Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:42 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573

logical flaw in Impeachment Articles


I was shocked to see this sentence in the impeachment articles:
Quote:
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine - rather than Russia - interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
It could be (and I think is) the case that BOTH Ukraine AND Russia interfered. By saying "rather than Russia", they assume it has to be only one of the two, an elementary mistake which I think would get you a bad score on a law school exam. What the heck?
  #2  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:46 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,679
Well, there is a ton of evidence that Russia interfered in out elections, plus intelligence agency unanimity on that point. There is zero evidence (that I know of, cite it if you got it) that Ukraine did it. And the Trumpers have sought to use this to deflect blame away from Russia.

But thanks for your efforts, Sherlock.
  #3  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
But that was the crap that Russia was pushing-That it was Ukraine and not Russia that was interfering in our election process. You can imagine anything your heart desires, but the actual scheme that is being talked about here involves Russia telling tall tales to divert attention from their own shenanigans.
  #4  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:52 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Well, there is a ton of evidence that Russia interfered in out elections, plus intelligence agency unanimity on that point. There is zero evidence (that I know of, cite it if you got it) that Ukraine did it. And the Trumpers have sought to use this to deflect blame away from Russia.

But thanks for your efforts, Sherlock.
From:

https://ukranews.com/en/news/601700-...ng-information

Quote:
The court has found that the release of the information caused interference in the election processes in the United States in 2016 and did harm to the national interests of Ukraine.
  #5  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:56 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,845
Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! It's so cute that you think your argument has merit! Awwwwww!
  #6  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Ukrainian News is produced by Ukrainian News Agency...which is owned and controlled by Russian-based company GDF Media Ltd.

It seems as if your story is nothing without cites...and even worse with the cites you rely on.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-30-2019 at 03:00 PM.
  #7  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:59 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,478
No evidence Ukraine interfered. Substantial evidence that Russia interfered and started a phony story about Ukraine interfering. The logical flaw is in the OP.
  #8  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:03 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Ukrainian News is produced by Ukrainian News Agency...which is owned and controlled by Russian-based company GDF Media Ltd.

It seems as if your story is nothing without cites...and even worse with the cites you rely on.
Well the court either made the finding or it didn't. Can anyone find a decisive source?
  #9  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:07 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
LMAO, it was also reported in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html
Looks like you are stuck with Russia AND Ukraine interfering.
  #10  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:08 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well the court either made the finding or it didn't. Can anyone find a decisive source?
Have you tried sites that weren't prime sources of Russian propaganda?
  #11  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:11 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Have you tried sites that weren't prime sources of Russian propaganda?
How's the New York Times?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html
  #12  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:13 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
LMAO, it was also reported in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html
Looks like you are stuck with Russia AND Ukraine interfering.
Quote:
The courtís ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counselís investigation of Russiaís interference in the 2016 presidential race.
What you are trying here has already been put forth, easily refuted and flushed with all the other Russian propaganda.
  #13  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:13 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Did you read it? I am thinking that you are thinking it says something that it doesn't.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #14  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:18 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,365
Why the anger at the OP? He's got a point, even if it's not a logical error. It's just less than ideal writing.

"a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine - rather than Russia - interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election."

The whole thing is about Russia's allegation, not about who interfered in the 2016 election. It is true that both countries could have, and indeed may have for all I know, interfered in the election. But Russia only alleged that the Ukraine did, and that allegation was specifically to cover their own interference, rather than all parties interfering on a worldwide scale.

I would have said "a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that it was Ukraine, rather than Russia itself, that interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election."

But nobody asked me.

Last edited by Dr. Drake; 12-30-2019 at 03:19 PM.
  #15  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:20 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
Did you read it? I am thinking that you are thinking it says something that it doesn't.
I did, and I think it shows Ukranian interference was declared by a Ukranian court. Unless the NYT has been compromised by the Russians.
  #16  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:23 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Surprisingly, this news source is Russian owned. Amazing how Russian owned Ukrainian news sources keep working their way into the discussion these days.

But that said, it is true that "the black ledger" became a thing and got Paul Manafort removed from the Trump campaign. And so we could certainly say that that affected the election.

For that to be "inference", however, it has to have been intentional. If a Presidential candidate, during an election year, traveled to England and shot someone in the streets of London, we wouldn't consider it "interference" for them to announce that the murder had taken place nor for them to issue a warrant for that person.

Yes, it will affect the American election. But no, it's just a matter of what the candidate did and when they did it that caused this to happen at that time. It would be unreasonable to expect the British to hide this information and even worse if they did so purposely with the intention of having it ready as blackmail material, for example. Getting it out in the open may be the most friendly thing they could do.

Many people on this site have given absolutist arguments against foreign involvement in elections. That is short-sighted. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There are times, places, and means of affecting the elections of another nation that are appropriate and/or necessary. But there are also times and means that are inappropriate and corrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain that further nor find a previous place where I did so. So I'll just say that a context free interpretation of events is stupid and I would suspect the honesty of my brain if it was engaging in that sort of behavior.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-30-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #17  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I did, and I think it shows Ukranian interference was declared by a Ukranian court. Unless the NYT has been compromised by the Russians.
It says a bit more than that. Read the whole article(not just the part you want to hear), then get back to us.
  #18  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:32 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It says a bit more than that. Read the whole article(not just the part you want to hear), then get back to us.
I did. Face it: Ukranian interference is by no means "discredited". That sentence in the Impeachment Articles set up a false "exclusive or". A Ukranian court declared Ukranian interference.
  #19  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:33 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
What sense is there in leading with an easily checked Russian propaganda site? it just casts a large shadow over your whole thread.
  #20  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:34 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
It says a bit more than that. Read the whole article(not just the part you want to hear), then get back to us.
That part about Manafort is what I think Czar means.

Not picking on you personally, Peebles.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #21  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:39 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What sense is there in leading with an easily checked Russian propaganda site? it just casts a large shadow over your whole thread.
Forget my first source. I showed you the New York Times reported it too.
  #22  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:40 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
That part about Manafort is what I think Czar means.

Not picking on you personally, Peebles.
Manafort was knocked off the Trump campaign because of this.
  #23  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:40 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
It could be (and I think is) the case that BOTH Ukraine AND Russia interfered.
Then you cannot credit the Russian propaganda that says "it wasn't us, it was Ukraine".
  #24  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles
It could be (and I think is) the case that BOTH Ukraine AND Russia interfered.
We're in a high stakes poker game and I reveal to you that a certain individual at the table is stacking the deck when he deals the cards. Now, have I interfered in the game to the extent that the cheater has, or have I helped you? It's true that both those events had an impact on the game, but are they the same?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 12-30-2019 at 03:42 PM.
  #25  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:42 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
A Ukranian court declared Ukranian interference.
I have also previously noted that a person under duress is not a reliable witness.

If someone tells you that Mr. Rogers had a habit of kicking puppies, and that person says this at the same time as having a set of wires coming out of his trouser legs and running to the offices of Universal Studios and he seems very fidgety and sweaty, I'd take his testimony with a grain of salt.

At the moment, in case you have missed the news, Ukraine is on the verge of being conquered by a foreign aggressor who is larger and more powerful than they. One of the few things helping to keep things from completely going to hell is staying in the good graces of Senor Donald Trump.
  #26  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:44 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
We're in a high stakes poker game and I reveal to you that a certain individual at the table is stacking the deck when he deals the cards. Now, have I interfered in the game to the extent that the cheater has, or have I helped you? It's true that both those events had an impact on the game, but are they the same?
How about a person has $100 dollars, Russia robs them of $90, and Ukraine robs them of $10. Did they both commit robbery?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #27  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
How about a person has $100 dollars, Russia robs them of $90, and Ukraine robs them of $10. Did they both commit robbery?
A mouse and an elephant are loose in your china shop. Which one do you worry about first?
  #28  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:48 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
If a Ukraine court finds Ukranian interference, it is by no means a "discredited theory". Further investigation would be needed to determine the credibility of the theory. Which is exactly what Trump's defence says he was trying to do.
  #29  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:49 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I was shocked to see this sentence in the impeachment articles:

It could be (and I think is) the case that BOTH Ukraine AND Russia interfered. By saying "rather than Russia", they assume it has to be only one of the two, an elementary mistake which I think would get you a bad score on a law school exam. What the heck?
What you think doesn’t matter. You aren’t the one who was impeached.

For example, if I say that Donald Trump said he grabbed women by the pussy, it is not a defense of Trump to say that you, Jim Peebles, never grabbed anyone by the pussy.

Likewise, the articles assert that Trump has promoted the idea that Ukraine AND NOT Russia was behind the election interference. Unless you are challenging that Trump has not: 1. Asserted that Ukraine interferes in the election, and 2. asserted that Russia did not interfere in the election; than your own theory of what countries interfered is wholly irrelevant.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-30-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #30  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:51 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
If a Ukraine court finds Ukranian interference, it is by no means a "discredited theory". Further investigation would be needed to determine the credibility of the theory. Which is exactly what Trump's defence says he was trying to do.
Since you have no interest in why it happened, despite having it explained to you more than once, I have no more interest in trying to discuss this with you.
  #31  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:57 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What you think doesnít matter. You arenít the one who was impeached.

For example, if I say that Donald Trump said he grabbed women by the pussy, it is not a defense of Trump to say that you, Jim Peebles, never grabbed anyone by the pussy.

Likewise, the articles assert that Trump has promoted the idea that Ukraine AND NOT Russia was behind the election interference. Unless you are challenging that Trump has not: 1. Asserted that Ukraine interferes in the election, and 2. asserted that Russia did not interfere in the election; than your own theory of what countries interfered is wholly irrelevant.
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
  #32  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:00 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
How about a person has $100 dollars, Russia robs them of $90, and Ukraine robs them of $10. Did they both commit robbery?
Wrong analogy.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #33  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:05 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
I don't think you're going to get an answer to that question...It doesn't fit the "narrative".
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #34  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:05 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
Fuckin' hell.

Trump denied Russian interference in election.

Quote:
Trump himself has alternated between accepting Russian interference as reality and flat-out denying it, as he did during his infamous summit with Putin in 2018. ďHe just said itís not Russia,Ē Trump told reporters at the time. ďI will say this: I donít see any reason why it would be.Ē
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #35  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:05 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
You're kidding, right? You don't know about the "Putin told me so"?
  #36  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:09 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
If you donít know the first thing about this subject, why are you debating it?
  #37  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I was shocked to see this sentence in the impeachment articles:

It could be (and I think is) the case that BOTH Ukraine AND Russia interfered. By saying "rather than Russia", they assume it has to be only one of the two, an elementary mistake which I think would get you a bad score on a law school exam. What the heck?
I disagree. If you allege that only one entity interfered with an election, that is not a logical flaw. It may perhaps be a factual flaw that Trump could use in his defense but there is nothing illogical about it.

If Bill says that he didn't steal from you because he has proof that Dave did it, then you could point out that it was possible that perhaps both Bill and Dave stole from you, but Bill could then come back with proof that it was only one entity. Nothing illogical about it.
  #38  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:23 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
LMAO, it was also reported in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html
Looks like you are stuck with Russia AND Ukraine interfering.
This isn't the debunked crowdstrike conspiracy theory that the Trump administration wanted to get Zelenski to report. This is reminiscent of Bush supporters pointing to a few deteriorated shells as proof that Sadam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction and so Bush was right.
  #39  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:26 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Where did Trump argue "NOT Russia"?
The whole Ukrainian/DNC server conspiracy theory that he has harped on, referred to in the phone call, and continues to harp on is an attempt to refute that Russia hacked the DNC server. It then used the results to interfere in the 2016 election. That conspiracy theory, including specifics that Trump has repeatedly mentioned, including in the phone call, has been thoroughly debunked, and, apparently it is known (according to Fiona Hill, among others) to have been started by the Russians.


That is the discredited theory. That Ukraine, rather than Russia, interfered in the 2016 election in that particular way. I don't know if it is a poorly worded sentence in the articles, or if the context makes it clear, since you haven't provided context, or even the complete sentence.

Last edited by eschrodinger; 12-30-2019 at 04:27 PM.
  #40  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:30 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,334
Why, oh why, would Ukraine interfere with the 2016 election? They had no reason to doubt that either administration would be hostile toward it. There is no logic to it.

