What Happened to My Cabinet Members Thread . . ?
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Sincere question, not trying to be argumentative. Have you not seen the declassified report from the National Intelligence Council or do you not believe it?
To be clear about my earlier comments, I still have concerns about Russian intelligence activities despite not obsessing about collusion with Team Trump.
In that vein, this article from John Schindler is interesting. He's a conservative, a bit of a jerk, but he doesn't pull any punches and appears to have good connections within the intelligence community.
Counterintelligence officials in Washington have confirmed to me that Russian operatives are engaged in systematically mapping America’s telecommunications infrastructure, with an intent to tap into fiber-optic cables. Some counterspies believe the Russians have already done so in several parts of the country.
Followed by this news today:
The FBI interviewed at least a dozen employees of the elite Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab on Tuesday night, visiting them at their homes on the east and west coasts to gather facts about how the company works.
That's not very reassuring IMO. I'd like to know what we're doing to combat what appears to be a growing threat.
In that vein, this article from John Schindler is interesting. He's a conservative, a bit of a jerk, but he doesn't pull any punches and appears to have good connections within the intelligence community.
Counterintelligence officials in Washington have confirmed to me that Russian operatives are engaged in systematically mapping America’s telecommunications infrastructure, with an intent to tap into fiber-optic cables. Some counterspies believe the Russians have already done so in several parts of the country.
Followed by this news today:
The FBI interviewed at least a dozen employees of the elite Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab on Tuesday night, visiting them at their homes on the east and west coasts to gather facts about how the company works.
That's not very reassuring IMO. I'd like to know what we're doing to combat what appears to be a growing threat.
What's funny to me about all of this, is that our government uses these same strategies to influence other countries elections and/or policies. Most Americans just don't care or know that it goes on.
Oh absolutely. At the risk of getting Strum involved in this conversation, it really sucks when you're on the other end of it.
I don't believe it or rather, I don't trust the sources which they depended on to draw their conclusions but yet do not want to name.
Point blank, my opinion of government employees is that they always favor the Democrat. And given that the narrative has been that Trump and his supporters are literal Nazis, these government employees feel justified in producing these kind of reports because they probably think they are saving the nation.
Well ya. What fun is it discussing other countries elections if it doesn't directly feed into the narrative that Trump is a cheating fraud and that Hillary is the true and rightful president?
I'm sure the Russians are trying to map our infrastructure and so too are the Chinese, the Germans (if they haven't already), the French and probably several others, but not the Israelis, but only because they no doubt have it already.
However, as far as John Schindler goes, it is pretty easy to see his bias- here's the top tweet from his timeline
Let me now ask you a question:
Do you think the majority of bureaucrats and elected officials believe that Trump and what he represents is a legitimate threat to their livelihood and more importantly, their power?
But we are not on the other end of it. If the election were tampered, there would be clear, hard proof. And making this even more ironic, is that when Trump raised the possibility that elections could be hacked, he was laughed at mercilessly, much like Romney was shellacked by the same Democrats for saying Russia was a threat. Now that Trump has won, we find that Democrats think Russia is indeed a threat AND hacked the election, GMAFB and GTFOHWTBS. Enough. I'm sick of the bullshit and I'm sick of the hypocrisy.
Here's what Obama had to say about it in October 2016
It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that -- keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you've got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.
The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it's because of those people that you have to watch out for, that is both irresponsible....
Ya, this is what I find hilarious. Before the election, the Democrats and the media were both demanding that Trump say that he'd accept the election results as fair, regardless of the outcome. Then, when it didn't go their way, they start crying foul.
Regardless of whether there was Russian interference in the election or not, after demanding that before the election and then doing the exact thing they were saying would be divisive and start problems, makes the Democrats (and media) look like hypocritical d-bags with egg on their face.
You're calling the US intelligence community incompetent. You don't possess the qualifications to make that assessment.
So that's your opinion. Do you have any actual facts to support that assumption? I could counter, similarly without evidence, that employees in the intelligence community are by and large lifers and are compelled to check their politics at the door as a matter of self interest.
