It's kinda surreal to see this sort of bombastic evangelical-like talking head on a liberal bend. I mean, it's everything I hate about the right-wing talking head bullshit filled with slippery slope arguments, bombast, and fearmongering (the amount he's compared figures to hitler in this series is hilarious), but it helps me understand why people go for this shit. It's a little vindicating when the rage you feel is being felt by someone that has the freedom to yell it at everyone while you can't.
But to give him a little credit, although he's falling into the trap of extrapolation so much of the time at least he's not lying out his ass like the other aisle tends to.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;51527235]It's kinda surreal to see this sort of bombastic evangelical-like talking head on a liberal bend. I mean, it's everything I hate about the right-wing talking head bullshit filled with slippery slope arguments, bombast, and fearmongering (the amount he's compared figures to hitler in this series is hilarious), but it helps me understand why people go for this shit. It's a little vindicating when the rage you feel is being felt by someone that has the freedom to yell it at everyone while you can't.
But to give him a little credit, although he's falling into the trap of extrapolation so much of the time at least he's not lying out his ass like the other aisle tends to.[/QUOTE]
He's only healthy if you're in the right state mind to watch him.
Take for example his comparisons involving hitler. If you're not in the right state of mind, you can interpret that as WOW PUTIN IS LITERALLY HITLER, TRUMP SUPPORTS LITERALLY HITLER. If you're in a better state of mind, it's just witticism; commenting on the fact that Trump might make the same mistake as Chamberlain when in office.
[quote]wave of reports about intelligence agencies confirming russian's intervention in our election[/quote]
i just want some proof please.
[quote]who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings[/quote]
Obama, in office.
[quote]That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled.[/quote]
So Trump, not in office, is getting a meeting about once a week. He doesn't decline the PDB, but instead sends Pence to the other in person meetings.
I am not a Trump supporter however I feel this is a bit ridiculous.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527294]"who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings"
Obama, in office.[/quote]
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527294]"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."
So Trump, not in office, is getting a meeting about once a week. He doesn't decline the PDB, but instead sends Pence to the other in person meetings.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html"]You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/URL]
[quote]That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled.[/quote]
[quote]Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue. [National Intelligence Director James] Clapper may be present once or twice a week, but most often one of his deputies is in attendance in case an intelligence community issue arises.[/quote]
PDB = Presidential Daily Brief
[quote][B]He has already handed Putin our sacred right to vote[/B][/quote]
Nuh uh, this is where I draw the line guy.
#1 This bastard has no evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin
#2 Publicizing documents from our own government? Is this what is he referring to as "handing over our sacred right to vote"
This video is shit.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51527321][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html"]You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Oh, thank you. I meant to link to my source for that quote!
But did you actually read the article before trying to make your clever cake jokes?
Obama (in office) a comes to the morning meeting once every 7 days.
Trump (before office) goes to the meetings once every 8 days, on the off days he sends Pence.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.e329b673e852[/url]
November 23rd he had attended two intelligence meetings.
Again, what is the problem?
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527333]Oh, thank you. I meant to link to my source for that quote!
But did you actually read the article before trying to make your clever cake jokes?
Obam (in office) a comes to the morning meeting once every 7 days.
Trump (before office) goes to the meetings once every 8 days, on the off days he sends Pence.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.e329b673e852[/url]
November 23rd he had attended two intelligence meetings.
Again, what is the problem?[/QUOTE]
First, let me just clarifying what you meant by saying "Obama" as the answer to the question of "Who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings?"
Do you believe that Obama had little meetings like the same as Trump (like I assumed), or do you believe that Obama ignored the contents of intelligence briefings? To debate the later is pure ignorance, so I assumed that you meant the former.
When Trump goes to the meetings, he ignores what they say. That was the point of Keith Olbermann asking "Who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings?" and bringing up Bus.
The cake joke was a reference for you trying to go both ways by criticizing obama for the lack of meetings, while defending trump for the lack of meetings when they both use the same methods. The problem here is that Trump ignores what the intelligence community has to say.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51527374]First, let me just clarifying what you meant by saying "Obama" as the answer to the question of "Who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings?"
