims that the Twitter accounts are known to be Russian, when Twitter itself said no such thing) - when I catch someone lying, the trustworthiness of their stories based on "confidential" sources and claims decreases. Does this seem unreasonable?
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."
The United States Government has a long history of lying.
Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.
You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?
Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.
Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.
EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.
There are court documents in the Papdopoulus, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Stone and Flynn cases. Have you read the court filings to see the evidence? How much of the Mueller Report have you read?
==I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).==
Again, this justification could be used to back up any belief when it comes to government. It is a convenient way to brush off all the lying, obstruction, indictments and convictions as some mere conspiracy. Blanket cynicism (and whataboutism) isn't a valid replacement for actual analysis. That we have hacked other countries doesn't change the facts of what Trump and his campaign did. They are entirely different cases that can be discussed on their own.
==Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.==
Odd that you say this as we are sending more soldiers to the Middle East [1]. What about the 1,000 soldiers and military activities happening in Niger under his leadership [2]? The bombings (often of civilians) in Yemen [3]? Attacking a Syrian airfield [4]? Did you see hard evidence that Iran bombed the oil tanker [5]?
In making these decisions, Trump is using the same intelligence community that you and he both say is corrupt and untrustworthy [6]. It makes it appear that he only wants to discredit them when it affects him (Russia investigation) personally.
None of this even gets into the obstruction of justice, felonies related to campaign finance, numerous campaign officials in prison or under indictment, or taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies in Helsinki. This gives us a view into the type of person Trump is and the company he keeps. You have decided to support that, which is your choice. I don't agree with your attempts to blame it on Democrats, the media or the intelligence committee. Just own it.
I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).
Especially considering:
- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:
- The dishonest reporting we've been reading in the Russian Hacker news for several years now (claims that the Twitter accounts are known to be Russian, when Twitter itself said no such thing) - when I catch someone lying, the trustworthiness of their stories based on "confidential" sources and claims decreases. Does this seem unreasonable?- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War (see any familiar names in there??)
- This: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mu...
The United States Government has a long history of lying.
Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.
Look at some of these pictures:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/iraq-war-bodies?mediatype=...
You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?
Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.
Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.
EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf