|
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 25 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it interesting that Trump's tour of three religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) has been referred to as "the three major religions". As if Judaism isn't like the 12th most practiced religion.
We are centered around our own politics in all ways, including our historical religious conflicts and interactions.
|
to be fair judaism is disproportionately over represented in NYC and Long Island, so to Trump this rings more true.
|
United States43605 Posts
I just checked and Mormons outnumber Jews. So if we're just looking at monotheistic faiths that loosely descend from the Semitic traditions then Mormons rank 3rd and Jews 4th. Sorry Abraham, Joseph Smith needs that spot on the podium.
|
On May 25 2017 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it interesting that Trump's tour of three religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) has been referred to as "the three major religions". As if Judaism isn't like the 12th most practiced religion.
Is it a US source? Because according to a survey from 2014, that's the case.
|
On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul
A few things:
1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders.
2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press.
3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut.
So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks.
|
On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks.
but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard?
and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. this is readily apparent by the bragging nature of his own 'leaks.' that and everything else he does, be it tweeting his every thought or bragging about how great everything he touches is.
|
On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders.
Trump could also authorize military strikes on allies. Doesn't mean its a good idea. Powers being given to the executive branch does not mean every instance of using these powers is proper or a good idea. You're making a weird argument here, as if being given the power means the power is always used well. People are saying he is using that power very poorly.
|
On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature.
Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story.
And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no."
|
On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks.
We've already been over why 1 isn't valid due to the circumstances.
|
On May 25 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story. And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no."
No one here believes that if Obama had not done this you would not be calling him an incompetent moron who needs to be replaced on the spot. The fact that EVERYONE knows that is true means what you are saying here rings rather hollow.
|
On May 25 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story. And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no."
that's not the end of the story by a long shot? discretion isn't by nature good. whether his discretion is at all defensible is absolutely up for debate. edit: by your reply to mohdoo i take it the answer i'm looking for is that you still have absolute faith in his discretion, i'm marginally surprised. but that's the end of it i suppose.
and so you agree that there isn't at all a lower risk of trumps leaks being less widely known would it not be for him leaking? i feel like
i'm misunderstanding your point here.
|
On May 25 2017 00:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. Trump could also authorize military strikes on allies. Doesn't mean its a good idea. Powers being given to the executive branch does not mean every instance of using these powers is proper or a good idea. You're making a weird argument here, as if being given the power means the power is always used well. People are saying he is using that power very poorly.
The executive is empowered with all of this discretion by necessity. He's the one in the know. Not us. If we don't like what he's doing, then the remedy is to vote him out of office during the next election. The problem here is the same as it was during the campaign: no one on the left is going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on anything, so all we get is a relentlessly mindless critique of every thing that he does. Maybe y'all should at least take time to consider the possibility that you're wrong about some of this shit. You certainly were wrong about plenty during the campaign.
|
On May 25 2017 00:41 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story. And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no." No one here believes that if Obama had not done this you would not be calling him an incompetent moron who needs to be replaced on the spot. The fact that EVERYONE knows that is true means what you are saying here rings rather hollow.
Of course most of the people around here would agree with this, because most of the people around here are utterly incapable of restraining the urge to strawman the fuck out of people. Go ahead and look through my posting history and see where I called Obama a moron for sharing intelligence with a country like Russia. I doubt that you're going to find it.
|
ExxonMobil lost its appeal on Tuesday to keep records held by its auditors away from the New York attorney general's climate fraud probe.
The documents could afford a candid—and perhaps damaging—glimpse into Exxon's private calculations of the business risks posed by climate change. They could contain anything from a smoking gun email to plodding, yet revealing, discussions related to Exxon's posture on global warming, including whether the company was adequately calculating climate change risks for investors. Exxon still has another opportunity to appeal.
Investigators for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed PricewaterhouseCoopers records pertaining to Exxon's assessment of climate change as part of an investigation into Exxon that was opened in 2015.
