2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[Zog]

Going back and reading through some of this thread early on, during the first debates, is pretty entertaining.

 

[David.]

Okay, I thought it pretty clear as a holistic question insofar as all the parts create a picture of the man and his possible policies i.e., is there a method to his madness and are you (very) comfortable with it? But, to break it down if you wish:

1) Do you believe Russia was behind the hacks?
2) If so, is it significant and what are the implications?
3) Do you think it is proper for a President-Elect to cavalierly dismiss his intelligence community when it is all but certain Russia interfered in our elections? Moreover, is it proper for him to also dismiss the need for daily intel briefings? Is this part of a pattern in which Trump continually demonstrates an unearned contempt for subject matter experts (or is it earned?)?
4) Do you believe Trump has the intelligence and temperament to contain Putin? Particularly as he and his transition team show no evidence of seeing Russia as a cause for concern?
5) Following on that, does it concern you that Trump places far more value on personal relationships in "deal-making" and thus is far more susceptible to being misled or flattered by Putin who has been following the Russian Deep Battle Doctrine for some time to manipulate leaders and nations?
6) To follow up on the last two questions, if Trump doesn't care about Russia, is there an actual defensible policy position in there somewhere?
7) Finally, do you think Russia has a preference for Trump over Human Pantsuit? Why?

Full disclosure:

I'm ONE MONTH into politics, and I state that knowing the repercussions, but feel that it is more important to establish the fact that I'm being honest, and would like actual conversation and not tactic. I don't know as much about certain issues like foreign policy, but I have done a lot of research on some issues and feel "very confident" about them

Now.

I'll repeat it as you missed the edit, you can call for credibility and use that non sequitor all you want, but you are not current CIA, you're not on record and you're not reporting to us confidential information with your name attached, so unless you're doing something you should not be doing right now, you know just as much as I do regarding the extent of Russia's tampering in regards to the scope we are currently discussing. And if you know more, we should alert the media and Congress and realcavsfans.com/community/off-topic should thank you handsomely for the revelation. Until that happens, you're a guy on a messageboard giving his opinion, and ultimately hold burden of proof.

Your original question seems to imply I don't understand or accept the ramifications of Russian hacking and the denial of the possibility. Consider I do, or that it has no relevance as to what I do or do not, specifically, believe about "the" hacking.

I'm making a point that I support trump for reasons that don't relate to foreign policy, and think some things he's already done are.. pretty bad, and are in motion to potentially get worse.

I am not tied to Trump by an umbilical cord. I'm Moving further away from supporting him in some aspects and others, closer. I am glad he was elected over Hillary. I think the country is becoming more self aware, socially aware, and politically aware because of if.

1. Maybe guccifer, maybe not. can't confirm. No one can. No to wikileaks.

2. Significance: you tell me. They and many other countries have hacked us and vice versa. We can both speculate and be wrong. I'll fast forward, they likely want trump. Saudi Arabia and corporations wanted Hillary. Anything past this is speculation.

3. Why do you believe it is all but certain? There is no one on record. They refuse to go to Congress last time I checked.


The media is citing unnamed sources claiming an unseen report says someone IN Russia is involved.. that's not evidence, that's gossip. Ms lippys fucking car is green.

Do you imagine that the rnc is dismissive over their findings because these anonymous sources state the rnc was hacked and it wasn't?

Think it's possible they trust them on other issues but not this one?

Secretary of press Sean spicer:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P13B5UCm6nc&feature=youtu.be



I am under the impression that trump had stated "to inform him if anything changes, otherwise daily isn't necessary". Provide me a scenario where this opinion isn't appropriate and I'll consider it in an alternative manner...I think Obama was absent from half of his daily briefings, right?

4. Who knows. They both have teams around them. They could be in bed together and ride harmoniously into the sunset and the honeymoon phase never ends.

Fuck buddies use each other mutually. That being said, I'm fully aware that when you get in bed with someone you can fuck each other over instead of just copulate.

