I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).
Especially considering:
- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper
https://www.thelocal.de/20160223/nsa-eavesdropped-on-merkels-intimate-conversations
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."
- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War (see any familiar names in there??)
- This: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mu...
The United States Government has a long history of lying.
Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.
Look at some of these pictures:
https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/iraq-war-bodies?mediatype=...
You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?
Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.
Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.
EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.
See also:
==I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).==
Again, this justification could be used to back up any belief when it comes to government. It is a convenient way to brush off all the lying, obstruction, indictments and convictions as some mere conspiracy. Blanket cynicism (and whataboutism) isn't a valid replacement for actual analysis. That we have hacked other countries doesn't change the facts of what Trump and his campaign did. They are entirely different cases that can be discussed on their own.
==Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.==
Odd that you say this as we are sending more soldiers to the Middle East [1]. What about the 1,000 soldiers and military activities happening in Niger under his leadership [2]? The bombings (often of civilians) in Yemen [3]? Attacking a Syrian airfield [4]? Did you see hard evidence that Iran bombed the oil tanker [5]?
In making these decisions, Trump is using the same intelligence community that you and he both say is corrupt and untrustworthy [6]. It makes it appear that he only wants to discredit them when it affects him (Russia investigation) personally.
None of this even gets into the obstruction of justice, felonies related to campaign finance, numerous campaign officials in prison or under indictment, or taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies in Helsinki. This gives us a view into the type of person Trump is and the company he keeps. You have decided to support that, which is your choice. I don't agree with your attempts to blame it on Democrats, the media or the intelligence committee. Just own it.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/us-additional-troops...
[2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/senators-are-stunned-to-discov...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middlee...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-...
The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room.
That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council [4] [5]. This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump.
If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia).
Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alpero...
[3] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-r...