The only thing I know that’s relevant to this discussion is that sometimes those people who spend 10+ hours per day investigating get it wrong. I don’t claim any special insider knowledge. For entirely understandable reasons, those intelligence gathering agencies don’t want to share their evidence, but that fact, and their previous track record, make it difficult for me to just have blind faith in them and the results of their investigation. Call it a healthy skepticism.
Is there any reason, in your mind, for Americans to trust anything intelligence agencies say, past, present or future?
Here is the actual debate transcript. I’ve tried to quote the relevant bits:
Just curious, Snarky_Kong who / what would you say is our greatest geopolitical threat today?
Sure. If, for example, they were to tell me that they think there’s a high likelihood that there will be a terrorist attack in downtown SLC tomorrow, it costs me very little to avoid that area tomorrow and I’d almost certainly do so. Would that count as ‘trusting’ them? I think so.
If, on the other hand, they wanted to lock you up in Guantanamo Bay for the rest of your life (assuming you’re an American citizen, which I don’t know for a fact either way) because they claimed you’re a terrorist, I’d prefer that they produce actual evidence before we do that.
ETA: Just curious, have you seen any of the show ‘Designated Survivor’? I just started watching it and see some parallels to this discussion.
What does that have to do with what was said over 4 years ago?
Was Russia as big a threat then as they are now?
Yes, let’s definitely change the subject. And while we’re about it, those goal posts need to be realigned! As it stands, they are too close, a mere consensus of expert and experienced persons. That should be absitively and posolutely proven truth, beyond a shadow of a doubt! An affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel is suggestive, but not definitive.
After all, its possible that it was the Chinese, or Gabon, or Upper Volta! Or, as Il Douche himself posited, some four hundred pound kid in his Mom’s basement! And because those things are possible, they must get due consideration!
OK, I will. (tic, tic, tic…)
I’m done, how about you?
My question for Snarky_Kong was just a curiosity. I don’t claim that his answer / non-answer would have anything to do with Romney’s 2012 wisdom.
As for your second question: Putin was Russia’s President then, just like he is today. I don’t think they were significantly less of a threat during the Romney-Obama debates than they are now, but now Putin’s had four years of events and activities to make that clear. I think ‘prescient’ is the word I’d use to describe Romney’s 2012 view of Russia.
The biggest threat to America is Americans. The biggest geopolitical threat is China.
Russia has a GDP smaller than California and a shitty economy reliant on oil prices. If 200,000 Americans were smarter this November nobody would be talking about how they’re a threat.
China has a large, broad-based economy, expanding alliances through the world, flexing their muscle in their near abroad, A2/AD tech that counters the US military, massive cyber capability.
They’re currently less antagonistic than Russia, but they’re potentially a challenger, Russia is not.
Thank you for the quote, btw. Yes, Obama was, publicly at least, less concerned with Russia than he should have been. Although Ukraine hadn’t had their revolution yet, which Putin blamed on the US and made him more antagonistic towards the US. So at the time he said it, it was less incorrect than it is now.
Martians. It was definitely Martians. Good ol’ Vlad would never do such a thing.
The Martians are getting fed up with this country dropping Earth germ laden laser totin’ robots on them!
Think of it as Putin being an open carry advocate in the Walmart. He’s got a rifle on his back and is just walking around smug as can be. Is he the number one threat in the store? No, because there are some kids shoplifting in the back.
Now, however, our open carry advocate is bringing his rife to his shoulder and telling people to get away from the condoms, because sinning is wrong. He’s now the most important threat in the store.
Putin just attacked us, so that elevates his threat level.
True, screaming about Russia being a threat is clearly a political argument being used as a weapon against Trump. If Hillary won, all else being equal including the “intelligence assessments”, it would be kept on down low.
No, it would just be a lower priority because we wouldn’t have a Russian puppet as POTUS.
Totally disagree, but the issue would have a different tenor to it because I think everyone can agree that Clinton wouldn’t be denying that Russia conducted cyber attacks to screw with our election. She would probably be seeking to either continue, or perhaps expand, the sanctions that Obama placed on Russia.
Keep in mind that the new intelligence report says that Russia was preparing a new campaign to denigrate American democracy if Clinton won. They were evidently planning to continue these cyber operations if Clinton had won, somthe idea that the whole thing would have blown over seems to be in contradiction of what we now know.
But if they told you Russia was planning a cyber attack to shut down the North East power grid, you’d remain skeptical?
What kind of evidence would you accept? A picture of my passport? Birth certificate? Being a skeptic, why would you trust their “proof”?
I have not. I’ll look it up.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Plot (Designated Survivor):
On the night of the State of the Union address, an explosion claims the lives of the President and all members of his Cabinet except for U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Tom Kirkman, who has been named the designated survivor. Kirkman is immediately sworn in as President, unaware that the attack is just the beginning of what is to come.
[/QUOTE]
I wonder if Ben Carson is watching the show?
James Earl Jones, The Man
Script by Rod Serling, from a book by Irving Wallace. What could possibly go right?
(Your correspondent from the conservative wing of the extreme left advises that this is not an endorsement. If I can still remember how I hated it, it must have really bit the bag…)
Is it the Washington Post reporting the story? If so, yes, I’m skeptical.
I don’t want / need any evidence on your citizenship. If you say you are, that’s good enough for purposes of this discussion because it doesn’t make any material difference one way or the other. I wasn’t trying to cast doubt on it or anything, just didn’t want to be “assuming your nationality” and be wrong. If you want to run for president, it might be nice to see the evidence.
? Russia can be a very plausible medium for a threat of damage to america by americans, the way it’s looking right now.
Russia also has a greater GDP than Isis.
And ISIS is a minuscule threat to the US. The priorities of the US with regards to terrorism is wildly out of balance.
Tell donnie and his minions. I already voted and I lost.
I don’t know that I would fetishize “big” and “strong” and “GDP” as the criteria for dangerous. There is such a thing as assymetrical war. In fact that’s the current reality much more so than the opposite.