• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the left and right even converse at this point?

Please provide evidence why there needs to be evidence to investigate the freeness and fairness of the 2020 election but there was no need of evidence to proceed with an investigation of the freeness and fairness of the 2016 election.
We asked you first. You made claims.

Your assumption re: 2016 is off-topic. It should not affect doing what's right (nor do I assume they were wrong).
 
According to 17 US intelligence agencies russia interfered with the 2016 election


deny that
Wrong. It was according to three people.

The NYT debunked that stupid nonsense years ago.
 
The traditional and absolutist definition of authoritarianism and fascism includes lefties and well as righties. For crying out loud, the father of fascism, Mussolini, was absolutely considered a lefty until a progressive's prospective placed Mussolini as a righty.:rolleyes:

Mussolini and Trump are righties from a progressive's prospective since there isn't much political ideology to the left of progressivism.:rolleyes: Which is, in turn, taught in public schools and becomes the indoctrination of the public school student by the left and which leads to the advent of the age of misinformation.
For example, if one were to ask GOPers if Trump was a lefty or righty you'd probably have as many responses of lefty as righty.


Since progressives are all authoritarian or at least, progressives falsely claim ('cause Trump isn't authoritarian) that one must be authoritarian to be fascist, the claim by progressives of all fascists (or authoritarians) being righties is an authoritarian move because the rewritten definition of authoritarianism and fascism is succinctly placing 'blame' on those who disagree with authoritarians - with progressives.

Sidenote: Is the rewritten and from a progressive's prospective definition of authoritarianism and fascism wrong since not all fascists and authoritarians are righties? Is the rewritten and from a progressive's prospective definition of authoritarianism and fascism wrong since not all authoritarians are fascist (according to progressives, Trump is fascist while there is no proof Trump is authoritarian, IMO)?...Rather, there is no proof of Trump being authoritarian 'cept for authoritarian claims, IMO.:rolleyes:
Do you have a source for that claim?
 
According to 17 US intelligence agencies russia interfered with the 2016 election


deny that
None of the 17 different intelligence agencies that you emphasized in your post did any independent research of their own as to whether Russia interfered with the 2016 election. They all blindly accepted the assertations of Crowdstrike.:rolleyes: Now, we find out there are some questionable ties (biases) of Crowdstrike based on Crowdstrike's previous business dealings and questionable ties (biases) based on Crowdstrike's ownership (in The Ukraine).https://americantruthtoday.com/poli...strike-and-how-are-they-connected-to-ukraine/

Sidenote: I mean, it's possible that the impeachment of Trump over the Zelensky phone call occurred because Trump in the Zelensky phone call was interested in Zelensky investigating the biases of Crowdstrike (seeing as Crowdstrike was the only source for the allegation of Russian wrongdoing in the 2016 election) and the dems in Washington wanted that line of investigation stopped.

I mean, if you want me to follow along in some sort of dialogue with you on this, you're gonna have to come up with something better.
 
Last edited:
All 17 intelligence agencies based their claims on Crowdstrike reporting. :rolleyes: I mean, if you want me to follow along in some sort of dialogue with you on this, you're gonna have to come up with something better.
:ROFLMAO:
 
According to 17 US intelligence agencies russia interfered with the 2016 election


deny that
Here's another thought for ya: If there were independent assessments by various intelligence agencies (17 according to you) of Russian interference in the 2016 election, why did the anti-leftist newspaper, The Washington Examiner, in the first paragraph of the linked piece demand (as well as the DOJ) that Crowdstrike's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 be legitimized? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-fbi-that-russia-interfered-in-2016-election
In other words, why didn't The Washington Examiner and the DOJ also place emphasis on other findings from other intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the 2016? Answer: IMO, The Washington Examiner and the DOJ wanted to legitimize Crowdstrike's assessment of Russian interference in the American 2016 election 'cause Crowdstrike was the only source for Russian interference in the 2016 American election.
 
Last edited:
Instead of using a laughing emoji, why don't you provide me with linked info that proves the other intelligence agencies did their own independent assessment of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election and why don't you provide linked info that intelligence agencies didn't solely rely on the investigation by Crowdstrike?
 
We asked you first. You made claims.

Your assumption re: 2016 is off-topic. It should not affect doing what's right (nor do I assume they were wrong).
How can the investigation into the 2016 election be off topic when that 2016 election investigation was over the freeness and fairness of the 2016 election? For that matter, why did you condone that 2016 election investigation to continue w/o any evidence of the 2016 election being not free nor not fair but you demand evidence of the lack of freeness and fairness of the 2020 election before an investigation can continue? :rolleyes:
 
Do you have a source for that claim?
My source that Mussolini was a lefty comes from 1930s history. That source and the additional source that conservatives (righties) don't consider Mussolini a righty because Mussolini believed in socialist notions for Italy, for example.

