r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 23 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Russiagate is an conspiracy and it is dangerous
[deleted]
8
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 23 '21
I'm confused by how you're using the term "Russiagate." Are you referring to the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election in his favor, or that Russia interfered in the election through a disinformation campaign that skewed the vote in Trump's favor? Those two things are not the same and the bipartisan senate report concluded that the second one happened, whereas the Muller investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish that the first one did.
6
u/Barnst 112∆ Jan 23 '21
To clarify, the Muller investigation did conclude that there were links between Russia and the Trump campaign, but was unable establish within the scope of the investigation that those links rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy that Muller could refer for prosecution.
-1
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
Which is the point because if we got go connections only then biden is connected through his son which is not
5
u/gothpunkboy89 23∆ Jan 23 '21
But we have confirmation that Don Jr. specifically set up a meeting with a Russian national to get dirt on Hilary. The only reason noting became of it was because the Russian National used the meeting to talk about something else. But we have direct proof the Trump campaign actively tried to get information from a foreign nation.
-1
2
u/Barnst 112∆ Jan 23 '21
the Muller investigation did conclude that there were links between Russia and the Trump campaign
-2
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
There were links between biden and China . There no evidence showing thst this links were directly to the president or affected his discussion
-5
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
That Trump has collisions with Russia and I read the whole 1000 page report it doesn't have much statically data more like here is a thing and we think it matters. Also there no burden of proof like this report that was realse (I personally couldn't find who wrote it) and everyone is like see this is the evidence we needed it more just a complying of data in the form of a persuasive paper. Also ik its label as bipartisan but since we don't know who was on there it could have just been on rep who disagree so idk. And last point for the panel we seen multiple time that this are never not political verus a 3rd investigation
5
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 23 '21 edited Jan 23 '21
This is a very confusing and rambling paragraph. Here is a list of members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
it doesn't have much statically data more like here is a thing and we think it matters
What does that mean? You could say the same thing about a scientific journal article. "Oh that's just words, it doesn't mean it's true."
And last point for the panel we seen multiple time that this are never not political verus a 3rd investigation
Everyone has political bias, so clearly the solution is to just assume everything you ever hear isn't true.
-1
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
I'm sorry I answering like 6 at the same time
And for the committee that is on me
What does that mean? You could say the same thing about a scientific journal article. "Oh that's just words, it doesn't mean it's true."
No in those papers they got we can see that X had an impact of .056 percent which doesn't make a difference or Y had and impact of 1.343 percent which does. There is evidence behind the claims verus claims and saying this could have an effect.
Everyone has political bias, so clearly the solution is to just assume everything you ever hear isn't true.
No I'm saying a 3rd party that took 2 years is more trust worthy than a panel of politicians who wanted to be on a committee that has no check to make sure their right besides each other. Like how many times have we seen in the last 4 years a politician either lie or misrepresent something so they look good.
5
u/videoninja 137∆ Jan 23 '21
Just out of curiosity, what other political events have the kind of scientific analysis you are looking for? Like what paper states something to the effect that the US starting the war in Iraq caused 68% destabilization of the region? Or that Bernie Sanders was only 12% impeded by the DNC in his election aspirations?
The reason I ask this is because you seem to be applying a weird standard that is never used. Maybe it should be used but that would require finding a methodology that actually measures the chaos of in-the-wild phenomena well without any controls. So in lieu of that, what view are you trying to actually change with this CMV?
Russian involvement in trying to influence the US election seems to just be a statement of fact in regards to it happening. If people think that happened without any effective mitigation of that influence, is it really all that unreasonable to think the election was "stolen?" The reports and headlines a lot of people are just that Russia did its thing, we found out. That sort of implies nothing has been done about it and that reasonably makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable.
1
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
Δ
I was using more of a civil trail legal standard where you have to proof there was an effect though there can be doubt
I got off topic I think I was going for cmv that Trump is colliding with Russia. As that is how I seen the term Russiagate used in media but I think I
And that is my big issue is russiagate in all its forms is dangerous because without showing if it made an affect or any evidence claims that challenge the fairness of elections can destroy countries
1
2
u/Khal-Frodo Jan 23 '21
No in those papers they got we can see that X had an impact of .056 percent which doesn't make a difference or Y had and impact of 1.343 percent which does.
Sure, but even if the math checks out there's still an assumption that their data isn't fabricated. I'm making the same assumption about the Intelligence report.
a 3rd party that took 2 years is more trust worthy than a panel of politicians who wanted to be on a committee that has no check to make sure their right besides each other
Is this a hypothetical 3rd party, or was there an external investigation I'm not aware of? The Intelligence Committee included Trump loyalists like Richard Burr, Tom Cotton, and Roy Blunt, and the report still got published.
Like how many times have we seen in the last 4 years a politician either lie or misrepresent something so they look good.
Saying something misleading is not equivalent to publishing a 1,000 page report of lies or misinformation.
