National Security

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by Buckwild, Feb 22, 2020.

  1. Spang308

    Spang308 Well-Known Member

    Nailed it precisely...and yet the pages and OMB hate continue to flow. It's sorta fun watching all the butt hurt AND I get the pleasure of 5 more years minus a month.
  2. speeddaddy

    speeddaddy Well-Known Member

  3. SpeedWerks Racing

    SpeedWerks Racing Well-Known Member

    Take people for what they say and do. Don't try to read their minds,,it never predicts accurately.

    - The President (Live on the WH lawn) and The head of the NSA (Live on CBS News) Said..
    "No, they were not briefed, neither was the DNI". Not briefed means, Not in the briefing and didn't know about it.

    ""Do you know how fucking stupid that statement (Sounds) on its face?""
    "Nobody said it to me at all,” Trump told reporters Sunday, about the reported Russian interference. "They ought to investigate Adam Schiff for leaking that intelligence."

    - Press tried to blame Nunes of informing the president about the briefing (afterward).
    In turn Nunes is now suing the WAPO. he did the same to cnn, 435 million.

    - Trump did 'not' say "he doesn't read the daily briefings" and that is not widely reported
    by the press, as you state.
    He did say "I told them I only want New info, not the same things repeated day after day"

    - Bernie is on multiple records and videos, In Russia at the height of the Cold War, Praising
    their communist government and programs.
    Bernie's massive social programs (if elected) will have to be paid for, where do you think
    he'll go for the money? our largest discretionary expenditure is Military and Security.
    Chances of Russia liking/using that,,,high.
    Trump and family have been investigated by the greatest intelligence agencies on the planet.
    Over 2 years, unlimited resources, millions spent and they found.. Nothing on Trump/Russia.
    He also arms their allies yes and has seriously cut into/diverted their energy sales.
    Chances of Russia liking/using that,,,Zero.

    - Previous administrations gave no lethal aide to Ukraine, even while they were being
    attacked by Russia.
    Whoever authorized it, in the end, the President has the final say. Did Trump release lethal aide and
    money to Ukraine in 17,18,and 19? Answer, Yes.

    Being 100% right or 100% wrong, feels 'exactly' the same.
    If you try to "read someone's mind" your interpretations will be inexact.
    Emotion's are least likely to predict accurately.
    blkduc, Quicktoy and TXFZ1 like this.
  4. TXFZ1

    TXFZ1 Well-Known Member

  5. Quicktoy

    Quicktoy Is it Winter yet?

    Yeeeeep. Mic is still on the floor. Just dropped even harder.
  6. Spang308

    Spang308 Well-Known Member

    Somebody gets it.
  7. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Carefull, putting facts ahead of feelings is disturbing towards some.
    SpeedWerks Racing likes this.
  8. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab

  9. motorkas

    motorkas Well-Known Member

    Appreciate the counter (and the civility in which it was delivered).

    While I agree with taking people for what they do, I don’t share the same viewpoint for what they say (because often, what people say and do are in direct conflict with each other). As far as not trying to read minds and its correlation to accurate predictions, I honestly can’t believe you wrote that. People do it all the time and every day in their personal lives (and the results are different from “never predicts accurately”). Entire business segments are designed around this very concept just in politics alone. Outside of politics, you’re talking finance, medicine, insurance, automotive – the list goes on and on. Almost everything is based around predictive modeling. There’s a reason for that, in its simplest explanation - it’s been verified to work in a capitalist system – meaning people make more money by successfully employing it than they do losing money doing the same. Even when capitalism is taken out of it (terrorism, anti terrorism, warfare) the success/failure ratio is significant enough that it’s employed when money isn’t the driver (but the consequences of getting those predictions wrong are still pretty significant to say the least). Break it down to what brings everybody originally here. . .late braking, park it, will they back off side by side or lean on you, what line are they going to take, will they try to block or hold the line . .do they get it right all the time. . .no – but “never predicts accurately” is quite a statement to make against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (across multiple areas) just to justify why intelligence that makes your guy look bad can’t be real.

    No it doesn’t. . . the government lies, and just because it’s your guy, doesn’t mean they wont lie to you. . .to your face. . .without hesitation or remorse. I'm not saying they're lying or telling the truth, just that the reason you stated for believing them is a little light. Just curious – how do you determine when to believe intelligence agencies (and their heads) and POTUS? Here’s the reason why I’m asking, you seem to think that because he said it to the cameras on the WH lawn that it must be true (so much so that you’re using it as a defense). Let me put it another way, want to put money on whether I can find video of Trump lying on camera as POTUS (and whether I can find enough videos to predict if it's a "frequent or seldom" thing?

    Literally, the next line in that article:

    "Trump continued his accusations in a tweet later Sunday afternoon without providing details to support his claims"

    Now, here I will defer to your theory and not do “predictive modeling” on your mind and thoughts– care to explain why you left that out and stopped it at “they ought to investigate Schiff”. . .or how about leaving this out which directly proceeds the head of the NSA denials at the end of the article:

    “Russian agents successfully launched an interference campaign ahead of the 2016 election designed to favor Trump’s campaign that year, according to U.S. intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report compiled by former special counsel Robert Mueller.”

    Both of those are in the article you linked - why leave those quotes out?

    And? Trump sues/sued people all the time. . .and he’s been sued. . .are you saying he’s right when he sues, and wrong when he’s sued. . .and that Nunes didn’t inform the President because he filed a lawsuit? Out of curiosity, do you know and have conversations with Devin Nunes? Here’s why I'm asking, I'm wondering if you’re contradicting your original assertion about the accuracy of predicting what’s in someone’s mind (and what he said and did or did not do) or if you got some first hand knowledge you’re holding in your back pocket that takes the prediction of his thoughts and actions out of your statement besides the fact he filed a lawsuit. Personally, I have no problems with you doing predictive analysis with Nunes, the hypocrisy of your original statement, and the analytics that you’re presenting in how your doing it is a different story.

    Simple way to find out – search “Trump does not read intelligence briefings”; if it’s not widely reported as you say, you shouldn’t get that many results. . . I did research it before I wrote it. I did it again just now. Google informed me that the search took .51 seconds. The reporting on it is pretty wide. Also, got anything to point to that he does read the daily briefing. Reason why I ask is because you seem pretty confident that he does, so I’m wondering where this confidence comes from?
  10. motorkas

    motorkas Well-Known Member

    Do you know why Trump has to threaten to raid the military budget to build the wall (besides the obvious of Mexico not paying for it). . .because the President just can’t take money from the federal government for his agenda (especially ones that are going to cost trillions of dollars – Bernie’s social programs, not the wall).

    Trump had the Senate and the House and still couldn’t get congress to act to spend money on the things he wanted; you’re honestly telling me that Sanders with a divided congress would be able to do that. . .shit, I’m willing to give you a Dem controlled House and Senate for the hypothetical (just like Trump had) and you still think a multi trillion dollar social package is going through? Definitely going to need to see your analytics on that prediction.

    Also, Russia at the height of the Cold War is a totally different animal than today in a lot of respects. My mother (just like Melania and Ivana Trump) is from a communist European country that was under the control of Russia, and just like the Trump kids, I spent my summers over there and have awesome (and not so awesome) memories from my childhood being there. Here’s one thing that’s pretty similar from then to now. . .try saying outloud that the government and their programs are shit and see what happens (especially back then). Now, I’m not dumb enough to think he had to be coerced into saying the shit he said, but keep in mind, when you keep referencing this “vacation time”, Trump married two women who were raised in communism – the first who sent their children to a communist country to spend significant time and the second who’s father was in the League of Communists and you’re not saying shit about how any of that is interesting.

    Last year

    this year

    .61 seconds. Pretty sure Russia fucking loves it.

    I’m going to leave the whole investigation thing alone because there are pages and pages of the same argument as yours in here, but there’s a great quote already in this post (from one of your sources no less) that should help you in the direction to go if you want to see how easy it is to disprove your adamant assertions of “nothing” – not to mention revisiting the whole “when do you trust, not trust what the intelligence agencies say” question I brought up earlier.

    Accurate and factual.

    Read that first sentence again. . .slowly. . . To the second. . .yes, yes he did. . . and it’s almost as if they were predicting that sending lethal assistance would change tactical and strategic elements of the conflict as well as how Putin would think about it relative to engagements there and elsewhere. . .

    Depends on the person, and I’m betting I can find a variation in that among a n of several billion.

    Sometimes, yes, sometimes no; but again, there's a lot of money in being able to do that. . . I know several people who make a shit load of it because they’re damn good at doing exactly that.

    Maybe, but at the same time, predicting how people respond emotionally is comically easy. Serious question: do you think it was your emotional side or your rational side that caused your blind spots in regards to the information you presented (and the information you left out, or did not research to confirm if it was correct) in this post or the previous one?
  11. 88/532

    88/532 Simply Antagonistical

    Don’t know Maguire’s service record, don’t care either. I think you’re bright enough to get my point though. A lot of people Trumps age didn’t serve during the Nam era, a shoulder shrug to those who didn’t, Trump included.

    Btw, last your post, is your last name Tolstoy............................
  12. Quicktoy

    Quicktoy Is it Winter yet?

    Motorkas. In your last post you said trump had the house and the senate. You proved in that one statement you have zero clue how much Paul Ryan wouldn’t do anything. But keep on preaching with your long winded sermons. Most of us don’t read past a few lines when it’s easy to prove your first few lines false.
    brex and Fonda Dix like this.
  13. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member

    dude comes off as an IC employee protecting his own

    I could be wrong
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2020
    Quicktoy likes this.
  14. SpeedWerks Racing

    SpeedWerks Racing Well-Known Member

    You just Read my mind accurately. Nice job.
    Quicktoy likes this.
  15. Buckwild

    Buckwild Radical

    I’m watching this conversation between you 2 and appreciate the way you both frame your arguments with civility. It’s so much easier to view both perspectives when presented without the pollution of snide cleverness and name calling. We could use more of this.
    SpeedWerks Racing likes this.
  16. Quicktoy

    Quicktoy Is it Winter yet?

    Don’t you self admittedly troll in here like the rest of us? lol
    XFBO likes this.
  17. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    This and the entire super majority deal.
    Quicktoy likes this.
  18. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    Hey kettle. What up.
    Quicktoy likes this.
  19. G 97

    G 97 Garth

    I would contend that predictive models over time become nothing but a coin flip. It's a long cycle and repeatedly shows us constant change. Predictive models, when applied over the long haul are a 50/50 proposition at best.
  20. Fonda Dix

    Fonda Dix Well-Known Member


Share This Page