Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

4,326 posts in this topic

Just now, balticus said:

 

The Senate concluded that there was no evidence to support charges of collusion.   

 

Take the necessary steps to insure you don't fall for the next conspiracy theory.   Learn from your mistakes no matter how much it hurts. 

 

 

 

The Senate is not a law enforcement body, is it? Nope
 

Quote

Burr did say in a published interview that he had found no evidence so far of collusion after two years of investigation, but the probe is continuing. Burr also indicated the committee’s final report may not even reach a conclusion on the question, leaving it up to the public to decide.

 

However, good on you for proving Burr correct that partisans will misinterpret the work.

 

Quote

"There's an awful lot of connections of all these people," he said. "They may not be connections that are tied to 2016 elections in the United States, but just the sheer fact that they have a relationship — it may be business. It may be Russian intelligence. It may be they're all on the payroll of Oleg Deripaska," he said.

"We've got to try to determine, in our particular case, 'Do they fit in this bucket' — which is the 2016 election efforts — or 'Do they fit in this bucket,' which is the world that we discovered and that we want to continue to look at on more of a counterintelligence platform," he said.

"In a lot of cases, we found out they fit in neither bucket, or we don't know which bucket. And, in some cases, we've come to the conclusion we will never know the answer; therefore, this question is pushed aside," he said.

In the end, he said, neither his nor the committee's interpretation of the facts should be paramount.

"I have no belief that at the end of our process, people that love Donald Trump are going to applaud what we do. And I have no belief that people that hate Donald Trump are going to reverse and say, 'Well, you know, this clears him.' They are solidly in one camp or the other," he said.

 

So, that's an F for you on this one, but that's mostly because you didn't choose anything factual from Lawfare Blog to dispute and you didn't really offer any actual facts. Would you like to try another?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SA: *fingers in ears* LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES! LALALALA!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

So, that's an F for you on this one, but that's mostly because you didn't choose anything factual from Lawfare Blog to dispute and you didn't really offer any actual facts. Would you like to try another?

 

Similarly, I refuse to respond to any posts from QChan.    Why would i waste my time analyzing texts from a source which has missed the big picture? 

 

You should be asking me to recommend news sources for you so you can not get seduced by your ridiculous conspiracy theories.     Unfortunately, many of them are behind a paywall or in a non-English language. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

Similarly, I refuse to respond to any posts from QChan.    Why would i waste my time analyzing texts from a source which has missed the big picture? 

 

You should be asking me to recommend news sources for you so you can not get seduced by your ridiculous conspiracy theories.     Unfortunately, many of them are behind a paywall or in a non-English language. 

 

 

You already told me you watch Youtube videos like a fucking moron. Why do I need to know more? 

 

On 1/24/2019, 5:15:07, balticus said:

 

I have watched videos and read Analysis from Peter Zeihan formerly of Stratfor and I enjoy hearing some of the Analysis from Geopolitical Futures even though they don't get everything right.   Some of the content is behind a pay wall.

 

China (and Germany) are hurt severely when exports are cut.   The US not so much.  

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

You already told me you watch Youtube videos like a fucking moron. Why do I need to know more? 

 

Stratfor and Geopolitical Futures are used by most Fortune 500 companies and parts of academia.   Youtube has talks from the World Economic Forum and this weekend's Munich Security Conference.    Let go of the fact that you still want to find a way to be right when you have been spectacularly wrong.   

 

Don't let your anger and frustration cloud your judgement and shut out worthwhile content.  

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stratfor Is a Joke

 

Quote

Maybe what these emails actually reveal is how a Texas-based corporate research firm can get a little carried away in marketing itself as a for-hire CIA and end up fooling some over-eager hackers into believing it's true.

 

The group's reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. As a former recipient of their "INTEL REPORTS" (I assume someone at Stratfor signed me up for a trial subscription, which appeared in my inbox unsolicited), what I found was typically some combination of publicly available information and bland "analysis" that had already appeared in the previous day's New York Times. A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year.

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Atlantic?    

 

Try this.   

 

Have you been posting links from the Atlantic (fill in other news sources as needed) which have led you to spectacularly wrong conclusions?

 

If the answer is "yes", try another source.  

 

If the answer is "no", read it with a critical view and extract any facts which are not subject to bias or political agendas.  

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry. Everyone gets why you have a boner for useless Stratfor.

 

Quote

I've read dozens of their reports over the years. I've found some wildly speculative, others accurate but banal, and still others intriguing.

 

And while I've found some Stratfor analysis to be flat wrong, and so perhaps harmful if conclusions are taken by policymakers at face value, I've never seen anything nefarious or dangerous. Yet today, the internet is filled with claims that the Stratfor is some kind of "shadow CIA," with ominous warnings about its hidden influence and functions.
...
The language in that short paragraph is like one long toot on a dog-whistle for the paranoid. There are dozens of companies that provide strategic analysis and intelligence to large corporations. Some of them even employ lots of former CIA operatives and specialize in ferreting out the dirt inside companies. Still others have their own mercenary armies (i.e., Blackwater). Statfor is on the mild end of the scary shadow CIA/stodgy think tank spectrum.

 

You still have not been able to contradict one post on Lawfare. Poor you. Here you have TWO world-renowned publications telling you Stratfor is not reliable and you don't want to believe it. That's not my opinion. Go read about Occam's Razor. That might help you understand why this is important.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlexTr said:

Don't worry. Everyone gets why you have a boner for useless Stratfor.

 

And despite their outrageously expensive rates, i understand why they are still in business.   

 

1 minute ago, AlexTr said:

You still have not been able to contradict one post on Lawfare.

 

Nor have I contradicted any posts on Qchan, or the Bild Zeitung.    They are not reliable sources.

 

1 minute ago, AlexTr said:

Poor you. Here you have TWO world-renowned publications telling you Stratfor is not reliable and you don't want to believe it. 

 

I followed Max Fisher and Daniel Drezner (the authors of the articles you posted)  on Twitter for some time and stopped because their writing was politically driven.    World-renowned (but consistently wrong) seems like an appeal to authority which is an appeal to put an whiff of respectability on your consistent errors.  

 

I feel sorry for you.  

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@balticus Your lack of ability to defend, your insane lack of facts, and your pitiful resort to useless sentiment are telling. You should look into that. Like you, Stratfor is a nothing research team with day-old goods and an impossibly bad track record, but you will die on that hill because I say so. Have at that hill, fella.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlexTr said:

@balticus Your lack of ability to defend, your insane lack of facts, and your pitiful resort to useless sentiment are telling. You should look into that. Like you, Stratfor is a nothing research team with day-old goods and an impossibly bad track record, but you will die on that hill because I say so. Have at that hill, fella.

 

You have been embarrassingly wrong for 198 pages.   I haven't.   

 

You might want to rehabilitate yourself and try to do better analysis in the future.      

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019, 2:55:27, balticus said:

 

If I remember correctly, there is a minimum age to be POTUS, something like 35 or 40.   AOC is only 28.  She won't be able to run for a few cycles.  

 

She is quite a contrast to the party leadership, e.g. Nancy Pelosi.   From what i have read, AOC has been evicted twice in the past 5 years, her credit score is bad and just a few months ago, she was worried about having enough money to move to DC.      In contrast, Pelosi has a net worth north of $100 million.     Unsurprisingly, the wing of the Democratic party which concerns itself with the interests of workers and the poor is not the same wing which controls the party's finances.  

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

You have been embarrassingly wrong for 198 pages.   I haven't.   

 

 

 

 

 

Being wrong about being wrong is very meta of you. Do better.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of meta, here's the National Emergency song, for everyone to sing along:

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his "speech" he claims to have got nearly 1.4 billion "they said I wouldn't get one dollar, not one dollar but I got 1.4 billion" - if he had read the document before signing he'd have seen that indeed, he isn't getting one single dollar for his wall. Nowhere is there mention of a wall, only fences... 

 

Where's your big beautiful wall you orange obese dingleberry?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Meatloaf is cold, the bingo caller spoke too fast, I need fresh diapers, have you seen my medication?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, balticus said:

The Senate concluded that there was no evidence to support charges of collusion. 

 

Why do I have to keep splaining this -

 

Quote

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now