Trump was briefed that Putin had personally ordered election hack, 2 weeks before inauguration!

[jnug]

Cute rant, irrelevant to my post, but cute :roll:

Really...the thread seems to have meandered off to issues of what Obama should have said and didn't say from a thread title: "Trump was briefed that Putin had personally ordered election hack"

Clearly you are making a whataboutism comment in response claiming that "Obama refused to inform the public" Well the President that is in the thread title (Trump) refuses to inform the public. I have no obligation to you to answer in the context YOU want when you have meandered away from the thread title into whataboutism. Best you get is a tie between the two Presidents on that score.

 

[ataraxia]

You just can't seem to get it through your head, Obama is the only one who refused to inform the public. That was his responsibility.

OK. So now what is a trump doing about it?

 

[hanger4]

Really...the thread seems to have meandered off to issues of what Obama should have said and didn't say from a thread title: "Trump was briefed that Putin had personally ordered election hack"

Clearly you are making a whataboutism comment in response claiming that "Obama refused to inform the public" Well the President that is in the thread title (Trump) refuses to inform the public. I have no obligation to you to answer in the context YOU want when you have meandered away from the thread title into whataboutism. Best you get is a tie between the two Presidents on that score.

You clearly have no clue as to the convo I was engaged in with a couple of other posters.

 

[jnug]

You clearly have no clue as to the convo I was engaged in with a couple of other posters.

I saw the posts and I saw your post. You were engaged in whataboutism....obviously. At any rate it hardly matters. You wanted to make the point that Obama didn't inform the public. Bully for you. Trump doesn't inform the public either.

 

[hanger4]

OK. So now what is a trump doing about it?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...rity-cybersecurity-hacking-russia-china-iran/

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....-sends-cyber-warfare-strategy-to-congress?amp

https://www.politico.com/newsletter...budget-could-again-boost-cybersecurity-100465

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....urity-trump-budget-blueprint-includes-33b?amp

 

[hanger4]

I saw the posts and I saw your post. You were engaged in whataboutism....obviously. At any rate it hardly matters. You wanted to make the point that Obama didn't inform the public. Bully for you. Trump doesn't inform the public either.

I was making the point that McConnell is not the reason Obama didn't inform the public. It seems a few posters believe McConnell actually blocked Obama from doing so, silly ain't it ??

 

[trixare4kids]

I was making the point that McConnell is not the reason Obama didn't inform the public. It seems a few posters believe McConnell actually blocked Obama from doing so, silly ain't it ??

It's just another silly lie, another day.
It's all there, if they would just do some independent research instead of regurgitating the echo chamber's faux talking points.

 

[jnug]

I was making the point that McConnell is not the reason Obama didn't inform the public. It seems a few posters believe McConnell actually blocked Obama from doing so, silly ain't it ??

I have already commented on that in an effort to get posters to stop trying to defend the indefensible. While Trump has been horrible as a President and has been worse then Obama with regard to this entire Russian Interference issue, IMO Obama's response is indefensible and trying to defend against an Obama whataboutism argument is simply not fruitful as its not a winning argument.

Obama's behavior seems far afield from the thread title which got off topic because folks insist on whatabouting threads and other posters who would be better served simply calling the whataboutism what it is and then bringing the thread back at least within range of the topic instead decide to discuss the credibility of the whataboutism. The thread was about Trump and what Trump knew about Putin and what he did about it. At least discussing what Trump says about Putin is somewhere in the vicinity of the thread. So I guess I should congratulate you for being able to dupe posters into playing this whataboutism game with you. But that is what you were doing.

 

[Parrish]

Does it not matter to all Americans that Russia were actively trying to subvert our democracy? Not even mentioning that our elected government and members of the administration may be obstructing the investigation.

 

[beefheart]

Does it not matter to all Americans that Russia were actively trying to subvert our democracy? Not even mentioning that our elected government and members of the administration may be obstructing the investigation.

Not to the rubes and the wingnut cultists....they love party over liberty.

 

[Parrish]

Not to the rubes and the wingnut cultists....they love party over liberty.

And then they try to obfuscate the facts and defame our intelligence community who actually proved the actions by the GRU after Mueller's team divulged sources and methods in the indictment of Putin's agents.

 

[Fletch]

Oh wow... All the right-wing tools of the country would be neck deep in World Nut Daily posts of conspiracies had Obama done any different.

Yes, those are the left wing talking points, but they are completely false. You are simply being a left wing tool running interference for your cult leader who allowed 'a hostile foreign power to attack our democracy' while he did nothing. Rather than simply admit this obvious truth, you dishonestly blame others for his cowardice and inaction.

 

[Fletch]

Does it not matter to all Americans that Russia were actively trying to subvert our democracy? Not even mentioning that our elected government and members of the administration may be obstructing the investigation.

It doesn't seem to matter to you that this happened under Obama and he said and did nothing about it. And no one is obstructing the investigation, so you can drop your phony outrage.

 

[Parrish]

It doesn't seem to matter to you that this happened under Obama and he said and did nothing about it. And no one is obstructing the investigation, so you can drop your phony outrage.

Fletch, respectfully, bugger off.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, respectfully, bugger off.

Respectfully, no. You don't get to silence the opposition here.

 

[Parrish]

Respectfully, no. You don't get to silence the opposition here.

Oh, my.

 

[Excon]

You're still not getting it. It does not matter what you thing about Confidence based scoring vs Certainty based scoring nor even what you think of US Government Agencies using Confidence based scoring. US Government Agencies only use Confidence based scoring. So you are never going to see the words you are looking for in a Government Assessment. It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact the US Government Agencies use Confidence based scoring. Your point is not a point at all. Who cares about some abstract argument about what might be. Its a total hypothetical detached from reality.

If any organization only uses Confidence based scoring the best you are ever going to see is High Confidence. Not only is High Confidence the best you are going to see you will also never see the assessment read "We would like to call this a Certainty but we only use Confidence Based Scoring. You get what you get. Arguing that there is a sliver of a chance that the Assessment is poorly made or inaccurate or should be questioned because the Agency does not use Certainty based scoring is absurd. Its a complete misread of how US Government agencies function.

Hilarious.
No. It is you who are not getting it. Which appears to be purposeful and just a continuation of your previous dishonesty.

This is about an article with assertions based on anonymous sources which do not fit the with the publicly released Assessment.
Period. You can't change that.
Something that has been proven isn't assessed, but would be stated as fact.

Who cares about your damn sliver between High Confidence and Certainty. Your sliver would only matter if US Government agencies used Certainty based scoring as well. Then you could argue that the assessment did not go all the way to Certainty. In the case of US Government agencies there is no chance of seeing Certainty because it is a scoring system that they don't use. It would be like questioning a grade of A+ vs 100 on a test. If the school only uses A+ through F scoring you get what you get and whining that your A+ might not actually satisfy your desire to see a score of 100 is not going to get you anywhere.

Oy vey! More hilarity.
They do use certainty based assessment ("scoring") in regards to judgements of likelihood of occurrence... and again, let me quote what was previously provided ...

Intelligence Community judgments often include two important elements: judgments of how likely it is that something has happened or will happen (using terms such as “likely” or “unlikely”)​

The following you were also provided to show your arguments are absurd.

The only problem here is your ignorance of what you speak.
That they use "Nearly certain" or "Almost certainly" at the end of the scale only confirms that.
They do not need to scale something proven, as it is fact and would be spoken to as such.

The articles assertions based on anonymous sources is not supported by the Assessment which was made after the fact of what the anonymous sources claim.

 

[hanger4]

I have already commented on that in an effort to get posters to stop trying to defend the indefensible. While Trump has been horrible as a President and has been worse then Obama with regard to this entire Russian Interference issue, IMO Obama's response is indefensible and trying to defend against an Obama whataboutism argument is simply not fruitful as its not a winning argument.

Obama's behavior seems far afield from the thread title which got off topic because folks insist on whatabouting threads and other posters who would be better served simply calling the whataboutism what it is and then bringing the thread back at least within range of the topic instead decide to discuss the credibility of the whataboutism. The thread was about Trump and what Trump knew about Putin and what he did about it. At least discussing what Trump says about Putin is somewhere in the vicinity of the thread. So I guess I should congratulate you for being able to dupe posters into playing this whataboutism game with you. But that is what you were doing.

I duped nobody jnug, I corrected.

 

[jnug]

Hilarious.
No. It is you who are not getting it. Which appears to be purposeful and just a continuation of your previous dishonesty.

