Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[squirrelp]

I can, you seem to be struggling though. Again.

Perhaps there is an issue with your perception.

 

[butchersapron]

Perhaps there is an issue with your perception.

You can find a problem with the CIA but not assange. And i'm one-eyed.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The CIA was right about impending attacks before 911; maybe they're right this time, too.

 

[butchersapron]

Is that right?

 

[seventh bullet]

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans have a different explanation for why no documents from their networks were ever released. Over the past several months, officials from the Republican committee have consistently said that their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. On Friday, a senior committee official said he had no comment.

Well, clearly the DNC servers were breached by "someone," and the RNC have denied theirs were, which seems a bit fishy.

Could be plenty of juicy titbits not just on Trump but on other GOP politicians that might not play so well in the heartland. Hmm, I wonder what that could be used for?

What's the difference between small-town, Trump-voting 'thickoes' of the type who used to look for reds under the bed, and now you the intelligent left-wing 'progressive' believing the CIA when it says those damn Russkies subverted the election process?

 

[krtek a houby]

There's no way Russia would seek to expand it's sphere of influence. No way. Ever.

 

[seventh bullet]

This is Your Enemy.

 

[Casually Red]

The CIA was right about impending attacks before 911; maybe they're right this time, too.

How right were they exactly ? Like..when a bunch of guys had already bombed the twin towers previously ..and their mates were blowing up US embassies and stuff..and they were continually threatening to attack the US..reckoning there will be attacks doesn't exactly require a Sherlock Holmes. Stopping them is the important bit .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How right were they?

They were bang-on. [No pun intended]

 

[krtek a houby]

I don't believe it. Sad. Sad.

 

[butchersapron]

How right were they?

They were bang-on. [No pun intended]

Too much evidence.

 

[squirrelp]

The CIA was right about impending attacks before 911; maybe they're right this time, too.

They certainly didn't tell you or I about it before 9/11 happened. It is true that they had picked up all kinds of intelligence traces about an attack. But I guess we should not get diverted on that one.

It's when they are telling you stuff that you should question their claims. Not when they are keeping quiet!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The issue is about believing or disbelieving what the CIA says.

The CIA is untrustworthy at times; that doesn't mean that everything they say, is untrue.

Now, the CIA are saying that Russia interfered in the US election. They might be wrong. They might be lying. But they also might be correct.

 

[butchersapron]

When the CIA doesn't tell you something is happening, then that, that is when you should be worried as the fix is in?

Why am i even wasting my time typing this.

 

[butchersapron]

The issue is about believing or disbelieving what the CIA says.

The CIA is untrustworthy at times; that doesn't mean that everything they say, is untrue.

Now, the CIA are saying that Russia interfered in the US election. They might be wrong. They might be lying. But they also might be correct.

Why, on earth, did you type that out?

 

[squirrelp]

When the CIA doesn't tell you something is happening, then that, that is when you should be worried as the fix is in?

Why am i even wasting my time typing this.

I have no idea.

 

[Casually Red]

How right were they?

They were bang-on. [No pun intended]

If they were bang on right surely it would never have happened ?

Did they say planes were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings ? I don't think they did . Saying there would be attacks in the future when Al Q is making public statements saying that ,and after there'd already been one, is a bit like me saying there might be rain next week .

It's not exactly bang on .

 

[butchersapron]

I have no idea.

That's right. Crack on.

 

[Casually Red]

The issue is about believing or disbelieving what the CIA says.

The CIA is untrustworthy at times; that doesn't mean that everything they say, is untrue.

Now, the CIA are saying that Russia interfered in the US election. They might be wrong. They might be lying. But they also might be correct.

As they're inherently untrustworthy then a smidgen of proof would be in order . There is none. Therefore only a complete dick would take their anonymous source less , evidence free claims at any type of face value . As assertions they are worthless . You are only ripping the piss and wasting everyone's time standing over this bollocks .

 

[squirrelp]

That's right. Crack on.

The "I have no idea" was a response to your question, "Why am I even wasting my time typing this" [sic]. It is not to be construed as a general statement of incomprehension.

 

[butchersapron]

The "I have no idea" was a response to your question, "Why am I even wasting my time typing this" [sic]. It is not to be construed as a general statement of incomprehension.

Might as well be.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If they were bang on right surely it would never have happened ?

Hard to say what might have happened if GW Bush hadn't ignored the briefings and warnings.

 

[squirrelp]

Might as well be.

Sigh.

The problem with comprehension is yours. The CIA indeed having foreknowledge of 9/11, and provably so, is simply not comparable, as there was no publicity involved. This was not something released to the general public. When I say that the claims made by the CIA that you have be particularly sceptical of is the ones that they tell you, I am with this rather facile observation attempting to illustrate how propaganda works and where the general public is in the chain of truth.

 

[butchersapron]

Sigh

"simply not comparable, as there was no publicity involved."

God damn.

 

[squirrelp]

That's right

It should be noted that the CIA noted only failed to alert the public as to intelligence about a forthcoming 9/11, they suppressed their own investigations.

 

[squirrelp]

e.g.
FBI Agent: The CIA Could Have Stopped 9/11

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

e.g.
FBI Agent: The CIA Could Have Stopped 9/11

But your argument seems to be that information announced by the CIA in a public announcement [as opposed to confidential briefings] is untrustworthy.

If the CIA had made a public announcement about the threat before 911 - would it have been trustworthy?

 

[Casually Red]

Clintons now been calling for what she calls " fake news " to be banned . If trump said that it'd be 4th reich time .

On the subject of the Washington post , mainstream media and fake news it's pretty clear who the worst culprits have been .

A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

 

[butchersapron]

That's right

It should be noted that the CIA noted only failed to alert the public as to intelligence about a forthcoming 9/11, they suppressed their own investigations.

tell more

 

[Casually Red]

No shit. The point is that people who pride themselves on being sensible rational moderates or whatever are behaving like that blustering buffoon did during his racist birth certificate campaign.

Precisely . Trump and others used blatant xenophobia and conspiracy theory in an attempt to delegitimise Obamas election . These clowns are using the very same scare tactics , conspiraloonery and xenophobia to delegitimise Trumps election.

After Trumps own antics he can't really complain . But those of us subjected to this barrage of xenophobic bollocks have every right to . And it's not just Trump who's the target of this , his cabinet picks are having their "patriotic American values " publicly questioned by liberals as well . The scaremongering and demonisation of Muslims has just been replaced by more of the same this time focused on Russians . It's the very same bollocks . But more worryingly because it comes from liberals it gets a clean bill of moral health in the mainstream . Way more people will believe it .

This seems quite concerted . McCain and Lindsay Graham are in on the act now too . War hawks seem to getting fully behind this campaign of delegitimisation , emanating apparently from a CIA faction .Whiff of a coup about this .