|
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 May 17 2017 05:54 Nevuk wrote:
Note that attacking someone's belief system just reinforces it. It is a human thing, and part of why conservative talk radio glommed so fucking hard onto "we are constantly under attack by liberals!" No human is really immune to it, and it is partially an explanation for some of the dumber cults belief in easily disprove facts, ie. Flat earthers. Liberals are just as susceptible as conservatives to it, but it hasn't been weaponized like it has by conservative media.
It worked for Nixon too. He constantly talked about the “liberal media” attacking him. Never trust the argument that demonizes an institution over a blaming a specific set of actors. Especially if that person is in power and is demonizing the groups meant to keep them in check.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I can't help but notice a consistent pattern of hypocrisy every time this shit comes up. If the DNC leaks were so bad, then why was it ok when another foreign country ("ally" or not it's still foreign influence on government) leaks to bury Flynn? And our intelligence was so evil when they were supporting mass surveillance but now that they leak against Trump they are our dear, esteemed and trustworthy intelligence branch full of good Americans. Incomplete information and hasty conclusions based on leaks are bad until it's against Trump.
I mean sure, Trump is bad, but learn to have consistent standards for fucks sake. We can't just play the "Trump is so evil that we should throw principles out the window to oppose him" game.
|
Yes, hypcrisy is the only constant here. Politics is a farce, there are some good people but for the most part it's a disgrace.
|
On May 17 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:27 zlefin wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:On May 17 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:41 Leporello wrote:On May 17 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:
The irony is that far more damage is being caused by all of these intelligence sources leaking shit to the press about what Trump may or may not have told the Russians than whatever Trump actually told the Russians. Hopefully the new FBI director has a pair and goes after the leakers. Sure, dude. It's totally cool that Trump gives Israeli intelligence to one of their most historical enemies, which is awash in anti-semitism. He's totally allowed, just like he's totally allowed to destroy all our alliances and run around the White House buck-naked. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan's corpse just vomited. You know it's true. The presumption underlying this post is astounding. You don't know exactly what was shared. Like I mentioned yesterday, there a ton of things that are classified that might be appropriate to share with Russia depending upon the circumstances. For all we know, this information shared could be required to be disclosed under the ICAO. Where is the rule or law that the US prohibited from sharing any intelligence with Russia? That's right: there isn't one for reasons that should be readily apparent to everyone. It's not the role of the intelligence community to make half-assed leaks that are designed purely to harm the president. If there really is something that the public needs to know about, then they should go full Snowden. But no, that's clearly not what this is about. This 100% politics. Of course, few liberals are going to admit that. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?smid=tw-shareThe information is believed to be pertaining to ISIS, but beyond that we don't know. Whether or not Russia deliberately uses it against Israel is beside the point, it's very sensitive information that was classified for a reason. The fact that it's out due to Trump's incompetence means Israel has little reason to trust us going forward, as do a lot of other countries. But make this about liberals, please. Your partisanship is showing. Is there one liberal around here who understands that I'm not the one making the argument that the information should be spun one way or another? Has this thread really fallen this far? I think you know the answer to that question. It's been going on for five months now. It's getting really old. I'm not spinning this, you are! I'm not being partisan about this, you are! Trump's actually bad enough that you don't have to make up and spin facts to attack him. Selective, anonymous leaking is actually bad enough that you don't have to care who is in the White House to attack it. I started out ambivalent, but now I think Trump really will fire many in his administration and hold-overs because no CEO can tolerate this junk for long. no country shoudl have to tolerate a leader this incompetent either; and yet here we are. it certainly does seem true trump will fire a lot of people though; no great surprise. the board of directors needs to step up and fire this ceo already. Nah, I think Trump's in there for good. Nothing impeachable thus far and forget about getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Pence won't be on board for any acting Pres change. It shouldn't need to be said again but Trump is elected for a four year term so tolerate away; staffers in the administrative state have no such protection.
there's some borderline impeachable stuff maybe with the emoluments clause; but agreed not really much of a case for impeachment yet. Pence will go for acting pres change if necessary, but he'd be highly reluctant to pull the trigger unless it gets really bad.
