|
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 10:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. So then do you agree the Flynn leak is the answer to your question about which leak was justified? Since it resulted in a more rapid firing and removed a potential security threat faster than otherwise? And that that is not "made up" like you said earlier? No, leaking FISA information in this case was not warranted here. There is no information showing that Flynn was so compromised as to justify the leak.
Based on the facts available now, do you think Flynn was sufficiently compromised that firing him was necessary?
|
|
|
I think the last one with the documents being moved was source in some liberal website at first, and it seems like now it's picking up steam.
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 10:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support. No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'. It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell... And like I have pointed out before, Trump always publicly supports his people until he cans them.
We've now reached the point where Trump endorsing his National Security Adviser and expressing confidence in them is being used as evidence that Trump always meant to fire his National Security Adviser and that subsequent events didn't change that.
xDaunt clearly angling for that White House job.
Liberal media: But doesn't the fact that he expressed support for Flynn right up until the leaks imply he didn't plan to fire him until the leaks?
Spicey 2.0: Classic liberal media always spinning the facts. Everyone knows that when Trump expresses support for a member of his team it has always meant he's committed to firing that person for being a foreign agent. If Trump only decided to fire him after the leaks then how come Trump expressed support before the leaks even came out?
|
On May 17 2017 10:23 zlefin wrote:
given the known information on wisdom of crowds effects; a hivemind/ai aggregate is likely to produce poor decisions a lot of the time.
it's well documented that referenda yield lousy decisions a lot of the time.
it's far better to use filtration mechanisms to weed out the foolish.
better fix is to devise better forms of government than democracy.
Or an educational system that teaches people -- all people -- things like how their government actually works so they won't treat it like some black box that they can scream into. I know that we think this is an insoluble problem, but it seems a bit simpler than redesigning the government or electing an artificial intelligence to do the job (seriously?)
|
On May 17 2017 10:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Umm. Without the leaks, how on earth would Flynn have become a political liability? That's the world we're discussing. How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. So then do you agree the Flynn leak is the answer to your question about which leak was justified? Since it resulted in a more rapid firing and removed a potential security threat faster than otherwise? And that that is not "made up" like you said earlier? No, leaking FISA information in this case was not warranted here. There is no information showing that Flynn was so compromised as to justify the leak.
Ah. So then, Trump shouldn't have fired him (or at least did not accomplish anything by doing so) and only did so for optics. Gotcha. Least you agree it was pure ego for Trump rather than stated reasons.
On May 17 2017 10:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:14 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 10:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. And yet, the only thing Trump did after finding out Flynn lied and was a foreign agent, but before the leaks made him 'to toxic' to announce his public support. No temporary leave from the National Security Council, no evidence of an internal investigation. Just a declaration that Flynn had Trumps total confidence, right up to the day he became 'to toxic'. It's almost like Trump had no intention of getting rid of Flynn despite knowing the facts right up to the point where everyone else knew the facts aswell... And like I have pointed out before, Trump always publicly supports his people until he cans them. We've now reached the point where Trump endorsing his National Security Adviser and expressing confidence in them is being used as evidence that Trump always meant to fire his National Security Adviser and that subsequent events didn't change that. xDaunt clearly angling for that White House job. Liberal media: But doesn't the fact that he expressed support for Flynn right up until the leaks imply he didn't plan to fire him until the leaks? Spicey 2.0: Classic liberal media always spinning the facts. Everyone knows that when Trump expresses support for a member of his team it has always meant he's committed to firing that person for being a foreign agent. If Trump only decided to fire him after the leaks then how come Trump expressed support before the leaks even came out?
Can't wait for Trump to say he has full confidence in himself! That'll be the mark of the damned.
