-
Features
RussiaGate
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
J842P
Veteran Member
Yeah, John McAfee is not exactly credible. I'm not saying I know the guy is nuts, but he does do all sorts of things that nutty people do.
- - - Updated - - -
But it is a good argument that their claims shouldn't be taken at face value.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
The alt left has its nuttiness too. The Deep State wanting to overthrow Trump in order to start war with Russia e.g.
Does it really have that nuttiness, or is the existence of that faction of the alt left nothing more than one more example of the nuttiness of the alt right?
J842P
Veteran Member
Well, the "Deep State" isn't some sort of conspiracy, it simply means the people in the government who aren't cycled out with the election. I don't think they want to "overthrow Trump to start a war with Russian," but they are certainly steeped in the neo-conservative ideology, and are definitely adversarial with Russia -- which is dangerously stupid in my opinion.
I see it as a bunch of Baby Boomers who can't let go of the Cold War, not some shadowy conspiracy.
I grew up in the Beltway. I know these people. They are, whether they vote Democrat or Republican, extremely into the whole "America needs to police the world and spread Democracy and as a tool to exert our geopolitical interests."
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Maybe. Depends on how many nuttinesses there are.
There is a portion of the left that feels vindicated by Trump, and so in a wierd way defends him even while professing to hate him. The key being that they hate the Dem establishment more; Schumer is the enemy, Obama the antichrist and Hillary is Satan herself.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Sanctioning an expansionist authoritarian state for annexing territory is the sort of thing responsible geopolitical leaders do. You can argue we should be isolationist, but if you accept that we're in a leadership position, enabling an expansionist Russia is not a good strategy.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,018
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
It isn't taken at face value. It's corroborated by other agencies, including the FBI, and by private firms. The Iraq prewar intelligence was a different situation. There were dissenting opinions, the agencies were not unanimous. In selling the war, the White House didn't talk about contrary findings or uncertainties. And since then, the CIA has made changes in their methods to prevent the same breakdown. That Iraq related mark against their reputation strongly motivates them not to have the same kind of major public failing, which this would be.
tupac chopra
Veteran Member
delete
J842P
Veteran Member
It's not just the Iraq war but essentially their entire history. I mean seriously, you cannot be ignorant of the CIA's history?
This is what I find most disheartening, but in their hatred of Trump, the Democrats have essentially become the CIA-loving, Russia scare-mongering party in the US. The CIA and their activities are a stain the the USAs history. And the liberals shouldn't forget that simply because they hate Trump so much. But of course, I don't think most people actually believe in those principles, they just want to get the other side.
Quite frankly, Trump is the president America deserves.
In any event, when you say "corroborated by other agencies", as I stated, it's not like these other agencies did independent investigations and came to the same conclusions. They are simply saying "we agree with what the CIA says." And guess what? I don't fucking trust the CIA. And the private firms were hired by the political opposition to dig up dirt, and the owner is ex-CIA.
barbos
Contributor
They don't even agree. Some said that evidence pointing to russian government is weak. And we don't really know what "high confidence" means. Is it even higher than 50%?This is a bullshit argument. Seventeen intelligence agencies did not do 17 independent investigations and then they all came to the same conclusion. Only a couple would really even be equiped to make such a pronouncement. What has happened is that the CIA and NSA have made this conclusion, and another 15 agencies agree.I do so cherish your respect...
You still can't come up with an instance of 17 different intelligence agencies coming to the same conclusion, besides the one where they all concluded that Russians hacked the DNC and tried to get lardass elected. So I am having a very hard time maintaining any respect at all for your explanation "intelligence agencies lie".
You know who lies? Internet trolls trying to prop up El Cheato and blame his faults on Obama and HRC.
Are you really denying, though, that the CIA *does* lie, does make politically motivated leaks? Seriously? These are the supposed liberals?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
In the report, it was only 1 and that 1 said "moderate," not "weak." If you are pointing to some other report, then please let us know the exact words and give a link.
Yes.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
barbos
Contributor
barbos
Contributor
It means absolutely nothing. Obama hated Russia and Putin, Trump wanted to hate Obama and it's clear in order to hate Obama well you need to "love" everything he hates. Just ask any middle schooler.
Same with Putin, he hates Obama back and has to love any Obama hater.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,794
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
In your terms, it means within one standard deviation.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,794
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Trump's swings towards Putin in March/April, out of the blue. It had nothing to do with Obama. And the idea Obama hated Putin is laughable. Obama was naive thinking Putin would settle with the US on honest terms.
barbos
Contributor
I don't see anything here which would refute my simple theory.
Obama and Putin have always hated each other. And Putin was naive to think US would settle with Russia on honest terms. US will always view Russia as a threat and act accordingly - undermining Russia at every step.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Trump met with the Russian ambassador but claimed he didn't.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
No, moderate confidence is not a disagreement as you are presenting a false dichotomy.
I will add that you claimed it was "weak" confidence and it's up to you to present your evidence. This is the second time I am asking you to present your evidence.
Please do so or retract it.
barbos said:
No, that's not high confidence.