whell |
12-14-2016 11:15 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
(Post 341896)
Your argument still does not render this article or any of the other Times or Post article "fake news." You can argue with the semantics the authors used, some conclusions drawn, but not the facts contained therein....
|
If the facts presented are in dispute - such as the assertion that the hacks were "directed by the Kremlin", then of course you can argue with the facts. When something is published as a fact by a publication as august as the New York Times...ahem... but is not substantiated, then it is fake news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
(Post 341896)
Yet again, this point is irrelevant (and inadmissible in a court of law for you so worried about standards of evidence).
|
There you go again. I've never stated that I was "worried about standards of evidence", but you've suggested twice now that I was. Why are you pushing this falsehood? Emulating the NY Times maybe? :eek:
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
(Post 341896)
These were private communications stolen by Russia with the intent of influencing/disrupting the election.
|
Yes, but we still don't know exactly who in Russia or why they did it, do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
(Post 341896)
Moreover, on what basis to these folks "deserve" to be hacked? Because they were running against Trump? It seems you and Putin share this belief.
|
Do we really need to rehash this? They weren't just running against Trump, they were running against one of their own - Bernie Sanders. They knew they weren't supposed to pick sides, but they did. Karma's a bitch.
|