Reply to Tump thanks Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Tump thanks Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny.  I assume it is a joke.[/quote]

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?[/quote]

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.[/quote]If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.[/quote]

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.[/quote]

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened.  Your denial won't change the facts, PP. [/quote]

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.[/quote]

The IC is, of course,  disinterested.  It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around.  Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him.   The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments.   The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods.  You will not get that "factual support" from the IC.  It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source.  That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above.  It will not respond.  Nor should it.  It's not in the game of politics.  It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want.  The joke's on you.[/quote]

The problem with saying the IC is disinterested is that it's massively naive. This is DC, everyone is about turf, clout, reputation, and most importantly $$$. If you mess with folks' bailiwicks, like say, questioning the policies vis-a-vis Russia or MENA, the IC will not just roll over, I'm sorry. Trump shut down the ridiculous CIA effort to train 'moderate rebels' (who in the unvarnished estimation of many the SOF who were once involved with it, jihadis in disguise) in Syria. That's pissing on IC folks world. And there was a lot more for the IC to fear as well.

And if the IC makes assessments about the integrity of our democratic elections and then refuses to provide factual evidence for them, they're not a jokers,  they're a cancer.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics