Donald Trump Backs Assange over Russian Hacking claims...

originally posted by: windwordFor me, the preponderance of the evidence that is available to me, combined with my own common sense and life experiences, rests with my own government's word. Much like the way you give lean to a police officer's testimony in court over a bystander or friend of the victim.

And that's your choice if that's the metric that you use--so in essence, this "preponderance of evidence" is proof enough for you. That's fine. I have a different standard of proof, because I refuse to just disregard the opinions and more in-depth discussion on the matter of how the hacking took place from people equally as intelligent on the matter of hacking, if not more intelligent, than those in the federal government.

One's position or rank alone is not enough to sway me--that's where critical thinking comes into play. Plenty of federal agencies and employees have lied, even under oath, and even en masse, in order to achieve an end game. Like I mentioned before, if you or others choose to disregard the declining credibility that these agencies have, that's up to you. If you want to disregard evidence contrary to their claims, that's up to you. Honestly, everything is up to you.

All I'm saying is that the government's credibility and quality of evidence that they've made known so far is not enough to convince me, yet. That's an okay stance to take at this moment in time.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And that's your choice if that's the metric that you use--so in essence, this "preponderance of evidence" is proof enough for you. That's fine. I have a different standard of proof, because I refuse to just disregard the opinions and more in-depth discussion on the matter of how the hacking took place from people equally as intelligent on the matter of hacking, if not more intelligent, than those in the federal government.

Oh, okay, I get it.......your opinion carries more weight than mine, because your "righter" than me. But whose opinions do you value? Not the US Intelligence community, not the FBI, not the CIA, not NSA.....Nope, you trust Donald Trump knows something other people don't know, which we'll find out about Tuesday or Wednesday.

I'm guessing that what Trump knew was that Julian Assange was going to do a public interview with Sean Hannity, and convince the public by dancing artfully around the topic, that the Russians weren't responsible to the hack. But for all their song and dance, Assange only asserted that HE didn't receive in the info from a Russian state agent, NOT that it wasn't procured by Russians actors, as the US intel community as asserted.

So, no new evidence that clears Russia, just deflection, distraction, half truths and missing facts.

You choose to lend credence to those who support your bias, regardless of "proof" as you see it, or not.

BTW, thanks for graciously allowing me my (incorrect) opinion.

a reply to: windword

Get over yourself. There's no evidence explicitly linking Russia, so there doesn't need to be new evidence exonerating them.

Deflections, distraction, half truths and missing facts are what was just regurgitated at a congressional hearing.

I don't understand why you can't accept that some of us have weighed the evidence presented and found it wanting, and fail to just accept the claims at face value. Why is that so hard to grasp and accept?

I had zero bias one way or the other concerning Russia's involvement--hell, at the start of it all, I assumed that the intelligence linking them to the hack was correct. Then I started paying attention to more than just one side of the argument. I suppose that's the difference between you and I--well, that, and I like evidence to be shown, valid, and be enough to satisfy a burden of proof.

Call me nuts...or an America hater, or whatever else ad hominem attack you feel is necessary to fulfill your need for a tantrum because I don't agree with you.

But let me quote myself again so that maybe it'll sink in:

All I'm saying is that the government's credibility and quality of evidence that they've made known so far is not enough to convince me, yet. That's an okay stance to take at this moment in time.

Again, this is hard to understand and accept why?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Get over yourself. There's no evidence explicitly linking Russia, so there doesn't need to be new evidence exonerating them.

You mean that the intelligence community hasn't shared their evidence with you? Get over yourself! There is evidence, unless you want to call the entire intelligence community liars. The evidence is classified and the intelligence community has no obligation to run their evidence by you!

They have told you this, again and again. The information is classified. That's why it wasn't even given to the Arms Committee, at the briefing this morning. They advised the committee as to the results of their findings. "The Russians were responsible for the DNC hackings.

Deflections, distraction, half truths and missing facts are what was just regurgitated at a congressional hearing.

You are perfectly willing to accept deception and deflection from Donald Trump and Julian Assange, a cyber fence whose agenda is to undermine and disparage the US Intelligence community, because it fits your pro-Trump, anti-Obama bias.

I don't understand why you can't accept that some of us have weighed the evidence presented and found it wanting, and fail to just accept the claims at face value. Why is that so hard to grasp and accept?

