trump's lawyer managed to make all of these claims in times span of about five minutes:.
a: trump is not under investigation.
b: trump is under investigation.
Trump's Lawyer managed to make all of these claims in times span of about five minutes:
A: Trump is not under investigation
B: Trump is under investigation
C: In a way, Trump is and isn't under investigation
D: He doesn't know whether or not Trump is under investigation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxAIaFyxzig
Did this lawyer used to work for the Watchtower? He sounds like one of the idiots testifying at the ARC.
https://youtu.be/kb-djacxaxa.
great video for showing how to define a cult.
Omg, those people are so stupid! I would never join a cult just to get free kool aid.
ever since i had become an atheist and started to listen to podcasts such as the one by sam harris or shows like the atheist experience, i began to think that it is my responsibility to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
in order to ensure that my beliefs are rationally justified, i started to follow logic, reason, and evidence.
i cannot say that all my beliefs are true, but i can definitely say that i make the efforts to ensure that they are at the very least reasonable.. i also became willing to debate people.
I think it's important to remember that JWs are not in the habit of looking for answers. It might have been best to begin your exchange by asking him what he thought evolution was.
That way, even if you couldn't convince him evolution was true, you could at least give him a correct explanation of the theory and contrast it with the strawman arguments presented by the watchtower over the years.
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
You're source is RT news? Hahahahahaha, LMBO!!!
Oh boy, I should've know. The guy accusing everyone else of falling for "propaganda" is fooled by the biggest propaganda tool in the history of the world.
Firstly, the article does NOT say that Hillary "tried to influence the Russian election in 2012 using the state department." Rather, it points out that she criticized the election as being "unfair". So perhaps instead of criticizing me for "no doing research" maybe you should do some yourself.
But more importantly, RT is NOT a reputable source my friend. I'd strongly encourage you to get your information from other more reliable sources. RT is the state run propaganda tool of Putin.
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
Do you know Hillary also tried to influence the Russian election in 2012 using the state department?
I'm pretty sure this is something you just made up. But, for the simplicity of our discussion, let's assume this is completely true.
How does this in anyway make it any less concerning that Russia attempted to influence our election?
Do you think the actions of Hillary justify the actions of Russia? Do you want to live in a world where hostile states try to influence democratic elections?
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
The difference is that there are actual documented cases of illegals voting (i.e. real evidence of a crime) and anecdotal evidence from people involved in the election process that it was more than a few isolated cases.
Please cite a source showing that "large numbers of votes were cast by illegal immigrants".
Stop arguing over semantics. You posted a snippet of an article that made that claim.
Please cite where in the article it made the claim that "the election machines were hacked"
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
Simon, I'm finding this a difficult conversation to have with you because you will make statements like "large numbers of votes were cast by illegal immigrants" without a shred of evidence.
But, after multiple reports from numerous intelligence agencies and independent companies, you still refuses to acknowledge that the Russian's sought to influence the election. I'm not sure where this disparity for your standards of evidence is arising.
But please don't shoot the messenger . . . and it'd be nice if you wouldn't strawman him either.
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
You are clearly trying to claim that the election machines were hacked
No, I did NOT make this claim. Please stop accusing me of saying things that I did not say.
the guardian: .
russian intelligence agents hacked a us voting systems manufacturer in the weeks leading up to last year’s presidential election .
russian military intelligence carried out a cyber-attack on at least one us voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than a hundred local election officials days before the poll.
But the story isn't presented as "someone TRIED to hack the election". It's presented as "someone DID hack the election". Huge, huge difference.No, that is NOT how the story is presented. Please read the story instead of attacking it for things it doesn't say.
The story even points out that is NOT a conclusion that should be drawn: . . . does not reach a conclusion about whether it affected the outcome of the election.
