THE ERA OF TRUMP

[StCapps]

then have the goddam congressional hearing about it!

They should. It's all he said she said shit. I want to see the evidence.

Yeah no kidding, either give us the evidence or shut the fuck up and stop asking us to take the intelligence communities word for it. No matter how much ssu appeals to authority with no evidence, we aren't going to change our minds.

I bet if the intelligence community blamed China, Iran or North Korea then ssu would need to see evidence and wouldnt just take their word for it, but because they are blaming Russia he just believes them.

[ssu]

I bet if the intelligence community blamed China, Iran or North Korea then ssu would need to see evidence and wouldnt just take their word for it, but because they are blaming Russia he just believes them.

If it would be about the Spratly Islands or Taiwan, then it might have to do something with China. But haven't seen the Chinese media attacking Hillary, or the Chinese leader commenting the hackings. Yep, just look at one thing.

You just think this is a continuation of the campaign discourse and if Trump looks bad and the dems use it, that's the thing here. Ridiculing Trump. Well, it's not. I'll guess only after the honeymoon ends you'll start to think about it in another way.

[StCapps]

I'll guess only after the honeymoon ends you'll start to think about it in another way.

How about after they show any evidence? Why are you taking their word for it without any evidence? Appeal to authority fallacy at it's finest. You're just scared of the Russian boogeyman and will believe any smack talked about them, evidence is irrelevant to you, the experts must be believed regardless of how much evidence they provide to back up their claims. If it conforms to your anti-Russian bias, it must be true, no evidence required, confirmation bias is all you need.

[de officiis]

How about the Dems come out with a report detailing how their computer network was sufficiently lame that it was hacked, and what their plans are to prevent it in the future.

[ssu]

I'll guess only after the honeymoon ends you'll start to think about it in another way.

How about after they show any evidence? Why are you taking their word for it without any evidence? Appeal to authority fallacy at it's finest. You're just scared of the Russian boogeyman and will believe any smack talked about them, evidence is irrelevant to you, the experts must be believed regardless of how much evidence they provide to back up their claims. If it conforms to your anti-Russian bias, it must be true, no evidence required, confirmation bias is all you need.

I've tried to prove my point from looking at the thing from a bigger perspective, from that it's obvious that Russia has been active in quite a lot of fronts when it came to the US election, but fuck do you care about that. As if there would be some evidence that some CIA could give you would believe.

The only thing that can change your mind if Trump changes his stance. Because then it wouldn't be about the sore loser democrats tarnishing Trumps reputation and the election win that you think this is all about.

Now when something is hype or hysteria about the Russian bear, then it's that. There's a lot of that too. Just start with all the nonsense of imminent WW3 coming:

Like...

World War 3’ Talk Spreads After Andrey Karlov’s Assassination

World War 3 threat: Russia 'primed to invade Europe in 2017'

Or one hilarious one from the British crap tabloid Daily Mail:

Putin sends a squadron of Russia’s new Su-35S fighter jets to the Finnish border in latest move indicating the Kremlin is preparing for war
(Well, sending 4 Su-27 fighters to a SU-27 fighter base isn't an indication of preparing for war.)

Basically all above are made there for the ignorant chicken little's to buy a paper.

[StCapps]

I've tried to prove my point from looking at the thing from a bigger perspective, from that it's obvious that Russia has been active in quite a lot of fronts when it came to the US election, but fuck do you care about that. As if there would be some evidence that some CIA could give you would believe.

If they have any evidence Russia did it, and they present, then I'll believe it. As long as it's only "take our word for it, we're the experts", I'll remain skeptical. You pretending that I wouldn't believe any evidence if they presented it, and will only change my mind if Trump does, because I'm a Trump nutthugger, that's just terrible psychoanalysis, nothing more. Fuck off.

[ssu]

You pretending that I wouldn't believe any evidence if they presented it

What evidence would you believe? A thorough Congressional hearing and the 150-page document published to the public?

and will only change my mind if Trump does, because I'm a Trump nutthugger, that's just terrible psychoanalysis, nothing more. Fuck off.

Oh yes, Now I remember, you were the Trump flip-flopper in the old DCF.

But if Trump later as President might change his view on Russia... that wouldn't change anything to you? Ok.

Yep, you don't even read what I write. Or get what I write.

[StCapps]

What evidence would you believe? A thorough Congressional hearing and the 150-page document published to the public?

Anything that amounts to more than "trust us, we're the experts". That would be swell, still waiting.

[TheReal_ND]

How about the Dems come out with a report detailing how their computer network was sufficiently lame that it was hacked, and what their plans are to prevent it in the future.

Report summary:
use google to learn elementary opsec

[Okeefenokee]

They don't get the benefit of the doubt. They blew that. If they don't have any evidence that they can present saying, "look. this is how we know," then they don't have any business saying a fucking word in the first place. If that's the case, the entire agency needs to go. Every fucking person there barred for life from ever working in the US government.

A foreign government rigging an election is something that could start a war, and if they're making all this talk without any evidence, they have to go.