a 2/3 vote in the senate is likewise possible but it's quite aways still from the point where republicans are willing to do it. cowards.
staffer protection varies; high-level posts are often easier to fire iirc, as they serve at the pleasure of the president; lower level positions are covered under different rules and firing lower level federal employees can be rather hard iirc.
yes, trump was indeed elected for a four year term by fools who chose to harm our country and/or had no idea what they were doing; so we're stuck tolerating it and trying to fix the damage.
it indeed didn't need to be said again, so not sure why you said it; I guess for rhetorical flourish, which it does do well.
still pretty decent odds trump won't last 4 years (last I checked the betting sites at least). of course in an actually good system trump wouldn't have gotten in in the first place; I wish we had such a system.
|
On May 17 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but notice a consistent pattern of hypocrisy every time this shit comes up. If the DNC leaks were so bad, then why was it ok when another foreign country ("ally" or not it's still foreign influence on government) leaks to bury Flynn? And our intelligence was so evil when they were supporting mass surveillance but now that they leak against Trump they are our dear, esteemed and trustworthy intelligence branch full of good Americans. Incomplete information and hasty conclusions based on leaks are bad until it's against Trump.
I mean sure, Trump is bad, but learn to have consistent standards for fucks sake. We can't just play the "Trump is so evil that we should throw principles out the window to oppose him" game.
Because things are more nuanced than “bad or good”. The NSA/CIA can be both bad for mass data collection and good for wanting to protect America and their allies. The DCN leaks can be good because they highlighted problems in the DNC and bad because risked tilted scale.
The world is more nuanced than the black and white view you put forth. The ACA is bad because it made my health insurance costs go up by like 50%. It is pretty great because my wife can get healthcare without fear of being denied.
|
On May 17 2017 05:42 biology]major wrote:
The fangs from the media and liberals are ready at every moment to clinch and sustain negative coverage of Trump. Even if you subtract all of that venom and do your absolute best to give this president a fair shake, I see someone who is dishonest and detached from reality.
Even if you take out ALL media and only use Trump statements, interviews and tweets, it's very hard to see Trump as anything but that. He's apparently the best businessman, dealmaker, communicator, is the least racist guy you know, is smarter than all his press department combined, etc. He also blames a whole lot of people(apart from himself), and everything that he doesn't agree with is dishonest media and fake news.
There's definitely an element of media bias towards jumping on and sustaining negative coverage of Trump. I don't disagree with that. It certainly keeps people paying attention, and really it overwhelms other important news stories.
But even beyond that, a critical look at who Trump is should tell you that while the media coverage is biased, it's not wholly unfair/dishonest/fake.
|
On May 17 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:
I can't help but notice a consistent pattern of hypocrisy every time this shit comes up. If the DNC leaks were so bad, then why was it ok when another foreign country ("ally" or not it's still foreign influence on government) leaks to bury Flynn? And our intelligence was so evil when they were supporting mass surveillance but now that they leak against Trump they are our dear, esteemed and trustworthy intelligence branch full of good Americans. Incomplete information and hasty conclusions based on leaks are bad until it's against Trump.
I mean sure, Trump is bad, but learn to have consistent standards for fucks sake. We can't just play the "Trump is so evil that we should throw principles out the window to oppose him" game.
I want you to weigh two things on the scale of importance.
(1) The intellectual consistency of an amorphous group of internet hippies (not individuals by name)
(2) The actions of the President of the United States
If you have the worlds greatest attacks at (1), they would never be equal of important to even the smallest of Trump's screwups in (2). You can get away with spinning about standards in (1) because you never name names. But no amount of spinning there will ever justify Trump blabbing angel tier info to the Russians (2). Real policy will always matter more than previous consistency.
EDIT: further, there is no amount of bad (1) that could ever provide justification for any acts in (2). No matter how many times Trump/Trumpkins make appeals to hypocrisy, they remain fallacies. Presidential acts can be judged on their own merits, no matter what some hippies said in the past.
|
On May 17 2017 06:02 biology]major wrote:
Yes, hypcrisy is the only constant here. Politics is a farce, there are some good people but for the most part it's a disgrace.
changing the selection process to one that doesn't favor hypocrisy might help; maybe. of course given how many people are hypocrites in general, maybe it wouldn't.
of course, oftentimes non-hypocrites come with considerable problems of their own.
|
On May 17 2017 05:42 biology]major wrote:
The fangs from the media and liberals are ready at every moment to clinch and sustain negative coverage of Trump. Even if you subtract all of that venom and do your absolute best to give this president a fair shake, I see someone who is dishonest and detached from reality.
