Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[Bill the Cat]

I thought he joked about them releasing what they already had hacked.

Nope. He said "Maybe you can find the missing emails"

[JimL]

If Charles didn't have personal attacks to draw upon, his quiver would be nearly empty. Every once in a while, he actually posts something substantive, but he's mostly here to snipe from the sidelines (and only against one team). He's been so consistent at it that he's mostly reduced his impact to background noise.

Talk about an ironic post.

[rogue06]

No, but the republican chairman knows better. There is plenty of evidence whether he sees it as "factual" or not. As for your second point, and just to show how misinformed you are, in Helsinki, Putin himself said that the Russians favored Trump in the election and when you put that together with the fact that they interfered then they obviously interfered in order to help Trump win.

It would be no surprise if the Russians favored Trump in that their goal was to support underdogs and stir up dissatisfaction. I doubt that they expected Trump to win.

[Charles]

He gave reasons, evidence and facts. The fact that you are too ignorant to understand them is not BTC's fault. Regardless, even a non-expert should be able to understand that a wiped and decommissioned server that has been disassembled CANNOT BE HACKED.

He did at times and at other instances he pointed to his authority. That was why I said he was close to the fallacy. I did not say he comitted it.

[One Bad Pig]

Then go ahead and prove Bill the Cat wrong, or find another authority who disagrees with him. But considering his expertise on the matter, accusing him of fallaciously appealing to authority is astoundingly ignorant, even for you.

If Charles didn't have personal attacks to draw upon, his quiver would be nearly empty. Every once in a while, he actually posts something substantive, but he's mostly here to snipe from the sidelines (and only against one team). He's been so consistent at it that he's mostly reduced his impact to background noise.

[Mountain Man]

No, but the republican chairman knows better.

Yes, I knew you would try and pull the genetic fallacy, which is why I also quoted Democrat Mark Warner saying much the same thing.

But keep telling yourself that the two top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who despise Trump and would never lie for him or twist the truth in his favor don't know what they're talking about.

[JimL]

If you think a server can be hacked after it has been decommissioned, then yes. my knowledge is superior to yours.

Except that your knowedge is not superior because the Russians hacked into 70 Clinton accounts after Trump requested they do so.

[Mountain Man]

Ever heard of authorities disagreeing? Ever heard of authorities being wrong? Ever heard authorities providing reasons, facts and evidence to support their claims since the fact that they are authorities in and of itself does not prove them right?

Then go ahead and prove Bill the Cat wrong, or find another authority who disagrees with him. But considering his expertise on the matter, accusing him of fallaciously appealing to authority is astoundingly ignorant, even for you.

[JimL]

And yet the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says "no factual evidence" that the Trump campaign did anything wrong, and the vice chairman says there's no indication that the Russian government favored one candidate over the other. But I guess you know better.

No, but the republican chairman knows better. There is plenty of evidence whether he sees it as "factual" or not. As for your second point, and just to show how misinformed you are, in Helsinki, Putin himself said that the Russians favored Trump in the election and when you put that together with the fact that they interfered then they obviously interfered in order to help Trump win.

[Bill the Cat]

You are laughing since you don't know what the fallacy is. If you believe what an authority says solely based on the fact that he/she is an authority it is a fallacy since even authorities are sometimes wrong and disagree.

No, that's not how the fallacy works. Especially when the explanations have been given. And my expertise had been demonstrated multiple times here on the topic.

So you need to provide something more than just calling yourself an authority.

Something more than telling someone how absurd it is to claim a powered off and disassembled server can be hacked? Do I really need to give you a lesson on network availability and how a hard drive works? Seriously?

Reasons, evidence and facts should be easy to provide for an authority it will work a lot better than writing stuff like: "Sorry, bro. This is what I do for a living. For the DoD."

In matters of utter absurdity, like claiming a powered off and disassembled server can be accessed from another country via the Internet, nothing more is necessary. That you don't accept that isn't my problem.

[Littlejoe]

You are laughing since you don't know what the fallacy is. If you believe what an authority says solely based on the fact that he/she is an authority it is a fallacy since even authorities are sometimes wrong and disagree. So you need to provide something more than just calling yourself an authority. Reasons, evidence and facts should be easy to provide for an authority it will work a lot better than writing stuff like: "Sorry, bro. This is what I do for a living. For the DoD."

He gave reasons, evidence and facts. The fact that you are too ignorant to understand them is not BTC's fault. Regardless, even a non-expert should be able to understand that a wiped and decommissioned server that has been disassembled CANNOT BE HACKED.

[rogue06]

In DIRECT RESPONSE to the accusation that Trump told them in the campaign speech to do so. They never hacked her server in response to Trump's joke because it was not online any longer.

I thought he joked about them releasing what they already had hacked.

[Charles]

It is no fallacy if someone actually is an authority on a given topic.

Ever heard of authorities disagreeing? Ever heard of authorities being wrong? Ever heard authorities providing reasons, facts and evidence to support their claims since the fact that they are authorities in and of itself does not prove them right?

[Charles]

Who is changing the subject? We are talking public policies. My personal sins have nothing to do with what policies I would like to see enacted. I don't want public policies enacted that normalize sin, nor do I want to say that my sins aren't sins. How about you try being specific and not hurling elephants of "personal reflection" which could mean anything...

Personal reflection is the individual reflecting on, among other things, the policies they support, whether they are justifiable, fair and decent. If all you can do is point to the others, you lack the ability to reflect on this.

[Charles]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! I AM an authority Charles. It's what I do for a living and have done so for 2 decades.

You are laughing since you don't know what the fallacy is. If you believe what an authority says solely based on the fact that he/she is an authority it is a fallacy since even authorities are sometimes wrong and disagree. So you need to provide something more than just calling yourself an authority. Reasons, evidence and facts should be easy to provide for an authority it will work a lot better than writing stuff like: "Sorry, bro. This is what I do for a living. For the DoD."