Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
WizardofOz
New member
I publicly condemn neo-nazis, the kkk, the antifa, bash the fash groups, the BLM, the 'alt-right', the black panthers, racist caucasians, racist blacks, racist African Americans (if they prefer that label over the prior), racist hispanics, bigots of all color stripe and persuasion.
They're all counterproductive morons and while I don't mind them smashing each other it's clearly gone too far when an alt right nutjob drives his car with malice into a crowd.
Do you condemn all these same groups or does a certain brand of hate resonate with you?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Because it's a violation of law, to begin with. And I don't presume, as you appear to, that the efforts were all of the honest exposure variety.
One answer to that is that you aren't being show THE truth, at best you're being shown one version of it. And that's presuming an honest effort and intent instead of well played distortion. None of us can match the resources of a foreign power willing to put enough into it. No party could, also having to deal with the efforts of the other side. It tilts the field.
And one thing I know from practice is that if you dig hard enough and long enough, if you're willing to present one singular note you can make nearly anyone look awful. Politicians? :chuckle: One reason we have a presumption of innocence is because the state can bring to bear great resources an individual can't hope to match in defense. We tilt the field toward the accused to level the actual disparity. When we allow foreign powers into the mix with their own agendas all we can know is that they'll present what serves their interests and aims. I expect that's one reason for the clandestine nature of the effort. Who is going to be excited by Putin's enthusiastic endorsement?
I answered on that point already.
WizardofOz
New member
Quite the opposite to certain Italians :shut:
drbrumley
Well-known member
And it's a ok in other nations...ooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.
That shoe fits in the example I showed...you can't have it both ways...
A c-n-n headline now:
"...on Trump: He is exactly who we were afraid he was"
Correct! He is the first president in my lifetime where he continues to be exactly who he was during his campaign. First one.
'Tough to disagree with any of that. :up:
RealityJerk
New member
It's fair to say you can read the Washington Post article I linked to, already understood part of the answer to your own question, and faced without a factual rebuttal have decided to impugn independent confirmation of our national security evaluation.
So, it's either believe an independent confirmation of our own sophisticated security resources, found credible by people who would rather it not be true (the entire Republican leadership) or your read in...it's a tough call [/additional sarcasm].
I'd invite everyone to follow the link to the Post article timeline I noted. Here it is again.
In it you'll find references to the emails, along with bits like:
"The FBI eventually detected suspected Russian attempts to penetrate election systems in 21 states.
A Department of Homeland Security official said there was one state in which there was evidence voting systems were compromised: Illinois."
Or this bit, noted in the UK Independent:
[FONT=&]"The Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency concluded in a report declassified in January that Russian President [/FONT]Vladimir Putin[FONT=&] ordered a campaign not just to undermine confidence in the US electoral system but to affect the outcome." May 18, 2017[/FONT]
Or I invite anyone interested to read through the fairly thorough breakdown in the Post, to consider that ranking members of both parties viewed information brought to light by the diligent work of the CIA, FBI, and NSA, including deep sources with privy to Putin's communications and agreed that the Russians had made a concerted effort to influence our electoral process. This stands against comrade Jerk's attempt to impugn the messengers, including those outside of our security services whose conclusions on parts of that knowledge confirmed the work.
It's really that straight forward. What you have to believe to give the Russians credit defies reason.
RJ knows that, which is why he's generating as many side bars, along with insisting on a curiously myopic focus when he does momentarily look at the actual facts that led a party in power, better served by another and different conclusion, into agreement and censure.
Or you could buy into RJ's Russian apologetics. Whichever seems more reasonable to you.
You tried that earlier. I won't waste time in rebutting what you don't establish. Well, I'm not doing any more of it then. I actually opposed both candidates for president and I believe we're best served when we stand on our principles in foundation.
Have you even been to this country? I mean, you couldn't sound more like someone who grew up near Red Square if you tried, "us" and "military service" notes aside.
In the same sense that opening an umbrella invites rain.
Without rehashing my rejection of your couple of guys and a site compared to the varied agencies and interests I've noted, this still isn't about one thing, but about a concerted effort on the part of the former Soviets to undermine our election process.
I already rebutted your gaped attempt to rewrite history. It was in the block quote you don't appear to read closely. It wasn't wrong to put missiles in Turkey. It was a response to the creation of a revolutionary export center in Cuba. And no one is trying to destroy Russia's economy. If they don't want sanctions they should stop trying to run our elections. A sanction is a punitive measure for poor conduct. It's a more dramatic bit than expelling diplomats when we catch you in an operation on our soil. Or, it's the price of shady dealings. Putin is the problem here. Russia is moving in the wrong direction. They need to evolve democratically, not regress with a watered down Stalin.
