|
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 February 04 2018 05:41 Leporello wrote:
The longer this memo exists the more destructive it is to the far-right narrative. This memo does reveal the deep-state. This is top-secret directed-surveillance of an American citizen, with gross ramifications. I think it's actually extraordinarily amazing that we're able to spy on a political citizen, who is likely engaging with foreign adversaries, by actually going through a court process, with multiple courts, judges, and oversight.
People who want to believe in fake moon-landings or 9/11-"truth" kind of have to reconcile the fact that when we see a renegade Congress overrule the DoJ and an independent court, there isn't really any mystery to be revealed. Just a warrant. No "secret society". Just an entire court system.
Compare it to J Edgar Hoover, and what he would do. The deep-state died a long time ago. What we have now is actually pretty good. There's a lot of oversight, and with people like Donald Trump and Devin Nunes being voted into high-office, thank fucking God there is no deep-state, it's great that top-secret surveillance is so thoroughly documented and reviewed, or I think we all know we'd be looking at a more fascist America.
Well, the left now supporting FISA is interesting for sure. At least Greenwald is still pretty non-partisan. Isn't the FISA rates something like 99.9%? FISA is an abomination regardless of what the circumstances around this particular partisanry is.
|
I just love some conservatives are getting all ruffled because the Post is confirming what we already knew, Trump is in a fight with the Justice Department and FBI. And they are all like “see, these unelected govement employees are attack our elected officials. The deep state is real!”
Except you can be president and not fight the FBI. It’s an option. And congress designed these agencies to do exactly what they are doing, resist the political whims of the day in the execution of the duties.
|
On February 04 2018 08:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 05:41 Leporello wrote:
The longer this memo exists the more destructive it is to the far-right narrative. This memo does reveal the deep-state. This is top-secret directed-surveillance of an American citizen, with gross ramifications. I think it's actually extraordinarily amazing that we're able to spy on a political citizen, who is likely engaging with foreign adversaries, by actually going through a court process, with multiple courts, judges, and oversight.
People who want to believe in fake moon-landings or 9/11-"truth" kind of have to reconcile the fact that when we see a renegade Congress overrule the DoJ and an independent court, there isn't really any mystery to be revealed. Just a warrant. No "secret society". Just an entire court system.
Compare it to J Edgar Hoover, and what he would do. The deep-state died a long time ago. What we have now is actually pretty good. There's a lot of oversight, and with people like Donald Trump and Devin Nunes being voted into high-office, thank fucking God there is no deep-state, it's great that top-secret surveillance is so thoroughly documented and reviewed, or I think we all know we'd be looking at a more fascist America. Well, the left now supporting FISA is interesting for sure. At least Greenwald is still pretty non-partisan. Isn't the FISA rates something like 99.9%? FISA is an abomination regardless of what the circumstances around this particular partisanry is.
The law needs updating. But also the judge and alter the warrant so, partial approval is pretty common. And they are rarely denied because they are so burdensome to even bring. Each request is like 100 pages.
And the mythical left doesn’t support FISA. They just oppose a political hack like Nunes and his bullshit.
|
In other news, I assume you guys have seen Paul Ryan's deleted "$1.50 a week" tweet. I don't have any expertise or training in political messaging so my opinion probably isn't worth much, but I think it would be good strategy for Democrats to repeat "$1.50 a week" constantly all year to attack Republicans' handling of the economy. It's way better than "maybe don't get that new iphone" for showing Republicans are out of touch with the actual costs of living in America, and it perfectly combats the way the Republicans wrote the tax bill to make people see more money in their paycheck leading into midterm elections.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like a "47%" level opportunity to me.
|
On February 04 2018 08:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 05:41 Leporello wrote:
The longer this memo exists the more destructive it is to the far-right narrative. This memo does reveal the deep-state. This is top-secret directed-surveillance of an American citizen, with gross ramifications. I think it's actually extraordinarily amazing that we're able to spy on a political citizen, who is likely engaging with foreign adversaries, by actually going through a court process, with multiple courts, judges, and oversight.
People who want to believe in fake moon-landings or 9/11-"truth" kind of have to reconcile the fact that when we see a renegade Congress overrule the DoJ and an independent court, there isn't really any mystery to be revealed. Just a warrant. No "secret society". Just an entire court system.
Compare it to J Edgar Hoover, and what he would do. The deep-state died a long time ago. What we have now is actually pretty good. There's a lot of oversight, and with people like Donald Trump and Devin Nunes being voted into high-office, thank fucking God there is no deep-state, it's great that top-secret surveillance is so thoroughly documented and reviewed, or I think we all know we'd be looking at a more fascist America. Well, the left now supporting FISA is interesting for sure. At least Greenwald is still pretty non-partisan. Isn't the FISA rates something like 99.9%? FISA is an abomination regardless of what the circumstances around this particular partisanry is.
1) For intelligence agencies to function they need to be able to monitor suspects without informing those suspects they are being monitored.
2) if 1 is required then some form of oversight is better then no oversight
Now you can certainly argue that FISA might have its flaws, and an approval rate that high is certainly good evidence for it but This, this is not how you solve that.
And Page is a HORRIBLE case to make a stand on considering he himself admitted that the basis for the investigation is correct. If anything Page is an example of the system working.
|
On February 04 2018 08:31 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 05:41 Leporello wrote:
The longer this memo exists the more destructive it is to the far-right narrative. This memo does reveal the deep-state. This is top-secret directed-surveillance of an American citizen, with gross ramifications. I think it's actually extraordinarily amazing that we're able to spy on a political citizen, who is likely engaging with foreign adversaries, by actually going through a court process, with multiple courts, judges, and oversight.
People who want to believe in fake moon-landings or 9/11-"truth" kind of have to reconcile the fact that when we see a renegade Congress overrule the DoJ and an independent court, there isn't really any mystery to be revealed. Just a warrant. No "secret society". Just an entire court system.
Compare it to J Edgar Hoover, and what he would do. The deep-state died a long time ago. What we have now is actually pretty good. There's a lot of oversight, and with people like Donald Trump and Devin Nunes being voted into high-office, thank fucking God there is no deep-state, it's great that top-secret surveillance is so thoroughly documented and reviewed, or I think we all know we'd be looking at a more fascist America. Well, the left now supporting FISA is interesting for sure. At least Greenwald is still pretty non-partisan. Isn't the FISA rates something like 99.9%? FISA is an abomination regardless of what the circumstances around this particular partisanry is.
I don't think anyone, left or right, thinks FISA is a worse alternative to the J Edgar Hoover days.
Well, I won't speak for the right.
edit: I think some might conflate any opposition to surveillance-powers or law-enforcement in general as being "left". I think we can see that, yes, that is a bad conflation.
Greenwald is a journalist, who never really had any basis for punditry. I haven't seen him report anything breaking in a long time. I don't really get his relevance. He doesn't like the "Feds"? Cool for him.
|
On February 04 2018 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:That's actually pretty cheap for something like that. Hillary had plenty where it was upwards of $30k minimum* (I think the highest was a minimum of ~$340,000 iirc) for a plate. The significant difference is typically it's at a friends place to boost their status and financial opportunities, Trump isn't a big sharer though. Which is probably part of why they want it raised in smaller increments. Coincidentally precisely at the cap for a primary and general for a personal campaign. @Doodsmack I find myself curious about why you find it worthy of note?
Just because it benefits his business.
|
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep.
Since giving Nunes this memo, Gowdy has suddenly announced his retirement and taken a very different tone towards Trump. He doesn't capitulate the "fake dossier" discredit-campaign, but at the same time, he is running away from Trump and kind of throwing him under the bus, rhetorically. To hear Trey Gowdy assert Obstruction of Justice like that is... interesting.
|
On February 04 2018 08:41 ChristianS wrote:
In other news, I assume you guys have seen Paul Ryan's deleted "$1.50 a week" tweet. I don't have any expertise or training in political messaging so my opinion probably isn't worth much, but I think it would be good strategy for Democrats to repeat "$1.50 a week" constantly all year to attack Republicans' handling of the economy. It's way better than "maybe don't get that new iphone" for showing Republicans are out of touch with the actual costs of living in America, and it perfectly combats the way the Republicans wrote the tax bill to make people see more money in their paycheck leading into midterm elections.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like a "47%" level opportunity to me.
Oh yeah this story isn't gonna die.
You are going to see Dems point at Wells Fargo getting 3.4 Billion (if I'm them I write it out as 3,400,000,000.00 for effect) and her getting 1.50 per week and ask how is the bill fair to middle class when they are getting the leftovers of a corporate giveaway.
|
Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.html
The memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information.
Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt?
|
http://time.com/5132126/carter-page-russia-2013-letter/
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page bragged that he was an adviser to the Kremlin in a letter obtained by TIME that raises new questions about the extent of Page’s contacts with the Russian government over the years.
The letter, dated Aug. 25, 2013, was sent by Page to an academic press during a dispute over edits to an unpublished manuscript he had submitted for publication, according to an editor who worked with Page.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda,” the letter reads.
Page is at the center of a controversial memo from Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, released this week. The Nunes memo claims that in Oct. 2016 the FBI improperly received court permission to spy on Page, whom Trump had named as an adviser to his campaign in March 2016. The Nunes memo says the FBI based its request for eavesdropping permission on information provided by former British spy Christopher Steele while Steele was working for Democrats.
Fucking.
Brilliant.
This is who you should totally bank your innocence on.
Obviously if it wasn't for Hillary Clinton's dossier, no one would have any reason to suspect Carter Fucking Page. C'mon.
Funny they didn't mention any of this in the memo.
|
On February 04 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:That's actually pretty cheap for something like that. Hillary had plenty where it was upwards of $30k minimum* (I think the highest was a minimum of ~$340,000 iirc) for a plate. The significant difference is typically it's at a friends place to boost their status and financial opportunities, Trump isn't a big sharer though. Which is probably part of why they want it raised in smaller increments. Coincidentally precisely at the cap for a primary and general for a personal campaign. @Doodsmack I find myself curious about why you find it worthy of note? Just because it benefits his business.
