The Next President is...

[nsplayr]

Ok, y'all are focusing on a tiny piece of the argument here, the Lavrov quote about not denying it.  Regardless of what the shifty Russians say...

The United States government officially, jointly, universally, and unequivocally said, via the joint DNI-DHS statement and numerous on-the-record discussions since then, that Russia is responsible for the hacks against the DNC and John Podesta.  They said this on October 7th, well before the election was over.  These are the good guys, our guys saying this.

The "why" is not a settled issue yet and may be not be knowable with certainty unless we have agents high-up inside the Russian government, but the "what" i.e. that the Russian government directed the hacking, is settled among the numerous US intel agencies.

You kind of either have to believe this is an Iraq WMD-level intel screw up, or you can accept the assessment as true.  The former is always possible, but the later is much more likely.  Is anyone willing to speak up about why they have doubts?

Edited December 16, 2016 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

[tk1313]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Ok, y'all are focusing on a tiny piece of the argument here, the Lavrov quote about not denying it.  Regardless of what the shifty Russians say...

The United States government officially, jointly, universally, and unequivocally said, via the joint DNI-DHS statement and numerous on-the-record discussions since then, that Russia is responsible for the hacks against the DNC and John Podesta.  They said this on October 7th, well before the election was over.  These are the good guys, our guys saying this.

The "why" is not a settled issue yet and may be not be knowable with certainty unless we have agents high-up inside the Russian government, but the "what" i.e. that the Russian government directed the hacking, is settled among the numerous US intel agencies.

You kind of either have to believe this is an Iraq WMD-level intel screw up, or you can accept the assessment as true.  The former is always possible, but the later is much more likely.  Is anyone willing to speak up about why they have doubts?

No doubts here about capability for the Russians, or anyone for that matter, to hack the DNC. But I honestly think that a 12-yr old from Bangladesh could hack the DNC, route the attack through a VPN server in Russia, and CNN would still be trying to prove that the hacker account Guccifer 2.0 isn't Romanian. The intelligence community hired a contractor to find out the identity of Guccifer 2.0 (the account that claimed responsibility for the DNC hacks), and found out that the account did an interview on the "dark web" that said he/she/they hailed from Romania. Regardless, the contracting agency that specializes in cyber attack analysis said the the tactics were familiar with those of Russian hacking tactics; also, the language that was used to obtain the Russian VPN was, wait for it, Russian. BUT what they failed to mention is that some independent analysts (aka cyber experts on the internet) called bullsh!t on the report, and said that the e-mails in Russian looked to be crude pieces of sentences that would appear if you typed the Romanian equivalent into google translate. Our cyber-related investigation operations can be laughable. We hire a company called "l337 h4ck3rb0yz" or an 'independent consultant' named "xXpu55ysl4y3r69Xx" to investigate the cyber attacks, and sometimes the findings are incomplete. Finally...

Edited December 17, 2016 by tk1313

[daynightindicator]

Anyone with SCIF access should get in there and do some reading. This thread is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tk1313]

12 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

Anyone with SCIF access should get in there and do some reading. This thread is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I don't think anyone wants to risk their career just to call me out on my bullsh!t. Never claimed to be an expert, but if someone with access to privileged information wants to claim that the info I get from the internet and Wikipedia isn't as accurate as their info just to look cool on a flying forum, be my guest....

[daynightindicator]

I don't think anyone wants to risk their career just to call me out on my bullsh!t. Never claimed to be an expert, but if someone with access to privileged information wants to claim that the info I get from the internet and Wikipedia isn't as accurate as their info just to look cool on a flying forum, be my guest....

I'm not going to opine on this. Just wish people would trust their intelligence community before lining up behind conspiracy theorists and am avowed adversary of America with a long history of running influence operations in elections around the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tk1313]

2 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

 

I'm not going to opine on this. Just wish people would trust their intelligence community before lining up behind conspiracy theorists and am avowed adversary of America with a long history of running influence operations in elections around the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

My ramblings weren't meant to say that I think Russia/Putin > CIA/FBI. I've been skeptical of Putin ever since he won 140% of the popular vote in the election.

[matmacwc]

Maybe Russia hacked Podesta, somebody also tried to hack the RNC and they called the FBI to investigate months and months before the election.  The FBI concluded the hack attempt was real but they didn't get anything.  Calling on Russia is dangerous buisiness, even Assange said it wasn't the Russians but an inside source at the DNC.  All this is just a play to make Trump weaker, which won't work, the old rules are gone.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/report-russia-tried-to-hack-the-rnc-they-just-had-way-better-cybersecurity-video/

[tac airlifter]

11 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

I'm not going to opine on this. Just wish people would trust their intelligence community before lining up behind conspiracy theorists and am avowed adversary of America with a long history of running influence operations in elections around the world.
 

You mean we should trust the anonymous leaks to the press from the intel community? Or the official testimony before congress they refuse to do? 

[brickhistory]

An agency or even several being politicized in the IC?

Say it ain't so!

But don't bring up CENTCOM's J2 and the watered down reports on ISIS that 40+ analysts hit the "BS" button on.

Or the CIA's director's (ok, acting director) direct, personal coordination on the Benghazi was a video demonstration gone bad.

Or conflicting assessments prior to the Arab Spring but only the rosy ones being accepted and briefed.

Nope, no history of a politicized IC.

BTW, the ODNI is not an intel agency.  It is a coordinating body for the IC.

Which, again, BTW, was created as a result of the Director of Central Intelligence not doing his job prior to 9/11 and that Administration not wanting to admit it was wrong.  Hint, the clue of who was responsible for being the coordinator of the IC was in the job title.  Set up by the same act that created Big Blue for some history learnin' for ya.

But since politics demanded that no one be blamed for the inter-agency FUBAR, another entity is created.  Another layer of bueracracy (sp?) and more money is poured on the political wound of an IC gone wild.

There are a lot of good people in the IC who want to do their jobs and tell the truth as they know it.

Senior level management is very politicized and responds to the political masters for their own personal agendas and for assuring larger future budgets.  Which often times equates to the same thing.

Sound familiar?

 

edited for J-code buffoonery

Edited December 17, 2016 by brickhistory

[waveshaper]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

An agency or even several being politicized in the IC?

Say it ain't so!

But don't bring up CENTCOM's J2 and the watered down reports on ISIS that 40+ analysts hit the "BS" button on.

Or the CIA's director's (ok, acting director) direct, personal coordination on the Benghazi was a video demonstration gone bad.

Or conflicting assessments prior to the Arab Spring but only the rosy ones being accepted and briefed.

Nope, no history of a politicized IC.

Sound familiar?

 

Or when we used reliable/well vetted sources, on Saddam's WMD program, like Ahmed Chalabi and Curveball. These two lying clowns definitely influenced the "it's time to go to war" decision of the President and key members of the NSC.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by waveshaper

[brickhistory]

39 minutes ago, waveshaper said:

Or when we used reliable/well vetted sources, on Saddam's WMD program, like Ahmed Chalabi and Curveball. These two lying clowns definitely influenced the "it's time to go to war" decision of the President and key members of the NSC.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

 

I am not trying to cast spears at the IC on being wrong sometimes or even many times.  They have a literally impossible job of trying to predict the future.

And get beaten up to where they are abused spouses because they can't do it 100% of the time.  Which leads to paralysis which leads to it being much easier to politicize what is forwarded to decision-makers.  "Give the wookie what he wants" syndrome.

My point is that the IC is not immune from the DC games and are politicized at the senior levels.  As are all instruments of the USG.

It's is literally why elections have consequences.

But for the liberals in the losing side and the press (again, repetitive but oh so satisfying to say) to blame Vlad and Co. on the nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, "we know better than you" attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves is purely denial.

He doesn't like you.  I don't like you either...

[tk1313]

Obama scolds the media for 'unfair' coverage of Hillary leading up to the election: https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/16/media/obama-clinton-coverage/

HAHAHAHA YGBFSM

[Seriously]

On 12/18/2016 at 2:12 AM, brickhistory said:

But for the liberals in the losing side and the press (again, repetitive but oh so satisfying to say) to blame Vlad and Co. on the nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, "we know better than you" attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves is purely denial.

He doesn't like you.  I don't like you either...

