CIA Assesment: Putin Helped Trump Win

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 11:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: On a related note, I've not seen a good case for WHY Putin would favor Trump over the famed author of the "Russian reset".  And why have we lept from "undermining the election" to "helping Trump win".

Why do people celebrate Snowden and Asange and others....are we really upset with Russian hackers, or is it really because Hillary isn't Bush, or the CIA,etc?

1. Did you watch ANY of the debates? Hillary does her homework and remains cool and focused under fire.  Trump doesn't prepare and can be thrown off his game, angered; one well placed comment can have him tweeting at night for a week on some random subject not germane to policy. Trumpsters may not be able to tell if Trump muddles policy and garbles facts, but watchers in the Kremlin certainly notice. If Putin compliments Trump then Trump likes him and he is not going to say anything bad about a dictator who opposes US interests directly in the Ukraine and Syria. Trump publicly questioned the US commitment to NATO--the biggest thorn in Russia's side--and bad mouthed China, a potential new best friend for Russia now. He thinks it's great if Russia takes care of Isis--and gives Syria back to Assad. And you ask why Russia would favor an uninformed and unfocused populist who promises to weaken US foreign policy achievements over the last 70 years over an experienced diplomat who defines Russia as a geopolitical opponent and whose biggest knock is that she is more ready to use force than your typical Democrat?

2. We have "lept" from undermining the election to helping Trump win because as more intel has been collected and vetted a pattern has emerged indicating that merely creating chaos was not the goal. Trump was the Kremlin's preferred candidate.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-11-2016, 03:45 AM)Dill Wrote: 1. Did you ....as emerged indicating that merely creating chaos was not the goal. Trump was the Kremlin's preferred candidate.

Honestly this is all just dumbass bubble shit.  You're actually defending Hillary.  She's horrible and sucks.  Trump is some degree worse, but let's try not to whitewash reality.

I watched all the debates. At her best, Hillary is a Manchurian candidate. They got rich on politics, and this was their Kennedy moment where they solidify their legacy. But OOOOPPPPS.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-10-2016, 05:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sounds like extreme butthurt.

Mind you, this is the same savant committee, including Hillary, that was apparently hoodwinked by a yellow cake fax.

(12-10-2016, 06:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Explain. 

(12-10-2016, 11:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Did they not see the intel?  Did they not then vote for the war?  Sure, maybe they weren't hoodwinked and said nothing and voted that way, anyway.  More than conceivable.  Obviously not the "same" people.

On a related note, I've not seen a good case for WHY Putin would favor Trump over the famed author of the "Russian reset".  And why have we lept from "undermining the election" to "helping Trump win".

Why do people celebrate Snowden and Asange and others....are we really upset with Russian hackers, or is it really because Hillary isn't Bush, or the CIA,etc?

So your explanation of how this same savant committee was hoodwinked by a yellow cake fax is that it is more than conceivable they weren't hoodwinked at all? That is the kind of brilliant analysis I've come to expect from you. Well done. 

Bonus essay, Ladies' Choice:  Explain why you think I asked you to explain originally. Or compare and contrast how this "same" savant committee was and wasn't hoodwinked by the same intel simultaneously. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-11-2016, 05:18 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honestly this is all just dumbass bubble shit.  You're actually defending Hillary.  She's horrible and sucks.  Trump is some degree worse, but let's try not to whitewash reality.

I watched all the debates.  At her best, Hillary is a Manchurian candidate.  They got rich on politics, and this was their Kennedy moment where they solidify their legacy.  But OOOOPPPPS.

Dumbass bubble shit?  I kinda consider myself a Picasso of profanity. Profanity is my medium. But, "dumbass bubble shit"?  Wow!  That really paints a picture. Where did you get your Masters? Or Ph.D? Is this the advice you give to companies?  You speaking to the CIA, "Well, y'alls proposals the Ruskies interfered with the election is dumbass bubble shit."  That kind "conscious intellectualism" was it?  Can only be followed by an, "I tell you what!"

Bear (pun intended) in mind, you're defending Trump who you admit is worse. Now that is some dumbass bubble shit right there. I tell you what!

Manchurian Candidate? Are you suggesting Hillary is a Putin plant?  How drunk are you tonight?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-11-2016, 03:09 AM)Dill Wrote: Since the Iraq war, the standard Republican line for public consumption is that everyone saw "the same" intel and "Democrats voted for the war too." The intel community "got it wrong."

