|
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 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
The information is "highly classified" and you want WaPo to publish it for the world to see? You get that keeping classified information secret serves American interests, right? I thought serving America's interests was what you liked Trump for. Edit: also, it seems like the Post story gives a good idea what the information was about.
While we're on the subject, disclosing confidential information through casual conversation with foreign dignitaries is highly irregular. Even when we share info with foreign powers there are more controlled avenues for it. If Trump had demonstrated some talent for deftly navigating foreign relations we might give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had good reason for disclosing it. He hasn't, and such an assumption would be foolish.
If Trump or his subordinates want to give an explanation for why they disclosed classified information to Russia they can do so. In the mean time it is perfectly appropriate to report on this development, and if it makes Trump look bad that's because it seems like he fucked up. Writing it off as "fake news" is essentially just shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting.
|
On May 16 2017 08:23 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action. And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie?
Look, padawan. Claiming hypocrisy doesn't work so well when you have to straw man your way into it.
|
On May 16 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:23 hunts wrote:On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action. And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie? Look, padawan. Claiming hypocrisy doesn't work so well when you have to straw man your way into it.
Except that it's not a strawman, we have plenty of proof in your own posts to show just how much of a hypocrite you are. And of course you do the typical xdaunt/dangles post of hand waving and dismissing arguments without having any sort of response or counter to them. But of course I can see why you wouldn't want to answer that question, and would instead rather feign superiority by hand waving.
|
On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
This is from the article. WaPo is sitting on the details that Trump leaked because they are so damaging to national security.
Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.f6c4c65e1909
If you want to sit on your bias and assume all negative news about Trump is a liberal conspiracy, fine. But you don't get your own facts.
EDIT: and before you say it, McMaster only denied that Trump leaked sources/methods. McMaster says so in the WaPo story. McMaster does __NOT__ denyu that Trump leaked the intel products of those sources/methods. The intel products would be: "Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat". That is not a source.
|
On May 16 2017 07:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:23 NewSunshine wrote:On May 16 2017 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 02:49 Nevuk wrote:By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent say it's a bad idea, including 43 percent of respondents who "strongly" believe that.
By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.
That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.
This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.
On May 4, the House approved legislation - by a narrow 217-213 majority - to repeal and replace Obama's Affordable Care Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the legislative activity has since moved to the U.S. Senate.
According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of Republican respondents say the GOP health-care legislation is a good idea, versus 77 percent of Democrats who believe it's a bad idea. Among independents, it's 44 percent bad idea, 18 percent good idea.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/poll-48-percent-say-house-gop-health-care-bill-bad-n759201 Meanwhile single-payer polls better than both of them and is the lowest of the 3 on either party's agenda because that makes sense. And yet it's a successful model for universal health coverage, as indicated by its adoption in some form in nearly every 1st world country. Except the USA. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon, the big money is so entrenched in it at this point, it would take a lot. The astonishing part is how intent people on both sides are denying that the money dumping into these politicians coffers and associates wallets is what is stopping it. You see we need our politicians to take that corrupting money so that they can compete with each other... which people are denying that the vast sums of money are having an influence? i.e. i'd like examples of which people you're referring to and exactly what they're saying. I mean the people here know if I'm talking about them. They would have been the people denying that the dozens of millions of dollars going into certain candidates bank accounts would influence them in ways contrary to our best interests (as opposed to theirs) all last year. Specifically to the contemporary, I would point to the DNC failing to reinstate Obama's ban on lobbyist cash into the DNC. But as I was suggesting, there's not a lot of practical difference between denying it, and arguing that we have to accept it. i'd say there's a very huge difference between denying it and arguing we have to accept it. and it'd depend on what "acceptance" means. everyone I know on the left, including here, would like to cut down on the influence of those millions of dollars, but there's limited ways to actually do so effectively; and money always finds a way. I agree the practical difference isn't huge; but it is of some value for understanding the situations and analyzing them; and it's a distinction worth making. I also trend to be pedantic and specific in my words, so, as with msot people, I parse what other says using similar standards to what I use myself. Generally speaking, there's often a rather big difference between denying something (which is to argue that it is false), and arguing that it is true but necessary and must be accepted. if you don't want to name the people here publicly, can you do it in pm? cuz otherwise I'm still not sure who you're talking about. That DNC thing you mention does sound troubling, I'll read up on that if I remember to, but much is happening in the thread. everyone here already knows your language parser is more like an algorithm and less like intelligence. i think i mentioned you should brush up on hermeneutics a few months ago. how about you brush up on your hermeneutics and add the books you read on it your sig?
you've provided no actual decent reasons, so no.
and you're the one who needs to improve their speaking for clarity.
good burn though.
