Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "" video.

This was by far the most level-headed argument I've seen on the story and it seems that Mike even read/skimmed the 29 page indictment. I watch Kyle Kulinski everyday but was very disappointed by his biased take on the matter and barely went into detail, whereas Mike definitely was the best by far and took the time to engage both sides of the argument and talked about the widespread differences in reactions between some idiot on MSNBC vs someone very sensible like Emma Vigeland. I had a lot of respect for this video considering all the biased nonsense from both sides of the argument not willing to talk about or acknowledge the other side's doubts and logical points.
4
Bush also lied and exploited bad intelligence to declare war on a country we had no business attacking even IF they had WMDs. So your argument is based upon let's trust the executive branch, who lied exploited the fear surrounding 9/11, and declared an illegal war because we can't trust every single intelligence agency in America who had bad intelligence back in 2003 when not every agency was in agreement about the WMDs and now Mueller operates as a special council within the bounds of the judicial branch so things are not even the same as they were back in 2003 in the slightest.
3
+Call of The Wild - I'm actually pretty on the fence about this issue and I think we might've both disliked Kyle's take for similar but different reasons, but it really didn't matter if you were on either side of the issue, Kyle did kind of a shitty job representing both sides of the argument. He ended up taking a very unpopular view where he just completely accepted the evidence for what it was and then made the claim that it doesn't matter at all anyways, which I can imagine both sides of the argument would heavily disagree with. Unlike Kyle, Mike actually thoroughly represented both sides and finished by telling everyone there were very good reasons to take a nuanced approach to the topic considering the truth could go one way or the other or be somewhere in the middle, which I agree with way more than just the blanket statement "Russia hacked us, but it doesn't matter anyways and no one should care about it." (paraphrasing).
2
Mike has, by far, had the most level-headed opinion on this subject more than anyone. This was great reporting and better than anything I've seen from every other Independent media channel. I usually watch Kyle Kulinski, but you definitely surpassed him by a mile and a half on this issue and actually walked us through the 29 page indictment proving you actually did the research on the subject matter. I agree that people need to be nuanced and cautious about this subject. I have seen most people being biased on one side or the other of this issue, but in my opinion, it should not be that easy and we should all be weighing the two sides to determine the most logical conclusion especially since the investigation is still ongoing and the next round of indictments are likely going to be Americans like Jared Kushner hopefully.
2
+Liam V - So a lot of what you said is misleading to put it lightly. The whole "3 not 17" intelligence agencies thing is a parrot of what Trump said in one of his rallies and it's ridiculously misleading considering it is 4 intelligence agencies and they're the only 4 agencies that were tracking the Russian interference while all the others were not engaged in any usage. It was the FBI, the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These are the 4 largest agencies by far and the others tend to be for specialized use like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency who focus on satellite imaging. Secondly, you're using the fact that the CIA had bad intel back in 2003 as a reason to trust Trump instead when you're completely ignorant to the fact that the executive branch has been even MORE untrustworthy considering that same event, Bush was the president who lied to the American people and exploited the fear surrounding 9/11 and bad intel from the CIA to DECLARE WAR on a country we had no business attacking EVEN IF they had WMDs. So your argument to trust the word of the executive branch over the intelligence agencies based on historical events back in 2003 makes absolutely NO sense and the executive branch, Trump in particular, has proven to be pathetically untrustworthy and is even considered a pathological liar. Also, those reports back in 2003 that Iraq had WMDs were not in agreement between all the largest agencies. I'm not even arguing for one side or the other here just trying to correct your misleading and false information. I consider myself more balanced on this issue than most, in which even Mike exclaimed that we should all take a nuanced stance on this issue, which I whole-heartedly agree with. The fact that you're telling us to trust Trump and parroting his talking points from rallies tells me you haven't thought much on this issue past your biased perspective.
1
If it was just the DNC hack that would be one thing, but they more importantly tried hacking into the state election boards in swing states that have the power to determine the president. Unsuccessfully as far as we know, but that is the real fear surrounding this.
1