I was having a good morning too, I'm straight up depressed now about this conversation though. It's really disheartening to see those opinions. It's disheartening to know how successful the campaign to exploit divisions in our society has become. It was so successful that Americans are defending it.
Sorry, I explicitly said that I don't have a problem with people putting their thoughts out there on the web, even if they want to say things about our elections.
Do you really believe that's what the Russian campaign was? Just a bunch of military intelligence folks voicing their opinions on American politics as Russian citizens? Just kind of having a debate about it? While making it clear that they are Russians, and that what they're saying was their opinion? Is that what you think they did? Why do you suppose identity theft charges were included?
Are you even an American? I'm asking because when one of our adversaries has a concerted and covert government-backed campaign specifically designed to interfere in our elections, undermine our democratic processes, and exploit divisions in our society, it kind of seems like a no-brainer to oppose that. But you're not doing that, you're excusing it, and you're acting like it's just a bunch of people voicing their opinions online. Kind of like how Putin said the Russian troops in Ukraine were just there on vacation, with all of their equipment, not in any official capacity. I mean, it just seems like such a softball for an American to say that they are opposed to our adversaries trying to fuck up our system. That shouldn't be hard to say. It shouldn't be a stretch. I don't understand the waffling if you're actually an American, which I'm assuming you are based on your obvious interest in American politics.
I don't understand it. I guess there are fine people on both sides, right?
Well, fuck man, if you're really going to push back on what Russia is trying to do the US, and has been, and is also trying to do with Europe, because Putin prefers dealing with tyrants and dictators instead of democracies, and since he wants to break up NATO and return to the Soviet-era status quo, if you're really going to try to deny Putin's goals and motivations and excuse his direct actions against the United States and our European allies, I've got to admit that I really don't have the stomach to try to sit here and explain what should be bleedingly obvious to anyone paying attention.
Guess that didn't register as a challenge with you though.
It was explicitly not a challenge, you were just making a statement about the report. I took that as a statement that the report did not provide any factual basis, not some challenge to me.
The FISA warrant says both that he is a Russian agent and that he's a target for recruitment.
Right, it said he has contacts with Russian intelligence agents and we also know that he described himself as an "informal advisor" to the Kremlin. Seems like someone to keep an eye on if you're a counter-intelligence agent in the US.
You know what man, I'm sorry but I can't do it. If you want to believe that Russia wants nothing but happiness for the US then fuck it, believe it. I'm not going to go on some sort of crusade to try to prove an obvious fact to someone who appears to be informed yet surprisingly willfully ignorant. You've made up your mind, Russia isn't attacking us, they want nothing but the best for us and the whole world, and fuck it man, I don't have the strength today. It seems like some people think that the fact that Russia is attacking us somehow is an attack against Trump, or that Trump was involved, or something, but it's got fuck-all to do with Trump. Not a single thing. I don't know why so many Trump fans conflate the two issues. The only connection is that supporting Trump was part of the destabilization plan for the US, the same way that supporting Le Pen was part of the plan for France and supporting Brexit was part of the plan for the UK. That's all. Admitting they're attacking us doesn't mean he didn't win, it doesn't mean he doesn't get to be president anymore, it doesn't mean he did anything wrong, it doesn't have shit to do with him other than admitting the obvious. I don't understand the opposition, I really don't, and I don't have the desire nor energy to try to explore that reasoning yet again with someone who's going to sit there and refute obvious truths about world politics.
Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here [theconserv...ehouse.com] as it covers most of the bases.
Got it, an explicitly and overtly partisan blogger is "concerned" that the report was "rigged" for political purposes and decided to write an article which just ends by asking a bunch of questions. I guess we're going to ignore the mountains of evidence collected by Facebook and Twitter which show the actual activities of multiple Russian IP addresses. I guess we'll also ignore the Russian nationals arrested or indicted for their activities regarding this, especially the one trying to infiltrate the NRA. I'll look forward to later in your post when you address my question of whether or not Russia tried to interefere with our elections at all.
You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something
Is that what I did? I "trumpeted" that? I thought I was focusing on the fact that Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence community and his own appointed DNI. I thought that was my focus, not the number of agencies. I'm glad you're here to tell me what my focus was though.
I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report.
You explicitly did not challenge me to do anything. Go read your post again.
Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.
Are you having multiple conversations about this or something, and you think I'm someone else? Since you're all about calling out and challenging, OK, let's do this:
You said you have "repeatedly challenged" me to discuss the factual basis of the DNI's report. I am challenging you to paste the multiple times that you have challenged me to do that. Since you're all about challenging. Link to the comments in question, and paste the specific part you're referring to where you challenge me to provide a factual basis for the DNI's report.
Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page
What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't "bogus," first of all, there were legitimate concerns about Page's contacts with Russians. But, I've got another challenge for you: Jason Miller, the Trump campaign's communications director, said that Page had "never been a part of our campaign. Period." And this is what Trump himself said about Carter Page: "I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. And he actually said he was a very low-level member of I think a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him." So, I am challenging you to show why an investigation into Carter Page has anything to do with Trump's involvement with Russia. One option might be that Jason Miller and Donald Trump were lying about their relationship with Carter Page, but that admission would bring a whole new set of questions I think.
Also, one of the leaked emails [wikileaks.org] from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign.
Here's the relevant quote from that email:
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.
What exactly are you suggesting here? Obviously Trump strongly admires various dictators and autocrats. Are you suggesting that this obviously un-American tendency should not have been exploited by his political rival? Are you suggesting that, because they wanted to attack him for trying to rub against Vlad, that therefore any Russian interference in US elections in Trump's favor are auto
At some point, maybe, but don't fucking pretend he didn't use a blackberry
Did you read that article at all? Like, any of it? Any part at all? Do you think it's evidence for your argument, and not mine? Because that's not the case.
Just so I don't have to repeat myself, let me just link you to the comment I posted yesterday, when someone else who apparently did not read that article linked to the same article and tried to act like it somehow supported their case that Obama was using a consumer-grade unhardened communication device. Here's your response:
Giving him the ease of use, flexibility and other benefits he perceives from using a different device.
But they're giving him the device he wants to use, hardened. I mean, they're literally doing specifically what you're trying to suggest they're not doing. It feels like I'm arguing with an illiterate brick wall. They're giving him hardened iPhones and the only reason they're not completely worried is because he doesn't actually read the intelligence reports that he gets every day.
Unless you're trying to suggest that the ease of use, flexibility, and other benefits are the features that needed to be removed in order to harden the device. If you're saying that, then you're literally suggesting that the NSA is failing at its job by not giving the president a vulnerable device.
Whatever the case, we have a president who is known for not reading his daily intelligence briefings, uses a consumer-grade cell phone, and has been given 2 hardened devices by the NSA, and you're trying to actually argue that it is the NSA who is not doing their job. Uhhh, #MAGA?
I think you'll find it's the CIA or the NSA that wants Trump to be in favour of something. Perhaps you should share your wisdom with them.
Oh don't you worry, literally anyone who should know how to influence Trump knows exactly how to influence him. Putin knows, Saudi Arabia knows, China knows, and other US government officials know. Everyone knows. It's not a secret. Stroke his ego, talk about how great he would be if he did a certain thing and how everyone would love him, talk about how much you love him, etc. Really, it's not a secret. Supposedly the Russians, decades ago, rejected trying to recruit him as an unknowing agent because he was too easy to influence, he wasn't reliable.
I am finding it highly fucking amusing that I'm being modded 'troll' for highlighting a failure in the US security services.
It's because you're not. The NSA isn't at fault here, Trump is. That's how you're being a troll. You're trying to take a failure of Trump, and blame someone else for it. Which, incidentally, is very Trumpian of you.
Not including ODNI, which just oversees the other 16.
But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone
I know. The DNI himself, who as you point out was chosen and appointed by Trump, told Trump what the consensus was and Trump decided to believe Putin instead. It's pretty fucked.
the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument
Let's not assume that Trump read any sort of report. That would be inconsistent with what we know about him. What we do know is that his opinion on any given subject not involving himself is probably going to match whoever the last person was that he talked to, and in that press conference that person was Putin.
Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
I didn't drop anything.
The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) making up the seventeen-member Intelligence Community, which itself is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.
But I'm glad you're choosing to focus on what matters here - how many different agencies make up the US intelligence community. Yeah, way to find the point.
It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations
That's not the only thing I remember about it. I also remember Coats himself expressing his disapproval with what Trump did, and I remember the reports from the reporters following Trump how people were trying to counsel him to accept the conclusions from Coats, and I remember how Trump was angry about the press coverage after his photo-op with Putin. I also remember the prepared statement he carefully read on camera suggesting that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said.
But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting
OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
When Obama did WHAT? When Obama stood next to Putin in public and said he doesn't believe the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence community that Russia is actively attacking US democratic institutions? Seriously, what the hell are you trying to compare this with? And, more importantly, why do you think that whatever you're trying to compare this with excuses the fact that Trump sided with Russia against the United States? Are you trying to suggest that Obama sided with Russia against the United States? And, if you're trying to suggest that, are you also trying to suggest that since Obama sided with Russia against the United States, that it is now perfectly fine for any sitting US president to side with one of our adversaries over our own country?
Seriously, what the fuck is the point with the "but what about Obama" bullshit? Obama has fuck-all to do with any of this. Not a single damn thing that Obama, or any president before him, did matters with regard to the fact that Trump is doing shit that no other president in living memory has done. So stop trying to derail the discussion with that crap.
You seem to be mistaken. I asked you to provide evidence that the government cannot intercept phone calls. What you've given are stories about how encryption stops people from accessing the physical contents of the device.
I realize all this technology stuff can be confusing, but since you're making claims and all try to keep up.
Go back and read the article again and notice how Obama did use the hardened device provided to him. Notice also how the people he was allowed to contact on that device also all received briefings from the White House counsel. Trump doesn't want the White House lawyers talking to his porn stars.
And, seriously, when has Trump ever tried to copy Obama? If you want Trump to be in favor of something, just tell him Obama hated it.
Obama used a hardened device provided to him, and was able to contact a small group of people who were briefed by the White House counsel. That's not the same situation. If that's what was going on here, if Trump was using one of the 2 hardened devices that were provided to him, then you wouldn't have to try to defend him by bringing up Obama.
Perhaps the NSA should focus on user convenience and accessibility
They literally gave him 2 devices. What do you want them to do, suck his dick while they copy his contacts for him?
They have repeatedly said they can't monitor phones, and need backdoors.
No, they said they can't access the encrypted contents of the physical device without a backdoor. They didn't say shit about phone calls.
Installing encryption on an off-the-shelf phone is not difficult. There is no way that the POTUS lacks the resources to do that. Once an encryption app is installed, then yes, eavesdropping is highly implausible.
OK, great, so again: then why is he not using one of the 2 phones provided to him? Why is he still using his personal phone? They gave him 2 phones that he could use, so why not use them? You're just explaining why he should be using another phone.
Mostly because contractors make a lot of money off them, and they make the Secret Service guys feel they are doing something important.
OK, and where are you getting that information from? Let me guess, you have no clue and you're just making shit up because it sounds right.
This is just my opinion, but I think it is because he is an undisciplined egotistical moron.
He sure is, and you won't see me defending that kind of behavior in a discussion like this. To each their own though, I guess.
he flat out stated that the author had a history of error.
Feel free to read what he wrote again, he did not say "the author has a history of error." The only thing that was "flat out stated" is that the author was "recently trolled hard by 4chan," which is kind of meaningless without context.
And stating things without supporting evidence has become SOP at the Times.
And therefore everyone else should do it too?
The people it claims he is talking to on the other end almost certainly don't have secured phones themselves.
So what? What does that mean? Does that mean their claim of his calls being intercepted are false? What's your point there?
I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You might want to bring up the prepared statement that he later read when he said that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said, but if you believe that prepared statement that he read on camera instead of the live answer he gave to the reporter who asked the question, then I think you're giving a pathological liar the benefit of the doubt. That's probably not the wisest thing to do.
Someone is actually keeping track of how many times Trump lies or makes misleading statements while he's been in office, and the total is over 5,000 so far. He has a documented history going back decades of not telling the truth. So, hopefully your counter-argument doesn't require people to believe him when he said, reading from a prepared statement, that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he previously said. Because, either way, whether it was the original answer or the follow-up statement, he said something that wasn't true. So hopefully you're not asking us to just take his word for it.