This is about an article with assertions based on anonymous sources which do not fit the with the publicly released Assessment.
Period. You can't change that.
Something that has been proven isn't assessed, but would be stated as fact.


Oy vey! More hilarity.
They do use certainty based assessment ("scoring") in regards to judgements of likelihood of occurrence... and again, let me quote what was previously provided ...

Intelligence Community judgments often include two important elements: judgments of how likely it is that something has happened or will happen (using terms such as “likely” or “unlikely”)​

The following you were also provided to show your arguments are absurd.

​

The only problem here is your ignorance of what you speak.
That they use "Nearly certain" or "Almost certainly" at the end of the scale only confirms that.
They do not need to scale something proven, as it is fact and would be spoken to as such.

The articles assertions based on anonymous sources is not supported by the Assessment which was made after the fact of what the anonymous sources claim.

You are still not doing more than complaining about the processes of US Government agencies. I will say this much, if you went to Washington and made the case that they should use Certainty Based Scoring in US Government Assessments you would be laughed out of the place by noon, probably by 10:00am. THEY DON"T USE IT and not recognizing that turns your entire argument into a pure hypothetical entirely detached from reality. You are as a consequence just whining...pissing into the breeze.

I suspect that if you don't like the scoring system your school uses, you would be left with the same alternatives.

 

[poweRob]

Yes, those are the left wing talking points, but they are completely false. You are simply being a left wing tool running interference for your cult leader who allowed 'a hostile foreign power to attack our democracy' while he did nothing. Rather than simply admit this obvious truth, you dishonestly blame others for his cowardice and inaction.

You are lying because all you are doing is parrotting your messiah's, traitor trump's, word. The Obama administration simply didn't handle it reality tv show style that you like and are used to.

Fact Check: Did The Obama Administration Respond To Election Interference By Russia?​

Damned if he did. Damned if he didn't. Either way, you'd be in here like this lying your ass off to pivot blame away from your dear leader.

 

[Parrish]

Why would anyone here in the Unites States take the word of Putin against our government?

 

[jnug]

Why would anyone here in the Unites States take the word of Putin against our government?

Posters here and Americans generally should think long and hard about that one!

 

[Fletch]

You are lying because all you are doing is parrotting your messiah's, traitor trump's, word. The Obama administration simply didn't handle it reality tv show style that you like and are used to.

Fact Check: Did The Obama Administration Respond To Election Interference By Russia?​

Damned if he did. Damned if he didn't. Either way, you'd be in here like this lying your ass off to pivot blame away from your dear leader.

So desperate are you to defend your messiah that you have to resort to attacking me. I didn't post any lies. Its not my fault you make crappy arguments. The idea that your defense of the man doing nothing is because some anonymous voice on the internet might criticize him is hackish and pathetic.

 

[Excon]

You are still not doing more than complaining about the processes of US Government agencies. I will say this much, if you went to Washington and made the case that they should use Certainty Based Scoring in US Government Assessments you would be laughed out of the place by noon, probably by 10:00am. THEY DON"T USE IT and not recognizing that turns your entire argument into a pure hypothetical entirely detached from reality. You are as a consequence just whining...pissing into the breeze.

I suspect that if you don't like the scoring system your school uses, you would be left with the same alternatives.

You are engaged in purposeful dishonesty in debate by avoiding the information you were given and the arguments made based on that information which show you to be wrong.

The articles assertions based on anonymous sources is not supported by the Assessment which was made after the fact of what the anonymous sources claim and you haven't been able to show otherwise, which of course is why I can only assume your dishonesty and deflection is purposeful.

 

[jnug]

You are engaged in purposeful dishonesty in debate by avoiding the information you were given and the arguments made based on that information which show you to be wrong.

The articles assertions based on anonymous sources is not supported by the Assessment which was made after the fact of what the anonymous sources claim and you haven't been able to show otherwise, which of course is why I can only assume your dishonesty and deflection is purposeful.

And you are avoiding continually the plain and very simple fact that US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO NOT USE CERTAINTY BASED SCORING.

In fact, there was a panel this weekend involving several agencies of US government involved in Cyber Security and Cyber Security assessments and time and time again the scoring system used by US Government agencies was referenced and time and time again it was plainly obvious that it was all Confidence Based Scoring.