• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trust but don't verify.

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,329
Reaction score
25,300
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Is the new thinking from the white house trust but don't verify?

Our president is up and tweeting this morning and of course disagreeing with the assessment from his intelligence chiefs again insisting his 'vision' of what's happening is the truth. How does our president consistently just throw out the findings of his own people?
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
12,917
Reaction score
6,183
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Our president is up and tweeting this morning and of course disagreeing with the assessment from his intelligence chiefs again insisting his 'vision' of what's happening is the truth.

Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.

I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,329
Reaction score
25,300
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.

I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?

We did our best to invite the attack on pearl harbor and then hung out the general and admiral in charge out to dry. Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, he could see what was happening in europe but the nationalists in america wanted nothing to do with 'their war'. We even moved our fleet from california to pearl harbor to antagonize the japanese into attacking us. We had also broken their codes well before the attack. What the executive branch knew and what the intelligence agencies knew, was not passed on to the two commanders on pearl harbor. Iraq was just a plain fiasco that our president and his people lied us into, that by now should be clear. What our intelligence agencies know and what the president decides to do are two very different things.
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Is the new thinking from the white house trust but don't verify?

Our president is up and tweeting this morning and of course disagreeing with the assessment from his intelligence chiefs again insisting his 'vision' of what's happening is the truth. How does our president consistently just throw out the findings of his own people?

Not all intelligence sources are saying the same things with one voice. Trump is right not to be cast about from one assessment to another without considering all evidences and taking all reports under advisement. Media sources cherry-pick sources and reports they find useful in making the president look bad for their own nefarious reasons but they are wrong for taking that stupid and unethical route. Americans did not elect anti-Trump media hounds to run this country, they elected Trump to do it and he is doing a great job by comparison.
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
27,130
Reaction score
11,163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong.
How often?
More than half the time?
1/10000 of the time?​

How often are politicians wrong?
More than half the time?
1/10000 of the time?​

Are politicians more trustworthy than subject matter experts?
If so, how often?​

Think Pearl Harbor.
Which politicians predicted the Pearl Harbor attack?
Did these politicians warn anyone?

Think Iraq.
Iirc, the USIC's NIE told us that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US in the foreseeable future and that they were not in cahoots with al Quaida.
US politicians told us the exact opposite. They said if we didn't act immediately we risked a mushroom cloud over a major American city.
Politicians told us we'd out of Iraq in six months at the latest.

Whose track record on Iraq held up better over time?
Politicians, or subject matter experts?


What a weird world it has become where politicians are trusted.

Used to be, it was taken for granted that politicians lied, exaggerated, and played loose with the truth for their own ends.

I guess that's no longer the case for some folks.

Weird.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
109,279
Reaction score
27,293
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We did our best to invite the attack on pearl harbor and then hung out the general and admiral in charge out to dry. Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, he could see what was happening in europe but the nationalists in america wanted nothing to do with 'their war'. We even moved our fleet from california to pearl harbor to antagonize the japanese into attacking us. We had also broken their codes well before the attack. What the executive branch knew and what the intelligence agencies knew, was not passed on to the two commanders on pearl harbor. Iraq was just a plain fiasco that our president and his people lied us into, that by now should be clear. What our intelligence agencies know and what the president decides to do are two very different things.

We moved our fleet to antagonize the Japanese?

And we did break their code.... And we knew attack was imminent. And that is about it. We assumed the attack would strike the bases in Asia.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,329
Reaction score
25,300
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not all intelligence sources are saying the same things with one voice. Trump is right not to be cast about from one assessment to another without considering all evidences and taking all reports under advisement. Media sources cherry-pick sources and reports they find useful in making the president look bad for their own nefarious reasons but they are wrong for taking that stupid and unethical route. Americans did not elect anti-Trump media hounds to run this country, they elected Trump to do it and he is doing a great job by comparison.

Media sources? It was broadcast on television where anyone could watch am I not to believe my own ears and eyes?
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We moved our fleet to antagonize the Japanese?

And we did break their code.... And we knew attack was imminent. And that is about it. We assumed the attack would strike the bases in Asia.

Some people consider 3800+ miles to be within antagonizing range.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,931
Reaction score
80,436
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Media sources? It was broadcast on television where anyone could watch am I not to believe my own ears and eyes?

You beat me to it. Apparently that poster doesn't keep up with the news. Trump is pushing back on comments they made in public testimony.

But when you have no real argument and no real defense of Trump, "fake nooz media!" is always a good fallback. It doesn't work, but hey, some people may fall for it.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
109,279
Reaction score
27,293
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Last edited:

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
16,365
Reaction score
10,488
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You beat me to it. Apparently that poster doesn't keep up with the news. Trump is pushing back on comments they made in public testimony.

But when you have no real argument and no real defense of Trump, "fake nooz media!" is always a good fallback. It doesn't work, but hey, some people may fall for it.

Yea it's pretty amazing. The defense of trump is "well, I mean, he could be right. It's possible that literally everyone that has looked at this stuff and studied it is wrong and he's right."
 

Simon W. Moon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
27,130
Reaction score
11,163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yea it's pretty amazing. The defense of trump is "well, I mean, he could be right. It's possible that literally everyone that has looked at this stuff and studied it is wrong and he's right."
There are a number of folks on this site who believe that Turmp is the one politician who doesn't lie, a politician who can be trusted.

