When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

You don't seem to be very truthful in that reply. I did in fact agree that the IC uses the term "federation" back on post #729. In fact, I even posted the link for you so you wouldn't have to scroll back and search for it. So either you just have default answers that you are replying to and are not really reading my responses, or you're being deceptive. Which one is it?

As to the "federation" thing, it has nothing to do with your inaccurate statement of "we have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." So why do you insist this has anything to do with your inaccurate statement? What documentation do you have that proves your terminology is correct?

 

If you acknowledge that it's a federation, then you should have no problem answering the two questions truthfully this time.

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director of National Intelligence speak on behalf of in the October statement?

Again, this is crucial to understanding what was meant in the quoted comment.

 

How were those questions not answered truthfully before?

Since I already answered those questions, please explain to me what they have to do with your inaccurate statement that ""We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections?"

Can you explain why you continue to insist your statement is true even though there is no factual basis for it?

Can you provide documentation that proves your "17 different intelligence agencies" canard is accurate?

Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over when they've already been answered?

 

Mike you wasted untold bandwidth weeks ago making this same inane argument.

You're wrong . It's been demonstrated where and why you are wrong. '

Not only are you wrong but your argument is irrelevant. You're arguing for no other reason that to cause a distraction.

Move along

 

No you did not answer the questions truthfully, you never answered what federation was represented in the October statement. In fact, you outright refused to acknowledge that any federation was represented. Again, this is crucial to understanding what was meant in the quoted comment

1. How many Agencies make up the USIC
2. What federation was represented in the October statement? (note, I am NOT asking if or how many times the word "federation" itself was used, I am asking which federation was represented)

Once again, the USIC is a federation made up of 17 different intelligence agencies, and the Director of National Intelligence is the head of this federation, and he carries with him the authority to speak on behalf of this federation. This has been backed by fact checkers http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

I would ask you to provide the fact check that backs your argument, but I already know there are none.

 

1. Yes I did answer your questions and even posted the message numbers and responses. Now, if you disagree with my responses, maybe you could respond to them and give me your critique as to what, exactly, you disagree with? Instead you are just posting the same irrelevent questions over and over again and won't respond to my answers to them.

2. Please explain why you won't respond to my responses.

3. "Federation" has nothing to do with "17 intelligence agencies" any more than the US federation means that 50 states voted for Trump. I've posted this more than once but you have failed to explain why that isn't a counter example.

4. None of that has to do with your inaccurate statement that ""We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections?"

 

1. No you never answer those questions, I asked you which federation was represented in the October statement, and you outright refused to say... but there's an easy way to settle this disagreement, you can answer right now which federation was represented. So.. what federation was represented in the October statement?

2. That's what I'm doing in this very post, no?

3. The USIC is a federation made up of 17 agencies.. do you deny it?

4. Again, if you can't give an honest answer to those two questions, then you are in no place to say that the comment is inaccurate.

 

You have refused to answer honestly continuously through this thread, and although I've answered and answered and linked and pointed out where I linked over and over and over again, you still continue to post the same idiotic off topic questions. The IC being a federation has nothing, and I'll say it again, NOTHING to do with your statement, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections?" Yeah sure, just like 50 states voted for Trump.

Still...I'm a loving and patient soul so I'll once again give you a chance to redeem yourself.

Why do you insist on the "17 intelligence agencies" canard when there is zero evidence that 17 intelligence agencies said that Russia was interfering with out elections?

Why won't you respond to my responses?

 

If you did answer that question, I am not seeing it anywhere.. so how about you tell me right now what your answer is, which federation was represented in the October statement? I'm not asking you to explain that you already answered that question, I am asking you to tell me right now which federation was represented. If you can do that, then we don't have to debate whether or not you answered the question or not. Simple enough, what federation was represented in the statement? (note, I am not asking how many times the word "federation" itself was used. I am asking for the name of the federation that was represented in the statement)

Again, this is crucial to understanding what was meant in that comment, because as I have explained before, the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, and it was never my intention to suggest that they did. However, as the head of the USIC, the Director of National Intelligence is in a position to speak on behalf of the agencies that make up that particular federation. Denying that the USIC is a federation certainly isn't irreverent to this point..

and no, this is not the same as a federal election, unless you can name me which agencies in the USIC casted a vote against the Director's statement?.. if you can't do that, then the two are not equatable. A better example would have been for you to refer to a time that the president made a statement on behalf of the United States, because the president is in fact in a position to do that, just as the Director of National Intelligence can make a statement on behalf of the agencies that make up the federation that he is the head of. This has been backed by fact checkers, if you're going to deny that the Director can speak on behalf of the agencies that make up the USIC, then I am going to have to ask you for your source behind your argument.