Do you believe that Obama had little meetings like the same as Trump (like I assumed), or do you believe that Obama ignored the contents of intelligence briefings? To debate the later is pure ignorance, so I assumed that you meant the former.
When Trump goes to the meetings, he ignores what they say. That was the point of Keith Olbermann asking "Who was the last president who would not listen to the daily intelligence briefings?" and bringing up Bus.
The cake joke was a reference for you trying to go both ways by criticizing obama for the lack of meetings, while defending trump for the lack of meetings when they both use the same methods. The problem here is that Trump ignores what the intelligence community has to say.[/QUOTE]
[quote]TRUMP: Look, first of all, these are very good people giving me these briefings. And I say if something should change from this point, immediately call me, I’m available on one minute’s notice. I don’t have to be told, you know, I’m like a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next 8 years. Could be 8 years, but 8 years. I don’t need that. But, I do say, if something should change, let us know.
Now, in the meantime, my generals are great. Are being briefed. And Mike Pence is being briefed, who is by the way one of my very good decisions. He’s doing terrific. And they’re being briefed and I’m being briefed also. But if they’re gonna come and tell me the exact same thing that they told me, you know it doesn’t change necessarily, but there are times where it might change, I mean they’ll be some very fluid situations. I’ll be there, not every day, but more than that. But I don’t need to be told, Chris, the same thing every day, every morning, same words, nothing has changed, let’s go over it again. I don’t need that.[/quote]
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/11/1609780/-Trump-says-he-doesn-t-read-the-Presidential-Daily-Brief-every-day-because-he-s-a-smart-person[/url]
From Trump himself, the same interview that stirred all this controversy.
So Trump's staff is going to these meetings, the VP is going to the meetings, and he is going at the rate is established by our last president.
The first words out of his mouth are praise for United State's intelligence people.
Do you suggest he is lying that the meetings are repetitive? Do you have more intimate knowledge about what transpires at these meetings? You seem to claim you do.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51527374]The problem here is that Trump ignores what the intelligence community has to say.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527395]The first words out of his mouth are praise for United State's intelligence people.[/quote]
What he's doing is the equivalent of "NO OFFENSE BUT", "I'M NOT RACIST BUT", "I'M NOT GAY BUT"
He's done it so many times, it's not sincere anymore.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527395][url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/11/1609780/-Trump-says-he-doesn-t-read-the-Presidential-Daily-Brief-every-day-because-he-s-a-smart-person[/url]
From Trump himself, the same interview that stirred all this controversy.
So Trump's staff is going to these meetings, the VP is going to the meetings, and he is going at the rate is established by our last president.[/quote]
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527395]Do you suggest he is lying that the meetings are repetitive? Do you have more intimate knowledge about what transpires at these meetings? You seem to claim you do.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that Trump is ignoring their findings. See: The Russian Hacking findings.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51527428]See: The Russian Hacking findings.[/QUOTE]
Yet again, I would love to, but I just can't for the life of me find those findings.
Can you?
Can anyone?
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527437]Yet again, I would love to, but I just can't for the life of me find those findings.
Can you?
Can anyone?[/QUOTE]
Do you doubt any findings the CIA makes if they do not release their evidence to the public?
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527437]Yet again, I would love to, but I just can't for the life of me find those findings.
Can you?
Can anyone?[/QUOTE]
I don't have access to that classified information, and the public doesn't either. I want a full review of it too, but when two non-partisan government agencies say that Russia was involved in the hackings, then I'm going to probably believe them.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51527443]Do you doubt any findings the CIA makes if they do not release their evidence to the public?[/QUOTE]
I can't doubt findings I haven't seen. I'm not asking for evidence of the hacks. I'm asking for evidence that the CIA claimed the hacks were from Russia.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527461]I can't doubt findings I haven't seen. I'm not asking for evidence of the hacks. I'm asking for evidence that the CIA claimed the hacks were from Russia.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/[/url]
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527461]I can't doubt findings I haven't seen. I'm not asking for evidence of the hacks. I'm asking for evidence that the CIA claimed the hacks were from Russia.[/QUOTE]
The FBI found evidence that Russia was involved in the DNC hacks.
