Putin to Derkach to Giuliani: US intel reports Russia used Trump allies to influence 2020 election

[KCfromNC]

well why dont you consult your news source or read some of the posts that have over and over again discussed this subject.

And here we have an attempt at the "it's already been discussed, why don't you accept it", in response to a post correctly pointing out the previous games played with vague innuendo. Seems like confirmation of post 75 to me.

 

[SimplyMe]

People will get a few sentences in and see where your post is going and check out immediately. I would if I didnt want to admit challenges to a narrative that was dear to me.

I tend to write as much for the people reading that aren't commenting on a thread, as much as for the person I'm replying to.

 

[disciple Clint]

And here we have an attempt at the "it's already been discussed, why don't you accept it", in response to a post correctly pointing out the previous games played with vague innuendo. Seems like confirmation of post 75 to me.

I simply expect people to know what has been covered in the news over and over again instead of playing the show game in an effort to waste my time.

 

[KCfromNC]

I simply expect people to know what has been covered in the news over and over again instead of playing the show game in an effort to waste my time.

If it were actually covered in the news over and over again, the complaints that it would be so difficult to find a link seem misplaced. But it's hardly the first time GOP propaganda contradicts itself (and reality).

 

[DaisyDay]

I simply expect people to know what has been covered in the news over and over again instead of playing the show game in an effort to waste my time.

No, that's not what this is. What has been covered is not the same as what individual people understand. Then, too, is the problem of memory of what happened may vary significantly from what did happen - memory is unreliable.

So, while you may be playing a game when you ask questions you care nothing about, the same is not true for others.

 

[disciple Clint]

If it were actually covered in the news over and over again, the complaints that it would be so difficult to find a link seem misplaced. But it's hardly the first time GOP propaganda contradicts itself (and reality).

I do not think that many if any people have trouble using Google search but I do think that many people ignore facts.

 

[Pommer]

I do not think that many if any people have trouble using Google search but I do think that many people ignore facts.

We’re stupid and lazy if our views don’t align with yours?
Charming

 

[disciple Clint]

No, that's not what this is. What has been covered is not the same as what individual people understand. Then, too, is the problem of memory of what happened may vary significantly from what did happen - memory is unreliable.

So, while you may be playing a game when you ask questions you care nothing about, the same is not true for others.

everyone has equal access to Google search there is no excuse for not knowing what has been covered in the news. Some people are unbelievably naive, it is that simple.

 

[disciple Clint]

We’re stupid and lazy if our views don’t align with yours?
Charming

Trying to twist what someone has said in an effort to put words in their mouth is not at all charming

 

[Pommer]

Trying to twist what someone has said in an effort to put words in their mouth is not at all charming

You’ve said that the “evidence” is in plain sight, (google search), should I try for “Dirty Big Guy’s son’s sordid hard drive copy”?
Or how’s about “traitor Bidens are ‘the real crime family’”?

 

[disciple Clint]

You’ve said that the “evidence” is in plain sight, (google search), should I try for “Dirty Big Guy’s son’s sordid hard drive copy”?
Or how’s about “traitor Bidens are ‘the real crime family’”?

As I said I am not a hand holder. Google is very easy to use.

 

[DaisyDay]

everyone has equal access to Google search there is no excuse for not knowing what has been covered in the news. Some people are unbelievably naive, it is that simple.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding? It’s not about what’s out on the interwebs, it is about what stating what you think is the evidence and showing why.

 

[KCfromNC]

I do not think that many if any people have trouble using Google search but I do think that many people ignore facts.

Which people and which facts are you alluding to? Please be specific. Because if they're in this thread, it seems like an attempt to poison the well, and we all know the rules about personal attacks like that. If they're not part of this thread, seems to be off topic, and again, we all know how that's also against the rules.

So which rules was this post breaking in an attempt to get away from not being able to actually provide evidence?

 

[disciple Clint]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding? It’s not about what’s out on the interwebs, it is about what stating what you think is the evidence and showing why.

No it is not about what someone thinks is evidence it is about what would hold up as evidence in a court of law. Evidence has to pass the test of being challenged. That is what happens in court, at no time does a judge say well the NYT said ....... and that proves that the subject is guilty.

 

[disciple Clint]

Which people and which facts are you alluding to? Please be specific. Because if they're in this thread, it seems like an attempt to poison the well, and we all know the rules about personal attacks like that. If they're not part of this thread, seems to be off topic, and again, we all know how that's also against the rules.

So which rules was this post breaking in an attempt to get away from not being able to actually provide evidence?

I would suggest that any questions regarding the rules should be directed to the Mods in accordance with the rules of this forum

 

[Pommer]

No it is not about what someone thinks is evidence it is about what would hold up as evidence in a court of law. Evidence has to pass the test of being challenged. That is what happens in court, at no time does a judge say well the NYT said ....... and that proves that the subject is guilty.

But that laptop though! How can people ignore that!?

 

[disciple Clint]

But that laptop though! How can people ignore that!?

since they have been told little to nothing about it in the MSM should there be any surprise that they have not taken upon themselves to investigate it?

 

[KCfromNC]

I would suggest that any questions regarding the rules should be directed to the Mods in accordance with the rules of this forum

I notice there's still zero indication that any of the people alluded to in the previous post actually exist.
Par for the course with right wing messaging, I'd say.

 

[DaisyDay]

No it is not about what someone thinks is evidence it is about what would hold up as evidence in a court of law. Evidence has to pass the test of being challenged. That is what happens in court, at no time does a judge say well the NYT said ....... and that proves that the subject is guilty.

Yes, this is about what you consider evidence because you have said there is evidence that has you convinced while many of us have not been convinced by the evidence we have seen. No evidence has been presented in court so there can be no discussion about that as there’s no point in discussing what does not exist.

We are not talking about proving guilt but about what we find convincing.

So far you have given two lines of argument: “evidence” on the internet and no trial therefore no evidence.

 

[DaisyDay]

everyone has equal access to Google search there is no excuse for not knowing what has been covered in the news. Some people are unbelievably naive, it is that simple.

Something you might want to consider is that due to algorithms, Google shows different people different results as it shows what it figures you want to see based on your past searches and clicks.