Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Christy42

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You say "noting France and Germany reported interference in their own election". Except, on both occassions those claims were subsequently rejected by their own cyber security departments. Although the msm didn't give this the same level of coverage.

France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron
 https://www.apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

Germany: German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/europe/german-election-russia.html

Do you trust their intelligence agencies? They have vested interest in not heightening tensions. Would you believe them if they said Russian interference had happened?

I am really confused as to what your definition of evidence is at this point.

Aretheymyfeet

Stallingrad wrote: »

This is a very good question, if you disbelieve so many sources you should explain where you get your information and how do you test its veracity?

A lot of credible, informed people here are citing multiple sources, and you simply discredit them all, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

None of you have provided any source. They have simply posted " The US intelligence agencies found" "The US Congressional committee believes". Where do they provide an actual source of evidence, and not just a claim or assertion? Why do none of you know the difference between a claim and a piece of evidence?

Professor Moriarty

duploelabs wrote: »

Which documentary evidence? I have provided evidence, in the form of a court document that resulted in the indictment of 12 russians, yet you refuse to even read it. Hard to debate a goon that plugs their fingers in their ears and goes lalalalalalala

It was brim full of evidence. Perhaps some poster here has facts to disprove that evidence. Just one teeny weeny fact.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

The evidence you seek is detailed right here if you'd take the time to peruse

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Again, here is the evidence, presented in court, that secured the indictment of 12 russians for interference in the 2016. Are you going to read it?

Stallingrad

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Why do none of you know the difference between a claim and a piece of evidence?

Why don't you answer my question? Where you get your information and how do you test its veracity?

Aretheymyfeet

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you trust their intelligence agencies? They have vested interest in not heightening tensions. Would you believe them if they said Russian interference had happened?

I am really confused as to what your definition of evidence is at this point.

Piece of advice, don't be trusting any intelligence agencies. Deception is literally their job. The world of Intel and counterintelligence is exceptionally dark.

"They have vested interest in not heightening tensions" seriously?

26000 Elephants

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You say "noting France and Germany reported interference in their own election". Except, on both occassions those claims were subsequently rejected by their own cyber security departments. Although the msm didn't give this the same level of coverage.

France says no trace of Russian hacking Macron
 https://www.apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

Germany: German Election Mystery: Why No Russian Meddling?https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/world/europe/german-election-russia.html

In the case of Germany, the mid 2015 hack of the German parliament servers where various scattered data flows were taken (which included emails) corroborated a trend that their own IT engineers had spotted earlier. Being so forewarned, they had better IDS and IPS in place in the lead up to the election. This is what the article says, not that there were no efforts to (meddle in the election by ) hack into the system.
Also, the article does not go into any detail on the real hot spot of interference: social media manipulation. There were similar campaigns run on german SM, but had significantly less success. I guess germans are less gullible and more questioning. Perhaps because they have been through a lying, manipulative right wing regime before? Maybe.

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

Again, here is the evidence, presented in court, that secured the indictment of 12 russians for interference in the 2016. Are you going to read it?

Yours at least attempted to present 'evidence". We then have to assess what that evidence and what does it actually evidence. I'm at work so a reply will follow.

Aretheymyfeet

26000 Elephants wrote: »

In the case of Germany, the mid 2015 hack of the German parliament servers where various scattered data flows were taken (which included emails) corroborated a trend that their own IT engineers had spotted earlier. Being so forewarned, they had better IDS and IPS in place in the lead up to the election. This is what the article says, not that there were no efforts to (meddle in the election by ) hack into the system.
Also, the article does not go into any detail on the real hot spot of interference: social media manipulation. There were similar campaigns run on german SM, but had significantly less success. I guess germans are less gullible and more questioning. Perhaps because they have been through a lying, manipulative right wing regime before? Maybe.

So, where's the Russian link here?

aloyisious

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

"Do you have any evidence that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election" Jesus, is this playschool debating? Are you serious? You ask me to prove a negative, seriously? Do you have any evidence that you're not a raging paedophile? Just like you, I won't substantiate my claim with any evidence. See how utterly ridiculous your demand is?

The onus or burden rests with those making the claim to prove it. It doesn't rest with anyone else to disprove a claim you have singularly failed to prove. You all claim Russian State interference in the US election. I have asked you to support this claim with evidence. I've had lots of "These guys said so, and these other guys said so' nonsense replies. Nobody can actually provide actual evidence.

Boards.ie is like debating for the slow of thinking. You don't understand basic debating rules nor basic concepts like objective evidence and how this is NOT the same as allegations.

As a lawyer you must know its in the best interests of your client NOT to leave trails to the front door.