Exxon fought to have the subpoena voided, arguing the records were privileged communications with its auditor and should be kept from the eyes of investigators. The oil giant, headquartered in Dallas, based its argument on a Texas law that grants a privilege to auditors and clients much like that between a lawyer and client.
A state court judge agreed with Schneiderman's office that there was no such protection afforded Exxon under New York law and ordered the documents handed over last year. Exxon appealed that decision.
The appeals court, which had been considering the case since a hearing in March, rejected Exxon's argument.
"In light of our conclusion that New York law applies, we need not decide how this issue would be decided under Texas law," the two-page decision said.
Exxon did not respond to a request for comment.
Caroline Nolan, a spokeswoman for PwC, said the company had no comment.
The accounting firm, which has expertise in climate-related risks faced by fossil fuel companies, has remained neutral in the legal fight but has honored Exxon's request not to turn over documents pending the outcome of the litigation.
Exxon has been fighting investigations by Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey both in federal court and state courts.
Schneiderman opened his financial fraud investigation of Exxon in November 2015 by subpoenaing decades of records related to Exxon's history of research into and knowledge of climate change. The investigation revolves around whether the company misled shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change.
The attorney general followed up with a subpoena to PwC nine months later seeking documents related to the auditors' work for the oil giant. Records sought under the subpoena include documents about accounting and reporting of oil and gas reserves, evaluation of assets for potential impairment charges or write-downs, energy price projections and projected cost estimates of complying with carbon regulations.
Attorneys for Exxon argued that the judge's ruling in October to force PwC to surrender documents "eviscerates" the accountant-client privilege afforded by the laws of Texas, where Exxon is headquartered.
New York investigators disagreed and argued that PwC should feel a moral obligation to cooperate. "As a certified public accountant, PwC 'owes ultimate allegiance to [a] corporation's creditors and stockholders, as well as to the investing public,'" the attorney general's office responded.
Exxon could file additional appeals up to the New York Supreme Court or allow PwC to comply with the subpoena.
While it is unclear what Exxon's next move may be related to the PwC documents, the company is also asking a judge to seal five subpoenas issued by Schneiderman's office in connection with its investigation, which has grown to include missing emails from former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, now U.S. secretary of state.
The attorney general's office disclosed last week that it has expanded its probe to determine whether Exxon may have destroyed emails from Tillerson's "Wayne Tracker" email alias. Investigators are trying to determine why several weeks of emails from that account are now missing. As part of that widening investigation, the attorney general's office revealed that it has subpoenaed a number of Exxon officials.
Exxon offered few clues in its request to the New York judge overseeing the case as to why the documents and the arguments by company lawyers justifying the sealing must remain secret.
Source
|
On May 25 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story. And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no."
The leak wasn’t to the NYT. It was based on a leaked Philippine transcript that was later confirmed to be accurate. I guess the White House could lie and claim the Philippine transcript was fake, but then they would get caught lying because later on.
And the President can do whatever he wants within the authority allowed to him. You are 100% correct. He is allowed to make any stupid mistakes he wishes. Just like congress can hold him accountable for having some loose lips with his favorite authoritarian leaders. The one thing I not sure of is if he can stop these leaks. He seems to have created a White House that simply does not trust each other enough to not leak things.
|
United States43605 Posts
xDaunt you are ridiculously susceptible to the flavour of the week politics. For the longest time you were opposed to Trump and his policies, then suddenly he won and you were agreeing with everything he said. And when what he said changed, so did you.
