US Presidential Candidates

gcomeau wrote:"Donald Trump acknowledged after meeting with U.S. intelligence officials Friday that Russia has waged cyberattacks on America but continued to insist they had "absolutely no effect on the outcome" of the 2016 presidential election."

Exactly. He didn't exactly win the Electoral College by

a landslide

. He also lost the popular vote by a million votes (after subtracting the almost 2,000,000 illegal immigrant and graveyard votes) Hardly a mandate. So now, after having expected to lose and being the winner in a "Dewey Elected" deja vu scenario, he has to salvage any and every scrap of legitimacy he can.
He has no choice but to hold to the fig leaf that even if the russians did hack Podesta and DNC files and help fuel the "Mystic Pizza Satanic Child Sex Ring" thing he won and that had no effect on the electorate.

Must remember that they actually knew Sodamn Insane had WMD's.
They just didn't realise that he'd used them or lost them.
They took a gamble that they'd find some.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

WeirdlyWired wrote:

gcomeau wrote:"Donald Trump acknowledged after meeting with U.S. intelligence officials Friday that Russia has waged cyberattacks on America but continued to insist they had "absolutely no effect on the outcome" of the 2016 presidential election."

Exactly. He didn't exactly win the Electoral College by a landslide. He also lost the popular vote by a million votes (after subtracting the almost 2,000,000 illegal immigrant and graveyard votes)

You mean the ones Trump made up with zero evidence? We're subtracting those because... why?

gcomeau wrote:[quote="WeirdlyWired"

Exactly. He didn't exactly win the Electoral College by a landslide. He also lost the popular vote by a million votes (after subtracting the almost 2,000,000 illegal immigrant and graveyard votes)

You mean the ones Trump made up with zero evidence? We're subtracting those because... why?[/quote]

Because they are irrelevant in any meaningful way except for rescuing one's dignity in the face of abject defeat. The election sports analogy is the World Series, not the Superbowl. Doesn't matter how many more runs you scored against your opponent in the 7 games, all that matters is you came up one game short in the W column.

Which makes no difference to my point. Trump MUST downplay the effect of Russian hacking (assuming it really did happen) for his own ego.

gcomeau wrote:So when the intel community says they intercepted congratulatory statements between Russian officials concerning Trump winning the election, yes that's evidence.

Intercepted... Yeah, because the Russians are completely unaware of USA being the biggest user of spying on electronic communications. The supposed bosses of highend hackers. Right, that makes SO much sense for them to use unsecured communications.

Then there´s the issue with how NSA NEVER reveals that kind of information. Except when it´s fake, because then it just makes the targets look for nonexisting ways of tapping in.

gcomeau wrote:The analysts do. You know, the ones who have read those classified intercepts and who specialize in this stuff...

Having done a bit of temp work as such an analyst, yes, yes i know exactly.
That´s part of why i call BULLSHIT.

And add to that that most analysts can´t handle linguistic context if their life depended on it. Too commonly, they can´t handle cultural context either.

And THEN we have the little fact that CIA and NSA have a known level of reliability for these kind of thing, that is so bad that saying it´s in the gutters would be far too nice.

gcomeau wrote:The Iraq situation involved an administration that ordered the CIA to go find evidence of something that would serve their existing agenda of wanting to invade Iraq... CIA analysts coming back with their assessments that contained all kinds of skepticism and qualifiers... and then all the qualifiers and skepticism being dropped before the administration publicly reported the findings.

Yes? Your point being? USA started moving tanks to eastern Europe months before the supposed hacking took place.

Just a strange coincedence right?

gcomeau wrote:THIS is the Intel community themselves throwing up a red flag and saying "HEY! The Russians just ran a cyber warfare campaign to intervene in our election!

Really? Do you really have such a horribly short memory?

gcomeau wrote:And we're *really* sure about this. Maybe someone should pay attention!"

You mean like when FBI did their investigation, twice? Because obviously the first one wasn´t enough to affect the election...