Not leaving evidence is the raison d'etre behind any agency secret operations no matter which country the agency acts for. An example is how Don trusts the word of Vlad in regard to the hacking over that of his own agencies: "I believe you when you say your intelligence agencies are not involved in deeds against the interests of the US because my agencies are unable to provide me with evidence that I have cause to distrust you". The world which Don now partly controls doesn't operate that way but he insists on believing it does. As a lawyer would you take on and represent a client who did or would you tell him to take a cold shower first?

Aretheymyfeet

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you trust their intelligence agencies? They have vested interest in not heightening tensions. Would you believe them if they said Russian interference had happened?

I am really confused as to what your definition of evidence is at this point.

You're really just confused. Evidence is evidence. A claim is not evidence, obviously.

Quin_Dub

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You're really just confused. Evidence is evidence. A claim is not evidence, obviously.

##Mod Note##

Aretheymyfeet will be taking a break

Stallingrad

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You're really just confused. Evidence is evidence. A claim is not evidence, obviously.

Ok we get it, unless you get the confessions of the actual hackers you probably won't believe it happened. The nature of Cyber crime is that there is often no hard evidence, but there is a digital trail and a lot of indicators. Intelligence is just that, the evidence (which is not usually shared with Joe Public) is assessed and judgements are made, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong and false (Iraq WMDs).

But if you believe Russia is not actively involved in political hacking (as I am sure the West is) I think you are being a bit naive.

26000 Elephants

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

So, where's the Russian link here?

In similar cases, you've been shown plenty of evidence that points to Russia, including an admission by Putin that such tactics were policy, but none of that was acceptable to you. You have dismissed the Mueller Report which categorically stated that Russia interfered (having decided this based on evidence). You also refused to accept a copy of an indictment for 12 individuals which laid out, in painstaking detail, all the evidence to support the charges. As you seem to wilfully disregard documented facts that dont suit you, I doubt there is anything in existence that would dissuade you from your tightly held views.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4

Hey Pete since you’re looking for answers please explain how it’s criminal for the Vice President to carry out foreign policy backed by the Congress, State Department, International Monetary Fund and the European Union?

everlast75

JFC - talk about circular arguments.

The Reps have had an issue with the fact that a House vote was not cast on the impeachment enquiry launch (even though it is not necessary and the Court have said as much in a recent ruling). So the Dems announce they will hold one probably on Thursday. So - the Reps change it up now saying that everything before now was illegal!?

Then we have Gaetz and other ****** "storming" the SCIF because they are being excluded (they weren't - there are 49 or so Reps on the various intelligence committes). Then this genius tweets the following - which admits that they DID have access to the testimony so far.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1188939302295818241?s=20

thechewyone

Donald Trump is not only probably the greatest US President ever already, but he is going to prove it even further now because Alberta is leaving Canada because of their rigged elections. Trudeau's liberal sh-t hole of a country is going to fall apart completely, leaving Donald to gain the United States of America another 35 million citizens, all of that oil in Canada and it's all in Alberta!, and to more than double their land which would make them the geographically largest country in the world.

They also are considering making this new 'Wexit' state for people of European descent and heritage only, which would rule out the US taking over but would certainly be somewhere to consider moving to, it could be like a utopia there.

This year just keeps getting better and better!

mcmoustache

thechewyone wrote: »

Donald Trump is not only probably the greatest US President ever already, but he is going to prove it even further now because Alberta is leaving Canada because of their rigged elections. Trudeau's liberal sh-t hole of a country is going to fall apart completely, leaving Donald to gain the United States of America another 35 million citizens, all of that oil in Canada and it's all in Alberta!, and to more than double their land which would make them the geographically largest country in the world.

They also are considering making this new 'Wexit' state for people of European descent and heritage only, which would rule out the US taking over but would certainly be somewhere to consider moving to, it could be like a utopia there.

This year just keeps getting better and better!

Is it not a bit early in the day for whatever it is that you've done to yourself to make you post such drivel?

Professor Moriarty

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is it not a bit early in the day for whatever it is that you've done to yourself to make you post such drivel?

If you check out their posting history, all will become clear.

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

JFC - talk about circular arguments.

The Reps have had an issue with the fact that a House vote was not cast on the impeachment enquiry launch (even though it is not necessary and the Court have said as much in a recent ruling). So the Dems announce they will hold one probably on Thursday. So - the Reps change it up now saying that everything before now was illegal!?

Then we have Gaetz and other ****** "storming" the SCIF because they are being excluded (they weren't - there are 49 or so Reps on the various intelligence committes). Then this genius tweets the following - which admits that they DID have access to the testimony so far.

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1188939302295818241?s=20

Is a bit off script though, it was believed the Judiciary panel would take over when the other 3 had completed their collection of testimony and documents.

duploelabs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you check out their posting history, all will become clear.

Jesus, it's like whack-a-mole

thechewyone

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is it not a bit early in the day for whatever it is that you've done to yourself to make you post such drivel?

