Libertarian or not, for me at least, it seem that this election is just like a wrestlemania game ( am I talking about the right "fake" sport ? ). We cheer for our guy, but in the end, we know that who has the real power are the guys with the money, since you guys basically made bribing legal ( with all the lobbying and stuff ... ). It all comes down to who has the most money will control your country basically.
Dunno what to say, for me at least, talking about political ideologies, whenever I get into one, I get turned off by some people or by some principles, or anyways, something is always wrong, so I don't like any ideology entirely. Plus when you formed an ideology and a belief system, you kinda gave up on the opposite things of your particular ideologies/beliefs. What I do, is basically trying to think like a little open-minded kid with marginal knowledge on most stuff. But what I also do, is I react pretty bad to what appears to me to be B.S. ... and the elections sure seem to me like a big bunch of b.s. . Might be wrong, but I don't think I am tbh.
Got no idea how any compassionate human being would vote for a guy who carelessly walked away from a guy who asked him if he can use medical marijuana to deal with his cancer pain. That is, beyond me, and that also shows you that he is not there to do the "right" thing but....uhmmm....anyways....The biggest question for me would be : Why the hell would anyone in their right mind WANT to be president ???? Any of you guys would want ?
Spending a trillion+ less a year is a big difference whether you're looking at it from far away or close-up.
That is true; but which one of the two wants to cut a trillion dollars from th ebudget?
I know only one candidate, but he's probably not getting enough delegates.
I expect that Romney will run budget deficits of 2-400 billion a year, as opposed to 1 - 1.5 trillion a year the way Obama is doing.
And that other candidate doesn't want to cut a trillion a year from the budget, he wants to cut at least 2.5-3 trillion a year. That's why he can't get any delegates. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not generally a popular idea.
since you guys basically made bribing legal ( with all the lobbying and stuff ... )
When was bribery made legal?
Put all the money spent on political campaigns and lobbying in a single year - contributions, advertising on TV and internet and radio, salaries for campaign workers, mailings, dinners, lobbyist salaries - and it comes out to a day's worth, at most, of what the government spends. 24 hours. The federal government spends 400 million dollars an hour.
On June 05 2012 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: I expect that Romney will run budget deficits of 2-400 billion a year, as opposed to 1 - 1.5 trillion a year the way Obama is doing.
And that other candidate doesn't want to cut a trillion a year from the budget, he wants to cut at least 2.5-3 trillion a year. That's why he can't get any delegates. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not generally a popular idea.
Based on what information do you say that? I mean; Romney is not exactly famous for consistency, so even if you provide me a detailed economic analysis of his economic program (is there such a thing?); it doesn't mean we (1) can trust the numbers, (2) trust that he will be able to execute it and (3) even if he was able, to actually implement it.
So I am bit skeptical regarding that kind of statements.
I wouldn't say that Ron Paul is throwing out the baby with the bathwater; but just really proposing something that ought to happen. I agree with 'those kind a people' that the problems are really that bad that those kind of measures need to be taken.
I do agree that that is (one of) the reason he isn't getting any delegates; people are not very good at taking reality into account when they vote. (Look at Greece's election for another example.)
Put all the money spent on political campaigns and lobbying in a single year - contributions, advertising on TV and internet and radio, salaries for campaign workers, mailings, dinners, lobbyist salaries - and it comes out to a day's worth, at most, of what the government spends. 24 hours. The federal government spends 400 million dollars an hour.
Who is bribing who?
Well; both directions, I would say?
Are you familiar with the concentrated costs/dispersed benefits problem of public choice and lobbyists?
Based on what information do you say that? I mean; Romney is not exactly famous for consistency, so even if you provide me a detailed economic analysis of his economic program (is there such a thing?); it doesn't mean we (1) can trust the numbers, (2) trust that he will be able to execute it and (3) even if he was able, to actually implement it.
So I am bit skeptical regarding that kind of statements.
Based on those being the budget deficits during the Bush years except the last one and the expectation that Romney will be a similar president fiscally speaking. I don't care about detailed economic analyses or what even Messiah Ron Paul says, no politician has any credibility speaking concrete numbers on spending. The GAO can't even give similar numbers on the cost of new laws in two different analyses done a few months apart, that's how ridiculous the situation is.
I wouldn't say that Ron Paul is throwing out the baby with the bathwater; but just really proposing something that ought to happen. I agree with 'those kind a people' that the problems are really that bad that those kind of measures need to be taken.
Cutting the federal budget by 80-90% is not something that needs to happen despite Ron Paul thinking it's a great idea. 25-30% would be nice.
I do agree that that is (one of) the reason he isn't getting any delegates; people are not very good at taking reality into account when they vote. (Look at Greece's election for another example.)
Ron Paul supporters talking about recognizing reality blows up both the irony and self-caricature radars into itty bitty pieces.
Are you familiar with the concentrated costs/dispersed benefits problem of public choice and lobbyists?
Yes, I am unfortunately aware of the diatribes regularly put out at Mises.org.
Based on those being the budget deficits during the Bush years except the last one and the expectation that Romney will be a similar president fiscally speaking. I don't care about detailed economic analyses or what even Messiah Ron Paul says, no politician has any credibility speaking concrete numbers on spending. The GAO can't even give similar numbers on the cost of new laws in two different analyses done a few months apart, that's how ridiculous the situation is.
I find that a very bad argument, to be honest, for the simple reason that it would seem that it won't be easy - even with a republican congress - to turn back all the Obama changes. So I don't share your optimism regarding Romney's budget plan.
Cutting the federal budget by 80-90% is not something that needs to happen despite Ron Paul thinking it's a great idea. 25-30% would be nice.
Why not? Apparently; we have a different estimate on how serious the issue is in the Western countries. I am a bit more negative than you on this issue.
It is not 80% btw, if you take into account unfunded liabilities.
Ron Paul supporters talking about recognizing reality blows up both the irony and self-caricature radars into itty bitty pieces.
That is not really an answer to what I said; more like a confirmation: people can ignore reality when they go and vote. That is the simple matter. That is one of the reasons why democracy - as a means to legitimize policy - is such a bad mechanism, especially the more people that create the input.
Let me take myself as an example. I think that a budget cut of 2 trillion is indeed pretty necessary, just to stop a lot worse a little but further down the line. But even if I am completely wrong, It doesn't matter for my vote. That is the problem of 'rational irrationality'. (A good book on this issue is 'the myth of the rational voter', by Bryan Caplan, who introduces this concept.)
Yes, I am unfortunately aware of the diatribes regularly put out at Mises.org.
I am not. I would be surprised if they used the concentrated benefit/dispersed cost analysis a lot, given that this is a child of the public choice school, which they are not a huge fan of.
Based on what information do you say that? I mean; Romney is not exactly famous for consistency, so even if you provide me a detailed economic analysis of his economic program (is there such a thing?); it doesn't mean we (1) can trust the numbers, (2) trust that he will be able to execute it and (3) even if he was able, to actually implement it.
So I am bit skeptical regarding that kind of statements.
Based on those being the budget deficits during the Bush years except the last one and the expectation that Romney will be a similar president fiscally speaking. I don't care about detailed economic analyses or what even Messiah Ron Paul says, no politician has any credibility speaking concrete numbers on spending. The GAO can't even give similar numbers on the cost of new laws in two different analyses done a few months apart, that's how ridiculous the situation is.
* Department of Health and Human Services (mostly Medicare/Medicaid, also CDC): $872 billion * Social Security: $829 billion * Department of Defense: $688 billion * Veteran Affairs: $129 billion * Department of Homeland Security: $60 billion
These items alone total $2.56 trillion. Now tack on $200 billion in interest on the existing debt. So even if we completely 100% eliminate everything else the Federal government does, we'd still be running a $300 billion deficit with only those items.
I find it unlikely that Romney and the Republicans would raise taxes or cut defense/DHS spending (in fact Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending). Currently the GOP is looking at keeping Social Security the same for people age 55+ then privatizing for people younger than that.
On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote: Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ...
