It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

page: 9
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
If there were any evidence, it would have came out before November 8.




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense




I'm willing to be an adult and say I have no idea if the intel is true because get this -- I don't have access to the MODs intelligence database.


How exactly would having access to a database prove something true or not, what if the information in the database is erroneous to begin with?



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
If a mathematician claims to have solved Riemann's hypothesis, he or she must provide proof. If he or she says the proof is classified, then he or she does not get the 1 million dollars prize.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: GodEmperor

Then there's the falacy-falacy:



The fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between "sound", "valid" (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity) and "true", instead of taking all of them as synonymous.

Link

Basically, you don't automatically "win" an argument by pointing out a logical fallacy.

EDIT: But you don't automatically "loose" either. In fact, no one "wins" or "looses" -- its up to other individuals to judge the validity of the evidence and arguments presented.


You do automatically win an argument by holding the null hypothesis in the face of no evidence, though. Every time.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonaldJohnTrump
If there were any evidence, it would have came out before November 8.


Not necessarily ...

Timing is everything.


It might be better to pull the proverbial "trigger" on this information once the man has risen to the top, so that the long fall puts him down and out forever.

Maximum damage.

Release before the 8th wouldn't have resulted in maximum damage.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no evidence the document is true. Your position that we can't possibly know if there is evidence, therefore we can't say the document is fake another fallacy. You cannot claim something is true because we don't know if there is evidence.


You're blind AND stupid

Try reading it again.




How exactly would having access to a database prove something true or not, what if the information in the database is erroneous to begin with?


Do you understand what the word allegation means? Every news report states it is an allegation.

For f***'s sake how stupid are you people?

edit on 15-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Not in a post fact society where people decide to believe whatever the hell they want and accept it as "reality".

There is no longer much of a point trying to persuade people anymore.

I have a unicorn horn and shoot rainbows from my ears. That's my reality and don't you dare challenge it with your "fake facts".



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I just don't see it as healthy to blindly trust the intelligence community, who's job is to perpetually lie and deceive, in addition to intelligence gathering.

We are supposed to believe an entity, that considered marijuana one of the most dangerous substances known to man.

I don't think there is enough space to list out every lie told to the US population by those we are supposed to trust blindly.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Give it up ... *sigh*

Life is now a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book.

Example:
As I said, I have a unicorn horn and shoot rainbows from my ears. No member here is going to convince me otherwise with their "fake facts". I know the truth, because some homeless man told me I have a horn and rainbows. HE knows things. He says Jesus talks to him, and I believe him.

I choose that as my reality, and I'm under no obligation to believe or trust anyone who has information that contradicts what I want to believe.

I choose to deem whatever comes out of the Trump administration as patently false until it has been verified by third parties with no affiliation and nothing to gain via Trump.

The sheer number of lies Trump Co. has told over the years, and the constant flip-flopping leads me to believe none of the turds falling out of the man's mouth. He's turning the White House into a huge litter box.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no evidence the document is true. Your position that we can't possibly know if there is evidence, therefore we can't say the document is fake another fallacy. You cannot claim something is true because we don't know if there is evidence.


You're blind AND stupid

Try reading it again.




How exactly would having access to a database prove something true or not, what if the information in the database is erroneous to begin with?


Do you understand what the word allegation means? Every news report states it is an allegation.

For f***'s sake how stupid are you people?


Allegations need to be proven. We've already covered that.
My position in calling the document fake is perfectly valid as it is not a requirement to prove an allegation false.
You however, if you want to claim the allegation is true, need to prove such.

If your position is that you don't know if the allegation is true, then fine, we agree.
However, you were wrong to associate my label of fake news on this document as something I need to prove. I do not.

A further note on your continued personal insults - such attacks are for the mud pit only according to the t&c's. You are new here, so please do read them or you will end up getting yourself banned. That is friendly advice.

edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
If a mathematician claims to have solved Riemann's hypothesis, he or she must provide proof. If he or she says the proof is classified, then he or she does NOT get the 1 million dollars prize.

Any claim or allegation is false unless a proof of it is verified. That's the way it is.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Yeah yeah, I'm a stupid propagandist according to your 'allegations'. You have yet to provide any proof on that one either.

I did not mention anything about allegations, I only questioned the certainty of proving something true or not based on access to a database.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Donald Trump claimed millions voted illegally in California. That is unproven, unverified. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim or allegation. Any claim is false unless it is proven.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

Not in a post fact society where people decide to believe whatever the hell they want and accept it as "reality".

There is no longer much of a point trying to persuade people anymore.

