US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7422

On April 29 2017 07:36 pmh wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-administration-just-signaled-may-153512830.html

I can see this work actually.
Kim wants to stay in power and the usa and china want denuclearization. The usa can not remove kim anyway without support from china but if china also doesn't want north korea to have nukes then this does seem like a very plausible solution. Kim gets guarantees from both china and the usa that they wont do anything to remove him/seek reunification.and in turn he gives up the nuke program. He would not trust the usa with that off course but he might trust a guarantee from china.

On April 29 2017 08:24 Yurie wrote:


Why would anybody ever trust the nuclear powers regarding that? A few years ago they let Russia invade Ukraine after a similar deal that promised protection as part of it. They are still in Ukraine and funding a war in its eastern portions (classical cold war proxy stuff there). Any reasonable leader will look at Ukraine and say off the record to the US, fix Ukraine and we can talk since you then honour prior deals.

On April 29 2017 08:25 zlefin wrote:

ukraine wasn't promised military protection iirc. but I don't like getting into the ukraine issue too much due to its troubled history (of thread issues)

On April 29 2017 08:25 zlefin wrote:

ukraine wasn't promised military protection iirc. but I don't like getting into the ukraine issue too much due to its troubled history (of thread issues)

On April 29 2017 08:30 Yurie wrote:


Correct you are. They were promised their previous borders by the signatories which wasn't honoured by Russia. There is nothing letting NK think the same won't happen to them with a very clear example currently running its course.

I don't really want to go into the Ukraine thing either but it is very relevant when discussing a nuclear deal with Iran, NK and similar states.

On April 29 2017 08:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


Russia UK and Britain were part of the agreement. Obviously one of those attacked them so not much help there, but people were theorizing that Russia would invade a non-nuclear Ukraine in the 90s and if the other nuclear powers aren't going to help then countries like Iran and North Korea really have no reason to not get nukes themselves.



I'm curious what sort of protection was promised that wasn't military protection. The three previously mentioned nations signed an agreement that doesn't involve consequences when someone breaks it? That is precisely why the only guarantee of sovereignty is the countries own nuclear arsenal.

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

On April 29 2017 08:41 Yurie wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Budapest_Memorandum
The signatories promised not to invade them themselves. Not to protect them if another did invade. So Russia broke it. The US, UK etc did not break it.

On April 29 2017 08:50 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


So you're saying that the agreement doesn't explicitly state that US will defend the interests of the agreement so we don't have to do anything? You can't actually believe that.

New York State just made a statement to Congress, the Republican Party, and pretty much the rest of the country: “If you guys aren’t going to handle this disaster, we are.” On April 26, 2017, New York State Assemblyman David Buchwald (D –Westchester) and State Senator Brad Hoylman (D –Manhattan) announced the introduction of legislation that, if passed, would require the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (NYSDTF) to release income tax information and returns for statewide elected officials, including the President of the United States.

I have to admit –- as a [now relocated] New Yorker, I love this bill. It’s got all the bravado I expect from the Empire State, it’s going to seriously annoy 45 and his sycophantic minions, and it’s going to sail through the legislature. And while there’s no question that the bill was borne of deeply-divided partisan politics, it’s actual effect isn’t remotely partisan. In fact, it makes government better and more transparent for all of us, without regard for party affiliation or ideological convictions. Fantastic.

I am especially amused by the procedure the bill implements; it doesn’t require the politicians themselves to do anything. It simply requires the NYSDTF to post the most recent five years of New York State tax returns to its website within 30 days of an elected official taking the oath of office. Personal information, like social security numbers and such, will get redacted – but the financial information will be there for all to see. New York State has no jurisdiction, of course, over what happens with federal tax returns – but in the particular case of Donald Trump, state returns may be just as enlightening.

I had the opportunity to speak today with Assemblyman David Buchwald, one of the bill’s co-sponsors. “High-ranking public officials owe a duty to the public to show that tax proposals help the public more than they help themselves personally,” Buchwald said. It’s pretty tough to argue with universal appeal of financial transparency – and those who have made recent habit of excusing President Trump’s lack thereof are finding formidable opponents in Albany.

State Senator Hoylman explained: “If lawmakers in Washington won’t force President Trump to release his tax returns, lawmakers in Albany should do it instead. We have a unique opportunity to advance the cause of presidential tax transparency. New Yorkers deserve to know if statewide officials – including Trump – pay their fair share of their taxes and avoid conflicts of interest.”
State Senator Hoylman explained: “If lawmakers in Washington won’t force President Trump to release his tax returns, lawmakers in Albany should do it instead. We have a unique opportunity to advance the cause of presidential tax transparency. New Yorkers deserve to know if statewide officials – including Trump – pay their fair share of their taxes and avoid conflicts of interest.”

Trump apologists are bound to raise arguments regarding a (non-reproductive, of course) “right to privacy” or some other inane reason why it’s a great idea for 45 to keep his personal finances secreted away from the probing eyes of those familiar with the concept of “conflicts of interest.” Sadly for them, though, Assemblyman Buchwald just happens to be a tax law expert; from what I can see, he has set this bill up for success. “There is no inherent right to keep tax filings private,” Buchwald explained, “historically, income taxes used to be public dating back to the Revenue Act of 1924.”

Add up the right to secrecy (which doesn’t actually exist) and the public’s interest in ensuring the integrity of its elected officials (which actually does), and you’ve got the roadmap for this bill passing whatever judicial scrutiny happens to come its way. New York State has every right to direct its tax department to operate however it likes, and because this law only applies to the filings of public officials, no private person has standing to challenge it. Furthermore, Governor Cuomo, Senator Schumer, and Senator Gillibrand have already posted their tax returns online – and it would be political suicide for any lesser elected official to publicly oppose the bill.

