Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: I never said it did. It just confirmed as wrong the excuse you gave for him denying his/Putin's involvement. What involvement......on Trump's part? The public report did no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 14 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: What involvement......on Trump's part? The public report did no such thing. Yes, it said there was Russian interference in the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, BubberMiley said: Yes, it said there was Russian interference in the election. Sure, but you claimed involvement by Trump himself, said report clearly doesn't indicate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said: Sure, but you claimed involvement by Trump himself, said report clearly doesn't indicate that. I've already outlined for you why I think he's guilty. Because he acts guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, BubberMiley said: I've already outlined for you why I think he's guilty. Because he acts guilty. Right......your opinion, not supported by the intelligence report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 4 hours ago, bcsapper said: I don't know about that. I think people have an outdated view of intelligence agencies, coloured by television and the movies. I imagine their work is extraordinarily difficult, and they simply can't be right all the time. As with other things, the outcomes of their being right or wrong are often never generally known. Good point, backed up by the former NSA/CIA director Michael Hayden's 2016 book, "Playing to the Edge". I read his book last year and it provides a detailed description of just how U.S. intelligence agencies had to evolve quickly to keep pace with technology (post 9/11), from collection to storage to analysis to briefings for political and military leaders. Processing so many intercepts in a timely manner is very difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said: No need, I've read it.......perhaps you should reread my post that you quoted a snippet from.......ain't context a bitch. When you say Putin didn't favour Trump, the bitch is your reading comprehension. You may want to go over the report again and possibly have someone explain to you what "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump" (p. 1) and "the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump’s chances of victory" (p. 2) means. Your claim that there's no indication that Putin favoured Trump is completely asinine. When you're ready to come back to reality, let me know. Edited January 7, 2017 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Last night news, said Russia and other countries have been trying to infer in the US election for years, and wonder why all of sudden its more important now? Any info to wikileaks came from a 3 rd party working for the NSA who, as a American didn't want Clinton in, or another war. It was the voters that decided and perhaps the Dems should have went with Bernie, at least there would have been a better chance of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Topaz said: Last night news, said Russia and other countries have been trying to infer in the US election for years, and wonder why all of sudden its more important now? Oh, so now you accept it. It's just no big deal. Is that what the conservative blogosphere has been telling you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) On 12/11/2016 at 5:07 PM, ReeferMadness said: According to a CIA assessment, Russia's interference in the 2016 election was intended to help one candidate: Trump. Predictably, the Trumpkin spin factory is in overdrive, trying to undermine the CIA and denying that the interference influenced the result. However, they're missing the point. As Evan McMullin (former CIA operative, former policy director for House Republicans) tweeted: At the very least, Trump actively encouraged foreign interference in the election and is now preparing to cover up and evidence of it. This alone should make Americans enraged. Of course, in the current, hyper-partisan environment, Trumpkins will doubtless have no trouble rationalizing this immoral (and probably criminal) behavior. But the real question isn't even being seriously asked. The real question is how much did Trump know about the interference. Was he or his organization actually involved in some way? The relationship between Trump and Putin has not been thoroughly investigated or documented. Trump himself made several contradictory statements about his relationship with Putin. Senior people associated with his campaign and cabinet have questionable associations with Putin's Russia. Former campaign Paul Manafort is under investigation by the FBI for his dealings. His Secretary of State pick, Rex Tillerson received the Order of Friendship, one of Russia's highest honors, from Putin. So, is it credible that Trump knew nothing of Russian interference? The intention was to have Hillary lose the election. It wouldn't matter who ran against her, I suppose - Putin will support whoever he/she is. Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, cybercoma said: Oh, so now you accept it. It's just no big deal. Is that what the conservative blogosphere has been telling you? It's been known as early as June that Russia was interfering - why weren't the Democrats raising hell then? How come nobody's crying, INVESTIGATION? Quote DNC officials acknowledged in late June the organization had suffered an email hack, and that two independent cyber security expert firms attributed the hack to Russian intelligence agencies. John Schindler, a former NSA analyst and national security expert, noted Monday in The New York Observer that the hackers left behind a signature in Russian and that both groups responsible for the hack are well known Russian intelligence fronts. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/25/do-the-russians-want-hillary-to-lose/#ixzz4V5Ps1aNE Only after Hillary had lost........ Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 So "Yes, cybercoma. This is what the conservative blogosphere has me saying." The angle is *shrug* "no big deal" despite the bipartisan concern. It's pretty sad that you would literally shrug your shoulders about Russian interference in a presidential election. Trump is nothing more than Emperor Putin's client dictator in the United States. Even Putin can rig elections so he gets the most votes. Trump couldn't even manage that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, betsy said: Only after Hillary had lost........ Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was reported before the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was reported before the election. If you don't get your head out of that sand, I can't help you. Come up and breathe - have some fresh air. Read the article I gave! Edited January 7, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, betsy said: If you don't get your head out of that sand, I can't help you. Come up and breathe - have some fresh air. Read the article I gave! Up to a few hours ago, Trumpsters were denying the possibility that anyone could know who did the hacking and saying the whole intelligence community are sore loser DNC operatives. Now that that's been totally discredited, you're going to complain that the people who raised red flags didn't raise them high enough? Edited January 7, 2017 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Ah yes...the vaunted intelligence community. Always correct about these matters. So we can all agree Iraq had the A-Bomb, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Ah yes...the vaunted intelligence community. Always correct about these matters. So we can all agree Iraq had the A-Bomb, eh? You're a day too late. Trump has withdrawn the talking point that you are to discredit the intelligence community. It wasn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just now, BubberMiley said: You're a day too late. Trump has withdrawn the talking point that you are to discredit the intelligence community. It wasn't working. So Iraq DID have the A-Bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: So Iraq DID have the A-Bomb. No, I think the Republican administration fabricated that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, BubberMiley said: No, I think the Republican administration fabricated that. The point being: your pet CIA is useful when you agree with its (lol) assessments but ridiculed when it isn't 'agreeable'. I, frankly, do not trust the CIA or FBI going back to things like the Phoenix Program. They would never murder people and deal in heroin...no sir. Edited January 7, 2017 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: The point being: your pet CIA is useful when you agree with its (lol) assessments but ridiculed when it isn't 'agreeable'. I, frankly, do not trust the CIA or FBI going back to things like the Phoenix Program. They would never murder people and deal in heroin...no sir. Trump disagrees with you, except for the murder and heroin part. He trusts their findings so long as he can still be a puppet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 I don't speak for Trump. I speak for myself. You're free to believe what the MSM feeds you. Matters not to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: I don't speak for Trump. I speak for myself. You're free to believe what the MSM feeds you. Matters not to me. You think the MSM are misreporting Trump's words and the contents of the intelligence report? Or is that just a catchphrase you use when you don't know what else to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, BubberMiley said: You think the MSM are misreporting Trump's words and the contents of the intelligence report? Or is that just a catchphrase you use when you don't know what else to say? Again you're free to read and believe what the MSM tell you. Who are your favorite talking heads? Meanwhile...you have the pro-Hillary crowd chomping at the bit for a war with Russia. Great plan! No...you're not being played like a fiddle...no way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 8 hours ago, cybercoma said: When you say Putin didn't favour Trump, the bitch is your reading comprehension. You can play your snippet game of only quoting partial statements all (in this case quoting part of sentence of mine) day, but I can't be bothered. 8 hours ago, cybercoma said: Your claim that there's no indication that Putin favoured Trump is completely asinine. Where did I claim that? quote it.......Again, what I actually said: Quote Did you read the report? From it, I don't see any evidence of collusion between Putin and Trump, nor any indication that Putin so much favored Trump, but more so disliked Clinton and Obama for past slights and perceived attempts to undermine his own government....likewise, said report didn't give any indication of the actual effectiveness of Putin's influence campaign.......ergo, if said report is Holy Writ, your continued suggestion that Trump is but Putin's puppet in still unsupported. Sure reads different when you quote the entire passage for context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.