Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The “intelligence community” doesn’t say the hack happened. Only 4 agencies have the wherewithal to conclude anything at all about the hacks – CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI. Unfortunately the three that really count were led by partisan individuals, and all three of those are implicated in the false use of FISA warrants to surveil American citizens. This is hardly a slam-dunk.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists has clearly stated, referring to the intelligence community, “So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case.”
 
HarryStotle said:
The “intelligence community” doesn’t say the hack happened. Only 4 agencies have the wherewithal to conclude anything at all about the hacks – CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI. Unfortunately the three that really count were led by partisan individuals, and all three of those are implicated in the false use of FISA warrants to surveil American citizens. This is hardly a slam-dunk.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists has clearly stated, referring to the intelligence community, “So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case.”
Click to expand...
It is ironic that after dismissing the conclusion of three intelligence agencies because they were led by a partisan individual, you place great stock in this comment from Steven Aftergood, who has had an axe to grind against the intelligence agencies for years.

The fact is the vast majority of career civil servants are dedicated to serving honorably, and in a non-partisan manner. The conspiracy theories put forth by Trump and friends are designed to sow doubt among the public in their public servants. Don’t fall for it.
 
It’s a sad day when we have so many people who dis our own 17 intelligence agencies, which largely operate at least somewhat independently, and believe Russian sources related to Putin instead. A couple of testimonies during the House hearings made it clear that it was not the Ukrainians who hacked into our system, but their word means nothing to some. Instead, they’re all too willing to blindly believe in sources that feed their “confirmation bias”, such as Breitbart and some of the Fox “newscasters”.

Like Goebbel’s said, if one tells the BIG LIE often enough, a great many many will come to accept it. Now we see congressional Republicans basically being all too willing to do what the NAZI Propaganda Ministry was so effective at using to try and brainwash the masses, thus putting their own reelection far ahead of our country.

How pathetic and sad.
 
17 Intel agencies did not endorse the Russia collusion assertion. Two men did and purported to speak for all.

We’re to believe “a couple of testimonies” from people who have no idea at all who hacked the DNC server and, based on that, do no investigation of the Ukrainian connection that Steele clearly had and Crowdstrike (the only one who ever examined the server) whose CEO is Ukrainian.

I guess the left is afraid any investigation in Ukraine might lead to Biden and other connections between Ukraine and Obama officials.

Since the FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server, no good reason can be given to assume it’s right or telling the truth about “Russia” being the perpetrator of the hack.
 
Metis1 said:
Like Goebbel’s said, if one tells the BIG LIE often enough,
Click to expand...
The antidote is the truth, spoken boldly, like patriot and professional Fiona Hill
… some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
Click to expand...
 
The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined. U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized. The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance. I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States, and it plays an important role in our national security. And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016. These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy. I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability. If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In regards to our 17 intelligence agencies on this:

www.politifact.com

17 intelligence agencies or 4, Russia findings still valid

President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion th
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

From the above:
Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.

This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.

The 17 organizations differ on their missions and scope, so they wouldn’t all be expected to contribute to every intelligence assessment, including one of this import.

"What matters is the agencies that (were involved) and whether, based on their mandate and collection responsibilities, those are the agencies best positioned to make the assessment," said Carrie Cordero, counsel at law firm ZwillGen and former counsel for various federal agencies focusing on national security…

"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."

The intelligence community likely limited the Russia assessment to those four agencies because they have the most to contribute on this topic, and because they wanted to contain the highly sensitive intelligence as much as possible, said Paul Pillar, senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies who served in the intelligence community for 28 years.

"The ones that participated are the ones you’d expect on this," Pillar said. “It’s hard to see any of the others having something to contribute.”…
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.
Click to expand...
Yes. Brennan, Comey, Clapper, all of whom are political actors who have been reasonably accused of lying and using their offices to affect election outcomes. There is no good reason to believe them, and every reason not to.

Even the Washington post admitted that Brennan and Clapper lied to congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/

Comey, of course, has been credibly accused of it as well.

Hillary Clinton - Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton, former U.S. Secretary of State and presidential candidate. Explore her impact on American politics, from healthcare reform to advocating for women’s rights. Delve into her policy positions, controversies, and enduring legacy.
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I have to question my own sanity in wasting time here with those who draw conclusions and then look for ways to avoid what’s clearly happening and why it’s happening. Trump’s actions alone in trying to stop the investigations should tell anyone and everyone that he was up to no good in a variety of areas.

To put it another way, it’s partisan politics at its worse.
 
when “they” begin speaking of murdering YOU

you will be against it.
 
Last edited:
This is why there will be no healing for some in Americas, despite pretend cries from people clamoring for it.

You think the people who watched the impeachment and support Trump are nuts. We feel the ame way about the people who think he deserves removal. That is likely never going to change, so we might as well stop trying to convince one another and just try and win for our side. I don’t care whether you “get my side” or “understand me” so long as the good guys, as I perceieve them for America, win.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
I don’t care whether you “get my side” or “understand me” so long as the good guys, as I perceieve them for America, win.
Click to expand...
This statement is self-contradictory. What does “winning” mean if half the nation has not been “won over”? Do you mean that the half the nation comprising the “bad guys” (as you perceive them) are disenfranschised? Or deported? Or killed? If you don’t win them over you will have to do something like that.
 
A) How many people on here have you won over?

B) What percentage of those who voted for McCain, Romney, or Clinton were won over by Obama or Trump?

I suspect zero, and very few are the answers.

When it comes down to fundamental, irreconcilable disagreements like “Trump is clearly guilty” or “Trump is clearly not guilty” posters on here just go back and forth. I have better things to do, but if you want to have it, go for it. Many people will never agree, and as such, I have little need for them in my life, Catholic or not. Our shared Catholic faith is meaningless as a unifying force if it manifests itself in two diamterically opposed worldviews and sets of actions. That means despite out “faith”, one of is is completely wrong. And I feel bad for that other person…
 
There is a big difference between failing to win over people and not caring whether you win over people to your view. I may be just as unsuccessful at winning over people as you have been, but I would never say I didn’t care as long as my side wins the election.
 
You are contradicting the position of the US government. Why should I believe this Russian propaganda?
 
Maximus1 said:
You are contradicting the position of the US government. Why should I believe this Russian propaganda?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because Trump has done more to restrain Russia than Obama or Hillary ever did. Recall that under Hillary at the State Dept, Russia took control of about 1/5 of America’s uranium. And Obama never did provide actual physical weapons to Ukraine to protect itself against Russian incursion, while Trump has. To say nothing of the fact that Trump has almost single-handedly increased European commitment to NATA defences, even when being resisted by the EU.

Perhaps it is you who are being taken in by stealthy Russian propaganda designed to undermine Trump, a far more stalwart opponent to Russia and Putin than Obama was or that Hillary would have been?
 
Last edited:
We must stop that Nord Stream Pipeline… Nordstream 2… That will be a test on allegiances, can’t back out on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top