I don't disagree with this. There are any number of legitimate grounds on which Trump can and should be criticized. There's no need to make shit up.
|
On May 17 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:20 Tachion wrote:On May 17 2017 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:11 Mohdoo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:05 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On May 17 2017 05:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 05:01 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:[quote] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?smid=tw-shareThe information is believed to be pertaining to ISIS, but beyond that we don't know. Whether or not Russia deliberately uses it against Israel is beside the point, it's very sensitive information that was classified for a reason. The fact that it's out due to Trump's incompetence means Israel has little reason to trust us going forward, as do a lot of other countries. But make this about liberals, please. Your partisanship is showing. Is there one liberal around here who understands that I'm not the one making the argument that the information should be spun one way or another? Has this thread really fallen this far? And do you assume, just by me interpreting the information I have before me, that I am a liberal? I'm criticizing a grossly incompetent leader who deserves it by every measure I can think of, that doesn't make me a Democratic shill. You're the one projecting here. The situation looks awful no matter how you want to spin it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There's nothing baseless about my presumption. Here are you are presuming that Trump's disclosure of the intelligence is another act of gross incompetence. It's pretty clear to me what you're doing. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... enlighten me please, what else could it be? In a vacuum, what would be wrong with Trump sharing information with Russia that Russia was about to be attacked by ISIS? It would give away methods and routes of intelligence. Russia is deeply invested in knowing the inner workings of Israeli intelligence. Having little clues here and there, in addition to what Russia already has, would likely allow Russia to confirm/deny underlying assumptions and to build a more complete model as to Israel's capabilities, current pursuits, positioning, etc. Not necessarily. It depends upon what Trump told Russia. Saying "we are hearing that Russia is going to be attacked" is very different than "Russia is going to be attacked and this is how we know it [and what follows is a full disclosure of the source of the intelligence]." This my big problem with these leaks. We don't know what was shared, so all that's left is innuendo. And it's the innuendo that is being reported on and seized by the public. Regardless of what Trump actually told the Russians, why would any intelligence agency share anything with the US when it can see that our intelligence apparatus is leaking like a sieve? Do you realize by now that the leaks are just a symptom, and that Trump is the cause? The frequency of leaks with this administration is absolutely incredible. Can you see why that is? What has Trump actually done to warrant the leaks? What specific leak has been justified? Which leak has divulged information showing that Trump should be impeached? I keep waiting for something significant to come out, but it hasn't happened. For that reason, I can't help but think that this is all politics.
I guess I could probably summarize by simply saying that Trump is a shitty person.
He generates a lot of enemies with his abrasive and impetuous rhetoric and personality. He's a rank amateur when it comes to statesmanship and creates conflict with people within his own party(and more relevantly, the IC) that are supposed to be allies. Of course people will foster a lot of contempt for him over this and leak as backlash. He's constantly throwing people under the bus while at the same time he values loyalty above all else. Why would someone back him if they're gonna get shit in return? He doesn't listen to advisors, and leaves leaking as the only recourse for those who are concerned about his inexperience and incompetency with governing.
Of course this doesn't excuse the legality of any of it. But people are people, whether they work for the president or not. He just rubs too many people the wrong way and this is the result.
|
CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city?
|
On May 17 2017 06:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:42 biology]major wrote:
The fangs from the media and liberals are ready at every moment to clinch and sustain negative coverage of Trump. Even if you subtract all of that venom and do your absolute best to give this president a fair shake, I see someone who is dishonest and detached from reality.
I don't disagree with this. There are any number of legitimate grounds on which Trump can and should be criticized. There's no need to make shit up.