It's because you don't have a right to demand classified evidence. You're never going to get it. The President knows stuff that other people do not. He knows what the intel community knows, and other people do not, not even Donald Trump. The people who know what the evidence is, the President, a few lawmakers and the intel community are telling you that they, through their procedures and to their satisfaction, have determined the Russians "did it". You either trust your own government, or you trust the Russians. That's your choice.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You mean that the intelligence community hasn't shared their evidence with you?
...[blah blah blah]...
They advised the committee as to the results of their findings. "The Russians were responsible for the DNC hackings.

So we're back to the just-take-their-word-for-it argument. This is an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy. Stop using it.

You are perfectly willing to accept deception and deflection from Donald Trump ...[blah blah blah]... because it fits your pro-Trump, anti-Obama bias.

More evidence that you understand nothing about the point of my discussion, nor my political leanings. This doesn't help your credibility.

You either trust your own government, or you trust the Russians. That's your choice.

Jesus Christ, man...those aren't the only two options in life. Another logical fallacy--good show.

If I didn't think that you were so serious in your arguments and claims, I'd be certain that you were punking me right now.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So we're back to the just-take-their-word-for-it argument. This is an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy. Stop using it.

You can whine and cry and moan and groan all you want, but you'll never see the evidence, because it's classified! All you're going to get is our government's word for it, or Trump/Julian Assange parroting the Russian's side.

This doesn't help your credibility.

My credibility isn't on the line. You're doubting the credibility of your government. Did you reject the intel when the US Intelligence community declared China to be the perpetrators the US Civil Servant Data Base hack? How about the claim that N Korea hacked Sony? Did you see the evidence?

If I didn't think that you were so serious in your arguments and claims, I'd be certain that you were punking me right now.

Likewise. It feels like the American people are being punked by Trump and Co! It would be entertaining, if it wasn't so damn sad.

a reply to: Davg80

No where on any article or reports on TV did I ever hear Trump say, "Donald Trump Backs Assange over Russian Hacking claims...".

Sorry another fake news story generated by the MSM.

As I have posted on another thread, why can't both be correct? The Russians hacking, along with who knows how many others, and the insider providing the emails to Assange could also be factual. Why assume that a Russian hack was the source of the emails?

a reply to: pteridine

It is now believed that Snowden was in with China and Russian syndicates hacking identities for a profit.

No reason why it could not have been the Russian mafia (which Putin is said to have affiliations with).

But the fake news is that Trump is siding with Assange.

heres the latest part to the story, it feels as if a giant pot of Shhh is being stirred as we speak.
www.bbc.co.uk...
"The US has identified the Russian agents behind alleged hacking ahead of the presidential election won by Donald Trump in November, reports say.
The agents, whose names have not been released, are alleged to have sent stolen Democratic emails to WikiLeaks to try to swing the vote for Mr Trump.
Russia denies any involvement and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Moscow was not the source.
Intelligence officials are due to brief Mr Trump, who doubts the claims, later."

Russian outlets are saying...... wheres the proof. Oh we cant show you the proof cause its Top Secret, lol. unaccountability= Top Secret + Classified
whats the end game anyway??? What if it was Russia or Snowden or China...... whats gonna happen about it, got some more atomic bombs lying around.
Time to take the power from the psycopaths.

"What about Russian media? By BBC Monitoring
The pro-Kremlin media line is that the US authorities have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their presidential campaign hacking accusations.
The official Rossiya 24 TV channel says the "US secret services have still not supplied a single piece of evidence", while the popular Gazeta.ru web site says Washington has "still not provided any convincing technical data".
Opposition websites largely cover what the major US networks are reporting, and all note the Kremlin's denial of involvement."

a reply to: ChesterJohn

if he was to say that, he would probably say it exactly like that, People with a God Complex tend to speak about themselves in the 3rd person...
in fact if you say that exact sentence like you'd imagine a neanderthal saying it, Yeah that sounds like something my mate Trumpy would say.

in fact heres an example of how he states things..
Trump in 2010: WikiLeaks 'disgraceful,' there 'should be like death penalty or something'

You gotta love him, Drain that swamp Trumpy

a reply to: introvert

The CIA needs their own drain swamping to do as well as the FBI. Both sides are obviously corrupted which is why we shouldnt trust them.

I suggest people do some researching on their own on what the CIA's real purpose is. It is certainly not a trust worthy agency. Why is it so hard to believe that there is reason for people to not trust such agencies? Noone should be naive, and everyone should question such things and not be mindless sheeps obeying everything other's say. I say rely on your own senses instead and real eyes realize the real lies.

If such agencies are corrupt, then it is time to shut them down and create a better, moral, just/fair agency that works and is appointed by the people. NOT the government.

I am all for destruction of the old and the coming of the new people's order.

a reply to: network dude

Yea, he should just sit back and wait until Obama can manufacture enough outrage to form a committee to oust Trump before the inauguration.

That is what it's ALL About.

By hook or by crook.

Stealing the election one way or another.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And it seems that you fail to learn from history or see the larger picture about making claims with only claimed proof.

Proof and evidence are two different things. I don't require proof.

In this case, unlike the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we have our government claiming that the DNC hacks were from Russian agents and the Russians saying "Not so." Who to believe? It's obvious to me that I need to trust my government over the Russians.

I also don't find it helpful that Trump continues to advocate that Americans trust Russia's word over US intelligence agencies. I find it disturbing evidence of Trump unfitness to be Commander in Chief of the USA.

You said I know my government lied to me but I need trust them over a government that may have never lied to me.

What you really need to do.

Wake up and enter reality. But apparently that is not an option for you.

I don't find it helpful that you are telling me to trust known liars.

When has Assange Lied? What has he released that was untrue? He has my trust until he lies to me.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Russia has lied plenty. I trust my own government to look after my best interests over Russia and that anti-American criminal Julian Assange and even PE Donald Trump!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Isurrender73

Russia has lied plenty. I trust my own government to look after my nest interests over Russia and that anti-American criminal Julian Assange and even PE Donald Trump!

Tell me when Putin lied? Or is this just unsubstantiated fear on your part?

Check the FOIA documents from our government and read the leaks. Your government has zero interest in you and your interests.

Burries head in the sand.

A democracy is impossible in a world of secrecy. Assange supports democracy over secrecy. Our founding fathers would be proud of his and Snowden's heroism.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Oh well! If Russia cares so much about my best interests, I guess I'll just defect and become a hacker spy too! /sarc

Russia’s top 240 lies – INTERNATIONAL EDITION
From Russia With Lies

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Isurrender73

Russia has lied plenty. I trust my own government to look after my nest interests over Russia and that anti-American criminal Julian Assange and even PE Donald Trump!

All of this is a syops for 2020 elections and deflection from the fact the emails were all true.... It really doesn't matter if the Russians were involved or not in the DNC hack . They hacked everyone, that is the real point here, and the one that should be addressed. The liberals though are trying to create illegitimacy to Trump's victory with first the voting fraud/hacking bull crap that failed and now somehow Russia is in bed with Trump and the DNC hack is their proof.

Both the Russians involvement and Assange statements that his smoking gun person was not Russia or affiliated with any state can both be true. Trump is finally getting read into the secret side of the hacks so we will see here in the next few days what his further views on all this will be with having the secret part of our intelligence laid out in front of him

On a side note... You all do know that one of the purposes of the CIA is to undermined Governments not in agreement with ours, don't you? I would not have 100% faith in the statement "I trust my Government".....

There is no reason to automatically trust the intelligence agencies that much on this just because they are our intelligence agencies. They lie all the time, including, unfortunately, to the American people.

Now, some get quite offended by this viewpoint. Often times it's because they have some personal connection to the intelligence community. Maybe they are a member or have family that is or something like that. But it's important to note that this viewpoint isn't really blaming the Average Joe in that community. There are lots of smart, decent people that go into that kind of work. And at this point in Earth's history, these agencies are, of course, necessary. But that doesn't mean we should always trust the public positions of these agencies.

With regard to this specific situation, there is a little bit of evidence they've provided that somewhat justifies their public conclusion, but it's not so overwhelming or reliable that it makes the case open and shut. Maybe more evidence will be released that can be analyzed by legitimately independent journalists and the public at large. We'll see.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Isurrender73

Oh well! If Russia cares so much about my best interests, I guess I'll just defect and become a hacker spy too! /sarc

Russia’s top 240 lies – INTERNATIONAL EDITION
From Russia With Lies

Why don't we just open our eyes and take back our democracy, instead of defending known liars. No need to defect.