Second cup of Coffee Talk

[RobBase]

So you believe that the director of US intelligence fabricated his testimony? That's pretty strong stuff there. I guess that answers my question as to whether you think he is a credible source.

So I have a follow-up question. Do you think Trump was justified in bombing Syria and Afghanistan last month?

Yes, I think the bombing of ISIS camps is justified. The war on terrorism is sadly real. I also think the temporary travel ban from the 7 Muslim countries that the majority of terrorists enter the US was justified. And its unfortunate that the MSM painted it as racist, or a ban on Muslims.

What role in the alleged hacking breach did the Director of US Intelligence play in it all? And while I'm not accusing him of fabricating anything, he wouldnt be the first. I'll do some research on it and get back to you with my opinion. I don't know much about his testimony. That's why I'm asking questions about it.

 

[esls79]

Its the kind of smut that is further damaging the reputation of Democrats, and their chances of regaining the White House. Just like Colbert's act.

A reputable journalist respectfully reports on a persons death. They don't mock him in public.

This kind of thing is only relatable and accepted by a very small % of voters, and will turn more people off than it will get her "likes" today.

Two steps forward, ten steps back.

From a comedy standpoint, her joke was good and timely. Usually good and timely jokes will cross the line of decency but that is what makes them funny. It is a well known fact he was a convicted sexual harrasser and just because he dies doesn't mean you only look at the positives and cover up the rest.

And a journalist making a joke about someone who dies is a far cry from what the President has done at his campaign rallies, on a bus or on twitter.

 

[RobBase]

From a comedy standpoint, her joke was good and timely. Usually good and timely jokes will cross the line of decency but that is what makes them funny. It is a well known fact he was a convicted sexual harrasser and just because he dies doesn't mean you only look at the positives and cover up the rest.

And a journalist making a joke about someone who dies is a far cry from what the President has done at his campaign rallies, on a bus or on twitter.

Isn't she a Washington Post writer?

I don't recall Trump ever mocking the death of someone.

Will she mock Chris Cornell next? Sometimes you gotta just let things be, regardless off how emotionally charged politics may make you.

 

[dash]

I don't recall Trump ever mocking the death of someone.

Yeah, he's special like that, he just mocks the families of slain US soldiers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html?_r=0

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Yes, I think the bombing of ISIS camps was justices. I also think the temporary travel ban from the 7 Muslim countries that the majority of terrorists enter the US was justified. And its unfortunate that the MSM paintes it as racist, or a ban on Muslims.

What role in the alleged hacking breach did the Director of US Intelligence play in it all? And while I'm not accusing him of fabricating anything, he wouldnt be the first. I'll do some research on it and get back to you with my opinion. I don't know much about his testimony. That's why I'm asking questions about it.

He testified, to a Senate committee (I'm assuming under oath), that Russian interference went BEYOND just hacking.

Now you are saying that the Russian stuff is all fabricated. You are essentially saying the director of national intelligence, and by proxy the intelligence of the US, is not trustworthy.

If you believe that to be the case how can you be confident that Trump's bombings were justified? The locations for the bombings and their justification came from...


wait for it...


INTELLIGENCE!!

You can't deride a source and then turn around and use it to your advantage the next day.

 

[scoutyjones2]

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Republican colleagues last year, in remarks caught on a recording and obtained by The Washington Post: "There's two people I think Putin pays: [Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump."

Rohrabacher, a California Republican, is perhaps Putin's most outspoken defender on Capitol Hill.

What happened next: Some lawmakers laughed, McCarthy added "Swear to God," and House Speaker Paul Ryan cut the conversation short and told the people in the room, "No leaks, alright? This is how we know we're a real family here."

McCarthy responds: McCarthy told an MSNBC producer Wednesday he had been making "a bad attempt at a joke."

 

[scoutyjones2]

He testified, to a Senate committee (I'm assuming under oath), that Russian interference went BEYOND just hacking.

Now you are saying that the Russian stuff is all fabricated. You are essentially saying the director of national intelligence, and by proxy the intelligence of the US, is not trustworthy.

If you believe that to be the case how can you be confident that Trump's bombings were justified? The locations for the bombings and their justification came from...


wait for it...


INTELLIGENCE!!

You can't deride a source and then turn around and use it to your advantage the next day.

You can flippity flop all you want if you are the great Trumpkin or his supporters...

 

[Comeds]

Pure class:

 

[RobBase]

He testified, to a Senate committee (I'm assuming under oath), that Russian interference went BEYOND just hacking.

Now you are saying that the Russian stuff is all fabricated. You are essentially saying the director of national intelligence, and by proxy the intelligence of the US, is not trustworthy.

If you believe that to be the case how can you be confident that Trump's bombings were justified? The locations for the bombings and their justification came from...


wait for it...


INTELLIGENCE!!

You can't deride a source and then turn around and use it to your advantage the next day.

What does BEYOND hacking mean, exactly?

And what evidence is there of the hacking we can study? Who did the hacking? Who was hacked? How was it hacked? Who was in charge of making sure the US election could not be hacked? Thats a pretty big fuck up. Whose head does that fall on? Did he testify about any of that?

Aren't those interesting details?

And what's taking so long if these allegations are true? How long are Trump critics willing to wait for answers? After all, this all occurred during President Obama's reign. At what point does he get dragged into it?

 

[Comeds]

What does BEYOND hacking mean, exactly?

And what evidence is there of the hacking we can study? Who did the hacking? Who was hacked? How was it hacked? Who was in charge of making sure the US election could not be hacked? Thats a pretty big fuck up. Whose head does that fall on? Did he testify about any of that?

Aren't those interesting details?

That is interesting. Maybe they should appoint someone to look into those things?

 

[RobBase]

That is interesting. Maybe they should appoint someone to look into those things?

So what happens if and when nothing new emerges?

 

[Comeds]

So what happens if and when nothing new emerges?

Shouldn't we get there first instead of declaring it a waste from the start? Even you have stated numerous times that you would like to know more so surely you are in favor of an investigation.

 

[RobBase]

Shouldn't we get there first instead of declaring it a waste from the start? Even you have stated numerous times that you would like to know more so surely you are in favor of an investigation.

Just brainstorming. We can pick this up later if you prefer. Did you check out any of the links I gave you? That Dr. Ramsey one is terrifying.

 

[RobBase]

BTW I'm a Penguins, Oilers and Red Wings fan. I mostly detested the Wings during their Yankee years. But I'm over it now.

I see Darren McCarty regularly. My neighbor owns a sports memorabilia store at Ford Field, and Darren comes by to sign stuff constantly.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

That is interesting. Maybe they should appoint someone to look into those things?

That would take a special kind of person.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

What does BEYOND hacking mean, exactly?

And what evidence is there of the hacking we can study? Who did the hacking? Who was hacked? How was it hacked? Who was in charge of making sure the US election could not be hacked? Thats a pretty big fuck up. Whose head does that fall on? Did he testify about any of that?

Aren't those interesting details?

And what's taking so long if these allegations are true? How long are Trump critics willing to wait for answers? After all, this all occurred during President Obama's reign. At what point does he get dragged into it?

You've glossed over the issue that you and your President have basically called the Director of National Intelligence a liar, but OK.

Most of what you are asking is right there in that wikipedia link that I posted. Did you even bother to open the link? ARe you being intentionally thick? It's all right there unless you mean that you want to see the actually code/program that the Russians used. There I can't really help you.

On October 7, 2016,[7] the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's personal email account and leaked their documents to WikiLeaks.[8][9] Several cybersecurity firms stated that the cyberattacks were committed by Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

Now I know it takes a genius to decipher this coded language. Keep reading (even Reddit helps!!) and you'll get there one day but for now I'll break it down for you.

And what evidence is there of the hacking we can study? I'm not referring to Exhibit A-Z here but I feel like the conclusions made by Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence can be cited as evidence for most civilians. Unless you feel both of these sources are not credible.

Who did the hacking? Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

Who was hacked? DNC servers and John Podesta's personal email account at the very least.

Who was in charge of making sure the US election could not be hacked? This isn't explicitly stated but I would assume in this case the Democratic party.

Whose head does that fall on? Did he testify about any of that? I would assume he didn't testify about that but I'm not sure. I assume that's because his job is to testify about CRIMES, not victims. You know, to identify the perpetrators. That is where the real blame lies. For example if I only put one deadbolt on my door, it may be not enough but it's not my fault when a Russian crack head breaks into my house and sells my personal documents to a racist, orange-haired sexual assaulter.

We clear now?

Need another red pill to get you through the afternoon?


BTW, those are just amphetamines. I tried a bunch of them and now I can't stop watching Alex Jones and I don't believe anyone who does science.

 

[RobBase]

You've glossed over the issue that you and your President have basically called the Director of National Intelligence a liar, but OK.

Most of what you are asking is right there in that wikipedia link that I posted. Did you even bother to open the link? ARe you being intentionally thick? It's all right there unless you mean that you want to see the actually code/program that the Russians used. There I can't really help you.



Now I know it takes a genius to decipher this coded language. Keep reading (even Reddit helps!!) and you'll get there one day but for now I'll break it down for you.

And what evidence is there of the hacking we can study? I'm not referring to Exhibit A-Z here but I feel like the conclusions made by Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence can be cited as evidence for most civilians. Unless you feel both of these sources are not credible.

Who did the hacking? Russian intelligence groups Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

Who was hacked? DNC servers and John Podesta's personal email account at the very least.

Who was in charge of making sure the US election could not be hacked? This isn't explicitly stated but I would assume in this case the Democratic party.

Whose head does that fall on? Did he testify about any of that? I would assume he didn't testify about that but I'm not sure. I assume that's because his job is to testify about CRIMES, not victims. You know, to identify the perpetrators. That is where the real blame lies. For example if I only put one deadbolt on my door, it may be not enough but it's not my fault when a Russian crack head breaks into my house and sells my personal documents to a racist, orange-haired sexual assaulter.

We clear now?

Need another red pill to get you through the afternoon?


BTW, those are just amphetamines. I tried a bunch of them and now I can't stop watching Alex Jones and I don't believe anyone who does science.

Hostility aside, pretty solid post. Now when will they supply the evidence to these allegations?

Allegations don't make the man a liar, but lack of evidence does start to paint a picture against his credibility.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Hostility aside, pretty solid post. Now when will they supply the evidence to these allegations?

Allegations don't make the man a liar, but lack of evidence does start to paint a picture against his credibility.

Wait. Are you ACTUALLY asking Homeland security and the intelligence community to openly tell us how they uncovered the covert activities of a foreign nation? Do you not see anything wrong with that?

I also don't get why Trump and his supporters are so opposed to the issue of Russian interference being investigated more thoroughly. If they did nothing wrong why worry? Certainly no harm can from from learning more about this.

 

[RobBase]

Need another red pill to get you through the afternoon?

I think you mean blue pill.

 

[RobBase]

Wait. Are you ACTUALLY asking Homeland security and the intelligence community to openly tell us how they uncovered the covert activities of a foreign nation? Do you not see anything wrong with that?

I also don't get why Trump and his supporters are so opposed to the issue of Russian interference being investigated more thoroughly. If they did nothing wrong why worry? Certainly no harm can from from learning more about this.

No, I'm asking what's taking so long if they have all this against President Trump.

I'm sure the "investigation" will last as long as the current DNC is in tact. We might even get another opportunity to vote for another Clinton.