|
|
|
United States43964 Posts
On May 17 2017 10:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 10:22 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 10:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On May 17 2017 09:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 17 2017 09:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
How could Trump think that it wouldn't get out when he is being given the heads up by Yates and when his administration is already leaking like a sieve? If that's the case, wouldn't he have fired him *before* the leaks? Was it just a happy coincidence? Firing a senior official -- particularly after you've just appointed him -- is not a trivial matter. Flynn wasn't a security risk or a blackmail risk. Everyone knew his story. An immediate termination wasn't warranted. Trump doing his own due diligence before making a decision on what to do with Flynn was perfectly legitimate. What does that have to do with only firing him once it was politically expedient (which you said could have happened)? What would have tipped him towards firing in the absence of leaks? Has anyone in the White House claimed any new information was obtained or ongoing investigations were taking place? Just like with Comey, it does seem like we agree the official White House explanation is a load of horse shit and they're untrustworthy scum, so that's a relief. Once the leaks got out, Flynn was toxic and had to go. Trump's hands were tied. We are talking about a leak-less world. One last time: what would have tipped Flynn to be fired in the absence of leaks? When would it have become politically expedient? Keep in mind-you said that someone saying Flynn being fired because of the leaks was making shit up. Flynn lied to Trump and his team, and regardless of the degree to which he was compromised, the optics were all bad for Flynn. These were reasons enough for Trump to eventually get rid of him regardless of the leaks. Again, I haven't said that Trump would have fired Flynn in absentia of the leaks. I've only said that he may have. So then do you agree the Flynn leak is the answer to your question about which leak was justified? Since it resulted in a more rapid firing and removed a potential security threat faster than otherwise? And that that is not "made up" like you said earlier? No, leaking FISA information in this case was not warranted here. There is no information showing that Flynn was so compromised as to justify the leak. Ah. So then, Trump shouldn't have fired him (or at least did not accomplish anything by doing so) and only did so for optics. Gotcha. Least you agree it was pure ego for Trump rather than stated reasons.
But this whole thing started because of this
On May 17 2017 09:07 xDaunt wrote:you make shit up.
How are we now here?
|
On May 17 2017 05:18 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +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: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? 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.... I hate to break it to you, but I am as independent as it gets. I've stayed away from politics for a long time because of my genuine disgust with where partisan politics have gotten this country. If you genuinely think I'm some "filthy liberal" then that's probably how you see everyone else who disagrees with you. I support what's sensible, and right now this administration scares me. You took a step back from this thread for a time, and I think it was for good reason. Perhaps you should do it again.
This administration scares you,that is just ridiculous. You are buying into everything the media says about this administration even though the mainstream media are nearly 100% biased against the administration.
Everything trump says and does gets blown completely out of proportion,the latest "leak" including. Yet he still is in office and no one seriously considers trying to impeach him. It can not be that bad in the end.
If anything this administration does not scare me at all,it is the mainstream media that have scared me with their very biased approach. Trump is not my favorit president,far from, but he is kept in check by advisors,congress,senate,the next elections in 2 year and then again his own election in 4 years.
Nothing however keeps the media in check,and their power is arguably even greater then the power of the president.
It are the media who have been spiraling completely out of control and who try hammer in their version of reality that are scaring me far more. They have no checks and balances,no accountability and no 4 year term. They are the real thread to the American freedom,not trump. You can laugh about this now and think I am just some idiot for saying this but I am quiet serious about this.
|
And now for a preview of what State Media thinks of today's developments:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Topical. Seth Riches family is not pleased tha Fox News decided to pull this out to avoid covering Trump.
|
This is going to get burried, but Trump invited this clown to the White House. That video is some wild shit. As far as I can tell, those are the Trukish presidents people attacking US Kurds.
|
On May 17 2017 11:18 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:18 NewSunshine 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: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? 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.... I hate to break it to you, but I am as independent as it gets. I've stayed away from politics for a long time because of my genuine disgust with where partisan politics have gotten this country. If you genuinely think I'm some "filthy liberal" then that's probably how you see everyone else who disagrees with you. I support what's sensible, and right now this administration scares me. You took a step back from this thread for a time, and I think it was for good reason. Perhaps you should do it again. This administration scares you,that is just ridiculous. You are buying into everything the media says about this administration even though the mainstream media are nearly 100% biased against the administration. Everything trump says and does gets blown completely out of proportion,the latest "leak" including. Yet he still is in office and no one seriously considers trying to impeach him. It can not be that bad in the end. If anything this administration does not scare me at all,it is the mainstream media that have scared me with their very biased approach. Trump is not my favorit president,far from, but he is kept in check by advisors,congress,senate,the next elections in 2 year and then again his own election in 4 years. Nothing however keeps the media in check,and their power is arguably even greater then the power of the president. It are the media who have been spiraling completely out of control and who try hammer in their version of reality that are scaring me far more. They have no checks and balances,no accountability and no 4 year term. They are the real thread to the American freedom,not trump. You can laugh about this now and think I am just some idiot for saying this but I am quiet serious about this.