No surprise Trump now defines the CIA and the Senate credibility in terms of the Iraq War vote. And presto, another false equivalency. The CIA--like all government and the mainstream press--is still untrustworthy. Might as well make Trump our Intel VETTER in CHIEF. What have we got to lose?

But those uncritcially repeating the Republican/Trump line forget--or never learned--that Senate intel committee, and finally the American people, never got uncooked intel before the war vote. 16 intel agencies were blindsided by Bush's OFFICE of SPECIAL PLANS which stovepiped raw intel past all the professional vetters--those now blamed for the intel fiasco. 

For example, according to page 2 of the Department of Defense Inspector General report of Feb. 9, 2007:
The office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy [Neocon Doug Feith] developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers. Thus . . . a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance of the consensus with the intelligence community.  http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/dod_iog_iraq_summary.pdf

At numerous points in the 2004 Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, we see how Cheney et al. rushed unvetted, uncoordinated intel to policy decision makers, including the Senate Intel committee, to get the vote over quickly. For example, conclusion 24 (p. 82) regarding the Niger yellowcake shows the Senate Intel Committee received a CIA "report" of the yellowcake documents which excluded the State department's assessment the documents forgeries and before the CIA had actually completed its assessment. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108srpt301/pdf/CRPT-108srpt301.pdf  So that is the sort of intel everyone saw.

Obama has no OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS and there is no evidence his vice-President is shaking down agencies to produce desired intel as Cheney was. The best intel we have now is that Russia interfered with the election to elect Trump.

So Putin's candidate trailed most of the election, lost the popular vote, and upon winning exonerates Russia over the objections of the CIA. And Trump defenders contend there is nothing to see here. "Trump would have won anyway." A foreign power acts to determine the election outcome, gets the result it wants, and only "butthurt" explains the interest of the mainstream press, Democrats and a few patriotic Republicans in this UNPRECEDENTED ATTACK on our elections.   

OK PATRIOTS--FORGET THIS ATTACK AND LET'S MAKE SURE NO ONE BURNS A FLAG!!! (cue for thunderous applause

Someone's conscious intellectualism is probably gonna be butt hurt in the morning after being bent over the boardroom table. 

Thank you, Sir and may I have another? 

[xxlt]

(12-10-2016, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: That is exactly what the Senate Democrats, some Senate Republicans, the Post, and Obama are upset about.

The problem is that McConnell and others were not, placing hope for partisan advantage above national security concerns.

Now that's just good politics and good common sense, AKA, "That's just Mitch being Mitch."

[xxlt]

(12-10-2016, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I wouldn't say standards have been destroyed. I think there are still many reliable media news sources.  There is definitely a problem though, and I think it comes from three directions.

1. The flood of unvetted or inadequately vetted sources like the World Net Daily and Drudge and Breitbart, plus fake news of foreign and domestic origin and conspiracy sites like Infowars. People having (rightly I think) relied on the mainstream media more or less successfully for decades have found it easy to transfer credibility to anything that looks like a "real" news site. An unedited platform like Facebook makes it easy to circulate this stuff.

2. The connection between advertising money and sensational news, such that the latter drives the former, creates an incentive to disinform by feeding people's biases.

3. The conscious effort of right wing media like Fox to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media, many of whom continue to uphold standards, so that readers and listeners still "don't know who to trust" even when right wing media gets it wrong, as they did with the Iraq war and predicting the 2012 election. This also makes it hard for any news organization to exist wit the kind of national authority and credibility that CBS used to have.  This effort also includes holding mainstream media to an impossible standard of perfection which can't be met, and when it isn't becomes "proof" they are in the pocket of the Democrats or whatever. They are "just as bad" as Fox, just on a different side.  The false equivalence has greatly intensified as false news has come to dominate the media.

Given 1-3, it is pretty easy to live in a bubble of news you want to hear. And if a lot of that gets discredited, it's easy to fall back on the claim then that all news sources are equally partisan and unvetted, so you don't really have to change your sources or perhaps even read a book to help sort things out.  That said, the consumption of false news and general media illiteracy seems much more a problem on the right than the mainstream.  The majority of Americans still don't buy when they hear someone working on the Clinton emails died mysteriously or Hillary was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. But if you think Obama was really born in Kenya and the media and the state of Hawaii are covering that up, why would you be suspicious?

1-3 sounds pretty destructive to me...

You are correct about the piece in bold. Several fake news generators were interviewed recently on NPR and expressed their frustration that they can only serve half a market - the conservative half. Every time they try to plant a fake news story that would piss of liberals nobody believes it, nobody shares it, it gets no traction, they make no money. But when they target conservatives they get belief, share, traction, and cha-ching. Would be funny if it weren't so sad. 