5. Yes it does concern me.

6. In where and regards to what?

7. They don't want the pantsuit. Pantsuit could want war with them, trump could want war as allies.

Alternatively, they simply could just like each other, or Putin just didn't want Hillary(I'm making a leap on that one) and nothing nefarious comes out of this, if "this" is actually a thing. Which, no one will go on record about and is unsubstantiated as of today.

 

[Damien O'Connel]

I'm ONE MONTH into politics, and I state that knowing the repercussions, but feel that it is more important to establish the fact that I'm being honest. I don't know as much about certain issues like foreign policy, but I have done a lot of research on some issues and feel "very confident" about them

Feel free to inform me on what I have wrong.

I'm also making the point that I support trump for reasons that don't relate to foreign policy, and think some things he's already done are.. pretty bad, and are in motion to potentially get worse.

I am not tied to Trump by an umbilical cord. I'm Moving further away from supporting him in some aspects and others, closer. I am glad he was elected over Hillary. I think the country is becoming more self aware, socially aware, and politically aware because of if.

1. Likely guccifer, can't confirm. No one can. No to wikileaks.

2. Significance: you tell me. They and many other countries have hacked us and vice versa. We can both speculate and be wrong. I'll fast forward, they likely want trump. Anything past this is speculation.

3. Why do you believe it is all but certain? There is no one on record. They refuse to go to Congress last time I checked.


Are you aware that the unnamed source that went to wapo believed "it" was Russia because they thought the rnc was hacked and they weren't?

Do you imagine that may be why the rnc is dismissive over their findings ?

Think it's possible they trust them on other issues but not this one?

I am under the impression that trump had stated "to inform him if anything changes, otherwise daily isn't necessary". Provide me a scenario where this opinion isn't appropriate and I'll consider it in an alternative manner...I think Obama was absent from half of his daily briefings, right?

4. Who knows. They both have teams around them. They could be in bed together and ride harmoniously into the sunset and the honeymoon phase never ends.

Fuck buddies use each other mutually. That being said, you get in bed with anyone and you can fuck each other over instead of just copulate.

5. Yes it does concern me.

6. In where and regards to what?

7. They don't want the pantsuit. Pantsuit likely wants war against them, trump probably wants war as allies. Right?

Alternatively, they simply could just like each other and nothing nefarious comes out of this, if "this" is actually a thing. Which, no one will go on record about and is unsubstantiated as of today.

David, I don't mean this as an insult,

BUT

I'd bet that a lot of people who are "one month into politics" voted for Trump.

 

[David.]

David, I don't mean this as an insult,

BUT

I'd bet that a lot of people who are "one month into politics" voted for Trump.

Yes you do, and you're better than that.

You want to see how young people voted? I can show statistics.

Don't do that. You're using information I provided in good faith in attempt to make this an actual discussion rather than a shit post spree or tactical debate, and you're in turn doing both using that information maliciously.

cherry on top is it actually couldn't be further from the truth. No integrity In that post.

Youre aiding the inhibition of honesty and full disclosure, and honest conversation, and that was cheap.

Ps I didn't vote for trump.

 

[Cavsfan1985]

David, I don't mean this as an insult,

BUT

I'd bet that a lot of people who are "one month into politics" voted for Trump.

I am sure there are a ton who voted for Hillary as well. I would argue those who do have more then one month did not vote because we had two shitty candidates.

 

[Huber.]

David, I don't mean this as an insult,

BUT

I'd bet that a lot of people who are "one month into politics" voted for Trump.

 

[Sebastian]

Full disclosure:

I'm ONE MONTH into politics, and I state that knowing the repercussions, but feel that it is more important to establish the fact that I'm being honest, and would like actual conversation and not tactic. I don't know as much about certain issues like foreign policy, but I have done a lot of research on some issues and feel "very confident" about them

Now.

I'll repeat it as you missed the edit, you can call for credibility and use that non sequitor all you want, but you are not current CIA, you're not on record and you're not reporting to us confidential information with your name attached, so unless you're doing something you should not be doing right now, you know just as much as I do regarding the extent of Russia's tampering in regards to the scope we are currently discussing. And if you know more, we should alert the media and Congress and realcavsfans.com/community/off-topic should thank you handsomely for the revelation. Until that happens, you're a guy on a messageboard giving his opinion, and ultimately hold burden of proof.