From your perspective, what are these legitimate criticisms? I honestly thought that you did not consider any criticism of Trump to be valid because I don't think I've ever seen you do so in the past.
|
On May 17 2017 06:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On May 17 2017 05:27 zlefin wrote:On May 17 2017 05:20 Danglars wrote:On May 17 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:55 NewSunshine wrote:On May 17 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 04:41 Leporello wrote:On May 17 2017 04:35 xDaunt wrote:
The irony is that far more damage is being caused by all of these intelligence sources leaking shit to the press about what Trump may or may not have told the Russians than whatever Trump actually told the Russians. Hopefully the new FBI director has a pair and goes after the leakers. Sure, dude. It's totally cool that Trump gives Israeli intelligence to one of their most historical enemies, which is awash in anti-semitism. He's totally allowed, just like he's totally allowed to destroy all our alliances and run around the White House buck-naked. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan's corpse just vomited. You know it's true. The presumption underlying this post is astounding. You don't know exactly what was shared. Like I mentioned yesterday, there a ton of things that are classified that might be appropriate to share with Russia depending upon the circumstances. For all we know, this information shared could be required to be disclosed under the ICAO. Where is the rule or law that the US prohibited from sharing any intelligence with Russia? That's right: there isn't one for reasons that should be readily apparent to everyone. It's not the role of the intelligence community to make half-assed leaks that are designed purely to harm the president. If there really is something that the public needs to know about, then they should go full Snowden. But no, that's clearly not what this is about. This 100% politics. Of course, few liberals are going to admit that. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html?smid=tw-shareThe information is believed to be pertaining to ISIS, but beyond that we don't know. Whether or not Russia deliberately uses it against Israel is beside the point, it's very sensitive information that was classified for a reason. The fact that it's out due to Trump's incompetence means Israel has little reason to trust us going forward, as do a lot of other countries. But make this about liberals, please. Your partisanship is showing. Is there one liberal around here who understands that I'm not the one making the argument that the information should be spun one way or another? Has this thread really fallen this far? I think you know the answer to that question. It's been going on for five months now. It's getting really old. I'm not spinning this, you are! I'm not being partisan about this, you are! Trump's actually bad enough that you don't have to make up and spin facts to attack him. Selective, anonymous leaking is actually bad enough that you don't have to care who is in the White House to attack it. I started out ambivalent, but now I think Trump really will fire many in his administration and hold-overs because no CEO can tolerate this junk for long. no country shoudl have to tolerate a leader this incompetent either; and yet here we are. it certainly does seem true trump will fire a lot of people though; no great surprise. the board of directors needs to step up and fire this ceo already. Nah, I think Trump's in there for good. Nothing impeachable thus far and forget about getting a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Pence won't be on board for any acting Pres change. It shouldn't need to be said again but Trump is elected for a four year term so tolerate away; staffers in the administrative state have no such protection. there's some borderline impeachable stuff maybe with the emoluments clause; but agreed not really much of a case for impeachment yet. Pence will go for acting pres change if necessary, but he'd be highly reluctant to pull the trigger unless it gets really bad. a 2/3 vote in the senate is likewise possible but it's quite aways still from the point where republicans are willing to do it. cowards.
If it's borderline "maybe" and it hasn't gotten "really bad" yet, how are you calling them cowards again? Everybody's showing good sense at them moment on this issue in both House and Senate.
staffer protection varies; high-level posts are often easier to fire iirc, as they serve at the pleasure of the president; lower level positions are covered under different rules and firing lower level federal employees can be rather hard iirc.
yes, trump was indeed elected for a four year term by fools who chose to harm our country and/or had no idea what they were doing; so we're stuck tolerating it and trying to fix the damage.
it indeed didn't need to be said again, so not sure why you said it; I guess for rhetorical flourish, which it does do well.
still pretty decent odds trump won't last 4 years (last I checked the betting sites at least). of course in an actually good system trump wouldn't have gotten in in the first place; I wish we had such a system.
Wow.
|
On May 17 2017 05:42 biology]major wrote:
The fangs from the media and liberals are ready at every moment to clinch and sustain negative coverage of Trump. Even if you subtract all of that venom and do your absolute best to give this president a fair shake, I see someone who is dishonest and detached from reality.