 

On 12/18/2016 at 9:29 AM, tk1313 said:

Obama scolds the media for 'unfair' coverage of Hillary leading up to the election: https://money.cnn.com/2016/12/16/media/obama-clinton-coverage/

HAHAHAHA YGBFSM

Sidebar conversation...

What is up with all the "liberals" slurs on this board. Every time I see that word, all I can picture is Rush Limbaugh foaming at the mouth while a bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men smugly laugh. It's unoriginal. It's devoid of thought. 

And it seems you've forgotten that the majority of voters did NOT vote for Trump. The idea that there is a nation-wide rejection of "nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, 'we know better than you' attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves" is preposterous. 

Tiny sample size, but about half of the pilots in my fighter squadron say they, "lean left." Like most Americans, myself included, we tend to lean left on social issues and conservative on financial issues... but it isn't black and white. It isn't the "us vs them" mentality perpetuated by Karl Rove and co. 

Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Seriously

[tk1313]

22 minutes ago, Seriously said:

Sidebar conversation...

What is up with all the "liberals" slurs on this board. Every time I see that word, all I can picture is Rush Limbaugh foaming at the mouth while a bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men smugly laugh. It's unoriginal. It's devoid of thought. 

And it seems you've forgotten that the majority of voters did NOT vote for Trump. The idea that there is a nation-wide rejection of "nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, 'we know better than you' attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves" is preposterous. 

Tiny sample size, but about half of the pilots in my fighter squadron say they, "lean left." Like most Americans, myself included, we tend to lean left on social issues and conservative on financial issues... but it isn't black and white. It isn't the "us vs them" mentality perpetuated by Karl Rove and co. 

Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc.

I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative as well. With people I consider my close friends, it's about a 50/50 split. My buddies and I are totally brutal to each other on politics, because - and let's be perfectly honest with each other on this one - politics in the US has become a joke. I hate politics, so the only way I really like to talk about it is by being an a$$hole righty... Nothing personal, and if I met you I bet 100% we'd be best buddies in like 2 seconds because I don't talk about politics a lot and I genuinely like everyone I meet until they prove they're a card-carrying douche. You're a fighter pilot; I aspire to be a fighter pilot. I could talk flying and listen to your AF stories forever, trust me. Politics would be the furthest thing from my mind.

But in all honesty, Clinton was put in a much better light than Trump was across the main stream media. Denying that the media "leans left", as you put it, is almost as bad as claiming Obama is a plant by the Muslim Brotherhood to bring this country down. I believe that was Michael Savage, and I listen to him on rare occasion to remind myself of how my side of the political spectrum can be filled with lunatics as well...

 

[SurelySerious]

Classically liberal and the current "liberal" ideology are not the same, for sure.

[bb17]

Words are made up. Definitions don't exist. Same for genders, supposedly. 

[brickhistory]

11 hours ago, Seriously said:

 

Sidebar conversation...

What is up with all the "liberals" slurs on this board. Every time I see that word, all I can picture is Rush Limbaugh foaming at the mouth while a bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men smugly laugh. It's unoriginal. It's devoid of thought. 

And it seems you've forgotten that the majority of voters did NOT vote for Trump. The idea that there is a nation-wide rejection of "nationwide rejection of transgendered, trans-fatted, trans-national, 'we know better than you' attitude of the current Administration, the majority of the media, and the well-insulated liberals in the coastal enclaves" is preposterous. 

Tiny sample size, but about half of the pilots in my fighter squadron say they, "lean left." Like most Americans, myself included, we tend to lean left on social issues and conservative on financial issues... but it isn't black and white. It isn't the "us vs them" mentality perpetuated by Karl Rove and co. 

Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc.

As noted by others above, "liberal" today doesn't mean what it used to.  And as I intend it is most definitely a pejorative.  Likewise, for most of the media which is synonymous with liberal. A liberal of old was open-minded and looked at all angles and came to a conclusion based on the evidence, facts, and the internal deliberation.  Today's liberal is the opposite.