Your original question seems to imply I don't understand or accept the ramifications of Russian hacking and the denial of the possibility. Consider I do, or that it has no relevance as to what I do or do not, specifically, believe about "the" hacking.

I'm making a point that I support trump for reasons that don't relate to foreign policy, and think some things he's already done are.. pretty bad, and are in motion to potentially get worse.

I am not tied to Trump by an umbilical cord. I'm Moving further away from supporting him in some aspects and others, closer. I am glad he was elected over Hillary. I think the country is becoming more self aware, socially aware, and politically aware because of if.

1. Maybe guccifer, maybe not. can't confirm. No one can. No to wikileaks.

2. Significance: you tell me. They and many other countries have hacked us and vice versa. We can both speculate and be wrong. I'll fast forward, they likely want trump. Saudi Arabia and corporations wanted Hillary. Anything past this is speculation.

3. Why do you believe it is all but certain? There is no one on record. They refuse to go to Congress last time I checked.


The media is citing unnamed sources claiming an unseen report says someone IN Russia is involved.. that's not evidence, that's gossip. Ms lippys fucking car is green.

Do you imagine that the rnc is dismissive over their findings because these anonymous sources state the rnc was hacked and it wasn't?

Think it's possible they trust them on other issues but not this one?

Secretary of press Sean spicer:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P13B5UCm6nc&feature=youtu.be



I am under the impression that trump had stated "to inform him if anything changes, otherwise daily isn't necessary". Provide me a scenario where this opinion isn't appropriate and I'll consider it in an alternative manner...I think Obama was absent from half of his daily briefings, right?

4. Who knows. They both have teams around them. They could be in bed together and ride harmoniously into the sunset and the honeymoon phase never ends.

Fuck buddies use each other mutually. That being said, I'm fully aware that when you get in bed with someone you can fuck each other over instead of just copulate.

5. Yes it does concern me.

6. In where and regards to what?

7. They don't want the pantsuit. Pantsuit could want war with them, trump could want war as allies.

Alternatively, they simply could just like each other, or Putin just didn't want Hillary(I'm making a leap on that one) and nothing nefarious comes out of this, if "this" is actually a thing. Which, no one will go on record about and is unsubstantiated as of today.

Didn't see the edit. I was enjoying the Cascades.

Will get back to you when sober.

Edit:

I am glad you are taking the time to learn more about politics and everything else. Everyone should do the same. Keep learning everything you can. Multiple sources on the same topic when possible. Most people, even properly trained scholars, tend to have an agenda to push.

To address your points and then the original questions:

Points:

I. Never said I was in the CIA. Never was. Even if I was or am would not say otherwise and all the other cliches lol. But CIA is one of many intelligence bodies. I assume you know full well that the burden of proof you are demanding is impossible to deliver short of committing treason. However, claiming that anything less means it isn't credible is really just a means to undercut an argument with or without discussing its merits. Moreover, attempts to undermine any argument I make by having me "go on the record," and presumably supply everyone with my CV, undergrad and grad transcripts, DD-214, long-form birth certificate etc., is little more than obfuscation and creating conditions in which absence of evidence can be conflated as evidence as I am just some schmuck on the internet.

a. Or, if you are serious in your demands for a 100% solution with regard to intelligence gathering, and also demanding that classified assets must be revealed to the public merely to support any INTEL picture, that tells me you have not yet learned enough about how intelligence agencies and operations work. Can you properly evaluate whether or not 17 intelligence agencies are correct or incorrect in their assessment if you aren't familiar enough with the process or institutions?

