Trump Thread

[Greyblades]

The point is that these are not the same sources, that there was much disagreement on how to report the intelligence between various agencies and actors within the agencies, and the conditions for proof are different considering physical scale of alleged activities. The administration chose to represent particular interpretations to Congress and the public which intelligence agencies overall disagreed with. On the other hand, the conclusions on these hacks have broad backing. It is difficult to see the intelligence community as a unified actor with single goals in these histories, let alone that there is some goal apparent now.

Whether the CIA is an actor or merely a tool in this is something I have come to change my mind on through this debacle, but the paralels are the same, claims with broad backing but containing precious little proof, being swallowed by those who we would want to be above such gullability.

You shouldn't excuse partisanship as skepticism.

Partisanship would have me believe one admin's use of the CIA to back thier theories and decry the other's. I decry both. You dont.

Whenever I have a debate with the people I strongly disagree with, I realize that they really don't know the issue much.

Were I you I would not advertise a habit to assume all your opponants are merely ignorant.

Now you're changing the goalposts to something that even I did not claim, besides, you probably mean "We cant say 100% that it is true" because otherwise it sounds like you were trying to make them refute your own argument.

You said: "there are plenty of people even in Trump's party and administration who believe just that." it is not moving the goalposts to expect belief not to come with a disclaimer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...blicans-229572
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-r...neering-hacks/

Hm, it seems I should have kept my skepticism to claims of the admin believing it.

A rather stupid mistake really; the republican rank and file contain such rabid anti russians, Mcain in paticular, who would automatically believe claims the russians were behind the sky being blue. Of course there'd be some that believe this.

You cannot live life with 100% proof and security in everything.

Whereas you can evidently swallow anything that has 0% proof as long as there is enough official looking names attached.

These accusations of partisanship is but a dodge; ridicule to avoid having to acknowledge the possibility that what you want to believe may not be true; as valid as accusations of being unpatriotic was 15 years ago.