|
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. |
make it a gay market and call it a day!
'I am being discriminated because I discriminate'
I hope the law doesnt give these people the right to discriminate against gays like that.
|
Canada13405 Posts
On June 02 2017 02:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:On June 01 2017 20:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ruse and shine America!
It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? The odd things is that those Republican investigators apparently told Fox News straight up that they're looking to allege a connection between the unmasking and the leaks, after figuring out which unmasking occurred before which leaks. In other words they told Fox straight up that they're doing an investigation and already have a desired outcome. I can only assume it's Nunes and his amateur crew talking here.
Wait, I'm confused.
Is Danglar saying that the leaks are worse than what the leaks are about?
While I agree intelligence leaks are usually a bad thing and that some sort of blanket policy should be applied to not allowing intelligence leaks, the nature of the information coming from the Trump admin is concerning for world politics, not just American politics.
Or is Danglar insinuating theres some sort of deep state conspiracy where they are intentionally making intelligence public as an agency to take down trump? Because lets be honest here - if they find information that Trump was a manchurian candidate, I think people would like to know. And from all I've seen in public hearings etc all the intelligence officials have been acting above board. And if they really seriously wanted to turn public opinion they wouldn't bother with news media leaks.
Anyway
The thread is sad
|
Eichenwald and his delusional rants are always good for a laugh. He sees a conspiracy in even the smallest and least interesting of coincidences.
|
On June 02 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
Eichenwald and his delusional rants are always good for a laugh. He sees a conspiracy in even the smallest and least interesting of coincidences.
Aren't you not exactly a fan of NATO?
|
On June 02 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
Eichenwald and his delusional rants are always good for a laugh. He sees a conspiracy in even the smallest and least interesting of coincidences. Aren't you not exactly a fan of NATO?
I'm not a fan of NATO as it exists in its current form, no. But that doesn't really have much bearing on Eichenwald and his consistent pattern of self-delusion that is really quite funny.
|
Canada13405 Posts
Well his reporting is solid and if his sources are telling him this you would think its actually concerning would you not?
Its also in line with what we hear coming from Merkel publicly as well.
|
On June 02 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2017 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
Eichenwald and his delusional rants are always good for a laugh. He sees a conspiracy in even the smallest and least interesting of coincidences. Aren't you not exactly a fan of NATO? I'm not a fan of NATO as it exists in its current form, no. But that doesn't really have much bearing on Eichenwald and his consistent pattern of self-delusion that is really quite funny.
So is it that you think his sources are wrong?
|
His reporting is anything but solid and consists mostly of extrapolation based on delusion. I remember quite well his random bitch fight with a Sputnik reporter that characterizes his reporting style quite well. I summarized it many pages back. Yet he occasionally gets cited as if he were something other than a gutter quality reporter, probably because he packages his delusions in a form that has widespread appeal in a certain circle of status quo fanboys.
As for his "sources": judging by his previous reporting and the article he cited (which I still remember), it seems to be 5% "someone told me something," 95% extrapolation. Like literally everything else he ever does.
|
On June 02 2017 03:32 LegalLord wrote:
His reporting is anything but solid and consists mostly of extrapolation based on delusion. I remember quite well his random bitch fight with a Sputnik reporter that characterizes his reporting style quite well. I summarized it many pages back. Yet he occasionally gets cited as if he were something other than a gutter quality reporter, probably because he packages his delusions in a form that has widespread appeal in a certain circle of status quo fanboys.
As for his "sources": judging by his previous reporting and the article he cited (which I still remember), it seems to be 5% "someone told me something," 95% extrapolation. Like literally everything else he ever does.
Fair enough. I'm not familiar enough with his history to argue against what you're saying.
|
On June 02 2017 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? Are you just ignoring that the article mentions there was evidence already and that was used as a basis for asking for more information? This isn't random agencies deciding to unmask Trump associates for fun. Its an investigation that has reason to believe something was afoul and asked for additional intelligence.
There's evidence that more documentation must be produced to make clear who requested & approved unmasking and how it was disseminated. Ponder, if you will, what it means to say the agencies were not cooperating when asked for more information and subpoenas were therefore required.
|
On June 02 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? Are you just ignoring that the article mentions there was evidence already and that was used as a basis for asking for more information? This isn't random agencies deciding to unmask Trump associates for fun. Its an investigation that has reason to believe something was afoul and asked for additional intelligence. There's evidence that more documentation must be produced to make clear who requested & approved unmasking and how it was disseminated. Ponder, if you will, what it means to say the agencies were not cooperating when asked for more information and subpoenas were therefore required.