Relativism in definition is both misleading and can be a bitch. It's better to stick with absolutism in definition...less grey area for the definition...less manipulation of the definition for authoritarian reasons, for example.:rolleyes:
 
Here's another thought for ya: If there were independent assessments by various intelligence agencies (17 according to you) of Russian interference in the 2016 election, why did the anti-leftist newspaper, The Washington Examiner, in the first paragraph of the linked piece demand (as well as the DOJ) that Crowdstrike's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 be legitimized? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-fbi-that-russia-interfered-in-2016-election
In other words, why didn't The Washington Examiner and the DOJ also place emphasis on other findings from other intelligence agencies on Russian interference in the 2016? Answer: IMO, The Washington Examiner and the DOJ wanted to legitimize Crowdstrike's assessment of Russian interference in the American 2016 election 'cause Crowdstrike was the only source for Russian interference in the 2016 American election.
April 2020

 
None of the 17 different intelligence agencies that you emphasized in your post did any independent research of their own as to whether Russia interfered with the 2016 election. They all blindly accepted the assertations of Crowdstrike.:rolleyes: Now, we find out there are some questionable ties (biases) of Crowdstrike based on Crowdstrike's previous business dealings and questionable ties (biases) based on Crowdstrike's ownership (in The Ukraine).https://americantruthtoday.com/poli...strike-and-how-are-they-connected-to-ukraine/

Sidenote: I mean, it's possible that the impeachment of Trump over the Zelensky phone call occurred because Trump in the Zelensky phone call was interested in Zelensky investigating the biases of Crowdstrike (seeing as Crowdstrike was the only source for the allegation of Russian wrongdoing in the 2016 election) and the dems in Washington wanted that line of investigation stopped.

I mean, if you want me to follow along in some sort of dialogue with you on this, you're gonna have to come up with something better.
The committee found that reporting from multiple intelligence disciplines was used as evidence to support this analytic line, and that the analytic tradecraft was transparent,” according to the findings.
 
That Senate intel report was confirmed from the Crowdstrike report. Duh.
I await your evidence. This much is clear. My statement that more than one intelligence agency confirmed this.

The committee found that reporting from multiple intelligence disciplines was used as evidence to support this analytic line, and that the analytic tradecraft was transparent,” according to the findings.
 
The committee found that reporting from multiple intelligence disciplines was used as evidence to support this analytic line, and that the analytic tradecraft was transparent,” according to the findings.
All the analytic 'tradecraft' was based on the findings of Crowdstrike since no intelligence agencies bothered to independently investigate the correctness of the claim made by Crowdstrike that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Just as the theory of the Trump administration's complicity with Russia in the 2016 was based on a rumor about the Trump campaign devised by a former British spy who hated Trump.

You want facts to start an investigation into the freeness and fairness of the 2020 election and don't want Trump's amounts of circumstancial evidence showing a lack of freeness and fairness in the 2020 election but you embraced circumstancial evidence of a lack of freeness and fairness of the 2016 election to start an investigation of the Trump campaign and you embraced circumstancial evidence to impeach Trump. 'Splain that, as Ricky would say.
 
I await your evidence. This much is clear. My statement that more than one intelligence agency confirmed this.

The committee found that reporting from multiple intelligence disciplines was used as evidence to support this analytic line, and that the analytic tradecraft was transparent,” according to the findings.
They all confirmed the Crowdstrike report. Coming at it from a different angle, show me a link where any agency (let alone, an intelligence agency) other than Crowdstrike independently investigated the veracity of the claim of Russian interference in the American 2016 election.
 
All the analytic 'tradecraft' was based on the findings of Crowdstrike since no intelligence agencies bothered to independently investigate the correctness of the claim made by Crowdstrike that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Just as the theory of the Trump administration's complicity with Russia in the 2016 was based on a story of the Trump devised by a former British spy who hated Trump.

You want facts to start an investigation into the freeness and fairness of the 2020 election and don't want Trump's amounts of circumstancial evidence showing a lack of freeness and fairness in the 2020 election but you embraced circumstancial evidence of a lack of freeness and fairness of the 2016 election to start an investigation of the Trump campaign and you embraced circumstancial evidence to impeach Trump. 'Splain that, as Ricky would say.
I see lots of claims. Not a lot of evidence.

US intelligence confirmed that russia interfered with the election to benefit trump.


If you wish to discuss the impeachment that is another issue involving Ukraine. Stick to a topic.


But it is clear Russia interfered with the election to benefit trump
 
They all confirmed the Crowdstrike report. Coming at it from a different angle, show me a link where an agency (let alone, an intelligence agency) other than Crowdstrike independently investigated the veracity of the claim of Russian interference in the American 2016 election.
Again you make claims without evidence. If you have evidence that crowdstrike is the only evidence they used then present it
 
Back
Top Bottom