Jump to content

SmokeyTheBear

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SmokeyTheBear

  1. 3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    So I’m hearing that defense of Biden, in the good bad and ugly, is a defensive maneuver against the right wings that want to tear Biden down or erode his brand and reputation, for political reasons. That makes sense. Politics is a war zone with two competing armies in 2021.

    If you want to characterize it like that, sure. This is a message board with random users posting shit that we get to poke at, discuss, add context and perspective to. As users, you start learning about other users and how they view the world and the context to which they post stuff. Some poke at others in that regard. So within this site, yes it's political war. But guess what, this was developed over decades by media companies and political parties with the zenith being Trump, who made it be his supporters as the true patriots and all others as enemies. That hasn't happened before and thinking that the politics of the day are the politics historically (in America), you are gravely mistaken. Trump was voted in to break the system and now we are to believe that the Biden administration is following suit? Based on what evidence? Pee tapes, Russia Russia Russia, whatever BS lens you try to view the opposition thru is perpetuaring that schism by equating Trumps actions to all others and normalizing it. See annies arguments. Biden took sanctions away for an ally yet added even more sanctions to Russia for their misdeeds. Does that sound like Biden is acquiescing to Putin? 

    Personally I think we should sanction the shit out of Russia but I also am not privy to all the info Biden and team have and the pressures from allies. I don't get to sit in the daily briefings but glad that this President is actually doing so and trust that he can strategize how to deal with Russia better than someone who was their most powerful defender.

    Politics is rarely black and white yet there are those trying to make it so. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  2. Just now, Anastasis said:

    Amazing that you guys just can’t acknowledge the obvious. 

    That Biden removed sanctions but also added even more sanctions and that means he is in Putins pocket just like Trump? But not like Trump because there was nothing between Russia and Trump? 

  3. 2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Why does everything have to be measured and benchmarked against Trump? Is it because when benchmarked against “satisfactory”, it doesn’t clear the mark? So then one must resort to “but it’s miles better and different than what the flunkie was doing!”

    I saw this a lot with the border stuff too with the detainees.

    Is it a thin defense because it’s your team? Is it because GQP is yelling “hypocrite” or “samesies!” every time Biden does something politically mediocre or both?

    It's because a group of people decided to be a blind defender to all of Trump's and GOP's failings, which were immense, especially compared to just about any other President or party ever. So yes, if you were OK with the strategy of ripping families apart and losing who belongs to who, as a strategy against immigrants coming here, and then later make sure to tweet any little gaff the current President makes, fuck that. 

    We hit a major low with Trump. Trying to tear down the next person to try and fix the things he tore apart seems a bit disingenuous 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Straw man on top of straw man just cause y’all dipshits can’t recognize Biden acquiescing to Putin’s interests cause it breaks your brains. 

    Speaking of broken brains, explain how adding sanctions to Putin equals acquiescing to Putin? 

    Bonus round: what is the technique of debate you use when consistently bringing up pee tapes? 

    • Haha 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I was told it was all pee pee tapes and Russian leverage but now we appreciate the wide world of diplomacy. Clowns. 

    You created that box for us. No one stated it was purely pee pee tapes and money laundering leverage. That just helps you both sides the argument. However, those could still be in play, along with a wide range of other factors. Again, context matters. But yes, let's disregard how inept the Trump Admin was at just about everything, including diplomacy. Side note : I'm especially surprised that you are a Bolton defender now. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  6. Yes, one of our main allies conviced us to remove sanctions that would benefit them. Do we know if we got something for that change? No. But maybe we did. Or maybe we traded sanctions and that was it. Diplomacy and shit. But don't act like the Biden Admin is in some way identical to the Trump Admin in regards to diplomacy with our allies and our adversaries. 

    spacer.png

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. Wait, did Biden get rid of ALL the sanctions on Russia? Or just one, with the explanation that it was pretty much pointless because the gasline was near finished. Did he also get rid of the sanctions he put on Russia this past April? Remind us when Biden told the world he trusted Putin more than his own government. Let's both sides this Ana. We all like to revel at your MO in action. 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  8. 12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I know right. People will believe just about any nonsense given certain predisposing factors.

    Honestly, I think Biden should apologize to Putin for making up the whole Russia meddling in our election thing. It was all just a MSM and intelligence conspiracy that we all (oops, I mean most, you are obviously the exception) fell for. It's amazing how you stay above the fray. Do you think we should drop sanctions on them too? 

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/us/politics/russian-bounties-nsc.html

    Quote

     In early 2020, members of a Taliban-linked criminal network in Afghanistan detained in raids told interrogators that they had heard that Russians were offering money to reward killings of American and coalition troops.

    The claim, that Russia was trying to pay to generate more frequent attacks on Western forces, was stunning, particularly because the United States was trying at the same time to negotiate a deal with the Taliban to end the long-running war in Afghanistan. C.I.A. analysts set out to see whether they could corroborate or debunk the detainees’ accounts.

    Ultimately, newly declassified information shows, those analysts discovered a significant reason to believe the claim was accurate: Other members of the same Taliban-linked network had been working closely with operatives from a notorious unit of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, known for assassination operations.

    “The involvement of this G.R.U. unit is consistent with Russia encouraging attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan given its leading role in such lethal and destabilizing operations abroad,” the National Security Council said in a statement provided to The New York Times.

    The statement was originally drafted and declassified to serve as talking points for officials to use in briefing reporters last month about U.S. sanctions and other punishments against Russia. The White House took diplomatic action — delivering a warning and demanding an explanation for suspicious activities — about the bounty issue, but did not base sanctions on it. The Biden administration did impose sanctions for Russia’s SolarWinds hacking and election interference.

    In briefing reporters, a senior administration official noted that the intelligence community had assessed with “low to moderate confidence” that Russia had offered bounties. The official, focusing on other complex issues, skipped over most of the newly declassified information that had been prepared to explain what the government knew about the bounty issue.

    Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020. But The Times had reported last summer that different intelligence agencies, while agreeing on the assessment itself, disagreed on whether to put medium or lower confidence in it. The evidence available to analysts — both alarming facts and frustrating gaps — essentially remains the same.

    The release of the full talking points as a statement is the government’s most detailed public explanation yet about how the C.I.A. came to the judgment that Russia had most likely offered financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops. It also sheds new light on the gaps in the evidence that raised greater concerns among other analysts.

    In the world of intelligence analysis, moderate confidence means the judgment was based on information deemed to be credibly sourced and plausible. Low confidence flags significant concerns about the quality of the sourcing underlying a judgment.

    In the case of the bounty intelligence, officials have said the surveillance-focused National Security Agency more sharply discounted its confidence in the assessment — to “low” — because of a key gap. It had not intercepted any smoking-gun electronic communication about a bounty plot. (The Defense Intelligence Agency shares that view, while the National Counterterrorism Center agrees with the C.I.A.’s “moderate” level, officials have said.)

    But the statement reveals that despite that disagreement over how to rate the quality of available information underlying the core assessment, the intelligence community also had “high confidence” — meaning the judgment is based on high-quality information from multiple sources — in the key circumstantial evidence: Strong ties existed between Russian operatives and the Afghan network where the bounty claims arose.

    “We have independently verified the ties of several individuals in this network to Russia,” the National Security Council statement said. It added, “Multiple sources have confirmed that elements of this criminal network worked for Russian intelligence for over a decade and traveled to Moscow in April 2019.”

    The declassified statement also opened a window into American officials’ understanding of the Russian operatives, known as Unit 29155 of the G.R.U. The government has previously resisted talking openly about the group, although a Times investigation in 2019 linked it to various operations, citing Western security officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    By contrast, the National Security Council statement identified other “nefarious operations” around the world that the government thought the squad had carried out — to explain why the discovery of its involvement with the Afghan network was seen as bolstering the credibility of the detainees’ claims about Russian bounties.

    “We have a strong body of evidence of the activities of this G.R.U. unit,” the statement said, accusing it of “a plot to violently disrupt Montenegro’s legislative election in 2016,” of the 2018 poisoning of a former G.R.U. officer, Sergei V. Skripal, in Salisbury, England, and of “assassinations across Europe.”

     

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Haha 2
  9. 12 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    I don't know if that sounds like a libertarian utopia or not, I'm not a political libertarian. I apologize for using the term as it's one that is obviously very loaded--what I was meaning to convey is that I'm neither pro nor anti-CRT at this point in my understanding of it. I will float on whichever way the current decides to go once the storm is over.

    Your post though helped me to understand why it's such a big deal in June of 2021-- there are things at stake. It's not an academic/framework conversation-- that's a ruse. It's a class war. B_T is right.

    Anyways, I'll float on now.

     

    There is always a war against the powerful, because the powerful are not always looking out for the collective. And often times counter what is good for the collective in furtherance of more power. That's what a democracy should mitigate. America was built so that each individual had their inalienable rights but we currently do not live in a time where that is true for all because the few who are in power. Apathy towards the power, grows the power. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 9 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    You have misread me. I'm not advocating for anything here today. I'm just trying to say I now I understand why this is a political football the last 30 days.

    I'm not pro or anti-CRT. I am more libertarian on the topic-- I guess more "not a racist, than anti-racist", if you will. You want CRT, great for it. You don't? great go for it. Vote with your feet and wallets.