 

Are you two still at this?

Are you really going to continue this well into Trump's second term?

 

This is so backwards, you've stated "17 intelligence agencies did not independently come to the conclusion," so why are you still at this? That is the ONLY issue, that your inaccurate comment that ""We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections" was incorrect.

That's all I was saying. That you were wrong and you have once again agreed (you've both agreed then changed your mind and disagreed multiple times in this thread).

So now that you've admitted that you were wrong, I bid you adieu.

 

Actually, I clarified more than two months ago what was meant.. for just about anyone else on these forums this conversation would have ended then and there the first time I explained this to them.. but for you this goes on for almost three straight months until you're cornered into not being able to give an honest answer on what federation was represented in the October statement. Rather than answer the question honestly, you refuse to give an answer, and justify your cutting and running by pretending that my post isn't something that I already explained nearly three months ago

 

Of course it should.

 

The Electorate will.

 

I clarified my views on "federation" months ago and linked them in replies to you, so since you can't figure even that out, I don't see any point in following you down the federation rabbit hole since it has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. So you bring it up strictly as a distraction. So here is an idea, think of a new distraction to see if you can get a few more months out of that? You have a good record of avoiding the issue and last wordism, so I have faith you can do it!

The ONLY real issue is that you inaccurately commented that ""We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections"

You are still incorrect, and a year from now, you will still be incorrect.

 

Jesus Mike. You still trying to split hairs here?

Give up already. You're wrong.

The consensus by our intel agencies is that Russia interfered in our election. Whether the friggin Coast Guard intel (one of the 17) investigated the matter or not is hardly the issue

 

Heh. If that isn't the issue, then we wouldn't be discussing the statement, 17 different intelligence agencies. That absolutely includes the Coast Guard Intel as coming to that conclusion.

 

only if we can charge the republicans for their birther crap. your thread is just hypocrisy.

 

Find a better way to state it then.

Bottom line that is the conclusion of our intell agencies.

NONE dispute it.

 

Whether or not the USIC is a federation is not up for discussion, if you want to express your own personal opinion for why they should not be considered federation, you can write to the USIC themselves and tell them that they are wrong.. but me? I have no interest in having that discussion with you. I am not speaking out of my own personal opinion when I refer to the USIC as a federation. The USIC officially recognizes itself as a federation, so that is how I refer to them. Again, I do not want your opinion on what should be considered a federation, I want you to acknowledge how the USIC is formally recognized

So the question for you was which federation was represented in the October statement. It should be an easy question to answer considering its already been spelled out for you. You can call it a distraction, but if that be the case, then there is a very easy solution to your problem... answer the damn question.. if it's truly a distraction, and not just you dodging the question to avoid acknowledging a simple fact, then your issue will be completely resolved by answering the question... so answer the question.

What federation was represented in the October statement? (note, I am not asking how many times the word "federation" was used in the statement, nor am I asking you your opinion on how the term federation should be used. I am asking you which organization that the US government officially recognizes as a federation was represented in the October statement)

Again, this is critical to understanding what was meant in the above post you keep quoting. Why is it important? because as I explained a month ago, and as was explained in the fact check I provided, the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion that Russia interfered with our elections. However, as the official head of the USIC, the Director of National Intelligence is in position to speak on behalf of that federation. If you cannot acknowledge the USIC as a federation, then you simply cannot understand what that title entails for the basic responsibilities for the Director of National Intelligence. In which case, you are in absolutely no position to be saying whether or not the above quote is right or not.

Pretty much this

Contrary to what Mike has suggested, this is not comparable to a federal election where different states favored different candidates. Plain and simple, the head of the USIC made a statement on behalf of that federation, and no members of said federation have objected in any way with the Director's statement.

 

It's a coup attempt.

Normally, that's treason.

 

Finding a better way to state things is exactly what this thread has been about for months.

 

Right because it has nothing to do with the issue.

The highlighted above is exactly why your statement, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections" is inaccurate.

 

How are you still not understanding this?

Yes, the USIC being a federation is relevant to the discussion, because it means as the head of the USIC, the Director of National Intelligence has the authority to speak on behalf of the 17 agencies. That bolded part that you are referring to is something I explained three months ago, which is where this conversation should have ended, but instead you continued to create a broader argument out of your own misinterpretations.

The fact that you still don't understand this demonstrates that you are not fit to be having this conversation, or giving any kind of assessment that any of us should take seriously

 

How many far right hoaxed need to be exposed before the far right is held accountable? When will Trump be held accountable for his birtherism brain farts?