And after the last eight years of being at fault because I am a white, hetereosexual, Christian-ish military officer (ret) from the South (pretty much the full monty for being to blame for everything) for the complete and utter buffoonery of the current Administration and its lap-dog press (imagine the 24/7 slanted, blaming coverage of Deepwater Horizon, the lack of results for the $1 trillion stimulus that didn't, the IRS targeting U.S. citizens, the President of the United States literally targeting U.S. citizens without benefit of a trial and then executing them via Hellfire, leaving Iraq in "truimph" only to be back in a far worse position today, etc, etc, etc, to the finale of Russian "hacking" but doing nothing about it until after the election), I am deeply and personally invested in rejecting that mantra.

That much of what others want or want to tear down was largely, but not completely, built by those like me from past generations, I scoff at those who want to tear it down.

It would appear that I am not alone.

Trump was simply the means to an end for me.  He wasn't my preferred candidate, but he won the nomination and I would have defected to North Korea before voting for Hillary (and her skewed nomination system is a whole 'nother thread).

Since it gave a nice raised middle finger as well to the establishment Republicans who are essentially Democrat-lite, I am enjoying that discomfort and groveling that is occurring from them as well. 

As noted above, I dropped my Republican party affiliation in disgust.  A pox on both parties since they have been responsible for the leviathan that is government at all levels, but especially at the federal level.

I don't cotton much to being told what to do, how to do it, and how much of my labor's investment should be given to those who tell me they "know better."

Again, it would appear that I am not alone.

Finally, although it is very difficult to discern personalities or proclivities via short notes as on this thread, I would, however, think that perhaps I was taught wrong in my schoolin'.  It would seem that snowflakes are indeed identical.

So being directed "Stick to the facts instead of sweeping generalization and political non-sense. Put some arguments back into these posts instead of the Facebook standard "liberals... blah blah" "Obama... rabble rabble" etc." certainly seems directive and not a suggestion.

If my writing is not to your standards, feel free to ignore it or rebut it.  Either way, I am indifferent.  I do, however, thank you for your service and commend you on completing the long, difficult road to being a fighter pilot.  I wish we had a lot more of you.

So sayeth one of the "bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men[who] smugly laugh."

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by brickhistory

[mb1685]

7 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Well, the term "liberal" in today's political existence is a bit of an oxymoron. Liberal means "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" according to the Oxford Dictionary. Hardly describes the "liberals" that we've seen in the last 6 months, much less the last 8 years. Hate on me all you want, but I don't see Conservatives or Republicans out protesting over every single issue, sending death threats to electors and attacking people at political rallies. There's an undercurrent of violence among the modern left. If you're not willing to see or accept that, I don't know what to tell you.

It's not hard to find a myriad of examples of reprehensible and hypocritical behavior from those on both ends of the spectrum. There was certainly no shortage of childish behavior and ad hominem attacks from those who identify as conservative after the 2008 and 2012 elections. But unless you live in an echo chamber (and/or all your friends of different political persuasions than you truly are just absolute shitbags), I think any reasonable person is aware that the vocal minorities on both sides of the aisle are the ones who garner most of the attention. The majority of people are much more moderate (and sane) and they blend into the background while the extremist attention whores (in this case, the regressive left) work to ruin the reputations of ideologies which are generally grounded in logic that was once able to be seen as rational by even those who disagree with the finer points. Generalized shit-slinging affords no credibility to any dialogue and is one of the primary reasons so many citizens are jaded (or even apathetic) with modern politics. It causes more and more people to vote based on perceived social stigmas rather than substantial knowledge of policies.

Anyway, it's been a tough election for moderates. We get shat on by the far right for not being gung ho about Trump, and shat on by the far left for not preemptively declaring it the end of the world.

Disclaimer: The discussion on this forum is certainly much more intelligent than on many other parts of the web and I'm not making accusations about it in particular.

Edited December 22, 2016 by mb1685

[di1630]

Tired of the popular vote argument.

Let's not forget how many people didn't vote at all. How much motivation do you think there is for a Trump supporter to stand in line to vote in California when the chance is 100% it won't matter?

I'd bet if the criteria for president was popular vote, Trump would have won.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Seriously]

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

As noted by others above, "liberal" today doesn't mean what it used to.  And as I intend it is most definitely a pejorative.  Likewise, for most of the media which is synonymous with liberal. A liberal of old was open-minded and looked at all angles and came to a conclusion based on the evidence, facts, and the internal deliberation.  Today's liberal is the opposite.

....