    So you believe that there have been unjust historical events that have led to certain power structures? 

    That those power structures disproportionately negatively impact some races and favor others?

    That by perpetuating these power structures, these disproportionate impacts on certain races will only strengthen? 

    But you're so "libertarian" that you would rather live - let - live? Because by not advocating for the opposition of those structures, you advocate for them. 

    You said you had kids; what do you think the long term ramifications of these systems if they keep going in perpetuity? Increased wealth disparity, increased poverty (thus increased crime), further limiting of votes of the people in favor of votes of the big businesses (and their 0.1% owners), etc. Does that sound like a libertarian utopia to you? 

     

  11. 39 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Man your post unlocked something for me.

    We agree that CRT is about understanding why. Everyone agrees with that; "it's just a framework" we say, in and of itself it is value neutral.

    But you added a follow-on. It's the next step action items that is the heart of the division. You say it as "...and then address it." That implication-- an action based off of learnings from CRT-- is what makes it not value neutral, but positive for those who are fighting for change and negative for those who are negatively impacted by change. Thus: a division and issue to fight over!

    I've read a lot about CRT over the last 30 days and read every post on this thread from mostly people whose politics I don't wholly agree with and my takeaway is:

    It makes 100% sense why this is something that is fought over, because it's a tool for change (via disruption at best, conflict at worst) and, this might be a hot political take, but I feel like those who are boogeymanning this (e.g. white people who want to keep power/influence/privilege, GOP/GQP, etc.) are actually very prescient in making this a battle.

    One of the smartest things they are doing to protect their interests is fighting this tooth and nail and not letting it gain a foothold, because they inherently know the end game here isn't just an academic investigation and whitepapers and junior college MLA formated essays about CRT, but the actual change that CRT will try to enable. It's dishonest to say "what's so wrong with learning the real history and experiences, etc. it's just knowing knowledge" because the reality is, CRT is a tool for people to gather ammo and build a case-- defensible/justifiable data to get more of the pie at the expense of those who are hoarding a lot of the pie.

    I think the last insight I had, personally, and you guys might already know, but I think I underestimate those with power and privilege and fortunes and how they are always on hyper alert to anything that will erode that and are a paranoid bunch. You just aren't going to sneak up on these guys with any nonviolent, well-reasoned or polite ask based on reason.

    It just reinforces my opinion that in America, you aren't going to claw any substantial gains in equality, inclusivity and diversity through any political or academic strategies. It will be through violence of the threat of violence (e.g. uprising, riots, destruction to economy, wealth, etc.). 

    The only reason anyone would fight against this is if they don't like the competition. Well, fuck them. They're the same ones that own a big business and do anything in their power to sue smaller businesses to limit competition, then say they believe in capitalism. Same with race relations. Keep a race down so they can't be within, as some on this site would put it, their community. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  12. 13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

    Well that does it. Here I am smack dab in the middle of Texas and half the time I call one of my children by another's name and apparently that disqualifies me to be President of the United States. You don't know how broken hearted that makes me.

     

    Yeah, but the evil lib cabal made fun of Trump's many....many.....many....many gaffs, so fair game now. 

    Yes GR, fair game. 

  13. Again, pardon my ignorance on this subject; but aren't we basically talking about asking ourselves the question on whether a piece of legislation may of have an unbalanced impact on certain races based on historical and modern data? Like, isn't that what we should do since all men are created equal, they haven't been historically treated that way, and now we need to address it? It feels like if you have a problem with that, then you need to look in the mirror and assess what scares you about that. And offloading your fear on what others might not like about this is a weaselly way of dealing with the subject. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  14. 4 hours ago, Post Oak said:

    I've found having kids has finally allowed me to set expectations of my parents like never before.

    It works because my parents are madly in love with their grandkids and they are not crazy trumpers.

    I've also discovered that the only reason my mother wanted to have kids is so she could have grandkids.  I'm simply a transport for grandkids

    Truth. My MIL was an alcoholic when we had our kid. We told her she wouldn't have our kid visit or spend the night until she got clean. After 20+ years of pill and alcohol abuse, and countless conversations trying to implore her to seek help, our kid was born and she immediately got clean. Leverage that shit. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/06/09/joshua-hall-trump-imposter-fraud/?outputType=amp

    Others getting in on the grift game. 

    Quote

    Hall, now 22, allegedly posed as the former president’s brother, along with numerous other relatives, including his minor son Barron, as part of a scheme to steal thousands from Trump supporters who thought they were donating to help his campaign.

    But now getting charged with fraud, so, we need to figure that part out. 

    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...