He's an unabashed anti-Trumper for sure. Trump is unqualified to be president and demonstrates that on a regular basis.
No. They think Trump represents a legitimate threat to our democratic institutions.* Think about it. What are the entities that safeguard the healthy functioning of a democracy, or in our case a republic? The media, the judicial system, the legislature, the intelligence community.
Trump has directly and repeatedly attacked every one of these institutions and called their legitimacy into question. They're obviously not above reproach, but his rhetoric is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. Sadly, several people have taken what he says to heart for whatever reason. You seem to be one of them. I'm sincerely grateful that this is a civil discussion about politics, because I really wish you'd reconsider your stance on some of these issues.
*ETA: Which in retrospect I suppose could be viewed as a threat to their power. My point stands. His attempts to delegitimize our democratic institutions, including the other branches of government, is troubling to me.
Last edited:
Given what the intelligence community did to get us involved in Iraq, only a fool would take them at their word and believe them without concrete proof.
And yes it is my opinion. And it is also my opinion that you are being naive.
You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Doctors make mistakes from time to time. That doesn't render them incapable of practicing medicine.
Yes, it is my opinion.
I'd like you to reconsider the purpose and validity of Trump's repeated attacks on our democratic institutions.
A situation involving mistakes made over the course of several months based on shoddy (and dishonest) work is different than one involving a mistake made in the moment based on information available at that time.
One of those things isn't like the others. The latter three are appointed/elected officials, not designed to make a profit, and who's success/survival is tied to preserving the democracy. The medias success is driven by making the most money, and getting the most views/clicks, regardless of whether what they're broadcasting to drive those views/clicks is truthful and legitimate.
I completely agree he's defending himself. The media is out to get him. Liberals are out to get him. Never-Trump conservatives are out to get him. Protesters are out to get him. Obama is out to get him. The appellate courts are out to get him. The House Intelligence Committee is out to get him. The Senate Intelligence Committee is out to get him. The FBI is out to get him. James Comey is out to get him. The DOJ is out to get him. He's butted heads with every one of them. At what point does a reasonable observer begin to at least consider some of Trump's wounds are self-inflicted? Because either we're witnessing the greatest conspiracy in the history of the greatest nation in history, or there's actually something to all this.
You and I probably aren't going to change each other's minds. So I'll leave you with this well-known quote, which IMO is particularly relevant to Trump's current predicament: If you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole.
That does nothing to diminish my point, but I agree with you. The groundwork for skepticism of the media was laid long before Trump entered the political arena.
The media is badly in need of fixing, but Trump declaring anything critical of him "fake news" is only exacerbating the problem IMO. Same with granting White House press credentials to Infowars, an organization whose founder is a self-admitted "performance artist" who perpetuates conspiracy theories. We should all demand better.
ETA: I just want to go on the record declaring that MSNBC, the Washington Poast, and CNN all suck, in order from most sucky to least sucky. The negative lens through which they constantly portray this administration is anything but the way objective media outlets should be reporting the news.
I groaned when my stepmother told me last month she likes watching MSNBC because they express opinions she agrees with. She refused to listen when I told her that's not how the news is supposed to work.
Last edited:
Agreed, and I wasn't trying to diminish your point. I don't think that the other bodies will abandon reason to go against Trump, but due to the pressure/influence of the media, I think if they're on the fence about something they'll err on the side that's against Trump - for fear of the media branding them the lunatic that sides with that guy we've been crapping on this whole time.
This is why I'm pinning hope on Mueller. He needs to clearly and objectively lay out his findings, no matter what they are. My concern is that there will be people who refuse to accept them regardless because of the distrust that has already been sewn into the investigation by proponents of Trump.
With that, I'm signing off because I'm violating my no poasting at night policy.
And I am sure that to people whose lives and power depend on the status quo, Trump is the biggest asshole they have ever met.
Because he won in spite of all of their dealings and collision.
Trump is a disruptive technology and the people who make buggy whips are doing everything they can to keep him out of the market.