You keep chuckling to yourself like you did with Trump and Brexit while sipping on your soy joice. It's happening. :cool:

https://jobsnode.com/canada-this-vogue-to-wexit-navigating-albertas-theoretical-secession/

Canada After Monday’s federal election saw all but one riding dawdle to the Conservative Occasion within the province, Alberta separatist sentiment jumped.On Facebook, the “Wexit Alberta” page reached 28,000 likes and “Vote Wexit” page 250,000 likes by Friday. Twitter saw the “wexit” hashtag — and the satirical “rednexit” hashtag — pattern nationally. And conversations across the province discussed what secession of Alberta from Canada also can secret agent like.

Quin_Dub

thechewyone wrote: »

Donald Trump is not only probably the greatest US President ever already, but he is going to prove it even further now because Alberta is leaving Canada because of their rigged elections. Trudeau's liberal sh-t hole of a country is going to fall apart completely, leaving Donald to gain the United States of America another 35 million citizens, all of that oil in Canada and it's all in Alberta!, and to more than double their land which would make them the geographically largest country in the world.

They also are considering making this new 'Wexit' state for people of European descent and heritage only, which would rule out the US taking over but would certainly be somewhere to consider moving to, it could be like a utopia there.

This year just keeps getting better and better!

thechewyone wrote: »

You keep chuckling to yourself like you did with Trump and Brexit while sipping on your soy joice. It's happening. :cool:

https://jobsnode.com/canada-this-vogue-to-wexit-navigating-albertas-theoretical-secession/

##Mod Note##

thechewyone won't be posting here again.

Thanks

Quin_Dub

All,

Please cut out the commentary on other posters motives etc.

If you have issues , report the posts , don't discuss them or share your opinions about the poster in the thread.

Thanks

Penn

Sondland now trying to change his statement to say that there was Quid Pro Quo

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1189150919683903488

Quite possible he sees the writing on the wall and knows that other people's testimony might screw him.

Overheal

Penn wrote: »

Sondland now trying to change his statement to say that there was Quid Pro Quo

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1189150919683903488

Quite possible he sees the writing on the wall and knows that other people's testimony might screw him.

Whether he goes down for perjury or not won’t change the QPQ

For the record though Sessions and other trump appointees got to revise their sworn testimony when found to be omitting the truth and/or misleading about it

Professor Moriarty

Penn wrote: »

Sondland now trying to change his statement to say that there was Quid Pro Quo

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1189150919683903488

Quite possible he sees the writing on the wall and knows that other people's testimony might screw him.

Rats, ships, sinking.

StringerBell

Overheal wrote: »

Whether he goes down for perjury or not won’t change the QPQ

For the record though Sessions and other trump appointees got to revise their sworn testimony when found to be omitting the truth and/or misleading about it

It's one of the biggest jokes of the whole process that they can "correct the record" so easily after testimony actually.

everlast75

The mental gymnastics of the Reps at the moment.

The whistleblower is biased - the transcript proves he was right.

He is the only person saying so - multiple witnesses come forward.

There was no quid pro quo - turns out there was.

Trump was joking asking for China's help - he repeats it.

No one else complaining heard the call - latest witness was.

He is an army vet, purple heart - he is a double agent.

Have I missed anything?

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia..

TBF, Trump is pro Russia. To what extent was/is the question. You may recall his cringe worthy defence of Russia regarding any election interference against his own agency:

Trump said that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats "came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

Trump then went on to explain that “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” so there you go.

1. "Congratulations to France, who played extraordinary soccer, on winning the 2018 World Cup. Additionally, congratulations to President Putin and Russia for putting on a truly great World Cup Tournament -- one of the best ever!"
2. "I'd have a very good relationship with President Putin if we spend time together."
3. "I think that we would have a chance to have a very good relationship with Russia and a very good chance -- a very good relationship with President Putin."
4. "You know what? Putin's fine. He's fine. We're all fine."
5. "I think I could have a very good relationship with President Putin."
6. "I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on his election victory (in past, Obama called him also). The Fake News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him. They are wrong! Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not a bad thing..."
7. "I believe that President Putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election."
8. "But I think Putin and I — President Putin and I would have a great relationship, and that would be great for both countries.
9. "So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you're not going to get into an argument."
10. "President Putin and I have been discussing various things and I think it's going very well. We've some very, very good talks. We're going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. But we look forward to a lot of good, positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned."
11. "Look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we're not going to make a deal."

"This raid was impeccable and could only have taken place with the acknowledgment and help of certain other nations and people," Trump during a nationally-televised press conference on Sunday morning. "I want to thank the nations of Russia, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and I also want to thank the Syrian Kurds for certain support they were able to give us."

Despite Russia/Putin's behaviour Trump wants him welcomed back to the G7.