Also, in case you're getting the urge to bring up something that Obama did, this has nothing to do with Obama. Obama's actions do not excuse Trump's actions.
You don't remember that? I do. Anyway, maybe this is the reason the press didn't get all German over it, from the article you linked to:
"The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends," said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, "in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate."
First, only a select circle of people will have his address, creating a true hierarchy for who makes the cut and who does not.
Second, anyone placed on the A-list to receive his e-mail address must first receive a briefing from the White House counsel’s office.
Third, messages from the president will be designed so they cannot be forwarded.
There's also this:
Mr. Obama received his BlackBerry on Tuesday, but officials declined to specify what kind.
Imagine that, he was using a device that they gave him, not a consumer-grade device.
While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama's initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president - and those corresponding with him - agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.
Let me know if you're still confused about the difference between that and Trump. You could also just actually read the articles that you link to. Or, if you just needed to get your what-about-ism out, hopefully you feel better now.
Who made a claim that the FBI or NSA can't "crack your calls," and what exactly do you mean by that term? Do you think that it's not possible to eavesdrop on a cellular call to any arbitrary phone in the world anymore? If it's not possible, then why do there exist "hardened" devices?
Also, even if everyone in the White House is too dumb to use auto-sync, how hard would it be to have an intern type Donald's contact list into a secure phone?
Shouldn't be hard at all, so why isn't he using a hardened device?
The best claims are claims without any supporting evidence at all, bonus points for implying that 2 independent events are somehow linked. Well done sir, you're carrying on a fantastic tradition.
Yes, I claim that this author, at some point in the past, and without providing any supporting evidence, was "trolled" (no, I'm not going to specifically define what I mean by that). Therefore, anything he produces, including this story, has no factual basis.
yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post
From the M-W definition? OK, let me go back and look at my post. This is what I quoted:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from my post above. This is the M-W definition:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from the M-W site. Now, I didn't use a text compare tool, but I'm pretty sure those are the same and I didn't leave anything out. Unless you're talking about this:
imperial government, authority, or system
Which is kind of a cyclical definition, or this:
broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
If that's what you're referring to, then I'm going to respond to your fucking claim about how I'm fucking lying to you by fucking leaving out a part by pointing out that I'm not using the fucking broad definition of imperialism, I'm using the fucking specific definition. That broad definition doesn't even refer to a country, and that's not what this discussion is about. Try to keep up, sunshine.
You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by ignoring the definitions which don't fit. Look at the Wikipedia article for an example:
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
You're trying to focus on how a state gains power and dominion over another, instead of the fact that the definition requires that the state gains power and dominion at all. It doesn't really matter how a state gains power and dominion over another state, they still have to do that. You're focusing on the "how" instead of the "what."
The United States does not have dominion over any other sovereign nation on that list, period. The "US empire" is limited to places like Puerto Rico and Guam. It does not include South Korea, the Philippines, or Iraq.
I can tell by how those URLs are colored that those are the ones I used. The M-W definition I quoted in full, so you can safely consider that one of my sources.
The Cambridge link seems like it uses conflicting definitions. In one definition a country "rules" others, and in another it has "a lot of power or influence." Those aren't the same.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia page was also quoted in full in my other post.
The Oxford dictionary points out that the example of US cultural imperialism is a figurative, not literal, use of the word.
Everything he lists there easily fits that definition.
Right on, so South Korea is part of the American Empire, huh?
Or, maybe that definition you pulled up isn't the universal definition when anyone says "imperialism." Here are some others:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.
So, out of the list of the 5 sovereign nations listed above, which of those sovereign nations does the United States have dominion over?
Slashdot Mirror
I was having a good morning too, I'm straight up depressed now about this conversation though. It's really disheartening to see those opinions. It's disheartening to know how successful the campaign to exploit divisions in our society has become. It was so successful that Americans are defending it.
Sorry, I explicitly said that I don't have a problem with people putting their thoughts out there on the web, even if they want to say things about our elections.
Do you really believe that's what the Russian campaign was? Just a bunch of military intelligence folks voicing their opinions on American politics as Russian citizens? Just kind of having a debate about it? While making it clear that they are Russians, and that what they're saying was their opinion? Is that what you think they did? Why do you suppose identity theft charges were included?
Are you even an American? I'm asking because when one of our adversaries has a concerted and covert government-backed campaign specifically designed to interfere in our elections, undermine our democratic processes, and exploit divisions in our society, it kind of seems like a no-brainer to oppose that. But you're not doing that, you're excusing it, and you're acting like it's just a bunch of people voicing their opinions online. Kind of like how Putin said the Russian troops in Ukraine were just there on vacation, with all of their equipment, not in any official capacity. I mean, it just seems like such a softball for an American to say that they are opposed to our adversaries trying to fuck up our system. That shouldn't be hard to say. It shouldn't be a stretch. I don't understand the waffling if you're actually an American, which I'm assuming you are based on your obvious interest in American politics.
I don't understand it. I guess there are fine people on both sides, right?
Well, fuck man, if you're really going to push back on what Russia is trying to do the US, and has been, and is also trying to do with Europe, because Putin prefers dealing with tyrants and dictators instead of democracies, and since he wants to break up NATO and return to the Soviet-era status quo, if you're really going to try to deny Putin's goals and motivations and excuse his direct actions against the United States and our European allies, I've got to admit that I really don't have the stomach to try to sit here and explain what should be bleedingly obvious to anyone paying attention.
Guess that didn't register as a challenge with you though.
It was explicitly not a challenge, you were just making a statement about the report. I took that as a statement that the report did not provide any factual basis, not some challenge to me.
The FISA warrant says both that he is a Russian agent and that he's a target for recruitment.
Right, it said he has contacts with Russian intelligence agents and we also know that he described himself as an "informal advisor" to the Kremlin. Seems like someone to keep an eye on if you're a counter-intelligence agent in the US.
You know what man, I'm sorry but I can't do it. If you want to believe that Russia wants nothing but happiness for the US then fuck it, believe it. I'm not going to go on some sort of crusade to try to prove an obvious fact to someone who appears to be informed yet surprisingly willfully ignorant. You've made up your mind, Russia isn't attacking us, they want nothing but the best for us and the whole world, and fuck it man, I don't have the strength today. It seems like some people think that the fact that Russia is attacking us somehow is an attack against Trump, or that Trump was involved, or something, but it's got fuck-all to do with Trump. Not a single thing. I don't know why so many Trump fans conflate the two issues. The only connection is that supporting Trump was part of the destabilization plan for the US, the same way that supporting Le Pen was part of the plan for France and supporting Brexit was part of the plan for the UK. That's all. Admitting they're attacking us doesn't mean he didn't win, it doesn't mean he doesn't get to be president anymore, it doesn't mean he did anything wrong, it doesn't have shit to do with him other than admitting the obvious. I don't understand the opposition, I really don't, and I don't have the desire nor energy to try to explore that reasoning yet again with someone who's going to sit there and refute obvious truths about world politics.
I agree, it is strange that the White House has been leaking like a sieve.
Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here [theconserv...ehouse.com] as it covers most of the bases.
Got it, an explicitly and overtly partisan blogger is "concerned" that the report was "rigged" for political purposes and decided to write an article which just ends by asking a bunch of questions. I guess we're going to ignore the mountains of evidence collected by Facebook and Twitter which show the actual activities of multiple Russian IP addresses. I guess we'll also ignore the Russian nationals arrested or indicted for their activities regarding this, especially the one trying to infiltrate the NRA. I'll look forward to later in your post when you address my question of whether or not Russia tried to interefere with our elections at all.
You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something
Is that what I did? I "trumpeted" that? I thought I was focusing on the fact that Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence community and his own appointed DNI. I thought that was my focus, not the number of agencies. I'm glad you're here to tell me what my focus was though.
I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report.
You explicitly did not challenge me to do anything. Go read your post again.
Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.
Are you having multiple conversations about this or something, and you think I'm someone else? Since you're all about calling out and challenging, OK, let's do this:
You said you have "repeatedly challenged" me to discuss the factual basis of the DNI's report. I am challenging you to paste the multiple times that you have challenged me to do that. Since you're all about challenging. Link to the comments in question, and paste the specific part you're referring to where you challenge me to provide a factual basis for the DNI's report.
Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page
What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't "bogus," first of all, there were legitimate concerns about Page's contacts with Russians. But, I've got another challenge for you: Jason Miller, the Trump campaign's communications director, said that Page had "never been a part of our campaign. Period." And this is what Trump himself said about Carter Page: "I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. And he actually said he was a very low-level member of I think a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him." So, I am challenging you to show why an investigation into Carter Page has anything to do with Trump's involvement with Russia. One option might be that Jason Miller and Donald Trump were lying about their relationship with Carter Page, but that admission would bring a whole new set of questions I think.
Also, one of the leaked emails [wikileaks.org] from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign.
Here's the relevant quote from that email:
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.
What exactly are you suggesting here? Obviously Trump strongly admires various dictators and autocrats. Are you suggesting that this obviously un-American tendency should not have been exploited by his political rival? Are you suggesting that, because they wanted to attack him for trying to rub against Vlad, that therefore any Russian interference in US elections in Trump's favor are auto
At some point, maybe, but don't fucking pretend he didn't use a blackberry
Did you read that article at all? Like, any of it? Any part at all? Do you think it's evidence for your argument, and not mine? Because that's not the case.
Just so I don't have to repeat myself, let me just link you to the comment I posted yesterday, when someone else who apparently did not read that article linked to the same article and tried to act like it somehow supported their case that Obama was using a consumer-grade unhardened communication device. Here's your response:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Giving him the ease of use, flexibility and other benefits he perceives from using a different device.
But they're giving him the device he wants to use, hardened. I mean, they're literally doing specifically what you're trying to suggest they're not doing. It feels like I'm arguing with an illiterate brick wall. They're giving him hardened iPhones and the only reason they're not completely worried is because he doesn't actually read the intelligence reports that he gets every day.
Unless you're trying to suggest that the ease of use, flexibility, and other benefits are the features that needed to be removed in order to harden the device. If you're saying that, then you're literally suggesting that the NSA is failing at its job by not giving the president a vulnerable device.
Whatever the case, we have a president who is known for not reading his daily intelligence briefings, uses a consumer-grade cell phone, and has been given 2 hardened devices by the NSA, and you're trying to actually argue that it is the NSA who is not doing their job. Uhhh, #MAGA?
I think you'll find it's the CIA or the NSA that wants Trump to be in favour of something. Perhaps you should share your wisdom with them.
Oh don't you worry, literally anyone who should know how to influence Trump knows exactly how to influence him. Putin knows, Saudi Arabia knows, China knows, and other US government officials know. Everyone knows. It's not a secret. Stroke his ego, talk about how great he would be if he did a certain thing and how everyone would love him, talk about how much you love him, etc. Really, it's not a secret. Supposedly the Russians, decades ago, rejected trying to recruit him as an unknowing agent because he was too easy to influence, he wasn't reliable.
I am finding it highly fucking amusing that I'm being modded 'troll' for highlighting a failure in the US security services.
It's because you're not. The NSA isn't at fault here, Trump is. That's how you're being a troll. You're trying to take a failure of Trump, and blame someone else for it. Which, incidentally, is very Trumpian of you.
You mean 17 organizations.
Not including ODNI, which just oversees the other 16.
But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone
I know. The DNI himself, who as you point out was chosen and appointed by Trump, told Trump what the consensus was and Trump decided to believe Putin instead. It's pretty fucked.
the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument
Let's not assume that Trump read any sort of report. That would be inconsistent with what we know about him. What we do know is that his opinion on any given subject not involving himself is probably going to match whoever the last person was that he talked to, and in that press conference that person was Putin.
Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
I didn't drop anything.
The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign policy and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) making up the seventeen-member Intelligence Community, which itself is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States.
But I'm glad you're choosing to focus on what matters here - how many different agencies make up the US intelligence community. Yeah, way to find the point.
It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations
That's not the only thing I remember about it. I also remember Coats himself expressing his disapproval with what Trump did, and I remember the reports from the reporters following Trump how people were trying to counsel him to accept the conclusions from Coats, and I remember how Trump was angry about the press coverage after his photo-op with Putin. I also remember the prepared statement he carefully read on camera suggesting that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said.
But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting
OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
When Obama did WHAT? When Obama stood next to Putin in public and said he doesn't believe the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence community that Russia is actively attacking US democratic institutions? Seriously, what the hell are you trying to compare this with? And, more importantly, why do you think that whatever you're trying to compare this with excuses the fact that Trump sided with Russia against the United States? Are you trying to suggest that Obama sided with Russia against the United States? And, if you're trying to suggest that, are you also trying to suggest that since Obama sided with Russia against the United States, that it is now perfectly fine for any sitting US president to side with one of our adversaries over our own country?
Seriously, what the fuck is the point with the "but what about Obama" bullshit? Obama has fuck-all to do with any of this. Not a single damn thing that Obama, or any president before him, did matters with regard to the fact that Trump is doing shit that no other president in living memory has done. So stop trying to derail the discussion with that crap.
You seem to be mistaken. I asked you to provide evidence that the government cannot intercept phone calls. What you've given are stories about how encryption stops people from accessing the physical contents of the device.
I realize all this technology stuff can be confusing, but since you're making claims and all try to keep up.
Go back and read the article again and notice how Obama did use the hardened device provided to him. Notice also how the people he was allowed to contact on that device also all received briefings from the White House counsel. Trump doesn't want the White House lawyers talking to his porn stars.
And, seriously, when has Trump ever tried to copy Obama? If you want Trump to be in favor of something, just tell him Obama hated it.
Obama used a hardened device provided to him, and was able to contact a small group of people who were briefed by the White House counsel. That's not the same situation. If that's what was going on here, if Trump was using one of the 2 hardened devices that were provided to him, then you wouldn't have to try to defend him by bringing up Obama.
Perhaps the NSA should focus on user convenience and accessibility
They literally gave him 2 devices. What do you want them to do, suck his dick while they copy his contacts for him?
They have repeatedly said they can't monitor phones, and need backdoors.
No, they said they can't access the encrypted contents of the physical device without a backdoor. They didn't say shit about phone calls.
Installing encryption on an off-the-shelf phone is not difficult. There is no way that the POTUS lacks the resources to do that. Once an encryption app is installed, then yes, eavesdropping is highly implausible.
OK, great, so again: then why is he not using one of the 2 phones provided to him? Why is he still using his personal phone? They gave him 2 phones that he could use, so why not use them? You're just explaining why he should be using another phone.
Mostly because contractors make a lot of money off them, and they make the Secret Service guys feel they are doing something important.
OK, and where are you getting that information from? Let me guess, you have no clue and you're just making shit up because it sounds right.
This is just my opinion, but I think it is because he is an undisciplined egotistical moron.
He sure is, and you won't see me defending that kind of behavior in a discussion like this. To each their own though, I guess.
he flat out stated that the author had a history of error.
Feel free to read what he wrote again, he did not say "the author has a history of error." The only thing that was "flat out stated" is that the author was "recently trolled hard by 4chan," which is kind of meaningless without context.
And stating things without supporting evidence has become SOP at the Times.
And therefore everyone else should do it too?
The people it claims he is talking to on the other end almost certainly don't have secured phones themselves.
So what? What does that mean? Does that mean their claim of his calls being intercepted are false? What's your point there?
I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You might want to bring up the prepared statement that he later read when he said that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he said, but if you believe that prepared statement that he read on camera instead of the live answer he gave to the reporter who asked the question, then I think you're giving a pathological liar the benefit of the doubt. That's probably not the wisest thing to do.
Someone is actually keeping track of how many times Trump lies or makes misleading statements while he's been in office, and the total is over 5,000 so far. He has a documented history going back decades of not telling the truth. So, hopefully your counter-argument doesn't require people to believe him when he said, reading from a prepared statement, that he actually meant the exact opposite of what he previously said. Because, either way, whether it was the original answer or the follow-up statement, he said something that wasn't true. So hopefully you're not asking us to just take his word for it.
Also, in case you're getting the urge to bring up something that Obama did, this has nothing to do with Obama. Obama's actions do not excuse Trump's actions.
Our government can't even do that at this point.
You care to provide evidence for that claim? Since you're so unbiased and evidence-based, I mean.
You don't remember that? I do. Anyway, maybe this is the reason the press didn't get all German over it, from the article you linked to:
"The president has a BlackBerry through a compromise that allows him to stay in touch with senior staff and a small group of personal friends," said Robert Gibbs, his spokesman, "in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate."
First, only a select circle of people will have his address, creating a true hierarchy for who makes the cut and who does not.
Second, anyone placed on the A-list to receive his e-mail address must first receive a briefing from the White House counsel’s office.
Third, messages from the president will be designed so they cannot be forwarded.
There's also this:
Mr. Obama received his BlackBerry on Tuesday, but officials declined to specify what kind.
Imagine that, he was using a device that they gave him, not a consumer-grade device.
While lawyers and the Secret Service balked at Mr. Obama's initial requests to allow him to keep his BlackBerry, they acquiesced as long as the president - and those corresponding with him - agreed to strict rules. And he had to agree to use a specially made device, which must be approved by national security officials.
Let me know if you're still confused about the difference between that and Trump. You could also just actually read the articles that you link to. Or, if you just needed to get your what-about-ism out, hopefully you feel better now.
Who made a claim that the FBI or NSA can't "crack your calls," and what exactly do you mean by that term? Do you think that it's not possible to eavesdrop on a cellular call to any arbitrary phone in the world anymore? If it's not possible, then why do there exist "hardened" devices?
Also, even if everyone in the White House is too dumb to use auto-sync, how hard would it be to have an intern type Donald's contact list into a secure phone?
Shouldn't be hard at all, so why isn't he using a hardened device?
The best claims are claims without any supporting evidence at all, bonus points for implying that 2 independent events are somehow linked. Well done sir, you're carrying on a fantastic tradition.
Yes, I claim that this author, at some point in the past, and without providing any supporting evidence, was "trolled" (no, I'm not going to specifically define what I mean by that). Therefore, anything he produces, including this story, has no factual basis.
#MAGA
You're fucking lying to me.
Don't get so butthurt, princess.
yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post
From the M-W definition? OK, let me go back and look at my post. This is what I quoted:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from my post above. This is the M-W definition:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from the M-W site. Now, I didn't use a text compare tool, but I'm pretty sure those are the same and I didn't leave anything out. Unless you're talking about this:
imperial government, authority, or system
Which is kind of a cyclical definition, or this:
broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
If that's what you're referring to, then I'm going to respond to your fucking claim about how I'm fucking lying to you by fucking leaving out a part by pointing out that I'm not using the fucking broad definition of imperialism, I'm using the fucking specific definition. That broad definition doesn't even refer to a country, and that's not what this discussion is about. Try to keep up, sunshine.
You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by ignoring the definitions which don't fit. Look at the Wikipedia article for an example:
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
You're trying to focus on how a state gains power and dominion over another, instead of the fact that the definition requires that the state gains power and dominion at all. It doesn't really matter how a state gains power and dominion over another state, they still have to do that. You're focusing on the "how" instead of the "what."
The United States does not have dominion over any other sovereign nation on that list, period. The "US empire" is limited to places like Puerto Rico and Guam. It does not include South Korea, the Philippines, or Iraq.
it's enabling cars to go to cities with no place to park them. Replacing a few train trips with car trips.
FYI, the bridge is not limited to cars. It is also capable of carrying buses and cargo trucks between the major tourist areas.
I can tell by how those URLs are colored that those are the ones I used. The M-W definition I quoted in full, so you can safely consider that one of my sources.
The Cambridge link seems like it uses conflicting definitions. In one definition a country "rules" others, and in another it has "a lot of power or influence." Those aren't the same.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia page was also quoted in full in my other post.
The Oxford dictionary points out that the example of US cultural imperialism is a figurative, not literal, use of the word.
Yeah, there's actually a word that separates them. The word is "and," not "or." Do you know what that means?
If a country does not have dominion over another country, then do they have power AND dominion?
"OK Miles, I shot at the tank, and it did stop but now the gun is turning towards me. And I hear something in the sky,"
You really think an Abrams is slower than a cargo truck?
Everything he lists there easily fits that definition.
Right on, so South Korea is part of the American Empire, huh?
Or, maybe that definition you pulled up isn't the universal definition when anyone says "imperialism." Here are some others:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.
So, out of the list of the 5 sovereign nations listed above, which of those sovereign nations does the United States have dominion over?