Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:
9 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:
the burden of proof is on those who claim the Russian meddling had a material impact on the election outcome, which it did not until proven otherwise. Can you do it?

I'm not claiming anything one way or another. You are.

you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 

I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

Posted
Just now, Orca of Peace said:

that's up to the people making the claim, don't you think?

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

Posted
you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 
I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 
You just wrote that the person making the claim is the same person that gets to determine what qualifies as proof. You are a fire hose of life lessons, Pelosi. I shall treasure them always.
Posted
Just now, Orca of Peace said:

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

What are real hard facts?

 

I am sure ide this is you

 

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Point is, no matter how much evidence and supporting testimony I throw, you will just disregard and say it’s not enough to qualify as proof.  It’s intellectually disingenuous.

Swam'd.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:
13 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:
you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 
I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

You just wrote that the person making the claim is the same person that gets to determine what qualifies as proof. You are a fire hose of life lessons, Pelosi. I shall treasure them always.

the person making the claim has to provide proof. Simple.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

your presumption is intellectually disingenuous. I will entertain any real hard facts. Now it's up to you to produce or STFU. 

Just read the Mueller indictments on the Russians and decide for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Also this:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

And this:

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/news/388939-clapper-no-doubt-russia-is-the-reason-trump-won%3famp

And this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/without-the-russians-trump-wouldnt-have-won/2018/07/24/f4c87894-8f6b-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html

And this

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

i never denied Russian meddling, but how many votes did it change in the grand scheme of things? A few hundred, a few thousand, millions?  Are there any metrics on that? Did it hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump? 

Posted
1 minute ago, Orca of Peace said:

 

i never denied Russian meddling, but how many votes did it change in the grand scheme of things? A few hundred, a few thousand, millions?  Are there any metrics on that? Did it hand the Presidency to Donald J. Trump? 

Even if provided you wouldn't believe them

Posted

Orca:  "Advertising is a $70 billion dollar business.  But it would be impossible to prove that I bought a coke yesterday because coke decided to run an ad.  I can't prove it.  Coke can't prove it.  I guess Coca Cola just wasted those billions of dollars then.  What a dumb company. "

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So orca of peace's assertion is that if someone shoots at me and misses, I shouldn't care because I wasn't hurt and the cops shouldn't care or arrest the person because I wasn't hurt.  

The next pivot will be "Everyone does it, we've meddled in plenty of elections. This is just something that always happens. It's normal"

Posted
5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Next? Isn't that already happening?

Pretty much yes.
 

"Who cares if Russia interfered? It means Hillary isn't president!"

Posted
2 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

you dont' understand how life works. When a claim is made, it's up to that person to show some substance. In other words, prove the affirmative. 

I'd like to know how Russian meddling, which i don't deny, actually produced verifiable results in Trump's favor. 

Do you think advertising increases sales? Can you quantify exactly how much is due to the advertising and how much isn't? Or do you just know that it works?

It's not possible to know to what extent voters were influenced by Russia's campaign of misinformation on social media, hacking, dark money, etc. it's foolish to think it had no effect at all. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you think advertising increases sales? Can you quantify exactly how much is due to the advertising and how much isn't? Or do you just know that it works?

It's not possible to know to what extent voters were influenced by Russia's campaign of misinformation on social media, hacking, dark money, etc. it's foolish to think it had no effect at all. 

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

The analogy works 100%.  The only difference is the empirical proof.  You can't compare Trump v. Hillary elections with Russian propaganda versus Trump v. Hillary elections without Russian propaganda because there is no such thing as the latter.  That is why there is no 'proof.'  But you can take it on faith that advertising works, note that (illegal) advertising for Trump was done here, and accept that the needle was therefore moved.  But no one will ever be able to know the amount the needle moved.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

marketing departments carefully track ads and sales correlation.  Not sure that analogy works here. 

Think harder. You can do it. 

"Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us. All we ask is that you let us serve it your way."

"Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, on a sesame seed bun."

Can you tell us exactly how each affected sales at Burger King and McDonald's? Can Burger King or McDonald's? If not, were those marketing campaigns a waste of money? Are all marketing campaigns a waste of money? Should  politicians stop running political ads altogether?

Check this out. I can still do this from memory. You'll have to trust me..."bun seed sesame a on, onions, pickles, cheese, lettuce, sauce special patties beef all two."

That got you a free, or at least discounted, Big Mac somewhere around 40 years ago. I don't remember exactly what the benefit was but I remember the promotion. The shit works. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

the burden of proof is on those who claim the Russian meddling had a material impact on the election outcome, which it did not until proven otherwise. Can you do it?

Don’t feed the trolls

Posted
On 7/25/2018 at 8:34 PM, Message Board User said:

 

Of course they did.  Because Fox caters to the Cult of Asshole, where the most important character trait is being a miserable, detestable prick.  That’s basically the right wing these days.

Posted
On 7/25/2018 at 10:03 AM, HenryJames said:

The next pivot for Trump supporters is that they will be ok with Russian intervention because it prevented Hillary from becoming President.

Of course.  And the Russians hate gays, blacks, browns...I have a feeling that might sell well to the present day Party Numero Uno.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Shep Smith did a nice job defending the CNN reporter who got banned.

He does a nice job on most things. 

 


 

Posted

Of course everyone else is discussing the breaking Cohen news and Laura ingraham is having a segment on people being mean to conservatives in public 



×
×
  • Create New...