[xxlt]

(12-10-2016, 11:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 2.7 million more votes for the horrible candidate than the Russian puppet. She turned out plenty of the vote. If it wasnt for Russia picking your next president you would have a different pres elect.

Its not about Hillary anymore. The white house said when they asked for the report that it wasnt about challenging the election results. 

Trumps repeated praise of Putin. His communist wife. Never releasing his tax returns. And now the CIA saying Russia was trying to get Trump elected.. Those are giant glowing red flags.

And what does Trump say? He bashes our countries intelligence agency and brings up the gaffe from 14 yeara ago that is sure to get his useful idiot lemmings too continue eating his shit. 

In a couple years when he is driving us over a cliff in a rolling dumpster fire I can hear right wingers now bashing Hillary and talking about emails.

Bingo.

[xxlt]

(12-11-2016, 12:08 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Too bad people are only skeptical and challenging when they didn't vote for the winner.  This cycle is just going to continue until people start holding their own candidates to the same standard.

I oppose massive deficit spending, for almost any reason.  But it's funny watching liberals and conservatives completely flip-flop on $1T infrastructure spending, debt ceiling, fillibuster, etc..

Maybe after Kanye wins in 2020 the electoral college will say "ok, the voters are just too stupid and we aren't going along with this"

Ronald Reagan - "Deficits don't matter."

George Bush - "Read my lips, no new taxes." Raised taxes and the deficit.

George W. Bush - Created biggest deficit in human history.

What is funny is watching "deficit hawks" vote in direct contrast to their stated values.

I know, I know, you're an independent and you didn't vote for any of the presidents named above. And you didn't vote for Mr. Bankruptcy either, our President elect who thinks just not paying our debts would be a grand idea. You've voted Leprechaun and Unicorn every election, including this one. But you are willing to give, "The King of Debt" a chance when you loathe deficit spending. Like this guy, you can always go both directions.

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 05:18 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honestly this is all just dumbass bubble shit.  You're actually defending Hillary.  She's horrible and sucks.  Trump is some degree worse, but let's try not to whitewash reality.

I watched all the debates.  At her best, Hillary is a Manchurian candidate.  They got rich on politics, and this was their Kennedy moment where they solidify their legacy.  But OOOOPPPPS.

Yes, I am defending Hillary, because she won the debates and knows foreign policy. She was also the more polished and knowledgeable candidate in the Democratic debates, which were civil and substantive. Trump was Trump in all his debates, slinging angry one liners and putdowns, not to mention a record-setting litany of factual errors.

References to "dumbass bubble shit" and claims Hillary is "horrible and sucks" describe you feelings about these topics, but otherwise are not very descriptive. They don't stand up very well against descriptions of either candidate's behavior during the debates, which are the basis of my assessments of them.

I am wondering if, when watching the debates, you were doing something similar, emoting over their statements and behavior rather than analyzing them.  So an angry, name-calling candidate who hates Hillary and treats her uncivilly in public seems not much worse than the Hillary constructed by the right wing press.  No special difference in competence levels. Presidents don't make that much difference. I never hear you discussing substantive differences between the candidates, though you occasionally mention a trump (Ryan) policy you like. The dysfunction of his campaign and transition gives you no pause.

A year from now, few Americans will be happy that the Clinton's failed to "soldify their legacy."

[Dill]

(12-11-2016, 09:00 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Someone's conscious intellectualism is probably gonna be butt hurt in the morning after being bent over the boardroom table. 

Thank you, Sir and may I have another? 

I don't think so.

I have explained this to him before. He ignores the record and keeps repeating the Republican talking points.

[THE Bigzoman]

(12-10-2016, 11:54 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 2.7 million more votes for the horrible candidate than the Russian puppet. She turned out plenty of the vote. If it wasnt for Russia picking your next president you would have a different pres elect.

Its not about Hillary anymore. The white house said when they asked for the report that it wasnt about challenging the election results. 

Trumps repeated praise of Putin. His communist wife. Never releasing his tax returns. And now the CIA saying Russia was trying to get Trump elected.. Those are giant glowing red flags.

And what does Trump say? He bashes our countries intelligence agency and brings up the gaffe from 14 yeara ago that is sure to get his useful idiot lemmings too continue eating his shit. 

In a couple years when he is driving us over a cliff in a rolling dumpster fire I can hear right wingers now bashing Hillary and talking about emails.

This pretty much amounts to "If Russia didn't dig out the DNC's dirty laundry, Hilary would've won.