I also do not hate trump. I just think that he's too unfit for the position and the people in power to help remedy this are too partisan to take action. Then there is the matter of the line of succession that may or may not hurt a lot of people (some people I know fall into that category). When you look outside of your self and put your self last, are you fine with the current direction of the country? Are you okay with healthcare, civil rights, and safety nets for the poor and needy, being stripped away because 1 man or group of men deem it vitally important to party lines?
|
Honestly the most likely way for Trump to leave office is in a rage fit prompted by 24/7, constant misstep-fueled coverage of truly incompetent crap. The man devours cable news, especially everything he considers fake news, and he has extremely poor impulse control (the early morning tweets are the best sign of this because they were no way a reasoned decision and only made things worse for him to salve his ego).
That's why I click my heels every time people resort to the "fake news" narrative, because that never ever works on Trump's mental state and makes this possibility tick upwards ever so slightly.
|
So we're down to fellow posters here mustering a defense based on "well that totally wasn't illegal", instead of actually realising how bad this whole thing is? You actually don't even need to know what was leaked. Not the tiniest bit. The fact that Israel didn't share it with russia (or Iran, eh?) is reason enough to NOT tell them. Could that potentially cost civilian life? Sure. It's just a bit weird that suddenly that is a very problematic thing for apologists, where they were cheering etc for pinpoint precision carpet bombing, more torture, targeting (innocent, btw) families of terrorists.
Not to mention, a considerably more important thing: the source is exposed. The information came from somewhere. Undercover agents, whatever. You possibly killed a person sitting right at the source with that leak. Of course, not a problem, it's trump. It's not illegal.
Fact of the matter is, it's fucking retarded. And even worse, everyone who tries to downplay that, or immediately goes to whataboutism (as usual), is too. Those people simply don't seem to have the intelligence to comprehend the problem that could stem from this leak, and again: regardless of what was leaked. How kindly do you think the Mossad will take it that you endangered their agents/dried a source because you're a fucking loudmouth that loves bragging and stroking his ego? And more importantly, how many times you think will they reconsider doing the same mistake again?
Not illegal my ass, as if that was the problem. Trump should be removed because he's unable to comprehend even the slightest connection between his actions and the consequences. And there's no trying to cover up that fact. He does not understand consequences. Which, i'd argue, is quite the idiotic characteristic to vote into office.
|
On May 17 2017 06:09 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/theleadcnn/status/864574596128886784CNN is now reporting that the Trump administration asked them not to report on the city, citing the information was collected in. That is would reveal sources and methods that would risk getting people killed. The White House’s public statement said that Trump did not reveal sources and methods, or discuss them. But if that is true, why would they ask CNN not to discuss the city?
There is an important distinction to be made between "sources and methods" (how we get intelligence: was it from electronic surveillance of emails or chat rooms, or was it from a human spy, or was it from satellite footage, or was it from an ally) and the "intelligence product" (the name of the city, in this example). According to reports from senior staffers linked a few pages earlier in this thread, DT doesn't pay enough attention to his intel briefings to actually know anything about "sources and methods" so he is literally unable to compromise those. However, he is aware of intelligence products, like the names of specific cities in the Middle East that he divulged to Russian spies.
The danger of giving away highly sensitive intelligence products to U.S. enemies is that it helps those enemies figure out how "sources and methods" work as well, because they know what we know, which helps them solve the puzzle of how we obtained it in the first place.
Hope this clears things up.
|
The list of reasons to dislike what is happening are endless.
Renewed war on drugs.
Increased deportations without immigration reform
Net neutrality being pretty much done away with.
The House pushing to allow ISP’s to sell your personal information
Roll back of Dodd Frank and deregulation
The end of the Consumer’s rights commission
The EPA being restrained
The end of the justice department being involved with mediation between police forces and their communities, even mid mediation.
Denying hurricane relief to NC
Many of these are not specifically partisan issues. But the push to deregulate Wall Street should have everyone worried. Those people destroyed the economy before, and they will do it again. They did not learn anything.
|
Obstruction of justice - high crimes and misdemeanors.
President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
www.nytimes.com
|
Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo that Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence an ongoing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
The Failing New York Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