While Trump may (or may not) be exacerbating the problem, he did not create the problem.
Why don't you first direct your ire at the people who created the problem?
And finally, the media is dead for all intents and purposes. Because of the internet, we can all read what we want to read, whether it is source material or bombastic opinion. However the traditional media is now little more than Jerry Springer redux because that's the only way they can draw ratings.
I have, repeatedly. My mother, her brother, and her father were all career journalists. Seeing how the industry has "evolved" is depressing. There's a reason I stopped watching television news many years ago. Even trying to find worthwhile sources in print/online feels like sifting through a garbage dump much of the time.
As long as we're pointing fingers, let's be sure to assign plenty of blame to the consumers of news media. Yes, that includes us. News organizations are only feeding the people what they're demanding, after all. Not sure how you fix that problem. Spam and click-bait persist because there are enough people who just can't help clicking on it. The current news media is just that times millions.
This is where you and I will fundamentally disagree. I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change. For all the clamor about changing the status quo in Washington, we still need it for our government to function properly. You need people who understand how policy is made, the procedural rules of Congress, etc. Granted, as disruptive as Trump has been, our government is still an enormous machine that's going to keep on chugging along in spite of one man's efforts to change things. But let me give you an example you'll appreciate of why I said Trump is unqualified for the office, and why that matters.
I remember during the campaign you bringing up the Scott Adams quote about polticial policy. He basically said there was no political policy he couldn't understand in one hour with the help of top experts. I didn't feel like that was worth arguing about at the time, but it's a ridiculous statement IMO.
The example near and dear to my heart is healthcare. Nobody could even begin to understand Medicare policy in one hour, much less our entire healthcare system. Lo and behold, a couple months into office, Trump tells America that, "nobody knew healthcare was so complicated." Well no f***ing duh lol.
Anyway, I want you to read this book. Actually, I want everyone to read this book. It's a great look at how Americans have become know-it-alls who revel in their own ignorance, and why that has serious implications for our culture and politics. It's merciless. He hammers the media, higher education, and the Internet. It's the kind of book that people from both sides of the political spectrum can probably agree on. The best part is that if you read it right, you'll recognize yourself as part of the problem. I certainly did.
This is an odd remark considering Trump's stand on fossil fuels. Talk about buggy whips....lol
tl;drThis is where you and I will fundamentally disagree. I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change. For all the clamor about changing the status quo in Washington, we still need it for our government to function properly. You need people who understand how policy is made, the procedural rules of Congress, etc. Granted, as disruptive as Trump has been, our government is still an enormous machine that's going to keep on chugging along in spite of one man's efforts to change things. But let me give you an example you'll appreciate of why I said Trump is unqualified for the office, and why that matters.
I remember during the campaign you bringing up the Scott Adams quote about polticial policy. He basically said there was no political policy he couldn't understand in one hour with the help of top experts. I didn't feel like that was worth arguing about at the time, but it's a ridiculous statement IMO.
The example near and dear to my heart is healthcare. Nobody could even begin to understand Medicare policy in one hour, much less our entire healthcare system. Lo and behold, a couple months into office, Trump tells America that, "nobody knew healthcare was so complicated." Well no f***ing duh lol.
Anyway, I want you to read this book. Actually, I want everyone to read this book. It's a great look at how Americans have become know-it-alls who revel in their own ignorance, and why that has serious implications for our culture and politics. It's merciless. He hammers the media, higher education, and the Internet. It's the kind of book that people from both sides of the political spectrum can probably agree on. The best part is that if you read it right, you'll recognize yourself as part of the problem. I certainly did.
You and I have both been on this board longer than is healthy and I have no recollection of you ever mentioning your family's connection to journalism nor I do I recall you chastising journalists. However that being said, I'm glad we agree.
And consumers of media, self included, are just looking for something to pass the time. Hence the importance of ethics in journalism where the responsibility lies with the journalist to get it right and present the story in an unbiased fashion. Today's news media is a non-stop stream of op-ed and presents everything in a biased fashion.
