In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
What I find especially hilarious about it is that Hillary's team wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination more than the Republican establishment. By the fracking measure, that means her own team was doing Russia's dirty work.
On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote: since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle. if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america. unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them. not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
What do you call someone who you don't want back in society and can't be rehabilitated? How is society improved by keeping them alive? How are bettered as a people?
-For a reason I explained before but you skipped, the more people you kill, the more will inevitably mistakes. You can't reverse an execution. You can let someone out of a cell. -We're not supposed to kill people without good reason. That's actually one of the most serious things we punish people for. To quote yourself earlier, "why bother?" What does killing people accomplish? Why is killing someone your default position? Provide some kind of positive reason, even if it's as cynical as saving you the tax money of keeping someone alive vs. the cost of a bullet. Is that all this is about?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: It takes 4 years to complete high school and about 10ish years to complete a PhD (usually much less)
What percentage of people serving prison sentences of 10+ years do you think would successfully defend their PhD thesis if the state subsidized their education instead of a law-abiding citizen's?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: What are we doing in a prison that needs more than 6-8 years to complete when it only takes 10 years to make a person an elite expert on a knowledge or skill-set?
They're making license plates and busy not stealing, trafficking, raping, assaulting, torturing, and murdering people in society.
On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote: since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle. if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america. unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them. not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
What do you call someone who you don't want back in society and can't be rehabilitated? How is society improved by keeping them alive? How are bettered as a people?
-For a reason I explained before but you skipped, the more people you kill, the more will inevitably mistakes. You can't reverse an execution. You can let someone out of a cell. -We're not supposed to kill people without good reason. That's actually one of the most serious things we punish people for. To quote yourself earlier, "why bother?" What does killing people accomplish? Why is killing someone your default position? Provide some kind of positive reason, even if it's as cynical as saving you the tax money of keeping someone alive vs. the cost of a bullet. Is that all this is about?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: It takes 4 years to complete high school and about 10ish years to complete a PhD (usually much less)
What percentage of people serving prison sentences of 10+ years do you think would successfully defend their PhD thesis if the state subsidized their education instead of a law-abiding citizen's?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: What are we doing in a prison that needs more than 6-8 years to complete when it only takes 10 years to make a person an elite expert on a knowledge or skill-set?
They're making license plates and busy not stealing, trafficking, raping, assaulting, torturing, and murdering people in society.
If you believe that these people will naturally rape, kill, and steal--then you'd rather enslave them than kill them? Sure, I can buy that argument. But i am fairly certain you hold no moral high ground in that department.
And if your rehabilitation program can't fix these people--then are you really trying to rehabilitate them? Or are you just burning money to create more criminals to throw back into the population?
Its fairly simple--we can make programs that only takes 10ish years to produce skilled members of society. We have military programs that supposedly instills discipline in the span of a few years. And yet, somehow, our supposed "rehabilitation programs" can't rehabilitate people?
And if believe these people can't be rehabilitated, because they would just (as you said) rape, kill, and steal from the world--then doesn't that mean you would rather they never affect the world at all?
Now, to your credit, you wanting to enslave them seems to be what you would define as the nice thing to do. But I don't believe it is humane to enslave people in a program that does nothing but ensure they and their progeny can never recover out of being slaves.
But we just have different ideas on what counts as moral.
On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote: since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle. if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america. unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them. not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
What do you call someone who you don't want back in society and can't be rehabilitated? How is society improved by keeping them alive? How are bettered as a people?
-For a reason I explained before but you skipped, the more people you kill, the more will inevitably mistakes. You can't reverse an execution. You can let someone out of a cell. -We're not supposed to kill people without good reason. That's actually one of the most serious things we punish people for. To quote yourself earlier, "why bother?" What does killing people accomplish? Why is killing someone your default position? Provide some kind of positive reason, even if it's as cynical as saving you the tax money of keeping someone alive vs. the cost of a bullet. Is that all this is about?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: It takes 4 years to complete high school and about 10ish years to complete a PhD (usually much less)
What percentage of people serving prison sentences of 10+ years do you think would successfully defend their PhD thesis if the state subsidized their education instead of a law-abiding citizen's?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: What are we doing in a prison that needs more than 6-8 years to complete when it only takes 10 years to make a person an elite expert on a knowledge or skill-set?
They're making license plates and busy not stealing, trafficking, raping, assaulting, torturing, and murdering people in society.
If you believe that these people will naturally rape, kill, and steal--then you'd rather enslave them than kill them? Sure, I can buy that argument. But i am fairly certain you hold no moral high ground in that department.