What dead institutions? What system wasn't supposed to run? What in the world do you mean by "the time of the state is over"? Can you explain any of this with any detail, or are you just spouting random nonsense?
Also, Romney and Obama have very different domestic agendas and drasically different economic philosphies as far as inequality and poverty are concerned. Saying that it doesn't matter who wins is a bit rediculous. While the degree to which either can impliment their agendas hinges greatly on the makeup of Congress, Romeny could still dismantly quite a bit of the things Obama has done, and Obama could likewise prevent a Republican controlled Congress from implimenting their agenda.
Well; I can infer from the fact that you call them 'very different' that you (sort of) still believe in the system and sort of really think that the policies are that radically different. However some people - me included - have a more 'radical' view, in the sense that we think the system is as flawed as royal absolutism was about 300 years ago.
To make an analogy; because you view them from up close, the differences are really big. But people like me look at it from a far a way distance and the differences are therefore minor.
I am not sure if bOneSeven has similar alternative idas as I do, but I guess he says that the differences are minor for a very similar reason. (Because he looks at it from a pov that is further away from the status quo than you do.)
Their domestic policies are very different. If you seriously think a government take-over of the US healthcare system--1/8th of the US economy--is the same thing as Romney's laissez-faire capitalist ideals you are seriously lacking basic logical reasoning.
Yes I get that you don't like the 2 party system, but short of switching to a proportional representation system how do you actually propose to fix it? One can find thousands of flaws in any system; social construct or otherwise; but that doesn't mean you immediately throw up your arms and declare the system "broke".
My guess is that the real situation here is that you are a Ron Paul supporter who is mad because his candidate's extremely radical ideas were turned down by the republican electorate. That's not an issue with the system, it's an issue with Ron Paul's entirely unrealistic ideas.
On June 05 2012 07:18 AdrianHealey wrote:
I would, by the way, say that libertarian ideas underpin some tea party supporters and most Ron Paul supporters, not the other way around.
Actually you're quite wrong about this. Exit polls after the New Hamshire showed that the number of Ron Paul voters who said they'd vote for the Republican nominee was something like 40%. 60% said they would vote Obama or other. Sorry, but no real libertarian would vote for Obama, he's increased the size and scope of the federal government more that vitually any other president in history. I'm fairly convinced most Ron Paul suppoerter only know him for his policies on legalizing drugs. I think most of them would be quite shocked to hear some of his other frankly insane talking points.
They include things like
Ending birth right citizenship, so your children would not be US citizens upon birth
Ending All Abortion Rights
Eliminate the Income tax and the IRS
Opposes the Civil Rights Act
Eliminating the US Department of Education
Elimination of the Free Float Currency (a real wtf if you know anything about economics)
Yeah no thanks.
Rush Limbaugh put it best: "A lot of his supporters are simply college kids who like his ideas on liberalizing drug laws. A lot of his supporters are young college kids who like his idea on gay rights. You know, they're the young idealists who have only their own personal interests here at stake, and he's out there representing it. "
On June 05 2012 07:31 bOneSeven wrote: Dunno what to say, for me at least, talking about political ideologies, whenever I get into one, I get turned off by some people or by some principles, or anyways, something is always wrong, so I don't like any ideology entirely. Plus when you formed an ideology and a belief system, you kinda gave up on the opposite things of your particular ideologies/beliefs. What I do, is basically trying to think like a little open-minded kid with marginal knowledge on most stuff. But what I also do, is I react pretty bad to what appears to me to be B.S. ... and the elections sure seem to me like a big bunch of b.s. . Might be wrong, but I don't think I am tbh.
Got no idea how any compassionate human being would vote for a guy who carelessly walked away from a guy who asked him if he can use medical marijuana to deal with his cancer pain. That is, beyond me, and that also shows you that he is not there to do the "right" thing but....uhmmm....anyways....
[/quote]
This is about the US General Election, if you want to have a discussion about libertarianism that's fine, but otherwise let's keep whatever it is you're talking about out of this.
Honestly a two party system is flawed it limits our choices greatly I'd love to see other parties get at least 25 percent of the house or senate now that would make things really interesting and would also make bills harder to pass and make it harder to have certain parties get a majority in the house but that is simply my opinion
On June 05 2012 09:45 TheToast wrote: Their domestic policies are very different. If you seriously think a government take-over of the US healthcare system--1/8th of the US economy--is the same thing as Romney's laissez-faire capitalist ideals you are seriously lacking basic logical reasoning.
I agree that a 'takeover' (I do not really agree that it is a complete takeover; it could be even worse) of the US healthcare system is totally different than a 'laissez-faire capitalist' ideal. However, I do not agree that Romney represents a 'laissez-faire capitalist' ideal, for two reasons. (1) If you look at his actual governership in Massachussets, you'll see that it was not inspired by laissez-faire ideals. It is not for no reason that 'Obamacare' was inspired by 'Romneycare' on the state level. (2) His opposition to Obamacare is thus not really credible, but, more importantly, at most he wants to go back to the old status quo, which was not laissez-faire by a long shot. Medicaid, medicare, HMO's, mandatory third party payments, etc. are not exactly a laissez-faire system.
Yes I get that you don't like the 2 party system, but short of switching to a proportional representation system how do you actually propose to fix it? One can find thousands of flaws in any system; social construct or otherwise; but that doesn't mean you immediately throw up your arms and declare the system "broke".
I am sorry, but I have no special preference of the 2 party system over the proportional system or vice versa. They both have, like you said, different flaws. My problem is with the underlying principle that is so prevalent in Western countries: democracy as a means to legitimize policy. I have a problem with thàt.
Wether or not a system is 'broke', depends on your interpretation of what the system ought to do. The system is not broke in the sense that by and large people get the policies they (more or less) want, when they put on their 'political' hat. However my problem with this system is on a deeper level: in the sense that people frequently advocate policies that are bad because of the 'rational irrationality' that the democratic system breeds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality <= for an introduction.)
The alternative would be a system were people actually are more subjugated to the costs of the policies they choose, which would imply more market oriented mechanisms, more political decentralization and, in general, a smaller role for government, in scope, in size and on geographical spread.
My guess is that the real situation here is that you are a Ron Paul supporter who is mad because his candidate's extremely radical ideas were turned down by the republican electorate. That's not an issue with the system, it's an issue with Ron Paul's entirely unrealistic ideas.
Well; I think Ron Paul has, in general, better ideas than the other candidates, that much is true. To that extend, you could say I am a supporter. But I was dissatisfied with the system of democracy for a whole bunch of reasons, before I ever took an interest in Ron Paul. My problem with democracy is also not based on the issue that Ron Paul does not appease to the Republican voters in general: the Republican voter, qua voter, in general likes the war and the general status quo, so they choose someone who is not to far from this status quo, like Romney.
But even if Ron Paul ideas were 'unrealistic' - I agree that they are politically unfeasible, but I do not agree that they are bad ideas (at least; some of them) - that doesn't change the problem I have with democracy. Democratic procedures shield people from the effects of the policies they support. It is all a simple cost/benefit analysis, really. The cost of holding any (irrational) political view is, on a personal level, zero. The benefits are pretty high. If all people have a cost of zero for holding irrational beliefs and the benefits are pretty high, you will expect more of these irrational beliefs on the macro level. And that is what democracy breeds. (I am summarizing the view; you can find more information in the respective academic works, if you are interested. Obviously, there is also rational ignorance, voter paradoxes, etc. and those are important as well, but rational irrationality is pretty fundamental imo.)
Actually you're quite wrong about this. Exit polls after the New Hamshire showed that the number of Ron Paul voters who said they'd vote for the Republican nominee was something like 40%. 60% said they would vote Obama or other. Sorry, but no real libertarian would vote for Obama, he's increased the size and scope of the federal government more that vitually any other president in history. I'm fairly convinced most Ron Paul suppoerter only know him for his policies on legalizing drugs. I think most of them would be quite shocked to hear some of his other frankly insane talking points.
