|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2017 01:00 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 00:46 Acrofales wrote:On March 18 2017 00:41 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2017 00:30 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 21:51 LightSpectra wrote:On March 17 2017 16:46 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote:On March 17 2017 09:23 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2017 09:20 IyMoon wrote:On March 17 2017 09:11 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
He probably was referring to the Wikileaks matter. Which is public knowledge.
The problem with Trump is we don't know if he's leaking classified information or his media viewing habits. It is public knowledge that Wikileaks released info that it SAID was from the CIA. If it is or isnt, is/ WAS classified until trump blurted it out. Look up every single time Spicer is asked if the leaks are from the CIA. "It is policy not to confirm or deny leaks" (Or something like that) While he didn't leak it, because the act of a president saying something declassifies information. He still did confirm that it is information from the CIA. It was already all but confirmed. And Trump more likely than not only found out from the media. Was it public knowledge that the CIA was hacked during the Obama years? I would like to note that hacking and leaking are two different things and this seems to be the latter. And while the confirmation isn't official that the CIA stuff is real... well important people have acted in ways that basically confirm that the stuff comes from the CIA. Trump offers no new insight and I genuinely wonder if he's even told about all that classified stuff he's apparently not supposed to leak. As you said, the "Vault 7" release of the CIA hacking tools wasn't a result of the CIA being hacked, it was a leak. The question is whether Trump doesn't understand the difference, or he's referring to a completely separate event. Right now it's not clear. Considering Vault 7 was all over the news, I'd wager on the former. A historical evaluation of Trump's habits suggests that making shit up is more likely than leaking as-yet unknown classified information. This isn’t guess work in the dark though. The ranking member of the House intelligence committee raised the concern that Trump leaked classified information during an interview. The “He likely made it up” argument doesn’t hold when the guy is receiving classified information in briefs on a daily basis. Except that with Trump one cannot possibly know whether he is repeating it from Fox News/Breitbart/Infowars, from an intelligence briefing, or some weird mishmash which he invented himself after briefly listening to all of the former. Maybe this will lead to those groups being more responsible in their reporting. Well, maybe just fox.
The opposite actually, because when they make a silly article it now buys them extra air time as they can then report on Trump saying yet another outrageous thing.
Trumps stupidity actually allows Fox/Breitbart to create news for them to report on.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
So what are the opinions out there on Angie's visit? Her administration has been rather quiet about the upcoming talks, only stating obvious things like "trade will be high up on the items to discuss".
|
On March 18 2017 01:08 zatic wrote:
So what are the opinions out there on Angie's visit? Her administration has been rather quiet about the upcoming talks, only stating obvious things like "trade will be high up on the items to discuss".
Popular opinion seems to be that Americans seldom care about that stuff.
My personal opinion is along the lines of, "I wonder how much stupid, polarizing shit Trump will be able to squeeze into one meeting with a foreign leader."
|
On March 17 2017 22:19 LightSpectra wrote:
That has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. Okay, sure, it does if we're talking about strictly personal issues like "I would date my daughter", but there are actually LOTS of restrictions on what, when, and where office-holders and businessmen are allowed to say.
But to pass a law against? You go too far in passing them off as "lots."
|
On March 18 2017 01:08 zatic wrote:
So what are the opinions out there on Angie's visit? Her administration has been rather quiet about the upcoming talks, only stating obvious things like "trade will be high up on the items to discuss".
Yeah the quiet is probably because they want to avoid what attention they can when Trump almost inevitably screws something up.
|
The US and Germany need to get along, even if the leaders can’t stand each other. But I think it’s a safe bet that any explosive moments will come from Trump.
|
If past conversations are anything to judge from, Trump will spend half the time talking about how gloriously he triumphed over Hillary Clinton in the campaign, like an older high school (American) football star reliving his glory days far longer than it's appropriate to do so.
|
United States44296 Posts
On March 17 2017 16:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 11:06 m4ini wrote:
LL, you were russian or something, no? How does russia handle their elderly? Not sure what to say here because there really isn't much to tell. It's basically just the same way as everyone else: pensions, social programs, housing assistance, healthcare, etc. Frankly the most interesting part about it is the economics side (that the price controls on the ruble that were abandoned during sanctions were implemented in part to keep pensions stable). As with every other country the money is tough to pay out but the elderly folk really want it.
People in Russia have the decency to not live past the age of 60. They are a noble and proud people and we have a lot to learn from them if we could only see past our own personal biases against rampant alcoholism.
|
United States44296 Posts
On March 18 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:
The US and Germany need to get along, even if the leaders can’t stand each other. But I think it’s a safe bet that any explosive moments will come from Trump.
Merkel is fucking stone cold when it comes to this shit. She's afraid of dogs and one time Putin sprang his dog on her in the middle of a diplomatic meeting he was hosting. Merkel stayed cool and afterwards remarked along the lines of "I see why he feels the need to act like this. He is a small man in a failing country and feels like he needs to act this way so that other people might think he is strong". She has no time for clowns.
|
On March 17 2017 23:25 LightSpectra wrote:
The scary thing is, there's absolutely nothing implausible about it. The Snowden leaks revealed that the Five Eyes countries had an informal agreement to spy on each other's citizens and share the intel, in order to circumvent the privacy laws in their own countries.
