Timeline for Why did the House Intelligence Committee vote against releasing the Democratic memo?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2020 at 12:45 | comment | added | agc |
Suggested less personal revision: s/My speculation is that they were/As partisans they might be ideologically/. It's more of an inference obvious to anyone than it is a speculation personal to BobE...
|
|
| Jan 31, 2018 at 20:04 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @BobE Stackexchanges always require research and the presentation of the research in principle. Also it's impossible to prove a negative, also in principle. You would have to search everywhere, which is impossible. If you would not present your sources including exact search terms I would not trust you that you having not seen or heard anything, means that something hasn't happened. I would probably just say that you may not be well enough informed. Without any presentation of your research you would be easily attackable and probably get some downvotes. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 15:22 | comment | added | BobE | @trilarion.. At the time the question was asked, I searched Google, Yahoo, ABC,CBS, NBC, FNC, Hill, and Slate and I could find NO republican on the committee that publicly discussed why they voted against releasing the Democratic memo. I will make this distinction: by publicly - I infer a "for the record" statement. I'm not sure that I accept your assertion that a negative answer necessarily requires a presentation of research to "prove" that something does not exist. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 8:10 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "As of this time I have not read or heard..." Unless you are a canonical source, you should specify more what you have read and heard so we can judge whether you not having read or heard anything is actually meaning anything. In other words. For answering question negatively one has to present the search that was done. Otherwise I'm fine with saying that there seems to be no public explanation. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 6:10 | comment | added | agc | @Philipp, Re "not a forum for speculations": politics encompasses, among other things, secrecy, randomness, forecasting and prediction -- to the degree that those things are unavoidable, politics is intrinsically speculative. Answer to Qs like What good or bad will come out of tax in bitcoin? are quite speculative. Rather than condemn speculation generally, it's better to distinguish between plausible speculation and unlikely speculation. | |
| Jan 31, 2018 at 5:46 | comment | added | Michael Benjamin | @BobE, but that's incorrect. The answer to the question is Yes. The details are in my answer. | |
| Jan 30, 2018 at 21:41 | comment | added | BobE | @Michael_B : as would mine. The direct, concise answer to the OP question of "have Chairman Nunes or any other Republicans on the committee publicly..." is simple: No, (at least not at the time the question was asked) | |
| Jan 30, 2018 at 20:58 | comment | added | Michael Benjamin | Extrapolation is projection based on known data. It's not pure speculation. More importantly, that information came at the end of my answer, almost as an aside. If that section were removed, my answer would still be valid because it has a direct response to the OP's question with references. | |
| Jan 30, 2018 at 19:51 | comment | added | BobE | @Phillip- noted, However: the first sentence explicitly answers the question posed by the OP, specifically " have Chairman Nunes or any other Republicans on the committee publicly discussed why they voted against releasing the Democratic memo?" .... I would expect you to downvote other answers that include phrases like "this suggests to me" or "one can extrapolate" as being equally speculative. | |
| Jan 30, 2018 at 18:28 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | I downvoted this answer because this website is not a forum for speculations. | |
| Jan 30, 2018 at 16:27 | history | answered | BobE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |