Politics You were duped by the Ruskies.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Check under your bed for Putins before night night.
They're waiting to jump put and influence you to change your vote.
 
jonnyboy said:
Where are the facts

No facts to substantiate anything you said.
Click to expand...
Here are the facts:
"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid
By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.


The requested video is no longer available
Up Next:
67237164.jpg

Politifact Wisconsin analyzes Flynn's claims about Walker
67237164.jpg

Autoplay: On | Off
President Donald Trump, during a visit to Poland, said he believes Russia may have interfered with the US election, along with other countries. (AP/July 6, 2017)
President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

It’s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.

Relevance over quantity
Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.

They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...elligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

I thought we already knew this stuff.

I hope this sheds some light for you.
 
Lanny said:
Here are the facts:
"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid
By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.


The requested video is no longer available
Up Next:
67237164.jpg

Politifact Wisconsin analyzes Flynn's claims about Walker
67237164.jpg

Autoplay: On | Off
President Donald Trump, during a visit to Poland, said he believes Russia may have interfered with the US election, along with other countries. (AP/July 6, 2017)
President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

It’s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.

Relevance over quantity
Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.

They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...elligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

I thought we already knew this stuff.

I hope this sheds some light for you.
Click to expand...
This doesnt explain how Russia somehow strong-armed half the US population into voting for Donald Trump. I dont care how many agencies there are, its irrelevant. This whole narrative is bunk.
 
I disagree with half the board so I'm going to laugh at them, talk shit, and pretend that their position has no validity whatsoever, even though the president I support is in the middle of the biggest presidential scandal in decades and will likely be Impeached.

- said a certain poster
 
jonnyboy said:
This doesnt explain how Russia somehow strong-armed half the US population into voting for Donald Trump. I dont care how many agencies there are, its irrelevant. This whole narrative is bunk.
Click to expand...

Why do you think corporations spend billions in advertising? Because it works. Now put that thought into what the Russians did and maybe you can come to a logical and educated reason how the Russians interfered in our election. Where in the fuck did you get these numbers of 1/2 the population was strong armed? That's not a very bright way of looking at it. Better go back and do some more research as apparently you are lost.
 
CupWizier said:
Why do you think corporations spend billions in advertising? Because it works. Now put that thought into what the Russians did and maybe you can come to a logical and educated reason how the Russians interfered in our election. Where in the fuck did you get these numbers of 1/2 the population was strong armed? That's not a very bright way of looking at it. Better go back and do some more research as apparently you are lost.
Click to expand...
How much did "The Russians" spend?
 
jonnyboy said:
The Russians lobotomized half of the American population into thinking Hillary Clinton was a shitty candidate, which she CLEARLY was not. :biglaugh:
Click to expand...
She looked not too sharp in the debates. Trump looked like a grammar school bully. It's a shame two party Americans had to choose either one of them. We should have had the question "None of the above" on the ballot.
 
stampedehero said:
She looked not too sharp in the debates. Trump looked like a grammar school bully. It's a shame two party Americans had to choose either one of them. We should have had the question "None of the above" on the ballot.
Click to expand...

She foolishly thought it would be enough to let Trump bury himself. She was wrong and cost her dearly.
 
jonnyboy said:
This doesnt explain how Russia somehow strong-armed half the US population into voting for Donald Trump. I dont care how many agencies there are, its irrelevant. This whole narrative is bunk.
Click to expand...
No one with any amount of evidence is going to sway you. I'm not going to expend any further energy on that task.
 
stampedehero said:
She looked not too sharp in the debates. Trump looked like a grammar school bully. It's a shame two party Americans had to choose either one of them. We should have had the question "None of the above" on the ballot.
Click to expand...
More people wanted Hillary than any other Democrat. That's the way our system of government works. All Democrats had a vote in the primary and she won.

Do you propose another system?

Edit: Perhaps you could take over and tell us who to nominate. All our troubles and strife would be over and we would have the very best candidate you could think of. We wouldn't have to bow down whenever you passed and avert eye contact would we?
 
Last edited:
Lanny said:
More people wanted Hillary than any other Democrat. That's the way our system of government works. All Democrats had a vote in the primary and she won.

Do you propose another system?