On March 17 2017 23:30 Plansix wrote:
I seen that and I’m not as worried as some are. It makes sense that long standing allies would have a system in place to share intelligence if one of them turned up someone on the other’s citizens. As long as they are not taking requests, which I haven’t’ seen evidence of, I’m not convinced it is as sinister as some make it out to be.
ok well plansix you are a complete tool if you don't think that everyone (especially the US) is spying on its own citizens by working through what euphemistically might be called "legal loopholes" via other state agencies
this "obama went outside the chain of command" theory is way more plausible than the original
also @kwark
the british banned the slave trade but had no problems buying that cheap confederate slave cotton huh?
|
I had forgotten about the Putin's dog meeting and had not heard that quote. Being irrationally afraid of spiders myself, I can only dream of being that stone cold.
It is clear Trump is going to be out of his depth in this meeting.
|
Ah, yes, Labrador diplomacy. Such intimidation tactics!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J3b9WA4.jpg)
|
On March 18 2017 01:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 23:25 LightSpectra wrote:
The scary thing is, there's absolutely nothing implausible about it. The Snowden leaks revealed that the Five Eyes countries had an informal agreement to spy on each other's citizens and share the intel, in order to circumvent the privacy laws in their own countries. Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 23:30 Plansix wrote:
I seen that and I’m not as worried as some are. It makes sense that long standing allies would have a system in place to share intelligence if one of them turned up someone on the other’s citizens. As long as they are not taking requests, which I haven’t’ seen evidence of, I’m not convinced it is as sinister as some make it out to be. ok well plansix you are a complete tool if you don't think that everyone (especially the US) is spying on its own citizens by working through what euphemistically might be called "legal loopholes" via other state agencies this "obama went outside the chain of command" theory is way more plausible than the original
Why would you even need to bother with "legal loopholes" when you can just go ahead and use the Patriot Act and NDAA to do everything you want to do legally?
|
On March 18 2017 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 01:53 IgnE wrote:On March 17 2017 23:25 LightSpectra wrote:
The scary thing is, there's absolutely nothing implausible about it. The Snowden leaks revealed that the Five Eyes countries had an informal agreement to spy on each other's citizens and share the intel, in order to circumvent the privacy laws in their own countries. On March 17 2017 23:30 Plansix wrote:
I seen that and I’m not as worried as some are. It makes sense that long standing allies would have a system in place to share intelligence if one of them turned up someone on the other’s citizens. As long as they are not taking requests, which I haven’t’ seen evidence of, I’m not convinced it is as sinister as some make it out to be. ok well plansix you are a complete tool if you don't think that everyone (especially the US) is spying on its own citizens by working through what euphemistically might be called "legal loopholes" via other state agencies this "obama went outside the chain of command" theory is way more plausible than the original Why would you even need to bother with "legal loopholes" when you can just go ahead and use the Patriot Act and NDAA to do everything you want to do legally?
i think you need a warrant to wiretap citizens even through those documents? not sure what you mean, but feel free to explain it
|
On March 18 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Ah, yes, Labrador diplomacy. Such intimidation tactics!
I can't tell if you're trying to say what Kwark said isn't true.
|
On March 18 2017 01:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 23:25 LightSpectra wrote:
The scary thing is, there's absolutely nothing implausible about it. The Snowden leaks revealed that the Five Eyes countries had an informal agreement to spy on each other's citizens and share the intel, in order to circumvent the privacy laws in their own countries. Show nested quote +On March 17 2017 23:30 Plansix wrote:
I seen that and I’m not as worried as some are. It makes sense that long standing allies would have a system in place to share intelligence if one of them turned up someone on the other’s citizens. As long as they are not taking requests, which I haven’t’ seen evidence of, I’m not convinced it is as sinister as some make it out to be. ok well plansix you are a complete tool if you don't think that everyone (especially the US) is spying on its own citizens by working through what euphemistically might be called "legal loopholes" via other state agencies this "obama went outside the chain of command" theory is way more plausible than the original
Don't dump your cynicism on me to make yourself seem smarter. When I see an ounce of evidence beyond speculation, I'll treat it with the appropriate level of skepticism. Right now its just a very stupid man making stupid claims because he is stupid.
|
On March 18 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Ah, yes, Labrador diplomacy. Such intimidation tactics! I can't tell if you're trying to say what Kwark said isn't true.
Legallord doesn't understand how phobias work.
|
On March 18 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Ah, yes, Labrador diplomacy. Such intimidation tactics! I can't tell if you're trying to say what Kwark said isn't true.
Well on the one hand, who cares? Kwark is clearly just getting his daily "fuck Russia" out of his system so I'll leave him to it.
But also just look at the dog snuggling up to Merkel. Clearly an aggressive animal meant to intimidate.
|
ok legalord we found a person who was surprised that the nsa was collecting everything sent through and located on the internet when snowden dropped his leaks. plansix the last holdout to cynicism
|
On March 18 2017 02:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 01:57 Mohdoo wrote:On March 18 2017 01:54 LegalLord wrote:Ah, yes, Labrador diplomacy. Such intimidation tactics! I can't tell if you're trying to say what Kwark said isn't true. Well on the one hand, who cares? Kwark is clearly just getting his daily "fuck Russia" out of his system so I'll leave him to it. But also just look at the dog snuggling up to Merkel. Clearly an aggressive animal meant to intimidate.
aka you are again trying to playing the idiot by pretending not to understand phobia's because it concerns glorious mother Russia in a bad light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