I have a unicorn horn and shoot rainbows from my ears. That's my reality and don't you dare challenge it with your "fake facts".


You persuade people with evidence.
Your claim of having a unicorn horn I call fake and I would ask you to prove it.
I am sorry the world doesn't work the way you want it to, but proving allegations or claims really is the better system than asking people to prove something is fake.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

Democrats never called Breitbart "fake news" (despite the fact it often times doesn't use credible sources and intentionally uses misleading headlines and sensational language).

l
mobile.nytimes.com...

Yes. They did.

This otherizing tactic you are using doesnt prove that trump is part of a russian conspiracy to do...what, exactly? Surely there is a more pragmatic solution here.


In regards to OP.




How does being friends with Russia or Putin undermine our democracy? Because of foreign influence? Where then is the outrage over HRC having millions of PUBLICALLY documented donations , and friendshiod with people from foreign governments with expressly anti-american and Plutocratic sentiments amongst their officials?


Why are all the sources so clandestine? Why should we trust ANY IC report when foreign governments and publications were openly hostile towards him?

Why is it reasonable to accept that there is an international group of oil hungry monsters hell bent on imposing bizarre Plutocratic Fascist Oligarchies, by subverting the American election process, while similar conspiracies of ideologically motivated, moneyed, and "Credible" European and American institutions who can easily fabricate " verified" evidence that damns Trump, is a conspiracy theory?

Responding to conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories is not going to fix anything.

Why should it be news that a businessman with a publically documented love for money and russian and eastern european women, wants the worlds largest oil producer to do business with the second largest?

What has russia actually done, in the modern era, to warrant years of sanctions that have impoverished hundreds to thousands of people?

Why do all these claims on this subject boil down to a demand for us to put our faith in to an official who can't even legally give us the type of information that we would require for confirmation and proper vetting?

I expect to be personally attacked and called ignorant for not accepting the IC or BBC or CNN as gospel.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Kettu

I just don't see it as healthy to blindly trust the intelligence community, who's job is to perpetually lie and deceive, in addition to intelligence gathering.

We are supposed to believe an entity, that considered marijuana one of the most dangerous substances known to man.

I don't think there is enough space to list out every lie told to the US population by those we are supposed to trust blindly.


The CIA believed marijuana was one of the most dangerous substances known to man?

I think you have them confused with the DEA and possibly the FBI.

And we're supposed to trust the intelligence community about Hillary Clinton, but not Donald Trump?

Is that because you like Donald and don't like Hillary? So you support the actions that hurt the person you don't like, and don't support the actions that hurt the person you do like?

It's fruitless to point this out, as the cognitive dissonance prevents people from seeing the double standard and hypocrisy. The dissonance keeps the double think and double speak in check.

It's like pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible or Koran to a religious person. Their "faith" and beliefs are so ingrained, that they've succumbed to high levels of cognitive dissonance, pushing the double think and double speak away.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathShield

Please, show me examples of the term "fake news" being used over and over again by Democrats, in a similar fashion that the Republicans are now doing.

This "fake news" thing is entirely a Trumpain invention.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Allegations need to be proven. We've already covered that.


What do you think the intelligence agencies are doing? Sitting around chatting while having tea?


My position in calling the document fake is perfectly valid as it is not a requirement to prove an allegation false. ... However, you were wrong to associate my label of fake news on this document as something I need to prove.


LOL. Fake isn't the word you're looking for. The words you're looking for "IS NOT PROVEN BUT CURRENTLY BEING INVESTIGATED." That is what MI6, GCHQ, and all the other three letter agencies are doing right now because the sources have proven to be reliable. Fake means it has already been vetted and proven to be BS. So. Wrong. Bzzzt. Try again.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You can't sense my horn? Well, it's there and that's all the proof I feel comfortable giving. If you choose not to accept it, then you're in the wrong. I do have a unicorn horn and that is my reality I choose to believe and live in.

That's the thing - this is the world we are now existing in. "Proof" is never good enough to someone who doesn't want to believe something.

Jesus Christ himself could come riding upon a white horse in the sky, declaring Trump is satan incarnate - with the voice of God himself booming overhead worldwide...people would still claim it's "not proof of anything".



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Fake = not real. People don't seem to understand this.

There is a difference between "unverified" and "currently being investigated" and "fake".

Calling something that is still being looked into "fake" is a knee-jerk reaction by scared people.

It's a convenient way to dismiss an argument by people who have nothing themselves to argue with. It's a way to minimize, dismiss, and marginalize something.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join