I don't think the CIA claimed the hacks were from russia (I THINK).
The CIA found evidence that both the RNC and the DNC were hacked, but for WHATEVER reason, only information from the DNC was leaked this could mean one of two things.
1. There was absoultely 0 dirt on republicans, and it wasn't worth the trouble of sending those files to WikiLeaks.
2. It was better at the time for the hackers to release DNC data, and not RNC data.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51527480][url]http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/[/url][/QUOTE]
1st link's source is an anonymous U.S. official familiar with the finding.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social[/url]
2nd link's source is officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4f19100d98a8[/url]
I mean... I guess that's okay...
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
But really snopes blatantly lies in the first sentence.
[quote]On 9 December 2016, CIA officials confirmed the existence of a damning report concluding that Russia had intervened in the United States presidential elections[/quote]
Should read
On 9 December 2016, anonymous sources tell news media about the existence of a damning report concluding that Russia had intervened in the United States presidential elections
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527496]1st link's source is an anonymous U.S. official familiar with the finding.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social[/url]
2nd link's source is officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4f19100d98a8[/url]
I mean... I guess that's okay...[/QUOTE]
It's a hot new topic where all the facts aren't being laid out on the table for security concerns.
You can't simply expect cut and dry confirmation at this stage. You don't have to believe it, but dismissing the allegations by the CIA out of hand because they're not releasing the evidence yet either means you don't trust the CIA or don't know how the process works and have unrealistic expectations.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;51527525]You can't simply expect cut and dry confirmation at this stage. [/QUOTE]
What I do expect is our media to not report in a big headline "CIA Finds Russian Hackers Tried To Help Trump's Election" and "Russian hacking of US presidential election is the 'political equivalent of 9/11', claims former CIA chief". When they really aren't even 100% sure the CIA reported it. As simple change as "Anonymous Reports Claim CIA Finds Russian Hackers Tried To Help Trump's Election" would make them a lot more factual.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
Seriously, this is out of control.
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russian-election-hacking-president-9-11-equivalent-terror-attack-former-cia-chief-donald-trump-a7472406.html[/url]
This article claims
[quote]The spy agency said on Friday it had evidence that showed a link between the hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails and Russia, while officials from multiple agencies found connections between the Kremlin and Wikileaks.[/quote]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russian-election-hacking-president-9-11-equivalent-terror-attack-former-cia-chief-donald-trump-a7472406.html[/url]
and links to this as source
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-helped-hackers-us-election-2016-a7466926.html[/url]
which sources its claim from
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.18d1d014e97f[/url]
which writes
[quote]For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.[/quote]
So, Washington Post writes intelligence agencies have no evidence of the Kremlin directing individuals to send the information to Wikileaks.
and the independent reports
[quote]The spy agency said on Friday it had evidence that showed a link between the hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails and Russia, while officials from multiple agencies found connections between the Kremlin and Wikileaks.[/quote]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/russian-election-hacking-president-9-11-equivalent-terror-attack-former-cia-chief-donald-trump-a7472406.html[/url]
The New York Times are reporting it a bit differently, reporting it not as the Russian government being involved in the hacking but instead individuals that just happen to be Russian who were mostly just trying to fuck with the election without actually acting in support of one side.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Anderan;51527603]The New York Times are reporting it a bit differently, [b]reporting it not as the Russian government being involved in the hacking but instead individuals[/b] that just happen to be Russian who were mostly just trying to fuck with the election without actually acting in support of one side.[/QUOTE]
[quote]In briefings to the White House and Congress, intelligence officials, including those from the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, have identified [B]individual Russian officials they believe were responsible[/B]. But none have been publicly penalized.[/quote]
I don't think your source agrees with you.
Also, NYT does not provide a source for the claim.
I don't know why but this video seems to make me think that the coal war isn't over and that we've got to close the missile gap. As for reality, I'm fairly certain that Russia's economy has tanked since the sanctions and the start of the conflict in the ukraine making them not very threatening in terms of economic power.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527624]I don't think your source agrees with you.