II. Now, I would be more willing to accept your threshold of proof to determine credibility on its face if you had not in the recent past used a substantially lowered burden of proof in accrediting debunked conspiracy theories that involved prominent Democrats, such as Pizzagate, as true (though you did walk that one back later on). If you are not applying the same burden of proof to all of your assessments on the credibility of a story or event, I can only conclude that in the case of the Russkies you are resistant for partisan reasons. Or maybe you just don't buy into it. Or you simply don't trust the government as a rule. As you say, one doesn't have to agree with everything a candidate does to vote for them.

Questions:

1) On the matter of the Russian inference, they had motive, means and a history of interfering in the elections of friends and foes alike. You should ask yourself the question of why wouldn't they want to interfere? Just because the CIA, NSA, DIA didn't make public how they know -nor would they because doing so would reveal sources, does not automatically make it not so. Absence of evidence in itself is not evidence; particularly where intelligence is concerned, nor is it unusual for those agencies to not report specifics to Congress. Details are coming to light, but I believe you have already dismissed them for being partisan.

The content of the information leaked isn't important though. In fact it is weak tea and I would wager their actual intent was simply to foster mistrust and confusion. What is important is the very possibility of any foreign power meddling in our affairs should be enough to call for an investigation no matter which party was targeted. For Trump, and many of his followers, to dismiss such thing out of hand is blatantly partisan. Not that it matters what you or I think. What is troubling is the President-Elect treating the situation as unimportant and dismissing our entire intelligence apparatus when he had no clue how any of it works. But I think a lot of people are starting to see how his behavior in general regarding our security and defense agencies is not good and that it is possible he can't turn off his campaign mode.

2) It is significant because Russia wants the US out of Europe and wants to undermine our power any where they can. In the long run, if Russia succeeds in delegitimizing NATO they could be emboldened to start a war by invading the Baltics. Russia has a long history of FUD campaigns to destabilize enemies. They want nothing more than to see the EU and NATO fractured. To sow doubt in Article 5. They have successfully, with Obama's help, taken Turkey off the NATO board. Russia is blatantly setting EU nations against one another by interfering in their elections employing various means, including cyber warfare and direct subsidies to certain right-wing parties, as well as keeping the floodgates open regarding Muslim refugees with their intervention in Syria.

These are tried and true methods well known to everyone for years, but liberals in Europe out of political correctness or just disbelief that a nation would operate outside accepted international convention, have blinded themselves to that threat and are only now starting to do something about it. 2016 has been a good year for Russia.

That Russia even thought of using the same tactics against the US tells me two things:

a. Obama is weak and Putin has no respect for the man and feels there will be no consequences for his actions. He also knows we are so fractured that a large number of Americans won't care about what Russia does simply to spite people they disagree with.

b. He has his measure of Trump, and Americans in general, and for whatever particular reason feels Trump will be very useful to Russia. That should give anybody pause.

3) See above for why. As for the daily briefings: It is absolutely inappropriate and reckless for Trump not to receive more than two intel briefings a week. It is insanity. The difference between him and Obama is that Obama has been on the job for nearly eight years. The information requirements for someone familiar with the overall situation are vastly different from someone who is just starting the job. It is akin to hiring someone who refuses to learn his job because "he is smarter than everyone already." It is the height of narcissism and fucking dangerous.

An example: Military commanders down to the company level receive daily or near daily briefings. A captain is charged with the lives of 150 men. Why on Earth would it be appropriate for a man with no education or experience in intelligence or international relations who is responsible for the life of every American not do the same, or even half as much? It is prima facie lunacy. A country cannot be run like a CEO runs a company. His off his rocker if thinks otherwise. We elected a President, not a disinterested and distant absentee landlord.

4) Trump already thinks he is friendly with Putin. He admires him. Putin is very happy with Trump. That means Trump is already in a very deep hole regarding containing Putin.

5) Ok.

6) Do you think Trump has an articulated policy regarding Russia and that his current behavior is reflective of that?

7) Yes if you think anyone in NATO is hell-bent on war with Russia. More specifically because Clinton won't fall for Putin's bullshit. People with NPD are very easy to manage if you know how. Clinton is a crook but Trump is off the charts when it comes to outright narcissism.

I will be fixing grammar, spelling as the night goes on.