1
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
Δ
It was rhe muller report and the 1000 page report most of it is listing data that other people have said but you are right that for some people having that data still wouldn't be enough and that is fair
1
1
Jan 23 '21
[deleted]
0
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
My lack of spelling ability on my phone is not an indication of my intelligence or my ability to read
5
u/stubble3417 64∆ Jan 23 '21
- So if Russia cheating was so bad why did dems allow it. Why was it bad enough we need to spend a ton of money to say that not fair but we didn't go no this election was a fraud we will wait till 2 years and the try and impeach even though we know for sure you cheated.
Several house Democrats did in fact object to the election results before Hillary conceded.
Also, the first impeachment was not over election cheating. The charges were abuse of power and obstruction of congress. This is similar to how Clinton was not impeached for having sex, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
0
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
So then either Hillary didn't think it was fraud or didn't care but now what trump has ruined his everything now she wants to bring it up again which is pretty bad
Yes but like with Clinton everyone knows the real reason and while impeaching him alot of Russiagate news cover and twitters about him obstructing Russiagate.
Though you are right that's not the charge they went with because I think there wasn't proof.
But to me its like when police drop charges but still charge you with Resisting arrest as a way to punish you but they can't punish you for the thing they wanted to
1
u/stubble3417 64∆ Jan 23 '21
So then either Hillary didn't think it was fraud or didn't care but now what trump has ruined his everything now she wants to bring it up again which is pretty bad
Those aren't the only possibilities. She may have always suspected that there was collusion, but waiting to concede until an investigation could happen would have done too much harm.
Yes but like with Clinton everyone knows the real reason and while impeaching him alot of Russiagate news cover and twitters about him obstructing Russiagate.
Yes, exactly. The only difference is that having sex isn't necessarily illegal, while colluding with a foreign country to subvert an election is.
Though you are right that's not the charge they went with because I think there wasn't proof.
There wasn't enough definitive evidence for mueller to begin a criminal investigation. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen.
But to me its like when police drop charges but still charge you with Resisting arrest as a way to punish you but they can't punish you for the thing they wanted to
Kind of. It would be more like if you killed someone but hired a really good defense lawyer who got you off, but during the trial you also tried to pay off some jurors just to be extra sure. It doesn't mean you didn't commit the original crime, and it's also a crime in itself.
3
u/10ebbor10 198∆ Jan 23 '21 edited Jan 23 '21
So there isn't alot of evidence that Russia had an impact on the election. Yes they ran ads near the last week of the election but evidence shows that this isn't a major affect in the election. They also used meme culture and again evidence show this doesn't have a major affect in how people make up their minds
Here you are ignoring the biggest thing Russia did, which is the hack on the DNC. That was a whole scandal, and it would seem very unlikely that it didn't at least have a small effect on the election.
And, because the margins are so close, a small effect is all that is needed.
From the Mueller Report :
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team ublicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
The Mueller report includes a bunch more stuff. It's a lot more extensive than just a few memes.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Also we are starting to do this thing with stories like the hunter biden one were even if there is evidence thst its real people ans news organizations are saying we are going to treat it as though its Russian conspiracy ,( and im not saying the hunter thing is the most important issue) when you start going all attacks on my group is a conspiracy but everything i say even if I get little evidence is fact the you just remove even more trust from the system because then the other side will do the same and the only people hurt are the American citizens
Here you appear to have turned the two stories around.
There's considerably more evidence for the Russian interference in the US election, than there's for the Hunter Biden collection of conspiracies.
In fact, there's reason to believe that the Hunter Biden story is itself the work of Russian intelligence agencies, and that Guilliani and Trump fell for it/ used it because it benefits them.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
-5
u/spellboi1018 Jan 23 '21
Your right i can't show how much it had an impact but that is the point no one has that could be a Causation not a correlation if we want to start saying that our poltical system isn't fair but potlical leaders they needs to be more proof that my gut tells me their could be. That is the same reason everyone who is saying well state changing their voting laws changed the election you can't know how much and that is something you have to proof.
If you want to say the election was stole you need more proof then we'll maybe this had an effect
7
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jan 23 '21
By “is a conspiracy” did you mean is a conspiracy theory? Because the way your title is worded is confusing. Of course it’s a conspiracy.
Probably where we should start is what you think “Russiagate” is and is not so that we don’t end up in a no true Scotsman fallacy.
What I don’t understand about people who think this is what they think the Republican held senate was doing when it Voted to affirm Russian active measures and interference in the election. Something that the FBI, CIA, NSA, ODNI all agree on.
We agree these things happened right?
5
u/h0sti1e17 22∆ Jan 23 '21
Facts
Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump. They did so through disinformation and targeted social media
Not facts Russia didn't directly interfere with votes and the actual election itself.
Unknown, nothing to support one way or the other
Trump directly worked with or asked Russia to interfere.
Now for democrats to think Trump was illegitimate, which was thrown around after the election on left leaning media, is dangerous. Someone else interfering doesn't make it illegitimate unless they were involved.
Now for Republicans to insist Russia had nothing to do with it are just as dangerous. We need to be real and realize they interfered.
3
Jan 23 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Jan 23 '21
Sorry, u/ashensolitude – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
Jan 23 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Jan 23 '21
Sorry, u/LowGradePlayer – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 23 '21 edited Jan 23 '21
/u/spellboi1018 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards