Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
- Status
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
CRI
Registered Chooser
Fucksake, I didn't create the site. I only posted the link in case anyone thought it might be interesting. Ignore it if you're not interested.
CRI
Registered Chooser
All the Terrifying Things That Donald Trump Did Lately
Disclaimer:
I did not write this.
I have not stated that I agree with every word nor have I expressed an opinion on the contents.
There is no obligation to read this.
Disclaimer:
I did not write this.
I have not stated that I agree with every word nor have I expressed an opinion on the contents.
There is no obligation to read this.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Huh-yeah... 'light' on facts or evidence.
I judge that I have high confidence that it is probably... or something. My cat agrees.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Convinced Trump, though.
But an edited version was publicly released. The version shown to Trump and Obama was apparently quite a bit longer.
But an edited version was publicly released. The version shown to Trump and Obama was apparently quite a bit longer.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
He sounds convinced:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-statement-hack-intelligence-briefing.htmlThe Orange Overlord said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't get the idea the DNI doc was particularly intended to convince anyone who had already formed a view of the matter to change their minds.
edited to add: it's interesting to speculate, given that the DNI doc is manifestly unlikely to have that effect, what effect it is actually intended to have ....
edited to add: it's interesting to speculate, given that the DNI doc is manifestly unlikely to have that effect, what effect it is actually intended to have ....
Last edited:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's also quite interesting to go look over at Free Republic and see Trump's supporters angrily denouncing the document, saying that they shouldn't believe a word because 'Iraq WMD' were CIA bullshit too ...
What a strange, changeable world we live in.
What a strange, changeable world we live in.
Last edited:
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think a lot of the framework for their conclusions was in place ages ago. See those defence analyst things I was posting in the other thread.
The DNI report is consistent with the conclusions there, although it isn't outright saying 'the Russians developed this capability after seeing the US using similar techniques to pull off a bunch of 'color revolutions' on their doorstep that scared them shitless'
The Trump/Hilary stuff seems like a specific context to which they've applied that frame.
The DNI report is consistent with the conclusions there, although it isn't outright saying 'the Russians developed this capability after seeing the US using similar techniques to pull off a bunch of 'color revolutions' on their doorstep that scared them shitless'
The Trump/Hilary stuff seems like a specific context to which they've applied that frame.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I was pondering this point... Maybe it's just to show the US public "Look, this is what we showed him (+ the details that are just too sensitive to make public), you can all see by his reaction that he deserves to be shoved into a jump-suit to match his face and shipped off to G'mo"?
Or may they just thought Glen Greenwald looked bored?
I really don't know. As you say: Strange World.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Okay, what about this from October: Should The U.S. Double Down In Syria With A No-Fly Zone?
The idea, long resisted by the Obama administration, has been endorsed by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and by prominent Republicans, Democrats and defense experts. It would declare a portion of northern Syria and perhaps southern Syria off-limits to Syrian and Russian aircraft, and would enforce it with air-to-air fighters and long-range cruise missiles.
So, not just Clinton's idea?
A slim majority of Americans supports a no-fly zone despite the risks, reflecting their frustration that the United States seems to be doing nothing while Syrian civilians are dying in relentless Syrian and Russian attacks.
The table below comes from the study linked above. Looks like there support for no fly zones was pretty similar between Democrats and Republicans, and stronger support from Republicans than Democrats for direct military action, including ground forces.
Democrats were more likely to support a peace deal that kept Assad in power - which is surely also what the Putin government wants.
Then there's this from David Petraus, whom Trump shortlisted for for his Secretary of State (before it went to Tillotson)“People keep asking, ‘Is it too late?’ It’s not too late to declare a no-fly zone,” former CIA director and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus said on “Charlie Rose” last week.
“If the [Syrian] regime air force bombs folks we’re supporting or we’re concerned about, we tell them, ‘We’re going to ground your air force,’” Petraeus said. That threat would be backed up with readiness to take out Russian or Syrian aircraft and air bases with strike fighter and cruise missiles launched from outside Syrian airspace from American bombers or Navy ships, he said.
“Yes, there are risks,” Petraeus said, “and those risks have increased and gotten more complicated. But if you don’t show you are doing something to prevent them [Russians and Syrians] from carrying out a war crime … there is considerable risk in not taking action.”
Ok dickhead . How do you see blowing Russian aircraft out of the sky panning out . Exactly .
Will the identity politics fairy make it all alright ?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It will turn into "the economic benefits of the wall will pay for it so that's really Mexico paying for it when you think about it". Then it will probably turn into nothing at all because it was always a stupid idea.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Visualizing the U.S.-Mexico Border (AKA "Best of luck with the wall").
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
A lot of the areas which can be are already fenced off.
ska invita
back on the other side
Trump is building a trade wall with Mexico, and Mexico will pay for it in lost income. Trump's deep like that. Metaphoric levels
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
How did Trump win the election? Well, he probably didn't need Russian help. With the assistance of the Republican party, and the tacit approval of the "Democratic" party, he benefitted from the purging of thousands of potential anti-Trump voters from the electoral roll:
Does No One Care That 7 Million Votes Were Not Counted?
Does No One Care That 7 Million Votes Were Not Counted?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
What's that rule whereby any headline containing a question can be answered with the word 'no' ?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sure. The "Russian interference" fuss doesn't appear to be about protecting American democracy, it seems to have some other function entirely.
Last edited:
CRI, I think I can understand a bit the source of your frustration, and I think it comes from a missing piece of the picture from your part and a lack of explicit explanation of that missing piece from others.
Your hypothesis is that racism is the cause of the election of Donald Trump. As part of your evidence for this, you are focussed on the effects of racism elsewhere in the US. You have ended up defending the political concepts of identity politics and intersectionalism as a result of this focus on the effects. This takes the form of arguments along the line of "being black and poor results means you face additional problems".
But you should take a step back to notice that these intersectional concepts are indeed about the consequences of structural, widespread racism (and misogyny and homophobia etc) on individuals. They do not say much about what drives the actions of those not within those intersections of minority categorisation. The fact that being black and poor means you face additional problems does not mean that those who are white and poor want you to have additional problems, or would choose to load additional problems onto you, all else being equal.
Here are three statements that are not equivalent to each other:
1) People voted for Donald Trump because he is racist
2) People voted for Donald Trump and didn't care that he is racist
3) People voted for Donald Trump in spite of the fact that he is racist.
Your position relies on a belief in statement 1, but your evidence concerning structural racism in the US at best provides some support for statement 2. But statement 2 doesn't actually give us any reason why people voted for Trump, it just tells us why they didn't not vote for him.
That's where your analysis of voting necessarily ends, but it's where all these other analyses of voting reasons begin. They accept that there is sufficient structural racism to mean that a racist candidate is not automatically anathema. But they also accept that this is in itself enough of a reason to mean that people choose to vote for him. There has to be something else going on, unless voters actively want racism, and there is no evidence of that. (In fact, there is counter-evidence, given the population's willingness to twice vote for Obama).
The more sophisticated hypothesis, in other words, is that yes, Trump's racism didn't matter (enough) to voters, but the reason it didn't matter was because he presented some reason to vote for him that otherwise appealed, plus the alternative candidate did not present reasons that sufficiently appealed.
Factors from the above argument are also the basis for the critique of identity politics as it applies to solid political action. OK, being black and poor means you face additional problems -- so now, what are the concrete actions that should be taken to face this inequality? Should those actions involve atomisation (inevitably leading to even more people not within the intersection not caring that a candidate is racist), or should those actions involve collectively recognising where the structural problems derive from (not just what their consequences are) and tackling those underlying problems head on?
Your hypothesis is that racism is the cause of the election of Donald Trump. As part of your evidence for this, you are focussed on the effects of racism elsewhere in the US. You have ended up defending the political concepts of identity politics and intersectionalism as a result of this focus on the effects. This takes the form of arguments along the line of "being black and poor results means you face additional problems".
But you should take a step back to notice that these intersectional concepts are indeed about the consequences of structural, widespread racism (and misogyny and homophobia etc) on individuals. They do not say much about what drives the actions of those not within those intersections of minority categorisation. The fact that being black and poor means you face additional problems does not mean that those who are white and poor want you to have additional problems, or would choose to load additional problems onto you, all else being equal.
Here are three statements that are not equivalent to each other:
1) People voted for Donald Trump because he is racist
2) People voted for Donald Trump and didn't care that he is racist
3) People voted for Donald Trump in spite of the fact that he is racist.