They include things like
Ending birth right citizenship, so your children would not be US citizens upon birth
Ending All Abortion Rights
Eliminate the Income tax and the IRS
Opposes the Civil Rights Act
Eliminating the US Department of Education
Elimination of the Free Float Currency (a real wtf if you know anything about economics)
Yeah no thanks.
Rush Limbaugh put it best: "A lot of his supporters are simply college kids who like his ideas on liberalizing drug laws. A lot of his supporters are young college kids who like his idea on gay rights. You know, they're the young idealists who have only their own personal interests here at stake, and he's out there representing it. "
This is quite interesting. I didn't know that over 60% would vote Obama. Do you have any proof of this statement? (Although, 4 years ago, I advocated voting Obama as a relative improvement over McCain, because at least Obama would be good on war and civil rights. Boy, was I wrong. That is also the last time I ever advocate voting for the least of two evils.)
With your last statement - that most Ron Paul supporters only know him for his position on drugs - I tend to disagree with, for the simple reason that Ron Paul is not really silent on his views on (1) the war, (2) the fed, (3) civil rights, (4) abortion, (5) education and (6) IRS. You have to be pretty deaf to not know his view on those issues as well. Although it is possible that they don't know. But I wouldn't just claim that without any proof. I also don't consider Rush Limbaugh to be an trustworthy source. Just because he says so, doesn't really make it so.
I have never-ever heard about 'Free Float Currency', by the way, and I am partially economist by training. Do you mean free floating exchange rates or do you mean fiat currency? (Please be more careful with your wordings.)
I disagree, obviously, that all his positions are 'frankly insane'. Even if I disagree with some of them, I hardly find them 'insane'. But that would take us to far.
On June 05 2012 05:19 bOneSeven wrote: Why do people this election thing serious anymore ? Before Obama, it was all about hope, change and all that stuff....Now 4 years later, everything is not even the same, it is worse. It's not like I blame Obama or Bush or whatever, It's just an old system which is clearly broke, and since we are using the internet, it must be changed. This system was supposed to run in a world where common people wouldn't have access today right now at what the director of CIA had access 40 years ago.
Why would you care about who wins ? Will they solve any issues ? Do they have the power ? Is it even reasonable to think that it is ok to put ONE guy in charge of 300 million ? Gross over-simplification, sure, but still, this is the picture of it. We have the ability to communicate with each other in live time, the time of the "state" is over. People should forget about president or representatives and think what is the political system that would benefit all of us in a better way with the technology that we have today. Transparency was never on the agenda of the "State" back in the day.
Sry if some1 takes this the wrong way but.....as far as I see it, whoever thinks about the election ( and does not work in journalism/politics ) is wasting their time and focus. It's all going down because of the fact that people want to hold on to these basically dead institutions ...
You have awakened my soul and mind, for I was once blind but now I can see.
Ok now you can go back to various libertarian forums or abovetopsecret to discuss how to stop the New(ish)((kinda old actually)) World order.
Well you take things for granted. The internet is an extremely revolutionary tool, the state was created before the internet....therefore..... Am I the crazy naive guy when you even take in consideration anything related to elections ? The state works only because most people are very dumb and they need a governing body to take care of them, and also because there are some "bad" people who would probably do some terrible things in complete anarchy. But if you educate the "stupid" and also give a healthy environment for the potentially bad guys to develop under, you probably will have limited occurances of "bad things". Statist people are simple cynics of our time. We can't continue like this either. Business as usual is of the table, we are going into a selfdestruction mode if we don't change for the better.
You make me sad for the human race, because you have already gave up.
Yeah, okay you're just repeating the same vague nonsense as before.
I'm actually willing to have a discussion about libertarianism. I lean libertarian and it's a topic that is related to this election as many libertarian-like ideas make up the underpinning of the tea party and some Ron Paul supporters--both of which could potentially have a huge impact on this election.
I asked you some serious questions about what you said yet you instead chose to respond to the joke reply. If you're going to just regurgitate the same grossly vague talking points and never actually engage in a discussion, please leave. Some of us would actually like to have a real conversation.