From my understanding from the testimony on the hill, there is no approval process. If the person is authorized for the information, they can have it. I thought this problem was cleared up a long time ago, to be honest.
|
On June 02 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? Are you just ignoring that the article mentions there was evidence already and that was used as a basis for asking for more information? This isn't random agencies deciding to unmask Trump associates for fun. Its an investigation that has reason to believe something was afoul and asked for additional intelligence. There's evidence that more documentation must be produced to make clear who requested & approved unmasking and how it was disseminated. Ponder, if you will, what it means to say the agencies were not cooperating when asked for more information and subpoenas were therefore required.
I think it means the agencies do not trust the people asking for information.
|
On June 02 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? Are you just ignoring that the article mentions there was evidence already and that was used as a basis for asking for more information? This isn't random agencies deciding to unmask Trump associates for fun. Its an investigation that has reason to believe something was afoul and asked for additional intelligence. There's evidence that more documentation must be produced to make clear who requested & approved unmasking and how it was disseminated. Ponder, if you will, what it means to say the agencies were not cooperating when asked for more information and subpoenas were therefore required.
Because the agencies are reluctant to cooperate due to the massive partisan politics being played?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
So trump about to pull American out of Climate change agreement! Wowwowow. Be interesting how he handles this shit storm from all of green peace plus sanctions
|
C-SPAN
Questions emerge if Powers, an ambassador, sought for and received unmasking of private citizens. "I don't know" and "maybe it rings a vague bell." We'll see if this was in innocent or dodging perjury.
|
On June 02 2017 03:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 02 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2017 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 02 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/870074464964235264It's a big story. Russian influence on the election and Trump obstruction with Comey are big stories. The NSA, CIA, and FBI have stopped cooperating with the House investigation. But since this is before Trump without the Trump histeria, partisans pass over it. Using intelligence agencies to unmask and leak is a power you don't want Trump or future presidents to have, trust me. I may just not be tracking the situation but I don't see how the timeline will help. The sinister conspiracy is that the person who ordered the unmasking did so and then either leaked unmasked info themselves or purposefully had someone else leak it (after all, unmasking is in no way illegal). Regardless of whether that happened it's obvious that the timeline is "request for unmasking places -> names unmasked -> leaked to media." Are they looking for some smoking gun communication saying "please leak this?" Because I am very skeptical that will ever be found, but could be looked for forever amongst all the people that saw the information. If they found one, it wouldn't really matter when it fell on the timeline. It doesn't help that the loosest conspiracy (the unmasking was ordered with the intent to cause a future leak, but no concrete instruction was given) is literally impossible to prove as distinct from ordering the unmasking because it was important to know who the person was. Americans picked up in our foreign surveillance programs shouldn't have fears that our government is listening to their calls and might rattle about it to media. That's why who does the unmasking and how unmasked surveillance is handled matters. You humorously allege sinister conspiracies--all this has to be is lax standards and one miscreant in a department. I want Americans not to be spied on by their own government. Wide dissimination of unmasked intercepts, and a host of other possibilities that absolutely need investigation, says civil rights are in bad shape right now. I don't even need to mention or allege conspiracy with who happened to run the NSA/CIA/FBI for this case. Comprendes? Are you just ignoring that the article mentions there was evidence already and that was used as a basis for asking for more information? This isn't random agencies deciding to unmask Trump associates for fun. Its an investigation that has reason to believe something was afoul and asked for additional intelligence. There's evidence that more documentation must be produced to make clear who requested & approved unmasking and how it was disseminated. Ponder, if you will, what it means to say the agencies were not cooperating when asked for more information and subpoenas were therefore required. Because the agencies are reluctant to cooperate due to the massive partisan politics being played?
Trust us, we did it for good reasons and anyone who believes otherwise is playing partisan politics. I'm very happy everybody isn't as blasé at you on fundamental questions of civil liberties.
|
On June 02 2017 03:53 Pandemona wrote:
So trump about to pull American out of Climate change agreement! Wowwowow. Be interesting how he handles this shit storm from all of green peace plus sanctions
Will he even care?
Breaking news: The party that literally ran on a platform calling to end the Paris agreement won the presidency, Senate, and House, and withdraws from the Paris agreement.
|
White House talking points obtained by The Associated Press say that the Paris accord “is a BAD deal for Americans” and that the president’s action would keep “his campaign promise to put American workers first”
We will see. That's what the guardian writes.
|
On June 02 2017 03:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 03:53 Pandemona wrote:
So trump about to pull American out of Climate change agreement! Wowwowow. Be interesting how he handles this shit storm from all of green peace plus sanctions Will he even care? Breaking news: The party that literally ran on a platform calling to end the Paris agreement won the presidency, Senate, and House, and withdraws from the Paris agreement.
We will be getting what we voted for and it will cost the US jobs if it happens. Luckily it can’t happen until 2020 and we have a chance to rethink our decision.
|
The suspense is killing me. But not as much as it's going to kill the polar bears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
