The Fifth Estate: Putin, the FBI and Donald Trump

[Thomas Graves]

18 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Steve,

What specific "news sources" do you like, Steve?

Question: Do you believe that Putin's FSB (or SVR?) "Cozy Bear", and Putin's GRU "Fancy Bear"..... hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and that those e-mails were then passed on to WIKILEAKS and DCLEAKS by Putin's Guccifer 2.0 so that said e-mails would be released incrementally by semi-plausibly Western "news" sources during the last weeks of the campaign, you know, in order to get Putin's "useful idiot" Trump elected?  

 Or not?  Not, right?

--  Tommy

augmented and bumped

Edited May 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said:

Address my post before we go off reservation...

Don't tell me what to do, Steve.

You could as least say "Please".

LOL

But you didn't, did you.

I didn't think you'd tell me and I was correct, evidently.

--  Tommy

Edited May 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

For Steve Rymer 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=2

--  Tommy

[Steve Rymer]

Sorry Tommy,

This isn't even a conversation.

You post and then before I even respond you introduce a completely unrelated post.

You then make assumptions about my response or lack of and go off on a tangent.

I replied to a post about Comey(and his credibility). You introduce the concept of fake news. I provide a justification for my opinion. You introduce the FSB and Guccifer. You then offer an unsubstantiated theory about Wikileaks, how they operate and their motivations.

All the while "bumping" your last post to get a response.

By suggesting you "Address my post before we go off reservation..." I was attempting to keep you on track.

And yes, I should have said "Please".

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Steve Rymer said:

Sorry Tommy,

This isn't even a conversation.

You post and then before I even respond you introduce a completely unrelated post.

You then make assumptions about my response or lack of and go off on a tangent.

I replied to a post about Comey(and his credibility). You introduce the concept of fake news. I provide a justification for my opinion. You introduce the FSB and Guccifer. You then offer an unsubstantiated theory about Wikileaks, how they operate and their motivations.

All the while "bumping" your last post to get a response.

By suggesting you "Address my post before we go off reservation..." I was attempting to keep you on track.

And yes, I should have said "Please".

Dear Steve,

Well put!

Almost ... lyrical.

Uh ..... What were we talking about?

--  Tommy

[Michael Clark]

5 hours ago, Steve Rymer said:

A Wikipedia page referencing a 'dossier' containing "unverified allegations" first published unchecked by Buzzfeed and ........

..................

Now the establishment is trying to correct that.

Steve

Steve, you are covering too much ground there. There really is no room for a kind of debate that is not found everywhere on the internet. There are 20ish individual items in there that could be debated. 

Each item, however, is couched in a blurb of debatable items, and is therefore incoherent. 

Cheers,

Michael

I am hoping that this subforum can be a little different than what is seen everywhere else. 

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

4 hours ago, Steve Rymer said:

 

To anyone that does not hate Trump (on a personal level) and is prepared to take a reasoned look at the situation (not the events). 

Steve

Steve, This may be impolite, but I am kind of vetting you for your sincerity, with this question.

Please share you're fillings and opinions about a few things regarding Trump, the person. I Won't completely define the question but I'll say that I would like to hear what you think about Trumps intelligence, maturity and his fitness to lead this country.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Steve Rymer]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Steve, This may be impolite, but I am kind of vetting you for your sincerity, with this question.

Please share you're fillings and opinions about a few things regarding Trump, the person. I Won't completely define the question but I'll say that I would like to hear what you think about Trumps intelligence, maturity and his fitness to lead this country.

Cheers,

Michael

 

Not impolite at all Michael,

I actually don't think it's relevant (not my opinion), but Trump's suitability. He was elected and that should be enough. But, I will answer.

Is he smarter than Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Maxine Waters? Yes, I would say so. He has a different kind of intelligence and yes, his lack of political and geopolitical knowledge worries me. It makes for an easily led president. He did run a business empire and that must count for something.

As for maturity. I don't see a lack of it. I see a non-politician and non-media savvy president. He's prepared to say it like he sees it - one of the reasons his supporters voted for him. They are sick of the lying, obfuscating and deceptive practices of the current batch of politicians. He's not a procrastinating, teleprompter reading, think-tank consulting autobot. Does he have access to those? Yes. Does he use them all the time to create a false public persona. No, I don't think so. I do know he represents a big threat to a lot of people (the Media, incumbent politicians etc).

He puts his foot in his mouth. He says the wrong thing. Voters looking for real change (not an advertising slogan) - like that.

Fitness to lead his country. Presidents rarely lead the country. Perhaps this explains some of the animosity the establishment have towards him. Maybe he became president stupidly believing he would run the show. Well, he's learning the hard way. There is no real democracy.

I don't want you to think I'm pro-Trump, I'm not. I'm actually a political atheist (new term invented by me). I think the whole process is a PR exercise.

I'm actually pro-principal:

Can any old Joe Bloggs get elected?

Is the process simply about money and friendly media coverage(paid for)?

Can an outsider really make a difference or will we be trapped in this pro-war, pro-globalization, pro-neo liberal economics, pro-open border game forever?

I would argue just the same for a left-wing outsider.

Steve

Edited May 19, 2017 by Steve Rymer

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Steve Rymer said:

Not impolite at all Michael,

I actually don't think it's relevant (not my opinion), but Trump's suitability.....

........

I would argue just the same for a left-wing outsider.

Steve

Steve, thanks for the reply. Since, again, there is a lot to unpack in there, I'll avoid a point-counterpoint or list of concurring and agreeing opinions.

Id be glad to respond to any questions of a more-narrow scope, but I carry no pretense as to the importance of my opinions. I am just saying that I am a willing participant in a polite, reciprocal discussion.

Cheers,

Michael

[Steve Rymer]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Steve, thanks for the reply. Since, again, there is a lot to unpack in there, I'll avoid a point-counterpoint or list of concurring and agreeing opinions.

Id be glad to respond to any questions of a more-narrow scope, but I carry no pretense as to the importance of my opinions. I am just saying that I am a willing participant in a polite, reciprocal discussion.

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

Same question to you?

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Ryder - 

14 hours ago, Steve Rymer said:

Hello all,

Not been on this site for some 11 years, but thought I would dip in and take a look.

Can't really believe what I am seeing.

Specifically:

1. Politics is a dog-and-pony PR exercise designed to distract the population and provide the illusion of choice.
2. It is usually manipulated by the dominant state/local powers using a combination of propaganda, voting procedures, Gerry-mandering, systemic procedural tricks and fraud to return a 'business-as-usual' candidate.
3. Candidates are usually pre-vetted/pre-compromised or pre-purchased - or a combination thereof.
4. Plausible sociopaths are highly desirable. They can lie and invade other countries without remorse.

Many appear to believe Clinton would have been preferable to or better than Trump.

The level of infantile thinking required to buy into this is quite stunning.

Mr. Rymer,

of course Clinton would have been preferable. Or do you look forward to seeing the EPA gutted? Have you been fooled by your non mainstream media sources of information into believing that climate science is a hoax? 

In these times it's the Republican Party that has gerrymandered their way into the WH and into control of Congress. It's this party, the white man party if you will, that suppresses the vote. 

 

 

[Michael Clark]

41 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said:

Michael,

Same question to you?

Steve, fair enough.

-Regarding Trumps intelligence.

I'll have to divide that up into say, intelligence and (fishing for a word here, The selection of which will be insufficient due to haste) Savvy.

I see intelligence, for the sake of this post, as the ability to dig-into and understand a subject matter that is relevant in your efforts to meet certain goals. 

Savvy is your ability to make the best use of your findings given the real-world, on-the-ground, present realities.

I'll add two anecdotes here:

I recall a commercial for some enterprise that related to the finding of candidates for job positions. One candidate for a programming position told the hiring-folks: "I dream in code". The hiring folks said something to the affect of: "We found our guy"!

I also recall, back when I was a 16 Year-old, I became addicted to a particular video game. I became so obsessed that I started dreaming about playing that stupid game. I remember that my capability improved the more I dreamt about it. I soon renounced all video games, and still never touch them.

I am suggesting here that intelligence, beyond my above definition, gas to do with effectively coming to valid and useful solutions to problems, in your off-time, indeed in your sleep. If you don't have or or don't lead a balanced life, your dreams and obsessions can lead you to become seriously wanting as an individual or as a person who's responsibilities grow beyond the confines of, say, a video game console.

So I think that I have some level of intelligence such that some people would call me intelligent. I imagine that Donald Trump dreams of money and deals. I fear that he does not dream of much else; especially ethics, enlightened self-interest or the myriad of endeavors that are the focus of Humanism. 

So, yes, I think he is intelligent. That in itself does not mean much. Is he Savvy? In the world of his obsession, yes; i.e. Making money and deals.

