Once again, no proof of Russian hack or Trump collusion with Russian hack

[DOTR]

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is. For reasonable people. If you can find no evidence then obviously your only recourse is blind faith and wishful thinking. Looking for evidence, and finding none, is evidence of its absence.
Only an idiot would search his pockets for change and, finding none, then claim "I find no evidence of change in my pockets but that is not evidence that my pockets have no change"

 

[DOTR]

So first I would like to see what would seem to be the very easiest thing to prove. Before we even get to Trump how about an example of Russian "hacking" of the election. First things first right?

 

[DOTR]

By the way American legal tradition has a beautiful way of describing "absence of evidence". It is called "innocence".

 

[DOTR]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

Forever....until they find another unprovable implication. And if not this then that. The medias goal is to hobble then force out our elected president. The means are "whatever necessary" given that they have no power.
So long as decent Americans remember this it shouldn't matter. They got their asses kicked so bad last time they have no power left outside the media...as we demonstrated in the last Supreme Court pick and secretary of Ed pick.
Podesta stated in one of his emails ( thanks Wikileaks ) that the goal was to create an "echo chamber in the media". And that's all it is.
Don't let it bother you. Don't pay it any more mind than the fake polls that said Mrs Slick Willy was going to be the next president. Or that Trump was going to drag Republicans in the House to a slaughter. Or that the Electoral College would rebel and elect Hillary.
Loud constant shrill propaganda from Marxists is still just Marxist propaganda.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Once again, no proof of Russian hack or Trump collusion with Russian hack

• There's a premature conclusion if ever there were one.

Actually it accurately states the facts. "There *IS* no proof...." Nothing premature about such a statement of fact.
Now if some idiot said "We *will* find proof and Untik then assume it as true...." well, that would be the very definition of a premature conclusion(or desperate blind fanatical wishful thinking).

I notice you "conveniently removed the other bullet point contained in the post you quoted. I'll remind you of what it says:

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I supposed it's unsurprising the you removed that bullet point You pretty much had to for there be any hope of your being taken seriously while repeating the sophomorically irrational line that equates your unawareness of any evidence with there being no evidence.

 

[DOTR]

Read on buffoon.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is. For reasonable people. If you can find no evidence then obviously your only recourse is blind faith and wishful thinking. Looking for evidence, and finding none, is evidence of its absence.
Only an idiot would search his pockets for change and, finding none, then claim "I find no evidence of change in my pockets but that is not evidence that my pockets have no change"

Sure it is. For reasonable people.

You obviously have no formal training in reasoning (or none that stuck with you) and you didn't click on the link.

• http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence
  
• Argument from ignorance - RationalWiki
  
• The Burden of Proof
  
• Absence of evidence fallacy:

What reasonable, and reasonably well educated (i.e., having more than an eighth grade education in English) users of English do when remarking upon a matter for there is an absence of evidence is maintain/indicate a skeptical stance/tone when sharing their thoughts with others. They do not assert one way or the other on the matter until appears substantively incontrovertible evidence for or against the matter in question. Accordingly, reasonable people would write or say something like:

• Examples of explicit language that express an element of uncertainty:
  • There appears to be no evidence/proof of....
  • To date, we have not been shown any incontrovertible evidence/proof of...
• Examples of verb mood to convey the idea that something is not established as fact:
  • Were there evidence/proof of...
  • Any evidence/proof there be of...
  • If there be evidence/proof of....
  • There might be evidence of...

You used none of those ways.

 

[Norman]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

You must understand, it's difficult to come up with evidence for something that didn't happen. Of course, the dems still need to pretend, because their butts are very hurt and they need excuses.

 

[Snouter]

The thing is the butthurt Crooked Hillary/Crazy Bernie stooges have not even recovered from the butthurtness of Crooked Hillary losing to The Donald, so the fact that there was no "Russian meddling" creates an additional case of butthurtness on top of that butthurtness that will need more than Preparation H to soothe.

 

[bripat9643]

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is. For reasonable people. If you can find no evidence then obviously your only recourse is blind faith and wishful thinking. Looking for evidence, and finding none, is evidence of its absence.
Only an idiot would search his pockets for change and, finding none, then claim "I find no evidence of change in my pockets but that is not evidence that my pockets have no change"

Sure it is. For reasonable people.

You obviously have no formal training in reasoning (or none that stuck with you) and you didn't click on the link.