Would it make you feel better if it was his friend's?
|
On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep.
I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse.
|
On February 04 2018 09:38 Leporello wrote:http://time.com/5132126/carter-page-russia-2013-letter/Show nested quote +Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page bragged that he was an adviser to the Kremlin in a letter obtained by TIME that raises new questions about the extent of Page’s contacts with the Russian government over the years.
The letter, dated Aug. 25, 2013, was sent by Page to an academic press during a dispute over edits to an unpublished manuscript he had submitted for publication, according to an editor who worked with Page.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda,” the letter reads.
Page is at the center of a controversial memo from Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, released this week. The Nunes memo claims that in Oct. 2016 the FBI improperly received court permission to spy on Page, whom Trump had named as an adviser to his campaign in March 2016. The Nunes memo says the FBI based its request for eavesdropping permission on information provided by former British spy Christopher Steele while Steele was working for Democrats. Fucking. Brilliant. This is who you should totally bank your innocence on. Obviously if it wasn't for Hillary Clinton's dossier, no one would have any reason to suspect Carter Fucking Page. C'mon. Funny they didn't mention any of this in the memo.
But, but... we should just ignore all of that anyway, and talk about how the surveillance is still unjustified. I mean, you're still telling the truth if you only mention FISA and the surveillance of Carter Page, and forget to mention what he's been doing and who he's been associating with. It's not like you're making the story up whole cloth or anything. Because clearly the FBI doesn't know how to do their jobs, or identify the best course to take in the name of national security. And we all know the Right is serious about their national security. It's why we have to keep the brown people out!
|
On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse.
maybe the latter is worse?
for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles.
|
On February 04 2018 11:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse. maybe the latter is worse? for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles.
What I'm really curious about that tweet is how he or his staff managed to take the line from that article about someone's pay going up $78 a year and decide that was the impressive success story they wanted to brag about. Was everyone involved in that tweet so out of touch with the finances of normal Americans that they were unable to judge at a glance if that was a number that would impress people?
|
On February 04 2018 13:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 11:50 zlefin wrote:On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse. maybe the latter is worse? for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles. What I'm really curious about that tweet is how he or his staff managed to take the line from that article about someone's pay going up $78 a year and decide that was the impressive success story they wanted to brag about. Was everyone involved in that tweet so out of touch with the finances of normal Americans that they were unable to judge at a glance if that was a number that would impress people?
My guess is they didn't read it correctly and assumed it is 1.5$/hour, not 1.5$/week.
|
On February 04 2018 20:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 13:01 Kyadytim wrote:On February 04 2018 11:50 zlefin wrote:On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse. maybe the latter is worse? for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles. What I'm really curious about that tweet is how he or his staff managed to take the line from that article about someone's pay going up $78 a year and decide that was the impressive success story they wanted to brag about. Was everyone involved in that tweet so out of touch with the finances of normal Americans that they were unable to judge at a glance if that was a number that would impress people? My guess is they didn't read it correctly and assumed it is 1.5$/hour, not 1.5$/week.
That's what I assumed as well; whichever staffer or intern charged with his twitter got in big trouble, I'm sure 
|
On February 04 2018 13:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 11:50 zlefin wrote:On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse. maybe the latter is worse? for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles. What I'm really curious about that tweet is how he or his staff managed to take the line from that article about someone's pay going up $78 a year and decide that was the impressive success story they wanted to brag about. Was everyone involved in that tweet so out of touch with the finances of normal Americans that they were unable to judge at a glance if that was a number that would impress people?
idunno; it's certainly not a number you want to brag highly about, or frame in terms of money/week. I could see someone arguing in an "every little bit helps" fashion, maybe that's what they were thinking.
|
On February 04 2018 22:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2018 13:01 Kyadytim wrote:On February 04 2018 11:50 zlefin wrote:On February 04 2018 10:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 04 2018 09:13 Leporello wrote:
Paul Ryan's tweet was something straight out of Charles Dickens. He's a creep. I can't tell if he deleted the tweet because he didn't read the article and thought it agreed with him or if he read the article and thought it agreed with him and then his staff told him he screwed up. I can't decide which is worse. maybe the latter is worse? for the former: people are simply very busy these days; and you'd expect him in particular to be very busy. so you take shortcuts, you skim things, you look at titles. What I'm really curious about that tweet is how he or his staff managed to take the line from that article about someone's pay going up $78 a year and decide that was the impressive success story they wanted to brag about. Was everyone involved in that tweet so out of touch with the finances of normal Americans that they were unable to judge at a glance if that was a number that would impress people? idunno; it's certainly not a number you want to brag highly about, or frame in terms of money/week. I could see someone arguing in an "every little bit helps" fashion, maybe that's what they were thinking.
There's a better quote in the article for that though as that's basically what one of the people mentioned actually says. Maybe they think Costco is like a country club membership and didn't realize how much it costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