Tell me about it. However, I don't believe YOU believe what you just said. Minus a rambling post by a 'fringer' to address, you regurgitate a lot of fluff yourself. Don't get me wrong, I barely understood him till I got coffee, but you set off my BS detector, not him.
Several supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) sustained injuries while being arrested during the Louisiana Republican Party’s state convention over the weekend, in a conflict that engulfed the meeting after Paul’s supporters overwhelmed other delegates and voted in new leadership, only to be ignored.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) won the Louisiana primary and received 10 delegates, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) took second, earning five delegates along with it. Paul finished fourth in the primary, behind former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), but his supporters dominated the state’s caucusing process in April, meaning he stood to gain as many as 30 delegates at the state convention.
GOP 2.0: The Restructure in theatres and IMAX-Prisons August 2012
Based on what information do you say that? I mean; Romney is not exactly famous for consistency, so even if you provide me a detailed economic analysis of his economic program (is there such a thing?); it doesn't mean we (1) can trust the numbers, (2) trust that he will be able to execute it and (3) even if he was able, to actually implement it.
So I am bit skeptical regarding that kind of statements.
Based on those being the budget deficits during the Bush years except the last one and the expectation that Romney will be a similar president fiscally speaking. I don't care about detailed economic analyses or what even Messiah Ron Paul says, no politician has any credibility speaking concrete numbers on spending. The GAO can't even give similar numbers on the cost of new laws in two different analyses done a few months apart, that's how ridiculous the situation is.
* Department of Health and Human Services (mostly Medicare/Medicaid, also CDC): $872 billion * Social Security: $829 billion * Department of Defense: $688 billion * Veteran Affairs: $129 billion * Department of Homeland Security: $60 billion
These items alone total $2.56 trillion. Now tack on $200 billion in interest on the existing debt. So even if we completely 100% eliminate everything else the Federal government does, we'd still be running a $300 billion deficit with only those items.
I find it unlikely that Romney and the Republicans would raise taxes or cut defense/DHS spending (in fact Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending). Currently the GOP is looking at keeping Social Security the same for people age 55+ then privatizing for people younger than that.
How do you get to a $2-400bn from there?
The problem with the debt debate is that everyone throws around big numbers, for no reason other than shock value.
The US is a big economy, everything is big.
You might think $200 billion in interest is big. But the US produces $15 trillion in GDP per year. $200 billion is peanuts.
I think you all need to take a step back. Why is high government debt bad? The only reason is because it can potentially lead to higher government borrowing costs, i.e. increasing interest on government bonds. But that has not happened yet, and not even remotely close to happening.
So what's the yield on US government bonds? 1.5% and falling.
That's lower than the rate of inflation (~2%), i.e. the US government can borrow money at negative real interest rates.
This shows that high debt is a very long run issue. For some perspective, the US's debt to GDP is 100%, Greece blew up at 160%, and Japan's government bond yields are even less at 0.8%, while having 220% debt to GDP. (Debt to GDP numbers are from Wikipedia.)
On May 26 2012 21:55 Vega62a wrote: Please address the fact that since the bailouts Chrysler and GM have been turning a profit for the first time in a decade. The link is in my last post.
Here's a short clip about a guy in the 1% and how he will change his investment strategies if taxes on him increase... his point is that instead of investing in ways that benefit him and also benefit the economy he will be forced to invest in ways that lead to less benefit or no benefit at all. Unfortunately it's only a short clip with little explanation as how exactly the paths for better investment get closed when taxes are increased.
What do you guys think about the allegations that Obama intentionally leaked the Stuxnet attack to help him in the election? It was thrown out into the wind by Pawlenty during an interview on CNN and McCain was calling for an investigation of it. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, but this seriously worries me. While it may not be the case, it seems very possible given the detail the writer was given about the operations by very high ranking officials who are very familiar with handling top secret material. If it's proven to be true, it's one of the few things I think could sway me away from Obama at this point.
Is there really any doubt that the Obama administration leaked that stuff? The articles cite high ranking White House officials. Even Sen. Diane Feinstein has said that she sent a classified/confidential letter to the White House raising concerns about the leaks
EPT
