politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Your logic ("I can't believe it so it's likely untrue") is flawed. "I can't believe the world is round so Occam's razor it must be flat because that I can understand."
Putin is very smart and the KGB were smart and they bested US intelligence, according to the now deleted article, not in those exact words. Why is that so implausible?
There could just as easily be other bought or compromised US officials, not just Trump. The thinking "but this couldn't really happen, it's too sneaky and complicated!" is a pretty naive counterpoint.
"I can't believe it so it's likely untrue," is a fundamental misinterpretation of what I'm saying. "There is enough evidence of a Trump/Russia connection without unreliable sources," would be more accurate.
Believing unverified claims has consequences. Remember the Steele dossier, with its wild allegations of blackmail and urinating prostitutes? It's now pretty much entirely discredited due to unreliable sources, and the very real, very clear connection between Trump and Russia lost credibility with it.
Similarly, the Mueller investigation was also undermined by outlandish claims. Left-leaning grifters like Louise Mensch and the Krassenstein brothers made predictions of imminent arrests and treason charges. When the Mueller Report was finally released, it stated that, while there wasn't enough evidence to say Trump definitively colluded with Russia, there was no evidence to clear him of that charge, and he committed criminal obstruction of justice during the course of the investigation. That should have been a damning conclusion, but after months of wild speculation and overhype, it was labeled a nothing-burger.
So, I'm going to remain skeptical of an old KGB agent's Facebook post about a 38 year plot to recruit Donald Trump as a spy, and instead stick to what is known: Trump has long had business dealings with Russian oligarchs, the Russian government supported him through online propaganda, there were credible accusations of collusion between his campaign and Russia, and he is now promoting a pro-Russia foreign policy. That's significant enough.
And that is not saying, "I can't believe the world is round so Occam's razor it must be flat because that I can understand." That's saying, "I can see the Earth is curved, and while some people claim we're actually on the back of giant turtle, Occam's Razor says it's probably just round."
Good job. You've earned your rubles and can clock out now.
LOL, you're literally doing the thing I'm describing. You're making an outlandish claim (that I am a paid Russian agent) that's going to make a real issue (Russian online disinformation campaigns) seem less credible. If your reaction to someone saying, "Trump is clearly in Russia's pocket, but you should be wary of outlandish claims with unverified sources," is, "you must be a Russian propagandist," you need to touch grass.