Also, NYT does not provide a source for the claim.[/QUOTE]
I horribly misread that somehow, my bad.
[QUOTE=Anderan;51527603]The New York Times are reporting it a bit differently, reporting it not as the Russian government being involved in the hacking but instead individuals that just happen to be Russian who were mostly just trying to fuck with the election without actually acting in support of one side.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, no, that's too convenient to be true, and also complete bullshit, considering Trump was completely unaffected by hackers. Hackers of this magnitude in Russia do not operate clandestinely without the GRU and FSB knowing their every move, and it just so happens to be that Trump is terribly convenient to Russia.
That said, I don't believe ballots were hacked. And I hate how overdramatic the guy in the video is. But Russia has always wanted to expand their sphere of influence, and Trump seems like the kind of guy who would allow them to. I'm not sure if [I]that'll[/I] be the catalyst for a new World War, I don't think we're at that point yet, but you're about to see Russia make some pretty bold moves.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;51527496]1st link's source is an anonymous U.S. official familiar with the finding.
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social[/url]
2nd link's source is officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.4f19100d98a8[/url]
I mean... I guess that's okay...
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
But really snopes blatantly lies in the first sentence.
Should read
On 9 December 2016, anonymous sources tell news media about the existence of a damning report concluding that Russia had intervened in the United States presidential elections[/QUOTE]
If all of this is bullshit, why would Trump then go and start dragging the CIA through the mud with his tweets?
Did he fall for fake news about an organization that he's directly interacting with?
[QUOTE=Big Bang;51527679]Yeah, no, that's too convenient to be true, and also complete bullshit, considering Trump was completely unaffected by hackers. Hackers of this magnitude in Russia do not operate clandestinely without the GRU and FSB knowing their every move, and it just so happens to be that Trump is terribly convenient to Russia.
That said, I don't believe ballots were hacked. And I hate how overdramatic the guy in the video is. But Russia has always wanted to expand their sphere of influence, and Trump seems like the kind of guy who would allow them to. I'm not sure if [I]that'll[/I] be the catalyst for a new World War, I don't think we're at that point yet, but you're about to see Russia make some pretty bold moves.[/QUOTE]
Nobody said the ballots were hacked, they're saying the DNC and RNC emails were.
His voice really bellows. I can imagine he sings some fine Johnny Cash.
Holy shit, this guy fucking LOVES Trump. You wouldn't believe it but then when almost fifty of the recent videos the past three months on the channel have been about Trump just from this guy then that's an accomplishment.
[editline]14th December 2016[/editline]
Almost obsessed like
[QUOTE=Big Bang;51527679] considering Trump was completely unaffected by hackers[/QUOTE]
The DNC and possibly RNC were hacked why would either of them have dirt on Trump? He wasn't involved in politics until his campaign started and once it did start he pretty much aired all of the dirt anyone could gather on him all by himself.
[QUOTE=Spacewizard;51530452]The DNC and possibly RNC were hacked why would either of them have dirt on Trump? He wasn't involved in politics until his campaign started and once it did start he pretty much aired all of the dirt anyone could gather on him all by himself.[/QUOTE]
Just because Trump wasn't involved in politics doesn't mean he might not have a shady history. Considering that he [I]still[/I] hasn't released his tax returns.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51530643]Just because Trump wasn't involved in politics doesn't mean he might not have a shady history. Considering that he [I]still[/I] hasn't released his tax returns.[/QUOTE]
I'm not insinuating that Trump doesn't have a shady history. We know Trump has a shady history because he can't keep his mouth shut about all the shady shit he does. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to suspect that the supposed Russians were actively trying to install Trump as president when the material they were working was only ever going to be about Hillary.
[QUOTE=Spacewizard;51531161]I'm not insinuating that Trump doesn't have a shady history. We know Trump has a shady history because he can't keep his mouth shut about all the shady shit he does. What [B]I'm saying is that there's no reason to suspect that the supposed Russians were actively trying to install Trump as president when the material they were working was only ever going to be about Hillary.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't quite understand what you're saying here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