And if your rehabilitation program can't fix these people--then are you really trying to rehabilitate them? Or are you just burning money to create more criminals to throw back into the population?
Its fairly simple--we can make programs that only takes 10ish years to produce skilled members of society. We have military programs that supposedly instills discipline in the span of a few years. And yet, somehow, our supposed "rehabilitation programs" can't rehabilitate people?
And if believe these people can't be rehabilitated, because they would just (as you said) rape, kill, and steal from the world--then doesn't that mean you would rather they never affect the world at all?
If your standard of rehabilitation is PhD scholars, then no, we can't. If it's someone who can hold a job and doesn't commit crimes against other human beings, then yes, we can do it, but not necessarily. Do you or don't you think that there's a set of people who cannot be rehabilitated? Because that's not the sole role of the criminal justice system. It's also deterrence, justice/revenge, and keeping people safe.
On January 07 2017 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now, to your credit, you wanting to enslave them seems to be what you would define as the nice thing to do. But I don't believe it is humane to enslave people in a program that does nothing but ensure they and their progeny can never recover out of being slaves.
But we just have different ideas on what counts as moral.
Yes, I personally believe it's more inhumane to rape 100 people than it is to put the person who does that into a tiny box for the rest of their life with food and a TV (with The Cosby Show in syndication).
On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote: since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle. if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america. unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them. not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
What do you call someone who you don't want back in society and can't be rehabilitated? How is society improved by keeping them alive? How are bettered as a people?
-For a reason I explained before but you skipped, the more people you kill, the more will inevitably mistakes. You can't reverse an execution. You can let someone out of a cell. -We're not supposed to kill people without good reason. That's actually one of the most serious things we punish people for. To quote yourself earlier, "why bother?" What does killing people accomplish? Why is killing someone your default position? Provide some kind of positive reason, even if it's as cynical as saving you the tax money of keeping someone alive vs. the cost of a bullet. Is that all this is about?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: It takes 4 years to complete high school and about 10ish years to complete a PhD (usually much less)
What percentage of people serving prison sentences of 10+ years do you think would successfully defend their PhD thesis if the state subsidized their education instead of a law-abiding citizen's?
On January 07 2017 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: What are we doing in a prison that needs more than 6-8 years to complete when it only takes 10 years to make a person an elite expert on a knowledge or skill-set?
They're making license plates and busy not stealing, trafficking, raping, assaulting, torturing, and murdering people in society.
If you believe that these people will naturally rape, kill, and steal--then you'd rather enslave them than kill them? Sure, I can buy that argument. But i am fairly certain you hold no moral high ground in that department.
And if your rehabilitation program can't fix these people--then are you really trying to rehabilitate them? Or are you just burning money to create more criminals to throw back into the population?
Its fairly simple--we can make programs that only takes 10ish years to produce skilled members of society. We have military programs that supposedly instills discipline in the span of a few years. And yet, somehow, our supposed "rehabilitation programs" can't rehabilitate people?
And if believe these people can't be rehabilitated, because they would just (as you said) rape, kill, and steal from the world--then doesn't that mean you would rather they never affect the world at all?
If your standard of rehabilitation is PhD scholars, then no, we can't. If it's someone who can hold a job and doesn't commit crimes against other human beings, then yes, we can do it, but not necessarily. Do you or don't you think that there's a set of people who cannot be rehabilitated? Because that's not the sole role of the criminal justice system. It's also deterrence, justice/revenge, and keeping people safe.
On January 07 2017 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now, to your credit, you wanting to enslave them seems to be what you would define as the nice thing to do. But I don't believe it is humane to enslave people in a program that does nothing but ensure they and their progeny can never recover out of being slaves.
But we just have different ideas on what counts as moral.
Yes, I personally believe it's more inhumane to rape 100 people than it is to put the person who does that into a tiny box for the rest of their life with food and a TV (with The Cosby Show in syndication).
I believe that rehabilitation should take less time and energy than getting a PhD. I believe torturing someone for the rest of their life is less humane than euthanizing people who can't be saved.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Luckily we now have an inside look into how RT operates:
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
I'm fairly certain that the only "proof" they have comes from various forms of extreme interrogations and illegal "listening in"
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
I'm fairly certain that the only "proof" they have comes from various forms of extreme interrogations and illegal "listening in"
The problem is that "only classified proof" looks exactly the same as "we're just making shit up."
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
I'm fairly certain that the only "proof" they have comes from various forms of extreme interrogations and illegal "listening in"
The problem is that "only classified proof" looks exactly the same as "we're just making shit up."