Your current positions are not consistent with your positions from a year ago.
|
On May 25 2017 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:41 Adreme wrote:On May 25 2017 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:37 brian wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. 2) To the extent that Trump does share confidential information with a foreign leader in a private communication, there is far less risk of that information becoming publicly known (or otherwise known by hostile interests) when it shouldn't be than when someone inside the administration or the intelligence community leaks that very information to the press. 3) For this reason, it is exceedingly clear that the bigger problem is the community of leakers who can't keep their mouths shut. So yes, I do hope that Trump launches an inquisition against the leakers and criminally prosecutes them to the fullest extent of the law. These people aren't heroes. They aren't whistleblowers. They are political hacks. but do you hold Trumps discretion in these matters in high regard? and point 2 seems pretty naive. that simply isn't the case, anything he says he intends to be heard by as many people as possible. he's a showman by nature. Trump is the president. The discretion is his. End of story. And point 2 isn't naive at all. It is self-evident. Would everyone know that there's a second submarine in the Korean theater but for this new leak to the NYT? The answer is clearly "no." No one here believes that if Obama had not done this you would not be calling him an incompetent moron who needs to be replaced on the spot. The fact that EVERYONE knows that is true means what you are saying here rings rather hollow. Of course most of the people around here would agree with this, because most of the people around here are utterly incapable of restraining the urge to strawman the fuck out of people. Go ahead and look through my posting history and see where I called Obama a moron for sharing intelligence with a country like Russia. I doubt that you're going to find it.
I haven't accused Trump of born in Kenya either, so I guess we are even,
And with how your flipflop make strawman seem to have a backbone, I'd call it an upgrade.
|
On May 25 2017 00:53 KwarK wrote:
xDaunt you are ridiculously susceptible to the flavour of the week politics. For the longest time you were opposed to Trump and his policies, then suddenly he won and you were agreeing with everything he said. And when what he said changed, so did you.
Your current positions are not consistent with your positions from a year ago.
My positions haven't changed at all over the past year. As I have chronicled previously, you will see some evolution if you look at my positions on things since the 2012 election.
|
On May 25 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. Trump could also authorize military strikes on allies. Doesn't mean its a good idea. Powers being given to the executive branch does not mean every instance of using these powers is proper or a good idea. You're making a weird argument here, as if being given the power means the power is always used well. People are saying he is using that power very poorly. The executive is empowered with all of this discretion by necessity. He's the one in the know. Not us. If we don't like what he's doing, then the remedy is to vote him out of office during the next election. The problem here is the same as it was during the campaign: no one on the left is going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on anything, so all we get is a relentlessly mindless critique of every thing that he does. Maybe y'all should at least take time to consider the possibility that you're wrong about some of this shit. You certainly were wrong about plenty during the campaign.
Why would the left give him the benefit of the doubt? He was in office for less than a week and started fighting about crowd size. Then he nominated a cabinet that they loathed and then signed a bunch of EOs that they loathed. His party is passing health care laws in a manner that specifically prevents the Democrats from adding amendment or allows for floor debate. Trump and his entire party are operating on the “fuck the left, we won” platform. So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
|
On May 25 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2017 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 00:25 brian wrote:On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway. meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul A few things: 1) It is undisputed that Trump can disclose whatever he wants. The discretion is his to share intelligence and other information with foreign leaders. Trump could also authorize military strikes on allies. Doesn't mean its a good idea. Powers being given to the executive branch does not mean every instance of using these powers is proper or a good idea. You're making a weird argument here, as if being given the power means the power is always used well. People are saying he is using that power very poorly. The executive is empowered with all of this discretion by necessity. He's the one in the know. Not us. If we don't like what he's doing, then the remedy is to vote him out of office during the next election. The problem here is the same as it was during the campaign: no one on the left is going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on anything, so all we get is a relentlessly mindless critique of every thing that he does. Maybe y'all should at least take time to consider the possibility that you're wrong about some of this shit. You certainly were wrong about plenty during the campaign. Why would the left give him the benefit of the doubt? He was in office for less than a week and started fighting about crowd size. Then he nominated a cabinet that they loathed and then signed a bunch of EOs that they loathed. His party is passing health care laws in a manner that specifically prevents the Democrats from adding amendment or allows for floor debate. Trump and his entire party are operating on the “fuck the left, we won” platform. So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
Basic fairness? Showing a semblance of objectivity? Trump has a ton of flaws and there are all sorts of things that he can be legitimately attacked on. What I find objectionable is the wholesale manufacturing of things to attack him on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