Your position relies on a belief in statement 1, but your evidence concerning structural racism in the US at best provides some support for statement 2. But statement 2 doesn't actually give us any reason why people voted for Trump, it just tells us why they didn't not vote for him.
That's where your analysis of voting necessarily ends, but it's where all these other analyses of voting reasons begin. They accept that there is sufficient structural racism to mean that a racist candidate is not automatically anathema. But they also accept that this is in itself enough of a reason to mean that people choose to vote for him. There has to be something else going on, unless voters actively want racism, and there is no evidence of that. (In fact, there is counter-evidence, given the population's willingness to twice vote for Obama).
The more sophisticated hypothesis, in other words, is that yes, Trump's racism didn't matter (enough) to voters, but the reason it didn't matter was because he presented some reason to vote for him that otherwise appealed, plus the alternative candidate did not present reasons that sufficiently appealed.
Factors from the above argument are also the basis for the critique of identity politics as it applies to solid political action. OK, being black and poor means you face additional problems -- so now, what are the concrete actions that should be taken to face this inequality? Should those actions involve atomisation (inevitably leading to even more people not within the intersection not caring that a candidate is racist), or should those actions involve collectively recognising where the structural problems derive from (not just what their consequences are) and tackling those underlying problems head on?
1%er
Well-Known Member
The Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Election report is totally lacking in actual evidence but heavy on judgments, opinions and assessments.
The first thing that is striking is that back in Oct of 2016 (USA Today reported) all 17 federal intelligence agencies* concluded that Russia is behind the hacking, if that is the case then why are none of the other 14 agencies included in this report?
The report linked to above and released to the public is only based on 3 agencies "analytic assessments", they are the FBI, the CIA and the NSA. Even these 3 agencies provided no facts, only judgments, opinion and assessments. They also couldn't all agree between themselves on the validity of there own judgements.
For example (page 7, first marked point): We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence (my view is they can't agree because there is no evidence, only subjective judgment).
Why are the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency not included in this report, they are the agencies with expertise on Russia. Could it be because they disagree with the assessments? The same question should be asked to all the other agencies that seemed to "agree" back in Oct 2016 but seem to have been excluded or not included in this prime exhibit to the public.
Surely a report such as this should be full of facts, evidence and supported with verifiable sources, but that really isn't the case, it is solely based on judgments, opinions and assessments.
The reports is aimed at showing the Russians wanted to undermine public faith in the USA's democratic process, but the reality is that the DNC were responsible for undermining the democratic process by sabotaging Bernie Sanders bid to become the nominee of the Democratic party.
*17 includes the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which is left of a number of list hence many sites claim there are 16 federal intelligence agencies.
The first thing that is striking is that back in Oct of 2016 (USA Today reported) all 17 federal intelligence agencies* concluded that Russia is behind the hacking, if that is the case then why are none of the other 14 agencies included in this report?
The report linked to above and released to the public is only based on 3 agencies "analytic assessments", they are the FBI, the CIA and the NSA. Even these 3 agencies provided no facts, only judgments, opinion and assessments. They also couldn't all agree between themselves on the validity of there own judgements.
For example (page 7, first marked point): We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence (my view is they can't agree because there is no evidence, only subjective judgment).
Why are the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency not included in this report, they are the agencies with expertise on Russia. Could it be because they disagree with the assessments? The same question should be asked to all the other agencies that seemed to "agree" back in Oct 2016 but seem to have been excluded or not included in this prime exhibit to the public.
Surely a report such as this should be full of facts, evidence and supported with verifiable sources, but that really isn't the case, it is solely based on judgments, opinions and assessments.
The reports is aimed at showing the Russians wanted to undermine public faith in the USA's democratic process, but the reality is that the DNC were responsible for undermining the democratic process by sabotaging Bernie Sanders bid to become the nominee of the Democratic party.
*17 includes the Office of the Director of National Intelligence which is left of a number of list hence many sites claim there are 16 federal intelligence agencies.
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
....in common with the mass ranks of the great and the good in the liberal media I too am outraged...outraged.... at attempts by external agencies to interfere in & attempt to influence the outcome of a US election....
....errr.....
Reaction from the US to the Guardian's Clark County project
....errr.....
Reaction from the US to the Guardian's Clark County project
- Status
Similar threads