Debatable, given people's perception of Hilary was shaky at best + the fact that 3 key states that she took for granted was hilariously swept from under her. Bur that's aside the point.

Not since the days of John Wilkes Booth have we seen people so incapable of taking an L.  Go ahead, accept the premise as true--The Russian Government + Wikileaks did what they did to depress Hilary support in the hopes of a Trump victory. In any election court, this is going to be met with this: So what?

People's minds being changed by something isn't an invalidation of the election itself, nor is it really damning if it turns the results in a different direction. What shapes politics? Events man, events.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 02:54 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: This pretty much amounts to "If Russia didn't dig out the DNC's dirty laundry, Hilary would've won.

Debatable, given people's perception of Hilary was shaky at best + the fact that 3 key states that she took for granted was hilariously swept from under her. Bur that's aside the point.

Not since the days of John Wilkes Booth have we seen people so incapable of taking an L.  Go ahead, accept the premise as true--The Russian Government + Wikileaks did what they did to depress Hilary support in the hopes of a Trump victory. In any election court, this is going to be met with this: So what?

People's minds being changed by something isn't an invalidation of the election itself, nor is it really damning if it turns the results in a different direction. What shapes politics? Events man, events.

Wait, so a foreign country deliberately tried to interfere with our elections and your response is:  Well, she would have probably lost anyway.

Really?

To me its not about her losing its about the "events man, events".

Even with a shady Clinton running there were so many false flags thrown up there was a deliberately attempt to make her look worse than she was.

And in return we elected a man ill suited for the job and unprepared for what it entails.

But hey, you didn't trust her so its all good int he end, right?

[GMDino]

(12-11-2016, 05:18 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Honestly this is all just dumbass bubble shit.  You're actually defending Hillary.  She's horrible and sucks.  Trump is some degree worse, but let's try not to whitewash reality.

I watched all the debates.  At her best, Hillary is a Manchurian candidate.  They got rich on politics, and this was their Kennedy moment where they solidify their legacy.  But OOOOPPPPS.

After two plus years of people saying "defend your candidate rather than attack the other" this what you have left.

Trump is not "to some degree worse"...he is completely worse when it comes to every aspect of the job of POTUS except (maybe) running the business end of the job.  Given that we don't know ho he runs his business (no tax returns) he might suck at that too.

You are equating being prepared and knowledgeable on subjects at the debates with being programmed.  I'll take that over someone who sees a news program or reads something on the internet and goes off at 3am about it on twitter.

However we got what we got...and we have to live with for at least four years...and you still can't defend him.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2016, 02:54 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: -The Russian Government + Wikileaks did what they did to depress Hilary support in the hopes of a Trump victory. In any election court, this is going to be met with this: So what?

Actually no one should claim that it does not matter that a foreign power used illegal actions to influence our election.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2016, 02:54 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: This pretty much amounts to "If Russia didn't dig out the DNC's dirty laundry, Hilary would've won.

Debatable, given people's perception of Hilary was shaky at best + the fact that 3 key states that she took for granted was hilariously swept from under her. Bur that's aside the point.

And Nixon would have easily won the '72 election without breaking into the DNC election headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.

Is that why no one made a big deal of that?

Oh wait, never mind.

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2016, 09:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually no one should claim that it does not matter that a foreign power used illegal actions to influence our election.

That's my whole thing with this. No matter what side you were on during the election process, this should infuriate you.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-12-2016, 02:54 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: This pretty much amounts to "If Russia didn't dig out the DNC's dirty laundry, Hilary would've won.

Debatable, given people's perception of Hilary was shaky at best + the fact that 3 key states that she took for granted was hilariously swept from under her. Bur that's aside the point.

Not since the days of John Wilkes Booth have we seen people so incapable of taking an L.  Go ahead, accept the premise as true--The Russian Government + Wikileaks did what they did to depress Hilary support in the hopes of a Trump victory. In any election court, this is going to be met with this: So what?

People's minds being changed by something isn't an invalidation of the election itself, nor is it really damning if it turns the results in a different direction. What shapes politics? Events man, events.

I think you meant since the 2008 election, not since the days of John Wilkes Booth. 

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 11:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's my whole thing with this. No matter what side you were on during the election process, this should infuriate you.

Nothing infuriates a Trump supporter unless he tells them to be infuriated.

[Au165]

(12-12-2016, 07:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so a foreign country deliberately tried to interfere with our elections and your response is:  Well, she would have probably lost anyway.

Really?

"End justifies the means" attitude is a dangerous way to approach anything, especially politics.