Jules Verne you aren't, but you are creative.
You appear to be a lot of things first and foremost.
Yes, by all means thank the Russians. It seems to be your forte. Thank them for not committing suicide and only settling for trying to infiltrate our election process and spread misinformation to facilitate the success of a candidate they determined would do a better job serving their interests. Send them a big box of chocolates.
Nothing disproportionate in it. Castro was in the Russian bag long before he declared it openly and past a point we understood that. The reason the Russians agreed to pour resources into Cuba was singularly due to its strategic location and launching point as a destabilizing and revolutionary influence within our hemisphere and beyond (see: Africa).
So they installed a threat on our doorstep and we upped the ante on theirs. That's how things went between us during the Cold War.
It's easy to check. I do.
So you're saying we did that. We also put missiles in Turkey to let them understand that we weren't going to be playing a defensive front, which is partly what the Russians wanted us busy doing in our hemisphere, tying up resources. It was more of a chess game than you seem to realize.
Again, recognizing what happened doesn't make it mine. I've also never called it sexy. So you're not just on the side of the disinformation machine, you're a part owner.lain: And arguing to keep a corrupt Batista and his organized crime buddies happily ensconced isn't really living up to our ideals either. It's a dull sort of Darwinian pragmatism. Or, once again you're your own worst enemy...or ours.
Well, let's first examine one of your citations:
"The Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency concluded in a report declassified in January that Russian President*Vladimir Putinordered a campaign not just to undermine confidence in the US electoral system but to affect the outcome." May 18, 2017
There is nothing in the above statement, that even remotely proves that the Russian government hacked the DNC computers. It's nothing more than speculation. The whole report amounts to just that, speculation. There's no smoking gun, showing conclusive evidence, that the Russian government hacked into DNC computers. There's not even conclusive evidence, that it was a hack. All of the evidence suggests otherwise. It was a leak. Inside job.
You assume that these politicians would rather it not be true, but that's not necessarily the case. The adversarial foreign policy that we've maintained with Russia for the last twenty years, isn't based on the supposed DNC hacking incident. Next? There are several factors that compel politicians to continue with the saber rattling against Russia, and it isn't Russia's supposed release of dirt on Hillary. You're quite naive if you believe that.
More, our so called “sophisticated security resources”, are not always accurate or that “sophisticated”. The same resources, gave us an evaluation of Saddam's WMD capabilities, and its potential threat to our national security. They were dead wrong about that. They were more recently wrong about providing training and arms to the so called “Free Syrian Army”, resulting in our government training and arming a large contingent of members of the Islamic Front (al-Jabhat al-Islāmiyyah). Trump recently stopped the CIA program to arm rebels in Syria, for that very reason. We really don't know who we're training and arming.
Assuming that's true, that doesn't automatically imply the DNC computers were hacked, much less by the Russian government. It's clearly you who is resorting to completely irrelevant “side bars”.
Brian Kemp, Georgia’s secretary of state, argued in an opinion piece for USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...lections-secure-editorials-debates/103380566/) :
“As reporters chase stories to feed the 24-hour news cycle, they dilute facts and develop false narratives about Russian hacking and potential vulnerabilities in the system,” he continues...“The prevailing plot line is that states like Georgia can’t provide suitable security for elections. Non-partisan experts agree that manipulating a presidential election makes a good TV storyline but lacks real-world standing.”
Kemp described his state's voting systems as:
“...diverse, highly scrutinized and not connected to the internet. Consequently, any computer network attacks on voter registration do not affect the vote count. The thing that matters most – your vote – is secure”
Kemp also writes in his opinion piece:
“...misinformation from the media or disgruntled partisans not only fuels conspiracy theorists but also erodes the first safeguard we have in our elections — the public’s trust.”
and..
“To be candid, the most plausible and potentially effective attack on our elections is not by hacking the vote — it is through the manipulation of the American media machine,”
he continued..
”These baseless attacks and inaccurate stories enhance voter apathy and erode our confidence in the cornerstone of our democracy,”
All of your evidence, is based on speculation. There is no smoking gun, showing anyone hacked into DNC computers, much less the Russian government.