If my writing is not to your standards, feel free to ignore it or rebut it.  Either way, I am indifferent.  I do, however, thank you for your service and commend you on completing the long, difficult road to being a fighter pilot.  I wish we had a lot more of you.

So sayeth one of the "bunch of curmudgeonly middle aged men[who] smugly laugh."

[comment cut down to reduce the wall of text, not to speak directly to the words I left in the quote]

mb1685 nailed it. I don't have much to add except to say the point I was trying to make earlier is that you're missing the forest from the trees if you think "liberals" are the problem with America right now. As a very specific example, while Republicans are busy fighting Planned Parenthood over abortion, Comcast is gobbling up all of the information channels and chomping at the bit to crush competition as soon as net neutrality is repealed by the incoming administration. The whole Republican branding of Democrats as dirty, misinformed hippies was probably accurate 20-40 years ago, but isn't true at all anymore. I wouldn't have been a supporter of the liberals back then, but today, it's hard for me to support candidates who promote corporate welfare while cutting benefits for the average American, or blame immigration for job loss when it's actually a combination of technology replacing jobs, workers not receiving education/retraining for new jobs, and soaring university tuition costs. 

And I'm with you on your indifference, though. I barely have feelings in real life, and I definitely don't have them on here. I do like to reading different opinions though. 
 

16 hours ago, tk1313 said:

But in all honesty, Clinton was put in a much better light than Trump was across the main stream media. Denying that the media "leans left", as you put it, is almost as bad as claiming Obama is a plant by the Muslim Brotherhood to bring this country down. I believe that was Michael Savage, and I listen to him on rare occasion to remind myself of how my side of the political spectrum can be filled with lunatics as well...

I agree, but Trump pretty much created the media on his own with his Tweets and general behavior. I don't have a defense for Hillary. I think she has the personality of a cardboard box.

 

Thanks dudes for the good conversation. This forum is boring when everyone agrees. 

[tk1313]

7 hours ago, Seriously said:

I agree, but Trump pretty much created the media on his own with his Tweets and general behavior. I don't have a defense for Hillary. I think she has the personality of a cardboard box.

I honestly believe Trump played the election perfectly. He won the Republican primary by playing on our frustrations with the party elites. Then he continued that strategy and amped up the "any press is good press" tactic when going against Clinton. He basically turned the media so hard against him that they started spouting obvious nonsense 24/7 and calling it "facts". The "fact-checker" they did after every debate was so politically biased it was laughable, and it didn't fool anyone. Then he basically verbalized what every politician has been doing since the day they were born - lying. He said "no I didn't" and "wrong" about a million times, instead of saying "I don't recall" or just switching the topic completely (which is what Clinton did, and also what most politicians do). Finally, he campaigned last minute in a bunch of different swing states when Clinton was probably sipping champagne with billionaires and movie stars, talking about how easy this election was to win.

7 hours ago, Seriously said:

Thanks dudes for the good conversation. This forum is boring when everyone agrees. 

Agreed. I actually love the right vs. left brawl this thread has become. Makes politics so much more interesting. Lay it all out on the table, call me on my bullsh!t and I'll call you on yours. That's the best way to debate.

Edited December 22, 2016 by tk1313

[sqwatch]

Almost everything a liberal says registers as bullsh1t to me, but ever since I realized my brain is wired differently than half of Americans, and everything I say comes off as bullsh1t to the other half, I've been a less angry person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

Almost everything a liberal says registers as bullsh1t to me, but ever since I realized my brain is wired differently than half of Americans, and everything I say comes off as bullsh1t to the other half, I've been a less angry person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Similar vein:

[nsplayr]

FWIW there were nearly 2x more Hillary voters in Texas than in Massachusetts. There were also more than 3x more Trump voters in California than in Alabama.

Its easy to just assume that all Hillary voters are hippy late-sipping costal elites or that all Trump voters are slack-jawed white nationalists from flyover country, but the facts say otherwise.

If as a country we're going to continue having close Presidential elections (2000, 2004, 2016) and divided government in Washington (most years), we need to do a better job of working to find common ground rather than assuming the worst about the "other side." That can be tough, but we need to try harder if we actually want to fix Washington rather than just talk about fixing it or railing against it. Most voters aren't nearly as polarized as the parties would have you believe.