I don't think it's really fair to say Trump's advisers are keeping him in check whatsoever. He contradicts them all the time and/or makes them look like fools, and hires and fires new ones at the drop of a hat while reshuffling the power structure in his cabinet on a whim like an executive.
I'm not sure I've seen even a shred of evidence of anyone giving him productive advice.
And, unfortunately, there are tons of things he can do (like declassify intelligence and jeopardize intel sources, or intimidate the FBI director) that do not have checks and balances without media coverage. And with a man as bumbling, impulsive, and egotistical as I hope you have seen he is (regardless of the media's frenzied reporting), the time before the checks and balances kick in can do real damage.
|
Pretty decent job.
If you throw rocks or bottles to guards or beat pro Turkey people there, you'll get good amount of beating. Typical PKK/YPG approach that happens everywhere around the globe.
Try that to any goons from any state. I remember many cases Obama goons beating the shit out of people, but yeah, you elected that clown too.
|
For context, LP hates kurds about as much as hungarians hate gypsies and nazis hated jews.
|
Yes, this man seems like a credible reporter from a nation with credible news agencies.
And I have no idea what this bullshit is you are spouting.
On May 17 2017 12:01 Jormundr wrote:For context, LP hates kurds about as much as hungarians hate gypsies and nazis hated jews.
Ive always gotten that impression. Pretty sure Turkeys garbage president is never visiting this country ever again.
|
On May 17 2017 11:18 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2017 05:18 NewSunshine 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: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? 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.... I hate to break it to you, but I am as independent as it gets. I've stayed away from politics for a long time because of my genuine disgust with where partisan politics have gotten this country. If you genuinely think I'm some "filthy liberal" then that's probably how you see everyone else who disagrees with you. I support what's sensible, and right now this administration scares me. You took a step back from this thread for a time, and I think it was for good reason. Perhaps you should do it again. This administration scares you,that is just ridiculous. You are buying into everything the media says about this administration even though the mainstream media are nearly 100% biased against the administration. Everything trump says and does gets blown completely out of proportion,the latest "leak" including. Yet he still is in office and no one seriously considers trying to impeach him. It can not be that bad in the end. If anything this administration does not scare me at all,it is the mainstream media that have scared me with their very biased approach. Trump is not my favorit president,far from, but he is kept in check by advisors,congress,senate,the next elections in 2 year and then again his own election in 4 years. Nothing however keeps the media in check,and their power is arguably even greater then the power of the president. It are the media who have been spiraling completely out of control and who try hammer in their version of reality that are scaring me far more. They have no checks and balances,no accountability and no 4 year term. They are the real thread to the American freedom,not trump. You can laugh about this now and think I am just some idiot for saying this but I am quiet serious about this.
You're kneejerking to the "media hysteria" argument and failing to grasp the gravity of recent revelations. Just look at the fact that Congressional Republicans are getting involved.
|
Yeah, yeaaah.
I'm engaged to a Kurdish girl, my grandfather's secondary wife is Kurdish so almost half of my uncles or aunties are Kurds but I hate Kurds, spot on! When you guys understand there's a HUGE distinction between the Kurdish and PKK you'll notice how mistaken you were.
Kurds are usually great people. Back in TR almost all of my close friends were Kurdish origin, but PKK is a plague to this world no matter how you fancy them or need them to fight ISIS as your pawns.
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't care what you think, time will tell anyways.
On May 17 2017 12:01 Plansix wrote:
Pretty sure Turkeys garbage president is never visiting this country ever again.
Wishful thinking. Also sad.
|
Take to a thread that is relevant. No one cares if you adopt 35 Kurdish orphans. Those protesters are on US soil and likely are US nationals. Your president was invited here and this is the shit his goons pull. They would all be in jail if it were not diplomatic immunity.
I can't even discribe how angry this makes me. The fucking arrogance of those goons.
|
A pretty fair assessment, I would say.
Donald Trump may yet survive these revelations. Mr Comey's memos could turn out to be paper tigers, with teeth not nearly as sharp as Tuesday's sneak preview indicated. He could, under oath, soft-pedal his conclusions. Republicans might decide it's better to stick with the president than run for the exits.
At the very least, however, it's becoming clear that Teflon Don is no longer untouchable. His future is no longer clear. A storm is brewing, and it's going to get worse for their party before it gets better.
www.bbc.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C__oZMuV0AA1uQ_.jpg)