That's kind of where we're at with some folks.
They've willingly abandoned all common sense about politicians.
They do this, presumably, to protect their faith in Trump.
Presumably, they'd otherwise have to face the fact they've chosen to be duped by cartoonish caricature of a snake-oil salesman.


So it seems it's more comforting for them to decide instead that politicians are a trustworthy lot.
Or at least this one particular politician they have put their faith in.
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Media sources? It was broadcast on television where anyone could watch am I not to believe my own ears and eyes?

My point exactly. Trump must handle a lot of state secrets and foreign affair matters in total confidence and privacy, unlike leftist spinners of bad conclusions hastily drawn from the flimsy superficial evidence they glean from non-essential sources.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,931
Reaction score
80,436
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yea it's pretty amazing. The defense of trump is "well, I mean, he could be right. It's possible that literally everyone that has looked at this stuff and studied it is wrong and he's right."

Look at my son Johnny. Every other member of the marching band is out of step except him!
 

Stealers Wheel

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
5,734
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My point exactly. Trump must handle a lot of state secrets and foreign affair matters in total confidence and privacy, unlike leftist spinners of bad conclusions hastily drawn from the flimsy superficial evidence they glean from non-essential sources.

Non-essential sources? You just said the intelligence chiefs are non-essential sources! They publicly spoke out in opposition to the POTUS on areas of their expertise.

We've been told numerous times by people who were there that Trump does not read or even listen to his daily intel briefings. We're not talking about WH janitors.

Tell us how does he make his assessments? What is the basis for his foreign policy decisions? How is it that he really does know more than the generals, all the intel services, and everyone at the State Department?

If the professional opinions of the intel chiefs are going to be ignored, they should each follow in the footsteps of general Mattis and resign.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
33,874
Reaction score
17,885
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
33,874
Reaction score
17,885
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.

I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?
Wrong as often as Trump?

I’ll take take the word of intelligence professionals with decades of experience over the word of someone who gets their intelligence (and marching orders) from Fox News and other right wing nuts.
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Non-essential sources? You just said the intelligence chiefs are non-essential sources! They publicly spoke out in opposition to the POTUS on areas of their expertise.

We've been told numerous times by people who were there that Trump does not read or even listen to his daily intel briefings. We're not talking about WH janitors.

Tell us how does he make his assessments? What is the basis for his foreign policy decisions? How is it that he really does know more than the generals, all the intel services, and everyone at the State Department?

If the professional opinions of the intel chiefs are going to be ignored, they should each follow in the footsteps of general Mattis and resign.

Let me give you a hint. Peter Strzok was non-essential liar and deceiver and seditious Trump-hating devil, and he was just one of likely hundreds of non-essential lying devils in the corrupted American intelligence community.
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Intelligence chiefs are often wrong. Think Pearl Harbor. Think Iraq.

I was flabbergasted when the intelligence chief yesterday testified that the unguarded southern border is no danger to the country. Does he think that terrorists are stupid?

How many terrorists came sneaking in from Mexico, posing as migrants?
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
We did our best to invite the attack on pearl harbor and then hung out the general and admiral in charge out to dry. Roosevelt was looking for a way into the war, he could see what was happening in europe but the nationalists in america wanted nothing to do with 'their war'. We even moved our fleet from california to pearl harbor to antagonize the japanese into attacking us. We had also broken their codes well before the attack. What the executive branch knew and what the intelligence agencies knew, was not passed on to the two commanders on pearl harbor. Iraq was just a plain fiasco that our president and his people lied us into, that by now should be clear. What our intelligence agencies know and what the president decides to do are two very different things.

Did we?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not all intelligence sources are saying the same things with one voice. Trump is right not to be cast about from one assessment to another without considering all evidences and taking all reports under advisement. Media sources cherry-pick sources and reports they find useful in making the president look bad for their own nefarious reasons but they are wrong for taking that stupid and unethical route. Americans did not elect anti-Trump media hounds to run this country, they elected Trump to do it and he is doing a great job by comparison.

We're talking about Trump here. He gets himself "cast about." He can't tell the difference between border patrol reports and a movie trailer.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...-trump-confuse-a-fictional-movie-plot-wi.html

https://www.thewrap.com/colbert-din...-border-wall-warnings-and-the-sicario-sequel/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/01/donald-trump-sicario
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Some people consider 3800+ miles to be within antagonizing range.

Sigh ...

We moved our fleet to Pearl Harbor because relations with the Japanese had reached an all-time high in antagonism, mostly over steel. Something was expected, but not a sneak attack on that scale.
 

Idiometer

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Colorado
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Let me give you a hint. Peter Strzok was non-essential liar and deceiver and seditious Trump-hating devil, and he was just one of likely hundreds of non-essential lying devils in the corrupted American intelligence community.

Right. Trump is a victim, and everyone is out to get him. Poor widdle Donnie.

:boohoo:

:violin

Your inability to see Trump for the incompetent boob he really is is sad and pathetic. He does not deserve your undying love and support.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sigh ...

We moved our fleet to Pearl Harbor because relations with the Japanese had reached an all-time high in antagonism, mostly over steel. Something was expected, but not a sneak attack on that scale.

The fleet was moved from about 5600 miles from Tokyo to about 3800 miles from Tokyo. What about my statement is inaccurate?
 
Top Bottom