Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[starlord]

At least make sure you're calling me by something I am. Conservative is not what I am. I'm a left libertarian, closer to anarchist -- not an anarchist in the pure sense, but someone who value socio-economical equality and little government intervention -- than anything else. Quite frankly, I'm more at odds with authoritarian figures on this forum that people on the right or left alike.

As for anything else, people insinuate that these claims are based on solid sources and then act with prejudice toward people who claim disbelief. Both sides are at wrong here. I've been following this thread since the beginning, jumping here and there and I can assure you that no side is better than the other.

I don't know why you keep pushing.

Certainly some do. Not all and certainly not a majority.

for someone who constantly claims to be "neutral", as if it mattered, you do a lot of attempting to create false equivalencies in order to shore up that claim.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

for someone who constantly claims to be "neutral", as if it mattered, you do a lot of attempting to create false equivalencies in order to shore up that claim.

There's no fake equivalency when we're speaking of principles. The reality is that both sides like to claim they're not like the other and the hypocrisy is cringing.

I don't claim to be neutral. But I won't be falsely tagged something I am not because I come in defense of something I believe unfair and, again, hypocrite.

[starlord]

There's no fake equivalency when we're speaking of principles. The reality is that both sides like to claim they're not like the other and the hypocrisy is cringing.

I don't claim to be neutral. But I won't be falsely tagged something I am not because I come in defense of something I believe unfair and, again, hypocrite.

then why do you claim to be a proponent of wikileaks and at the same time decry this and other information that keeps coming to light as "smear campaigns not based on solid sources"?

[LaserSharkDFB]

At least make sure you're calling me by something I am. Conservative is not what I am. I'm a left libertarian, closer to anarchist -- not an anarchist in the pure sense, but someone who value socio-economical equality and little government intervention -- than anything else. Quite frankly, I'm more at odds with authoritarian figures on this forum that people on the right or left alike.

As for anything else, people insinuate that these claims are based on solid sources and then act with prejudice toward people who claim disbelief. Both sides are at wrong here. I've been following this thread since the beginning, jumping here and there and I can assure you that no side is better than the other.

Fine. You can call yourself a libertarian or a conservative or a kumquat for all I care, it doesn't matter. The point is that you're claiming people point to the dossier as solid sources, when that is not actually happening to any noticeable degree. If people are doing it, feel free to correct those people specifically, but stop painting with a broad brush. But almost everyone on the other side of the issue - including you, apparently - is working off false assumptions (and false equivalencies) and muddying the waters with their bullshit. You call it 'prejudice' against people who disbelieve, but the facts are on our side and the ones shouting "LOL CNN FAKE NEWS" are either ignorant or lying.

Your response avoids the issue: do you or do you not agree with the facts I listed in my previous post, your political views notwithstanding?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

then why do you claim to be a proponent of wikileaks and at the same time decry this and other information that keeps coming to light as "smear campaigns not based on solid sources"?

This is a false equivalency. And for the record (you know who you are) I did not bring Wikileaks.

And, for the record too, I actually -- in this very thread no less! -- said that I supported the movement of publishing the document. What I decried is how it is being handled by the medias and the anti-Trump crowd (and by extension, the pro-Trump crowd).

Fine. You can call yourself a libertarian or a conservative or a kumquat for all I care, it doesn't matter. The point is that you're claiming people point to the dossier as solid sources, when that is not actually happening to any noticeable degree. If people are doing it, feel free to correct those people specifically, but stop painting with a broad brush. But almost everyone on the other side of the issue - including you, apparently - is working off false assumptions (and false equivalencies) and muddying the waters with their bullshit. You call it 'prejudice' against people who disbelieve, but the facts are on our side and the ones shouting "LOL CNN FAKE NEWS" are either ignorant or lying.

Your response avoids the issue: do you or do you not agree with the facts I listed in my previous post, your political views notwithstanding?

There is no need to feel specifically targeted if you do not partake in it. In other word, if the hat does not fit you, then why does this makes you angry?

[LaserSharkDFB]

There is no need to feel specifically targeted if you do not partake in it. In other word, if the hat does not fit you, then why does this makes you angry?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it's irrelevant. Answer the question.

[Kaleredar]

Certainly some do. Not all and certainly not a majority.

If people voted for him because they legitimately thought he was going to make their lives better then I feel very sorry for those individuals.

[DeadmanWalking]

Belf, have you even been reading this thread? Have you been paying attention? I'm apparently having to explain this to every single conservative on this thread, so please read carefully:

Nobody is claiming Trump's guilt.
There was a security briefing prepared for Obama and Trump about possible Russian influence on Trump.
CNN reported on the security briefing because it's newsworthy. They did not claim the allegations were true.
Buzzfeed released (at least some of) the documents the briefing was based on, with the disclaimer that the documents were as yet unverified.
Intelligence agencies consider the guy who assembled the documents to be credible, as are his sources. The allegations are being investigated.
Nobody is claiming Trump's guilt. (I mean, maybe some stupid people are, but they're stupid.)

I wonder how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself until one of you admit that you're wrong.

One thing to note is that the Mi6 agents information comes from Russian sources, Russian agents. Thus why the source is unverified, while the Mi6 agent is a source, his source is Russians, and until those are verified it can't be considered actionable. The Mi6 agent is very trusted by American agencies, it's just that his Russian contacts are not trustable, it may be that they purposely fed him this info.

While this means the info may or may not be true in the debriefing the debriefing absolutely happened and is not fake news that has been debunkes, which seems to be the sticking point for these righties who can't seem to get their brain over that road bump.