Uuuu wow, “deep sources”. Are those the same type of “deep sources” that were “privy” of WMDs in iraq? You and your very convenient, unnamed, secret “deep sources” ?
Uuuu Russia is trying to influence our electoral process, by supposedly releasing dirt on one of our corrupt politicians. We of course, would never do that to Russia or any other country. Those evil Russians! Let's cripple, if not destroy their economy with devastating UN sanctions! We can't tolerate this type of Russian meddling in our nation's political process, so we've decided to cripple Russia's economy and potentially start a third world war. We however can meddle and tinker in every body else's internal affairs. See how that works? We're “Americans”, we can do whatever we want, to others, around the world, and if they don't like it, well “too bad buddy.”. We can do it to the Russians, but if they do it to us, OOOOOOHHHHHH, it's WW3. It's UN sanctions, that if any other country would impose upon us, for our own meddling and tickering, we would go to war. We would declare war on them.
You really have the wrong idea of what it means to be an American. That's the problem.
Sure I'm a Russian agent, because I question your so called “conclusive evidence” , for Russia supposedly hacking the DNC's computers. I also question your jingoist warmongering. Keep trying, you haven't presented any conclusive evidence yet, that the DNC computers were hacked, much less by the Russian government.
When I wrote:
“Poking the bear with NATO and deploying missiles on its border, is stupid. It's wrong. Trying to destroy Russia's economy, through sanctions, in order to get an edge in the world energy market ...”
I wasn't referring to the cold war, but our recent expansion of NATO into Russia's doorstep in Eastern Europe and our most recent deployment of missiles and other NATO military assets on their border. The sanctions that we are imposing on Russia, have been in place for years, not just now in the last few weeks. People like you, are essentially pushing for an unnecessary conflict with Russia.
Only in the dark confines of your deluded little mind, have you rebutted anything I said about how we shouldn't have deployed missiles in Turkey. The deployment of missiles in Turkey, had absolutely nothing to do with Cuba. That's an idiotic assertion. Tell me where on this time line:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/ke...ry/cold-war/cuban-missile-crisis/timeline.htm
….does the United States decide “Hey, Castro has just declared Cuba a place for communist guerillas to train and spread throughout Latin America. Let's deploy missiles in Turkey!”. It didn't happen that way. That's a figment of your American imperialist imagination. I'm “Comrade Jerk” for simply stating historical facts and you're “Mr Manifest Destiny”, “let's meddle in the internal affairs of every other nation, and perhaps even start wars, in order to secure our supposed national interests and save the world!”. Yeah sure buddy, that's what we should be doing around the world, as Americans. That's the way to be a “true American”. Let's F the world, and then wonder why the world wants to F us. Meddle in our affairs.
Your mention of my sources, as just a “couple of guys”, is laughable. These are just a few of my sources for questioning the official narrative on Russia:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling,*TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency*Transmission*Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-th...-vets-challenge-the-forensic-evidence/5600944
There far from just being a “couple of guys”, don't you think? My sources, are just as reliable, if not more so, than yours. I invite everyone, to visit the above links and compare the evidence. Anyone doing that, unbiasly, will come to the same conclusion. There is no conclusive evidence, demonstrating Russia hacked the DNC computers.
Last edited:
"I'm not finished, fake news" :rotfl:
RealityJerk
New member
No one is proposing that all killing is equal, that's your straw man. Comparing Putin to Hitler, is quite silly. Just like you equating the reconstruction effort in Germany and Japan after a world war, with our more recent regime change projects around the world. Neocon aspirations for "full spectrial dominance", and all of the violence that accompanies it, doesn't equate the reconstruction effort in Germany and Japan. That's truly an idiotic argument, but of course we shouldn't expect anything other than that from you.
You need to close the [quote ] or [/quote ] I added a space inside at the end or you wouldn't see it. That's why it didn't work in this post.
But resting on people backing Global research.ca?
It's founder is Michel Chossudovsky a Canadian professor with a Russian father.
From Rational Wiki:
That's right.
There's more and it's in there, but this isn't about one thing. I've noted that repeatedly, as when I set out the example of attempts to get into the election machinery of 21 states, etc.
I'm fine resting on the reports of several intelligence agencies and the consideration of Congress, a good bit of which we will never likely see. You can keep shilling for the former Soviets and hating your own purported country if you like.
But resting on people backing Global research.ca?
It's founder is Michel Chossudovsky a Canadian professor with a Russian father.
From Rational Wiki:
Globalresearch is an "anti-Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
So far that's the kindest evaluation I've found from other sites looking into it and its other iterations and partners. It's also been called a likely Russian funded propaganda site.
So far that's the kindest evaluation I've found from other sites looking into it and its other iterations and partners. It's also been called a likely Russian funded propaganda site.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Hmm, the same intelligence agencies that knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that Iraq had WMD's...one would think someone would have learned a lesson from that fiasco. A belief that cost us over 36000 deaths in fine American citizens.
But the hating your country bit.....tsk tsk....very disappointing coming from you.
A couple of points. There's a profound difference between a wrong speculative guess and having documents, a trial, and reports from the inside. Additionally, that fiasco led to a lot of rules changes specifically to make that sort of eventuality less likely. Lastly, the drive for Iraq was more Bush administration driven than intelligence driven (I'll leave the humor of that for those who want to apply it) as a 2008 Senate Intelligence report found that they went forward on some assumptions without any real, substantive intelligence in support, as with the 911 connection suspicion. That same report noted that there were substantial disagreements on the WMD issue within the intelligence community that were ignored as Bush cherry picked to get his little war...the war that would pay for itself.
He's shilling hard for the Russians while citing as his authority a habitually anti-American website. It felt appropriate.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Tell it to Colin Powell....
I will if he asks. Tell it to the Senate. And I added a bit to answer the last part that I missed the first time around or you added while I was writing the answer. Look back a post for it.
RealityJerk
New member
Response:
I know that, and if you notice, that was fixed before you ever mentioned it. Do you know what a typo is?
Yeah, I'm sure there's "more" in there. None of the above claims, are conclusive evidence that the DNC computers were hacked, much less by Russia. All of the latest evidence, being released, points to a leak, not a hack.
Everything I've presented and said, doesn't rest on GlobalResearch.Ca. But on the research of:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Air Force Intelligence Officer (Ret.), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Lisa Ling,*TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Cian Westmoreland, former USAF Radio Frequency*Transmission*Systems Technician and Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (Associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.); Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Do they have Russian parents too? The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
Is an American, Liberal news source good for you? They're citing the exact same research, made by the above group of people. So how does your ad hominem attack, strengthen your argument? It doesn't.
RealityJerk
New member
According to the CIA report(ref: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd ):
" Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of
UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it
probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq’s WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war
starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort,
energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons;
most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
The report was wrong, on several key issues. The Bush administration used this CIA report, to create the national hysteria against Saddam Hussein, leading to the invasion of Iraq. The former head of the National Security Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, says U.S. intelligence agencies got it wrong when they concluded Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and they should take the blame for that, rather than the White House.
"It was our intelligence estimates" that were incorrect, Hayden says in an interview with NPR's Robert Siegel. "We were wrong. It was a clean swing and a miss. It was our fault."
Source:http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/46769...cies-not-the-white-house-got-it-wrong-on-iraq
Perhaps he's "shilling hard" for Russia too? His parents are Russian. He doesn't agree with your point of view, hence he's not a good American. He must be a Russian agent.
I didn't say the speculation by the CIA was right. I noted there was a difference within the intelligence services on the point and that the Bush administration was selective in what it chose to advance. You should look at the Senate Intelligence report from 2008 on the points.
He was a good soldier. Read the full report from the Senate. It'll do you good.
No, he's doing what good leaders do. He's taking responsibility. It's not surprising.
He isn't running an Anti American/West enterprise out of Canada.
Like I noted prior, your ease with disinformation makes you a good spokesman for Putin, but you're on the wrong side of facts.
It was all through the post. Most of the quotes weren't closed and it was a mess. The suggestion was meant to help you and those who read you and it hadn't been addressed by the time I wrote that. Also, if you're using closed quotes you don't really have to write "Response:" because it's more than implied by the fact that you're, you know, responding.
lain:You cited them. I haven't seen any of your other source material by link. And there are a lot more people on my side of it with as or greater particular skill sets. I'm not sure what a list of names is meant to accomplish short of something more. . . the appearance of authority?
You know, big tobacco had a longer list of people willing to tell you their product had no connection to cancer.
You know who does? The fellow running an anti-American and pro Russian grist mill out of Canada. But you're right. It's probably just a remarkable coincidence.
I've advanced a broader argument, noted the intelligence community and Congressional oversight have had to say about Russian interference and attempts aimed at our election and the response that followed. I'm not making an ad hom attack in any of that. And you can't throw that stone in any event without being as hypocritical as you are selective in your focus.
- Status