I have found that I have a certain Savvy for video games. I am glad that I have abondoned that application of my intelligence and no longer nurture that savvy.

I will edit-in parts 2 and 3 of this post soon.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

14 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Ryder - 

Mr. Rymer,

of course Clinton would have been preferable. Or do you look forward to seeing the EPA gutted? Have you been fooled by your non mainstream media sources of information into believing that climate science is a hoax? 

In these times it's the Republican Party that has gerrymandered their way into the WH and into control of Congress. It's this party, the white man party if you will, that suppresses the vote. 

 

 

Regarding Gerrymandering:

I have always thought that congressional districts should be permanently re-drawn by watershed.

my 2 cents, 

Michael

[Steve Rymer]

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Ryder - 

Mr. Rymer,

of course Clinton would have been preferable. Or do you look forward to seeing the EPA gutted? Have you been fooled by your non mainstream media sources of information into believing that climate science is a hoax? 

In these times it's the Republican Party that has gerrymandered their way into the WH and into control of Congress. It's this party, the white man party if you will, that suppresses the vote. 

 

 

Hi Paul,

Steve will do fine.

I agree historically it's been the Republicans that have benefited most from dodgy dealing Bush 00', but this time Trump was universally despised within the party apparatus and I've not seen anyone claiming his vote was rigged. The white man party? Both parties are the "business party" with different colored ties. Both hold identical policies for the things that really matter(war, economics, globalization, immigration etc) whilst the republicans pretend to want to infringe on abortion rights whilst never really doing anything.

I didn't mention the EPA, but I will bite. The EPA has not really protected anything. They allow fracking, trans-national oil pipelines, exemptions under the clean air and water acts, they did not prevent the Flint water scandal (it was discovered by two local doctors who used their own money for tests) and many, many more. They are on the opposite side of every issue except the odd annexation of land to save an endangered species. I am such a cynic I believe all such agencies (EPA,FDA etc) are there to give the illusion of oversight whilst giving the public someone to vent to and allowing corporations to pay small fines for infractions. They are not really testing the water or air and impose standards agreed by the people they are supposed to regulate.

Climate science is a big one and Yes, I do believe it's crap. Will expound if requested.

"Clinton would have been preferable". Really. She's a republican in all, but name. She's very pro war (Libya, Pivot to Asia, supported Iraq), has taken money from all the people democrats despise, opposes single payer, did not believe in Gay marriage(she does now - apparently), cites Robert Byrd as a mentor and was actually a Republican in her formative years. She is so well known for her lies that Democratic audiences would laugh at suggestions of her honesty. She is everything that is wrong with US politics.

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Steve Rymer]

18 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Steve, fair enough.

-Regarding Trumps intelligence.

I'll have to divide that up into say, intelligence and (fishing for a word here, The selection of which will be insufficient due to haste) Savvy.

I see intelligence, for the sake of this post, as the ability to dig-into and understand a subject matter that is relevant in your efforts to meet certain goals. 

I'll add two anecdotes here:

I recall a commercial for some enterprise that related to the finding of candidates for job positions. One candidate for a programming position told the hiring-folks: "I dream in code". The hiring folks said something to the affect of: "We found our guy"!

I also recall, back when I was a 16 Year-old, I became addicted to a particular video game. I became so obsessed that I started dreaming about playing that stupid game. I remember that my capability improved the more I dreamt about it. I soon renounced all video games, and still never touch them.

I am suggesting here that intelligence, beyond my above definition, gas to do with effectively coming to valid and useful solutions to problems, in your off-time, indeed in your sleep. If you don't have or or don't lead a balanced life, your dreams and obsessions can lead you to become seriously wanting as an individual or as a person who's responsibilities grow beyond the confines of, say, a video game console.

So I think that I have some level of intelligence such that some people would call me intelligent. I imagine that Donald Trump dreams of money and deals. I fear that he does not dream of much else; especially ethics, enlightened self-interest or the myriad of endeavors that are the focus of Humanism. 

So, yes, I think he is intelligent and Savvy. That in itself does not mean much.

I will edit-in parts 2 and 3 of this post soon.

Agreed. Savvy and moderately intelligent in a specific way.

I also agree he probably dreams of deals and share your opinion of business ethics, but he's not really done anything yet. I doubt he will use his position to line his pockets - that comes after holding office, but he's already rich.

My concern is he lacks the knowledge to not be led all over the place.