• http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence
  
• Argument from ignorance - RationalWiki
  
• The Burden of Proof
  
• Absence of evidence fallacy:

What reasonable, and reasonably well educated (i.e., having more than an eighth grade education in English) users of English do when remarking upon a matter for there is an absence of evidence is maintain/indicate a skeptical stance/tone when sharing their thoughts with others. They do not assert one way or the other on the matter until appears substantively incontrovertible evidence for or against the matter in question. Accordingly, reasonable people would write or say something like:

• Examples of explicit language that express an element of uncertainty:
  • There appears to be no evidence/proof of....
  • To date, we have not been shown any incontrovertible evidence/proof of...
• Examples of verb mood to convey the idea that something is not established as fact:
  • Were there evidence/proof of...
  • Any evidence/proof there be of...
  • If there be evidence/proof of....
  • There might be evidence of...

You used none of those ways.

Yeah, right, so with regard to the existence of bigfoot you "do not assert one way or the other on the matter until appears substantively incontrovertible evidence for or against the matter in question?"

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[bripat9643]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

You must understand, it's difficult to come up with evidence for something that didn't happen. Of course, the dems still need to pretend, because their butts are very hurt and they need excuses.

They don't have to come up with any evidence to accomplish their goal. They just have to drag out these hearings until the midterms.

 

[DOTR]

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure it is. For reasonable people. If you can find no evidence then obviously your only recourse is blind faith and wishful thinking. Looking for evidence, and finding none, is evidence of its absence.
Only an idiot would search his pockets for change and, finding none, then claim "I find no evidence of change in my pockets but that is not evidence that my pockets have no change"

Sure it is. For reasonable people.

You obviously have no formal training in reasoning (or none that stuck with you) and you didn't click on the link.

Haha. I'm caught. It's very true I have "no formal training in reasoning".

Is that what us peasants need to not notice liberals are stating as truth something they not only have no evidence of, but actually denied could happen before the election?

"Formal training in reasoning" lol

 

[DOTR]

Alrighty then....I guess I'll be moving on from this thread. Once again, as I have for months, I asked "what hacking"?
And once again....crickets.

 

[candycorn]

Roger Stone, high level advisor to Mr. Trump, has interactions with a Russian Hacker (Guccifer 2.0) credited with hacking the DNC. Now I would ask why/how a 60 y/o millionaire with the President’s ear even knows a Russian Hacker. Nobody has ever adequately explained how/why someone like stone would know someone like that.

Doesn’t that speak to what type of organization the Trump campaign was to some extent?

For example, lets say someone is dating your daughter and he leaves his cell phone on your kitchen table when they go out for the evening. It rings and you see the caller ID say “John Doe.” You happen to know John Doe is wanted by your local police for spousal abuse or pushing drugs or whatever. Is there anything that your daughter’s boyfriend can say that would make you believe him that he “barely knows” Doe, “doesn’t know” Doe, etc…?

Remarkably. That is what Stone wants you to believe. His interactions with this guy are just banal and innocuous.

Does anyone feel that Stone just did this on his own—without the knowledge of Mr. Trump? Really?

 

[candycorn]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

Until trump is driven from office. In the meantime, what you call nonsense will be front page news.

You prefer Pence then. . .

Works for me!

Me too. At least he has some respect for the role of government.

 

[Thinker101]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

Until trump is driven from office. In the meantime, what you call nonsense will be front page news.

Not to worry, I hear Michael Moore is making another movie, we'll be able to see your stupidity on the big screen.

 

[kwc57]

Once again, no proof of Russian hack or Trump collusion with Russian hack

• There's a premature conclusion if ever there were one.
• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence means empty accusations and wishful thinking. So far, lots of accusations and zero evidence. If you got it, cough it up. America wants to see it.

 

[Chuz Life]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

Until trump is driven from office. In the meantime, what you call nonsense will be front page news.

You prefer Pence then. . .

Works for me!

Me too. At least he has some respect for the role of government.

What is the role of government?

 

[Kondor3]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

4 years....it will get worse.



.

More like eight years. the Ds do love their circular firing squads.

Trump will be lucky to make eight months, let alone eight years.

Why what's going to happen with the repulicans holding Congress?



.

Because if the Special Prosecutor finds against Drumpf, it will be a matter of either removing Drumpf or facing the loss of their seats?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How long must we hear this nonsense?

4 years....it will get worse.



.

More like eight years. the Ds do love their circular firing squads.

Trump will be lucky to make eight months, let alone eight years.

Why what's going to happen with the repulicans holding Congress?



.

Because if the Special Prosecutor finds against Drumpf, it will be a matter of either removing Drumpf or facing the loss of their seats?

That don't make sense, Republican voters won't kick out there congressmen.


We would have to go into a recession or something from here till November 2018.


.