In the legislature, Buchwald and Hoylman already have plenty of support for the idea that financial disclosure is necessary to preserve the public trust. State Senator Daniel Squadron commended Buchwald and Hoylman:

“Presidential candidates release their tax returns so the American people know they are focused on job number one — serving the country in a role with extraordinary power. Donald Trump’s refusal speaks volumes about his values, but does not give the public or the press the most important information about his conflicts and incentives. New York can solve that.”

The overwhelming majority of Americans—80%, according to one recent survey—agree with the underlying purpose of this bill; still, House leaders in Washington wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bipartisan Presidential Transparency Act , which would have required President Trump to release his returns. That’s the kind of problem that needs fixing.

If any state is uniquely suited to take on Donald Trump, it’s New York. New York knows Donald Trump, and New York isn’t going to back down on this one – certainly not when its own officials have already publicized their own tax information. There’s something delicious about the very state that provided the Trumps the opportunity to rise to celebrity and wealth being the same state to teach them that “public service” comes with actual responsibility to actual people.

Facebook has publicly acknowledged that its platform has been exploited by governments seeking to manipulate public opinion in other countries – including during the presidential elections in the US and France – and pledged to clamp down on such “information operations”.

In a white paper authored by the company’s security team and published on Thursday, the company detailed well-funded and subtle techniques used by nations and other organizations to spread misleading information and falsehoods for geopolitical goals. These efforts go well beyond “fake news”, the company said, and include content seeding, targeted data collection and fake accounts that are used to amplify one particular view, sow distrust in political institutions and spread confusion.

“We have had to expand our security focus from traditional abusive behavior, such as account hacking, malware, spam and financial scams, to include more subtle and insidious forms of misuse, including attempts to manipulate civic discourse and deceive people,” said the company.

In its effort to clamp down on information operations, Facebook suspended 30,000 accounts in France before the presidential election. The company said it was a priority to remove suspect accounts with high volumes of posting activity and the biggest audiences.

The company also explained how it monitored “several situations” that fit the pattern of information operations during the US presidential election. The company detected “malicious actors” using social media to share information stolen from other sources such as email accounts “with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets”. This technique involved creating dedicated websites to host the stolen data and then creating social media accounts and pages to direct people to it.

At the same time, a separate set of malicious actors created fake Facebook accounts to falsely amplify narratives and themes related to topics exposed in the stolen data.

Facebook did not specify which stolen data it was referring to, but we know that tens of thousands of emails were hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account and released by Wikileaks.

Nor did Facebook attribute the manipulation to any nation state, although it said that the company’s investigation “does not contradict” the findings of a January report by the US Director of National Intelligence that outlined Russian involvement in the election.

Russia has also been implicated in the hacking of French presidential frontrunner, Emmanuel Macron, according to a report by researchers with Japanese anti-virus firm Trend Micro, published this week.

Facebook pledged to monitor attempts to manipulate the platform, to develop new ways of identifying fake accounts, educate at-risk people about how to keep their information safe, and support civil society programs around media literacy.

“We recognize that, in today’s information environment, social media plays a sizable role in facilitating communications – not only in times of civic events, such as elections, but in everyday expression,” said the report. “In some circumstances, however, we recognize that the risk of malicious actors seeking to use Facebook to mislead people or otherwise promote inauthentic communications can be higher.”

On April 29 2017 12:24 Gahlo wrote:

Could somebody explain to me why NK is so terribly bad at making a missile work?

The White House and President Trump's transition team reportedly did a background check on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in addition to his already approved security clearance, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported Friday evening.

"NBC News has learned from sources close to the Trump-Russia investigation that both the Trump transition and the White House did do a background check on Flynn," Maddow said on her program, citing reporting from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

"This is in addition to his already approved security clearance. They did a background check on Flynn specifically for him to become national security adviser."

Trump and other White House officials have blamed former President Barack Obama for authorizing Flynn's security clearance. Flynn served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama before advising Trump's campaign and joining his administration.

Maddow said Friday that NBC reporting showed that "the vetting of Flynn was done and sources close to the investigation tell NBC that it was done 'very casually.'"

"One person involved tells NBC that the Trump transition was aware of Flynn's business ties to Turkey," she said.

Flynn, who was forced out of Trump's White House after misleading officials about his conversation with Russia's ambassador about sanctions, received a five-year renewal of his security clearance in January 2016.

A former Obama aide hit back Friday at attempts by Trump officials to blame the previous administration.

“The responsibility in vetting [Flynn] belongs on the incoming administration,” former Obama communications director Jen Psaki said on CNN. "Clearly that wasn’t done. So this is kind of an absurd blame game here.”

The House Oversight Committee said earlier this week that Flynn may have broken the law by taking payments from Russia and Turkey without approval from the military and State Department. He had reportedly been previously warned against taking such payments.

According to Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Flynn applied to renew his security clearance — using a Form SF-86 — in January 2016, a month after he traveled to Moscow to give a paid speech.

On April 29 2017 08:50 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:


So you're saying that the agreement doesn't explicitly state that US will defend the interests of the agreement so we don't have to do anything? You can't actually believe that.

On April 29 2017 21:07 pmh wrote:
North korea is way different from the situation in Ukraine,its almost the opposite. North korea has china next door to protect them and china does not want a regime change or reunification. (at least that is what I think)