Oh, you mean the Russians control the FBI now? Oh right, THEN your claimed line of events might even make a little sense. Except, you know, NOT.

gcomeau wrote:People on *both* sides of the aisle looking at the intel and saying "crap, this is serious". And a few GOP and Trump partisans refusing to accept it because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of Trump's upcoming presidency.

I couldn´t care less about THAT, in fact i rather welcome Trump, an idiot is better than someone who WANTS to start a war.

gcomeau wrote:WTF are you even talking about? you mean the "rest of reality" as told by various blogs you read? What???

Considering i don´t read ANY blogs, that´s just insulting. Oh and it´s a logical fallacy.

gcomeau wrote:And please note than now, having been given the more comprehensive briefing, EVEN TRUMP is backing away from trying to continue to deny Russian involvement...

And? That was 100% guaranteed and expected.

gcomeau wrote:and has now fallen back to denying it changed the election outcome (an absurd statement if there ever was one considering the margins involved and the widespread impact of the leaked material)

And HOW did that impact happen? Oh right, Murdoch media, FBI and a rather large chunk of US politicians and officials.

So, again, are you saying that Russia controls those enough to choose when they do something?

The interesting part is how the republican chickenhawks have joined up with the democrat warmafia after the election.

Annachie wrote:Must remember that they actually knew Sodamn Insane had WMD's.
They just didn't realise that he'd used them or lost them.
They took a gamble that they'd find some.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

They definitely did not KNOW. There were indications that there MAY be something, but there was never actual evidence of any kind, and the majority of "evidence" made public was complete makebelief, some pictures used were not even from Iraq at all.

And that´s the kind of level of dishonesty USA were willing to use for the UN.
Despite some of it being so poor that it could be disproven in hours.

Hate to say it, but Regan was the one who sold them. In the 1980's. Well, his administration anyway.

Hell, it was widely reported that Iraq was USING them in the late 1980's on Kurdestan.

And as I said, they played a hunch that Iraq still had them.

Tenshinai wrote:

Annachie wrote:Must remember that they actually knew Sodamn Insane had WMD's.
They just didn't realise that he'd used them or lost them.
They took a gamble that they'd find some.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

They definitely did not KNOW. There were indications that there MAY be something, but there was never actual evidence of any kind, and the majority of "evidence" made public was complete makebelief, some pictures used were not even from Iraq at all.

And that´s the kind of level of dishonesty USA were willing to use for the UN.
Despite some of it being so poor that it could be disproven in hours.

They did know because Rumsfeld and others had brokered supplies of these nasties during the Iran Iraq war, when in a different US service. Saddam used them then and also against the Kurds. The whole thing was insane anyway as Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, and as political commentators said even if he still possessed some, was he going to use an oxcart to deliver them?
North Korea did have embryonic WMD but wasn't attacked. The US does have them as well, but somehow is allowed to.

Annachie wrote:Hate to say it, but Regan was the one who sold them. In the 1980's. Well, his administration anyway.

Hell, it was widely reported that Iraq was USING them in the late 1980's on Kurdestan.

And as I said, they played a hunch that Iraq still had them.

Look up the Gulf war, as in the FIRST war being called that, the 8 year war between Iran and Iraq during, surprisingly, the 80s. When Iran started winning just by sheer numbers, Iraq started occasionally flinging gas all over the place.

And while some came from the Reagan admin, it was far from all of it.


#####

Daryl wrote:North Korea did have embryonic WMD but wasn't attacked. The US does have them as well, but somehow is allowed to.

Oh but obviously, USA is sooo much more mature and responsible with them! I mean, they have to be since they´re the only ones who ever USED nukes. On civillian targets chosen for their advantages as experimental test sites... Yes, so reliable and benign.


#####

As an aside a friend happened to run into this:
http://www.etterretningen.no/2016/12/31 ... r-cia-spy/

Aside from the cringeworthy hyperbole in the writing, the points made are definitely valid, and essentially summarizes the matter.

Well yes, I was being over simple because it was a discussion about AMERICA knowing that Iraq had had WMD's and my point being that they were gambling he still had some.
So there's little need to mention that England had also sold Iraq stuff, or anyone else selling it to Iraq actually.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk