Political Roundtable Part XIII

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

Flynn stole your facebook data!

[sfam]

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

You're asking him to prove that the CIA has STOPPED doing something. The burden of proof is on you my dude

Nope, burden of proof is the other way around. Same way that the someone has to prove that the CIA no longer engages in torture. Or is it okay if they don't have to prove that either

Well, Obama signed executive order making it illegal early on in his Presidency. Does that work?

I would also point out that its logic like yours that got us into the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein did not engage in good records management, and in fact did not keep records of his actions. He had no way of proving he disposed of all of his WMDs, so the US went to war.

Nobody is complaining about this. They do complain about high pitched sounds that come through in the middle of the night terrifying everyone who hears it. They complain that sometimes these sounds drop ordinance and kill lots of people. That's what they complain about, not about the US stealing elections.

[Induveca]

Read on Twitter

Flynn stole your facebook data!

Lol. She is **** crazy.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

You're asking him to prove that the CIA has STOPPED doing something. The burden of proof is on you my dude

Nope, burden of proof is the other way around. Same way that the someone has to prove that the CIA no longer engages in torture. Or is it okay if they don't have to prove that either

Well, Obama signed executive order making it illegal early on in his Presidency. Does that work?

I would also point out that its logic like yours that got us into the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein did not engage in good records management, and in fact did not keep records of his actions. He had no way of proving he disposed of all of his WMDs, so the US went to war.

Nobody is complaining about this. They do complain about high pitched sounds that come through in the middle of the night terrifying everyone who hears it. They complain that sometimes these sounds drop ordinance and kill lots of people. That's what they complain about, not about the US stealing elections.

Yes, Obama's order works! That was terrific. Did you see the order banning US intelligence from meddling abroad. What, no? Really.

[sfam]

Nope, burden of proof is the other way around. Same way that the someone has to prove that the CIA no longer engages in torture. Or is it okay if they don't have to prove that either

Well, Obama signed executive order making it illegal early on in his Presidency. Does that work?

I would also point out that its logic like yours that got us into the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein did not engage in good records management, and in fact did not keep records of his actions. He had no way of proving he disposed of all of his WMDs, so the US went to war.

Nobody is complaining about this. They do complain about high pitched sounds that come through in the middle of the night terrifying everyone who hears it. They complain that sometimes these sounds drop ordinance and kill lots of people. That's what they complain about, not about the US stealing elections.

Yes, Obama's order works! That was terrific. Did you see the order banning US intelligence from meddling abroad. What, no? Really.

So yeah, I guess everything evil the US has ever done is still being done. Are we still killing American Indians? No? Have any proof of that?

I'm sort of done with this point. You believe we engage in torture and influence elections around the world just like Russia - that's just ducky for you! If you don't have evidence for your statements, feel free to hallucinate freely - but if you do, I again would prefer you involve aliens, because they're lots cooler, especially as a conspiracy theory. Just don't expect me to take that argument seriously.

[dckingsfan]

You believe we engage in torture and influence elections around the world just like Russia

Down to a nutshell. I don't believe we are just like Russia. And therein lies the false equivalence. I don't think the US is out murdering their own people. We have a democracy.

Do I think the CIA does what the CIA does - no question. Do I think you know what the CIA does - not a chance.

[sfam]

You believe we engage in torture and influence elections around the world just like Russia

Down to a nutshell. I don't believe we are just like Russia. And therein lies the false equivalence. I don't think the US is out murdering their own people. We have a democracy.

Do I think the CIA does what the CIA does - no question. Do I think you know what the CIA does - not a chance.

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

[Induveca]

What are these guys smoking?

[montestewart]

What are these guys smoking?

I'm old enough to remember all the shoddy journalism, poorly sourced stories, and flat out false reports related to the Watergate scandal, and also all the dismissals that any of it could be true because it all sounded so outlandish, so tinhorn, like the acts of 3rd world country petty tyrants. Somewhere within the spectrum of reporting on this current situation, with "journalists" rushing to slap a headline on every crumb of slightly new sounding factoid, regardless of how verified it is, it feels like a solid body of actual, verifiable, damning evidence may be coalescing. Kind of like Watergate, but instead of a dynamic duo leading the charge, it's a reporting free-for-all, with a lot of noise, amateurism, and what could be termed "fake news" coming from fringes of the spectrum.

I don't follow these scandals as closely as some of you apparently do, but if I simply dismiss all reporting of the Trump administration as unreliable, I'm still left with Trump himself, all his public statements, tweets, etc., along with statements made by his press secretary (we need to start calling him "Spice Rack"), and numerous other administration officials and proxies. That's enough for me to reinforce everything I thought about him before he was elected. So far, he still looks like a disaster.

[dckingsfan]

I'm old enough to remember all the shoddy journalism, poorly sourced stories, and flat out false reports related to the Watergate scandal, and also all the dismissals that any of it could be true because it all sounded so outlandish, so tinhorn, like the acts of 3rd world country petty tyrants. Somewhere within the spectrum of reporting on this current situation, with "journalists" rushing to slap a headline on every crumb of slightly new sounding factoid, regardless of how verified it is, it feels like a solid body of actual, verifiable, damning evidence may be coalescing. Kind of like Watergate, but instead of a dynamic duo leading the charge, it's a reporting free-for-all, with a lot of noise, amateurism, and what could be termed "fake news" coming from fringes of the spectrum.

I don't follow these scandals as closely as some of you apparently do, but if I simply dismiss all reporting of the Trump administration as unreliable, I'm still left with Trump himself, all his public statements, tweets, etc., along with statements made by his press secretary (we need to start calling him "Spice Rack"), and numerous other administration officials and proxies. That's enough for me to reinforce everything I thought about him before he was elected. So far, he still looks like a disaster.

I think disaster is an understatement. He has no plan.

He wants to decrease the deficit but he wants to increase defense spending?!?
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52480

He wants to increase growth but he wants to decrease legal immigration?!?

He wants to "fix" healthcare - the plan put forward did nothing of the kind.

He wants to make sure that coal if viable again - but the power companies have already left the station with cheaper natural gas.

Disaster, I think not - too much of an understatement.

[bsilver]

You believe we engage in torture and influence elections around the world just like Russia

Down to a nutshell. I don't believe we are just like Russia. And therein lies the false equivalence. I don't think the US is out murdering their own people. We have a democracy.

Do I think the CIA does what the CIA does - no question. Do I think you know what the CIA does - not a chance.

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

[dckingsfan]

Down to a nutshell. I don't believe we are just like Russia. And therein lies the false equivalence. I don't think the US is out murdering their own people. We have a democracy.

Do I think the CIA does what the CIA does - no question. Do I think you know what the CIA does - not a chance.

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

Okay then, I will stand down.

Just not willing to do the research in to what we did in say, Syria (of course Obama got his arse whooped there). Or the CIA paying Hamid Karzai (Bush). Because those issues would be rationalized as not being political warfare.

And if I brought up the shah of Iran - that would be something that is beyond recent memory. How did that one turn out for us - ugh.

And not CIA - but I could have sworn our president said something about Brexit?

And I am pretty sure the Obama administration didn't attempt to sway the outcome in the last Israeli election, the State Department didn't funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the opposition party of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations "One Voice".

Yes, you are right. We aren't a world player trying to sway anything.

This is where we chant - we're number one! we're number one! we're number one!
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

[bsilver]

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

Okay then, I will stand down.

Just not willing to do the research in to what we did in say, Syria (of course Obama got his arse whooped there). Or the CIA paying Hamid Karzai (Bush). Because those issues would be rationalized as not being political warfare.

And if I brought up the shah of Iran - that would be something that is beyond recent memory. How did that one turn out for us - ugh.

And not CIA - but I could have sworn our president said something about Brexit?

And I am pretty sure the Obama administration didn't attempt to sway the outcome in the last Israeli election, the State Department didn't funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the opposition party of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations "One Voice".

Yes, you are right. We aren't a world player trying to sway anything.

This is where we chant - we're number one! we're number one! we're number one!
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

My point, which you're ignoring, is that the president makes the policy, not the CIA, NSA, etc. Would the CIA have overthrown Iran's democratic government to install the Shah unless Eisenhower wanted it?
I am totally against many of the CIA's actions, and the last to shout we're #1, but the president is in charge and has to take the responsibility.

[dobrojim]

I'm old enough to remember all the shoddy journalism, poorly sourced stories, and flat out false reports related to the Watergate scandal, and also all the dismissals that any of it could be true because it all sounded so outlandish, so tinhorn, like the acts of 3rd world country petty tyrants. Somewhere within the spectrum of reporting on this current situation, with "journalists" rushing to slap a headline on every crumb of slightly new sounding factoid, regardless of how verified it is, it feels like a solid body of actual, verifiable, damning evidence may be coalescing. Kind of like Watergate, but instead of a dynamic duo leading the charge, it's a reporting free-for-all, with a lot of noise, amateurism, and what could be termed "fake news" coming from fringes of the spectrum.

I don't follow these scandals as closely as some of you apparently do, but if I simply dismiss all reporting of the Trump administration as unreliable, I'm still left with Trump himself, all his public statements, tweets, etc., along with statements made by his press secretary (we need to start calling him "Spice Rack"), and numerous other administration officials and proxies. That's enough for me to reinforce everything I thought about him before he was elected. So far, he still looks like a disaster.

I remember Nixon still had a cadre of true believers/supporters up to the day he resigned.
Even afterwards in fact. One of the most damaging cultural/societal aspects of Watergate was
how mainstream cynicism became. Nixon's supporters just made the rationalization that everyone
did it and Nixon's only real problem was that he got caught.

Further evidence of a fact of human nature. No one wants to discover that what they fervently
believe could possibly be misguided or untrue.

How many apply the same level of skepticism to new information that confirms what
they already believe as to what contradicts what they already believe.

[sfam]

What are these guys smoking?

Facts

[dckingsfan]

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

Okay then, I will stand down.

Just not willing to do the research in to what we did in say, Syria (of course Obama got his arse whooped there). Or the CIA paying Hamid Karzai (Bush). Because those issues would be rationalized as not being political warfare.

And if I brought up the shah of Iran - that would be something that is beyond recent memory. How did that one turn out for us - ugh.

And not CIA - but I could have sworn our president said something about Brexit?

And I am pretty sure the Obama administration didn't attempt to sway the outcome in the last Israeli election, the State Department didn't funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the opposition party of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations "One Voice".

Yes, you are right. We aren't a world player trying to sway anything.

This is where we chant - we're number one! we're number one! we're number one!
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

My point, which you're ignoring, is that the president makes the policy, not the CIA, NSA, etc. Would the CIA have overthrown Iran's democratic government to install the Shah unless Eisenhower wanted it?
I am totally against many of the CIA's actions, and the last to shout we're #1, but the president is in charge and has to take the responsibility.

Okay - show me a president that didn't meddle? Clearly not one in our lifetime. And by extension the CIA, State Department, etc.

[sfam]

Down to a nutshell. I don't believe we are just like Russia. And therein lies the false equivalence. I don't think the US is out murdering their own people. We have a democracy.

Do I think the CIA does what the CIA does - no question. Do I think you know what the CIA does - not a chance.

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

One minor point, depending on your perspective, the CIA is doing objectionable things in the present, but they most likely are not influencing elections. Their mission has changed.

My comment about the CIA murdering random foreigners is a fact - something they currently do today. What else do you call it when a planned US drone strike explodes on a building in a country we are not at war with? There are like 7 countries or so this type of thing happens. We are not at war with Yemen, or Somalia, or Libya, or Pakistan, yet civilians have been killed there due to US drone strikes. Yes, Obama significantly tightened the rules and personally approved the strikes (I believe Trump has already loosened these restrictions), but they still ended up resulting in civilian deaths. More than that, you talk to those affected, its the sound of drones overhead that terrorize whole regions. The question among those affected with loved ones killed is whether this is a terrorist act or a murder.

This is also a perfect example of a rational President encountering the reality of a really horrible global situation. Obama was totally against drone strikes. It just so happened when he looked at the options, his options seemed to come down to physical incursion with human assets, simply ignoring the verified terrorist activity (training location or validated location of a high value target, etc), or the use of drone strikes. Whether we consider these judicious or not, they have resulted in hundreds if not thousands of civilian deaths, and have terrorized the countryside where their high pitched sounds reign supreme.

[dckingsfan]

I think we very much tried to influence the Israeli elections... just saying.

But the larger point is - we should also assume someone is going to try to influence our elections. And maybe the larger point above that - should we be continuing to try to influence the world? (I think the Obama and Trump elections make me think that if you tell the American public that you are going to pull out of world affairs and focus on the US, you will win)

The question is: what are we going to do about it? (right now, the chickens in government are just running around in circles)

[sfam]

I've only worked with the intel community for a good 10 years or so and have only actually been to Langley once for meetings, so you're right, I don't really know in detail what the CIA does. Maybe you're an ex-CIA agent with lots more experience in these matters, murdering foreigners and destabilizing regimes and the like. I'm still hoping they are using alien technology though.

Agree with you on this whole argument. The one making accusations has to provide the proof.
So the CIA has done objectionable (depending on point of view) things in the past. That's not a predictor. The CIA is part of the executive branch reporting to the president. If the president OKs meddling in specific foreign elections, it will happen. If they're opposed, it will not.
As someone who worked there a long time, I can definitely say that being does not give you any knowledge of clandestine activities, or even more mundane stuff. It's strictly "need to know". Especially since Ames, when he got much of his information after he left his previous group just by asking his old buddies.
Several times I had good friends that went to other assignments, and could tell me absolutely nothing of their new work. This wasn't even spy type stuff - just subjects in the technology area.

Okay then, I will stand down.

Just not willing to do the research in to what we did in say, Syria (of course Obama got his arse whooped there). Or the CIA paying Hamid Karzai (Bush). Because those issues would be rationalized as not being political warfare.

And if I brought up the shah of Iran - that would be something that is beyond recent memory. How did that one turn out for us - ugh.

And not CIA - but I could have sworn our president said something about Brexit?

And I am pretty sure the Obama administration didn't attempt to sway the outcome in the last Israeli election, the State Department didn't funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to the opposition party of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations "One Voice".

Yes, you are right. We aren't a world player trying to sway anything.

This is where we chant - we're number one! we're number one! we're number one!
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections

The US definitely engages in civil society capacity building and all that entails. National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, International Foundation for Election Systems and others try to strengthen democratic institutions, engage in political party strengthening, civic engagement, outreach to increase voting totals and all the rest regarding elections.

This is pretty different I think from hacking candidates' emails and strategically releasing them, or pushing out fake news to target potential vulnerabilities in coalitions (between Bernie and Hillary supporters, for instance). Overtly sway things by increasing democratic institutions and strengthening civil society and basic democratic principles like the freedom of the press, yes, absolutely.

Unfortunately, not so much any more. This is all that wasteful development funding Trump is cutting.

Incidentally, other than Americans, I've never met anyone anywhere who claims their country is the greatest country on earth. And most who say that in the US don't have a passport.

EDIT: RE - your Shah of Iran comment is a great example. We suck at that choosing foreign leaders. I don't know of a case where it turned out well for us. I'm sure there is one but I can't think of it.