Evidence you can't share is not *really* evidence.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
Going back to what I've been saying; the CIA and FBI should have said nothing and dealt with the problem however they see fit. Showing up and saying they have proof and not showing anything does nothing but divide the country.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
He won formally in that the electoral college chose him as president. I really doubt that, were this to go to court, that they would rule against his victory (any law folks think otherwise?). And that would mostly be the end of that.
If there really is such a ridiculously strong case against Russian hacking that not only could it be determined that they did it, but also that they influenced the election in pursuit of a certain candidate's victory (let's face it, there is no way that in such a razor-thin margin election, that people weren't swayed by the leaks), then that is a matter of public interest that requires a level of transparency that may not be common in intelligence work.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false or unsubstantiated (with a quick web search in Russian), that look like they could have been taken out of a Clinton campaign list of talking points.
So if this was the bombshell proof, I certainly hope the cleared people got more. Because this report actually reduces my confidence in the CIA-led narrative.
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
It just so happens that everything RT does correlates with Russian interests.
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
Trump has not denied the Russians are involved after seeing the top secret evidence. Do you have any doubt that if the evidence was anything other than overwhelming that the first thing Trump would do afterwards is tell everyone how unconvincing it was?
Maybe he wanted some time to think about it? Fuck if I know, I don't speak for Trump - nor am I making the argument that Russia didn't do it for that matter. My argument is simply, provide proof. Which that report didn't do. Which is possibly understandable if you simply take the "the proof involved secret methods" approach but the other issue is a lot of their conclusions could be very quickly proven false by any person capable of conducting a Russian language web search. Which, to be fair, is probably almost no one in government who read the report.
No government would give the exact details you are asking for.
I have seen more than what was given here in previous accusations of hackery. Here is an example that gives very specific actions, describing in full detail exactly what was done by Chinese hackers. I might question whether this is enough for a conviction but it's far more than a list of conclusions and I would say it's a pretty solid case for Chinese hacking in and of itself.
Why is this case immune from having to provide proof for assertions?
Because if there is solid proof that the elections were significantly impacted by Russia, indisputable proof that Trump technically didn't win. Then this country could possibly be dragged into a civil war.
He won formally in that the electoral college chose him as president. I really doubt that, were this to go to court, that they would rule against his victory (any law folks think otherwise?). And that would mostly be the end of that.
If there really is such a ridiculously strong case against Russian hacking that not only could it be determined that they did it, but also that they influenced the election in pursuit of a certain candidate's victory (let's face it, there is no way that in such a razor-thin margin election, that people weren't swayed by the leaks), then that is a matter of public interest that requires a level of transparency that may not be common in intelligence work.
Instead, we got a 25-page list of assertions without support, some of which I could easily demonstrate to be false or unsubstantiated (with a quick web search in Russian), that look like they could have been taken out of a Clinton campaign list of talking points.
So if this was the bombshell proof, I certainly hope the cleared people got more. Because this report actually reduces my confidence in the CIA-led narrative.
I was mostly answering your question of why they would be skittish with sharing proof with election tampering vs corporate hacks.
The side effect of corporate hacks is sanctions/lawsuits.
The side effects of election manipulation is possibly a breakdown of law and order across this country with half the nation accusing Obama of using federal influence to counteract the will of the electorate.
I am assuming they don't have rock solid proof. Or, at least, not rock solid proof that was acquired in a way that could be made public.
As such, we instead get probably the same thing congressmen and the president got--a redacted piece of shit nothing from some skittish spies who are afraid of rocking the boat too hard.
Surely if the CIA decided that they were confident enough to share their "consensus view" with WaPo, the reasoning for that "consensus view" is sufficient to be able to make the argument? After all, they apparently got the FBI on board, so it can't just be bunk.
On January 07 2017 09:53 LegalLord wrote: Surely if the CIA decided that they were confident enough to share their "consensus view" with WaPo, the reasoning for that "consensus view" is sufficient to be able to make the argument? After all, they apparently got the FBI on board, so it can't just be bunk.
It definitely can be bunk but, being an that I'm an actual independent, I have more trust in them than most. As such, I'm willing to believe they aren't "Lying" although I would not go so far as believe that they are telling me the truth. Consensus view is enough for me--its just not enough for me to call it evidence.
I'm still in the opinion that they should have kept their mouths shut and just asked permission from the sitting president to respond to their findings as they see fit; wetworks style if need be.
I'd say there's an argument that the RT propaganda coverage alone constitutes a hostile act. How are they even allowed to operate from within the US lol.
EPT