[starlord]

This is a false equivalency. And for the record (you know who you are) I did not bring Wikileaks.

And, for the record too, I actually -- in this very thread no less! -- said that I supported the movement of publishing the document. What I decried is how it is being handled by the medias and the anti-Trump crowd (and by extension, the pro-Trump crowd).

why is it a false equivalency?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it's irrelevant. Answer the question.

What question is there? You've made an assessment, not asked a question. I agree with your assessment. That does not nullify my claim that some people on this thread including some people feeling very propelled to call others as being either stupid, on the right or conservative tries to shut the conversation through smearing of Trump himself, which is acceptable, or the crowd of people who genuinely saw something positive in him -- or perhaps more accurately, less negatives than Clinton.

If everyone interpreted the same things the same way, we wouldn't even need politics, because we would all always agree on everything. So when you say X is stupid because it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense to you.

And my annoyance here, which is my point, is how disingenuous both sides are toward one another as nobody want to try to understand. And this:

If people voted for him because they legitimately thought he was going to make their lives better then I feel very sorry for those individuals.

Is the problem!

why is it a false equivalency?

It's fairly obvious and I will also not debate this subject, which, again, has been debated to death all over every damned Trump thread and always ended in a vicious circle with no end.

[starlord]

It's fairly obvious and I will also not debate this subject, which, again, has been debated to death all over every damned Trump thread and always ended in a vicious circle with no end.

no its not obvious at all. what makes wikileaks completely trustworthy, and why do think that multiple branches of the u.s. government, and even some of the u.k. government, are engaging in a completely unfounded smear campaign against the president elect?

[Wells]

It's fairly obvious and I will also not debate this subject, which, again, has been debated to death all over every damned Trump thread and always ended in a vicious circle with no end.

You know nothing about Wikileak's agenda, their vetting process, internal dynamics, or sources.

Only an idiot would put any trust or faith in them. Only a hypocrite would be ok with them operating as they do and think these leaks from the IC are not the same.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

You know nothing about Wikileak's agenda, their vetting process, internal dynamics, or sources.

Only an idiot would put any trust or faith in them. Only a hypocrite would be ok with them operating as they do and think these leaks from the IC are not the same.

no its not obvious at all. what makes wikileaks completely trustworthy, and why do think that multiple branches of the u.s. government, and even some of the u.k. government, are engaging in a completely unfounded smear campaign against the president elect?

That is your choice, based on the evidence you have and the experience you have lived.

[Wells]

That is your choice, based on the evidence you have and the experience you have lived.

The Lebowski Defense is kind of a stupid move.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The Lebowski Defense is kind of a stupid move.

It would be if my assertion wasn't based on evidence. But I've long learned that not everyone has the same... vindication for truth. Authoritarian regime all over the world has proven time and time again that reality is a thing better hidden, so has religion.

If you make the genuine decision to disregard a source, then it is your choice. Whether I agree or not with it is irrelevant.

[Wells]

It would be if my assertion wasn't based on evidence. But I've long learned that not everyone has the same... vindication for truth. Authoritarian regime all over the world has proven time and time again that reality is a thing better hidden, so has religion.

If you make the genuine decision to disregard a source, then it is your choice. Whether I agree or not with it is irrelevant.

Oh, you know how Wikileaks operates?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Oh, you know how Wikileaks operates?

We get taught in school to seek out information and evidence by ourselves. The responsibility of making your mind about a given subject is yours. If reality was as simple as a black and white answer, again, we wouldn't have any debates whatsoever. Why would they be required in the first place?

I've made my mind and it is deeply intertwined with my perception of the world, based on broad evidence and my lived experience.

I think that, for everything else, if you seek to understand how Wikileaks works, who are behind it, what they do, you can easily find it. If you have no interest, then it is fine.

[Wells]

We get taught in school to seek out information and evidence by ourselves. The responsibility of making your mind about a given subject is yours. If reality was as simple as a black and white answer, again, we wouldn't have any debates whatsoever. Why would they be required in the first place?

I've made my mind and it is deeply intertwined with my perception of the world, based on broad evidence and my lived experience.

I think that, for everything else, if you seek to understand how Wikileaks works, who are behind it, what they do, you can easily find it. If you have no interest, then it is fine.

That's a long way to spell "no".

[Zandalarian Paladin]

That's a long way to spell "no".

It actually meant "yes, but" and that if you wanted, the evidence was only a few clicks away.

You're trying to push me in a vicious circle of argumentation over something that has split everyone over the past ten years. Do you expect to agree with me?

If you genuinely want to know more, then do your own search. Nothing I will say will convince you and that's not because you're stubborn. It's psychology, whose roots go back to your very core definition of the world around you (Are all people good? Are all people bad? Are all people fundamentally selfish? Are all people X?). You know my position and taking down your skepticism is not quite an option.

If you seek to challenge my thinking, I am not personally open to this. I have in the past, I have had great discussions with people on this board about it, I have read great articles challenging and/or cementing my view, but the negatives can be harsh. I am not quite like many here who can simply turn the page and go to bed. The discussions I have here can last several days in my mind and I'd rather not invest in it.

[Wells]

It actually meant "yes, but" and that if you wanted, the evidence was only a few clicks away.

No, you don't know how Wikileaks operates. They're completely opaque. You have a better handle on how the IC works due to its place in elected government than you do about what goes on at Wikileaks. For an organization that loves taking away everyone else's privacy, they sure seem to think we should just trust them.