And because we are just looking for a way to pass the time, conventional media is dying because it's just not as interesting as social media, which is why Trump spends so much time on Twitter.
Last edited:
This is where you and I will fundamentally disagree. I'm not a proponent of change for the sake of change. For all the clamor about changing the status quo in Washington, we still need it for our government to function properly. You need people who understand how policy is made, the procedural rules of Congress, etc. Granted, as disruptive as Trump has been, our government is still an enormous machine that's going to keep on chugging along in spite of one man's efforts to change things. But let me give you an example you'll appreciate of why I said Trump is unqualified for the office, and why that matters.
I remember during the campaign you bringing up the Scott Adams quote about polticial policy. He basically said there was no political policy he couldn't understand in one hour with the help of top experts. I didn't feel like that was worth arguing about at the time, but it's a ridiculous statement IMO.
The example near and dear to my heart is healthcare. Nobody could even begin to understand Medicare policy in one hour, much less our entire healthcare system. Lo and behold, a couple months into office, Trump tells America that, "nobody knew healthcare was so complicated." Well no f***ing duh lol.
Anyway, I want you to read this book. Actually, I want everyone to read this book. It's a great look at how Americans have become know-it-alls who revel in their own ignorance, and why that has serious implications for our culture and politics. It's merciless. He hammers the media, higher education, and the Internet. It's the kind of book that people from both sides of the political spectrum can probably agree on. The best part is that if you read it right, you'll recognize yourself as part of the problem. I certainly did.
So at what point is actual change needed? I'm also not a proponent of change for change's sake but at some point, real change is needed, right?
Also, you are conflating policy with procedure.
I'm disappointed that you haven't been making a mental catalog of all my poasts. They should be in the Library of Congress. I'm also embarrassed that even though I did find evidence of previously mentioning it, it was in this ugly poast (I apologized later FWIW).
I don't disagree with a word of what you said here. In fact, I think your description of current news as op-eds is spot on. There are varying degrees of this phenomenon, but it seems to have become the rule rather than the exception.
Change was needed many, many years ago. I'm not a proponent of term limits but I'm absolutely in favor of campaign finance reform. Once again invoking my inner Strum, our elected representatives shouldn't be bought and sold by the highest bidders and we're all getting screwed regardless of political affiliation. It certainly seems to me that the middle class has taken the brunt of it in my adult lifetime.
Just out of curiosity, did you notice that this report was recently retracted as only 4 agencies, not 17, were involved?
You lost me. Are you saying the National Intelligence Council has retracted their own report?
The report explicitly states that it "includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies."
Speaking of biased news coverage, here's a good article about how the left has fallen prey to the same partisan hysteria that has gripped conservative media for years.
How the Left Lost Its Mind
(the URL includes the phrase "Liberal Fever Swamps" lol)
The historical significance of the Internet will likely surpass the printing press in its ability to provide information to the masses. What's obviously different is now anyone can write anything at any time and have it potentially reach millions of people. This problem isn't going away.
We should be the best informed generation in history. Instead, we seek out and desperately cling to whatever information best supports our confirmation biases. We're like the little kid whose dad says no, so then he goes and asks his mom. The only difference is, with so many varied sources of information available, it's like having an infinite number of parents. Eventually one of them will tell you yes.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” - Mark Twain
How the Left Lost Its Mind
(the URL includes the phrase "Liberal Fever Swamps" lol)
The historical significance of the Internet will likely surpass the printing press in its ability to provide information to the masses. What's obviously different is now anyone can write anything at any time and have it potentially reach millions of people. This problem isn't going away.
We should be the best informed generation in history. Instead, we seek out and desperately cling to whatever information best supports our confirmation biases. We're like the little kid whose dad says no, so then he goes and asks his mom. The only difference is, with so many varied sources of information available, it's like having an infinite number of parents. Eventually one of them will tell you yes.
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” - Mark Twain
I love satirists.
National Lampoon used to be awesome. Through humor, you can get away with telling the absolute truth.
Similar threads