As an aside, I believe that Putin is still playing the Great Game, with the U.S. in the role of Great Britain.
  #41  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:34 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
As an aside, I believe that Putin is still playing the Great Game...
Why would he stop when he has so many useful helpers at his disposal?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #42  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:34 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
A mouse and an elephant are loose in your china shop. Which one do you worry about first?
This was tested but with bulls, not elephants. The bulls carefully avoided all stacked ceramics. I don't think elephants were tested at a Pottery Barn. Mice, however, can nibble away at the wooden shelves, sending china crashing. China crashing - is that a Tramp goal? Parachute-in more mice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
This is after Tramp admitted participation in a conspiracy to evade federal election laws and receive foreign help. One need only wait five minutes for Tramp to deny saying what he was just recorded saying. So we value those denials as we wish.

(No, unanimous intel findings of Russian cyberwarfare aren't Deep State distractions. If a Deep State existed, Tramp would never have made it to Washington.)
  #43  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:35 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. If you allege that only one entity interfered with an election, that is not a logical flaw. It may perhaps be a factual flaw that Trump could use in his defense but there is nothing illogical about it.

If Bill says that he didn't steal from you because he has proof that Dave did it, then you could point out that it was possible that perhaps both Bill and Dave stole from you, but Bill could then come back with proof that it was only one entity. Nothing illogical about it.
Everyone agrees Bill stole some money. You say Bill's stealing some money was not enough to explain why you beat Ted in the "fortune contest". A court then declares Dave stole from you. You say investigate Dave. You are charged with requesting an investigation into Dave, and your statement that Bill didn't help you win against Ted is misconstrued as a denial that Bill stole money.

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 12-30-2019 at 04:38 PM. Reason: Russian bots
  #44  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:38 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Everyone ageees Bill stole some money. You say Bill's stealing some money was not enough to explain why you beat Ted in the "fortune contest". A court then declares Dave stole from you. You say investigate Dave. You are charged with requesting an investigation into Dave, and your statement that Bill didn't help you win against Ted is misconstrued as a denial that Bill stole money.
What are you even talking about?...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #45  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:45 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What are you even talking about?...
It's an analogy, Trump denies Russia helping him win the election but doesn't mean he doesn't believe Russia interfered and doesn't mean that Ukraine didn't interfere as well. Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #46  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:49 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's an analogy, Trump denies Russia helping him win the election but doesn't mean he doesn't believe Russia interfered and doesn't mean that Ukraine didn't interfere as well. Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
The only answer this deserves is:

BULLSHIT.
  #47  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:56 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
From YOUR OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OP
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine - rather than Russia - interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
The Articles are stating that Russia interfered in 2016 (as attested by literally everyone), but that Russian propaganda is pushing the theory that Russia did NOT interfere, Ukraine did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Looks like you are stuck with Russia AND Ukraine interfering.
Found the logical flaw. The Articles are not saying Ukraine didn't interfere. They are stating that Russia did.
  #48  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:59 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's an analogy, Trump denies Russia helping him win the election but doesn't mean he doesn't believe Russia interfered and doesn't mean that Ukraine didn't interfere as well. Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
What did you think the point of posting this was?

Because all it did for me was make me think that I was greatly underestimating how often and how determinedly someone could post such obviously deluded obfuscation.
  #49  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
Russian military intelligence hacked the DNC server and John Podestaís email and released the contents by Wikileaks in order to damage to the Clinton campaign.

Jesus fucking Christ, itís like talking to people who havenít read a newspaper in the last half-decade.
  #50  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:08 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's an analogy, Trump denies Russia helping him win the election but doesn't mean he doesn't believe Russia interfered and doesn't mean that Ukraine didn't interfere as well. Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion from that analogy, but let's assume you're right. Let's also assume Trump didn't say what I quoted and linked about his position on Russian interference. Let's ignore the Mueller report conclusions. Let's ignore the 17 intelligence agencies agreeing on who meddled in the 2016 election. Let's ignore ALL that, and more.

Let's focus on the following:
1) Trump lost the majority vote.
2) Trump won by a total of ~80,000 votes combined across three states
3) Russia only needed to convince 0.0615% of the voting public with social media lies.

A far larger % of the public believes in ghosts. Do you really believe it was that big a challenge for Russia to find a handful of useful idiots?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 12-30-2019 at 05:09 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017