Edit: Perhaps you could take over and tell us who to nominate. All our troubles and strife would be over and we would have the very best candidate you could think of. We wouldn't have to bow down whenever you passed and avert eye contact would we?
Click to expand...
As you know, you can't change this political system of two parties. I wish we had 5 parties that were all on equal footing but that will never happen. We really had no choice because both candidates sucked.
 
stampedehero said:
We really had no choice because both candidates sucked.
Click to expand...

I think that's bullshit. The differences between the two candidates were vast, even if you hated both of them.

McDonalds sucks, and dog shit sucks. But I can differentiate between them, and I know which one I'd rather eat, and the choice leads to very different outcomes.

barfo
 
barfo said:
I think that's bullshit. The differences between the two candidates were vast, even if you hated both of them.

McDonalds sucks, and dog shit sucks. But I can differentiate between them, and I know which one I'd rather eat, and the choice leads to very different outcomes.

barfo
Click to expand...
I still think the two choices offered are bullshit. I knew Trump was a skunk from his prior business dealings, his stupid apprentice show and Hillary was stale and did not stand a chance to win because voters wanted a man to be President.
 
Chris Craig said:
She foolishly thought it would be enough to let Trump bury himself. She was wrong and cost her dearly.
Click to expand...
If she would have listened to Billy and spend time in the midwest, she'd be president now. But really, imo it should have been Bernie running against Trump, not the black widow!
 
Hoopguru said:
If she would have listened to Billy and spend time in the midwest, she'd be president now. But really, imo it should have been Bernie running against Trump, not the black widow!
Click to expand...

Bernie lost by a significant margin
 
CupWizier said:
Bernie lost by a significant margin
Click to expand...
I know, I just thought that the Clinton campaign/DNC didn't treat Bernie fairly. There was now way she would let any other Ind/Dem beat her in the primaries.
I still think she could possible run again.
 
barfo said:
I think that's bullshit. The differences between the two candidates were vast, even if you hated both of them.

McDonalds sucks, and dog shit sucks. But I can differentiate between them, and I know which one I'd rather eat, and the choice leads to very different outcomes.

barfo
Click to expand...
Leave McDonalds out of this.
 
Hoopguru said:
I know, I just thought that the Clinton campaign/DNC didn't treat Bernie fairly. There was now way she would let any other Ind/Dem beat her in the primaries.
I still think she could possible run again.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, Bernie isn't a democrat and only ran as a democrat to run for presidency and then when he was eliminated he went back to being an independent. He was basically using the democratic party for financial and exposure purposes. I know you don't like Clinton, but do you think it's fair what Bernie tried to pull? Clinton also has raised millions of dollars for the democratic party, just not for her.
 
barfo said:
I think that's bullshit. The differences between the two candidates were vast, even if you hated both of them.

McDonalds sucks, and dog shit sucks. But I can differentiate between them, and I know which one I'd rather eat, and the choice leads to very different outcomes.

barfo
Click to expand...

Dogshit?
 
stampedehero said:
As you know, you can't change this political system of two parties. I wish we had 5 parties that were all on equal footing but that will never happen. We really had no choice because both candidates sucked.
Click to expand...
We always have several parties to choose from. It's just that voters are only really interested in two of the parties.
 
Hoopguru said:
I know, I just thought that the Clinton campaign/DNC didn't treat Bernie fairly. There was now way she would let any other Ind/Dem beat her in the primaries.
I still think she could possible run again.
Click to expand...
Didn't treat him fairly is an understatement. It's a proven fact now they completely rigged the primary against him. Another reason a lot of Dems just didnt vote. He could've beaten Trump, but the DNC was too dumb to acknowledge the contrast between Bernie packing stadiums with young people, and Hillary campaigning in empty gymnasiums.
 
Last edited:
jonnyboy said:
Didn't treat him fairly is an understatement. It's a proven fact now they completely rigged the primary against him.
Click to expand...

Link? I don't think that is a proven fact at all. There were some things that one can point to as unfair - debate schedules, etc. - but the fact is that many more people voted for Hillary than Bernie, and debates on different days wouldn't have changed that.

Another reason a lot of Dems just didnt vote.
Click to expand...

That is definitely true.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top