|
The article establishes that Trump should not have divulged it, especially with Russian state media there. It potentially compromised the source (despite McMaster saying the source wasn't explicitly divulged), and we haven't even shared that info with our allies. The info was near the very top of classified intelligence. There's a reason for that.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
classification level is not necessarily related to the contents of the information itself, but how that information was obtained
|
United States24799 Posts
On May 16 2017 08:47 ahswtini wrote:
classification level is not necessarily related to the contents of the information itself, but how that information was obtained
Information is classified according to its potential to be damaging to national security if released.
edit: For example, read the descriptions of Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information#Top_Secret_.28TS.29
|
|
|
On May 16 2017 08:35 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 08:23 hunts wrote:On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action. And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie? Look, padawan. Claiming hypocrisy doesn't work so well when you have to straw man your way into it. Except that it's not a strawman, we have plenty of proof in your own posts to show just how much of a hypocrite you are. And of course you do the typical xdaunt/dangles post of hand waving and dismissing arguments without having any sort of response or counter to them. But of course I can see why you wouldn't want to answer that question, and would instead rather feign superiority by hand waving.
Why would I answer a question when you've already provided the answer for me? You already know the answer, right? You're the xDaunt expert, not I.
|
United States24799 Posts
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute.
|
On May 16 2017 08:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote:On May 16 2017 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 16 2017 02:27 Velr wrote:
If you voted trump and still would, yes, your the very definition of stupid partisanship.
I can get behind plenty of conservative (not religious conservative) positions because i deal with hardcore conservatives everyday (which tend to be a bit more religious here too).
I don't agree with them but i see where they are comming from and thanks to my job i see the stupidity of the left daily.
The thing is: If you now still stand behind trump, you better get paid by him or your just dillusional and want your country to go down.
Ffs "not voting for someone like trump" is actually the best argument "the establishment" had against the hard right since... i don't know, i'm 34 and don't remember such a shitshow in any modern/firstworld country.
Berlusconi looked better than Trump when he was at his worst. Which is why I have to keep bringing it up. Because people don't believe there were actually two choices at play, and there's compelling arguments for repeating that vote for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this continually blasting of Trump's mistakes while recognizing none of the background arguments is called nonpartisanship or something by the left and it's frankly drop-dead hilarious. "He's objectively ..." mmhmm I'll listen in when hardcore alt-Left and regressive-Left persons make conservative positions not look unideological. You'll have to take off the horse blinders while staring gape-mouthed at Trump for maybe a couple weeks to notice the media, DNC, and leftist cultural warriors are all complicit. Now let's all repeat together that Trump is awful and all his supporters are "delusional and want your country to go down." Because that's how you show you're above "the very definition of stupid partisanship." Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons. And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails. Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump. I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion? I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them. So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country. Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here... I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies. How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights
it's killing our country
The discussion was political values and you're busy dishing out Democratic talking points. That's absolutely disingenuous. Perhaps you'd only recognize that if you said you had differing political values, and I offered that you wanted to bankrupt the country, remove political power from elected leaders, trash civil rights, and subvert the rule of law. Oh, and then I defend myself by saying that all these things are true, why bother denying it? I'm referring to that disingenuousness. It's entirely self serving to disparage support for the GOP ("you're so close minded") and then ignore the political values that align (all the partisan attacks on policy arguments).
|
On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute.
Really? You're going to single me out? Like I have said til I have been blue in the face, I don't start shit around here. I'm as a nice as this thread lets me be. There are literally dozens of liberal shitposts for every one of mine. Almost none of them get actioned (and I'm too nice to report every one of them; I'm guessing the other conservative posters are, too). If you mods aren't going to do your job and action shitposts like hunts, then at least have the courtesy to leave me alone.
|
United States24799 Posts
@ Dangers and DPB: Then how about you both take a step back and actually lay out your policy goals and explain how they align with the current parties, administration, or other candidates? Maybe there would actually be something to discuss then other than the tweet of the hour.
On May 16 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute. Really? You're going to single me out? Like I have said til I have been blue in the face, I don't start shit around here. I'm as a nice as this thread lets me be. There are literally dozens of liberal shitposts for every one of mine. Almost none of them get actioned (and I'm too nice to report every one of them; I'm guessing the other conservative posters are, too). If you mods aren't going to do your job and action shitposts like hunts, then at least have the courtesy to leave me alone.
I was reading through the most recent few posts and I saw your posting, like I said, degrading by the minute. You stood out. You were the slowest person when the bear was chasing your group. I'm sorry you think the moderation is biased, but that argument doesn't carry much weight when you are making it right after a chain of terrible posting. If you want to report inappropriate posts from people with another political ideology than you, go ahead.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
|
On May 16 2017 09:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:55 micronesia wrote:
xDaunt if you've run out of things to discuss, why post? You made an inflammatory post, and while there is still the potential for you to salvage it into a reasonable counterpoint to what others here are saying, all you are doing is responding to another user by being insulting, weakly attempting to indirectly discredit the point made by another, and then making a snide remark that does not address the relevant issue in any way. Go back and read the past few posts of yours and decide if you actually think that's how discussions in this thread should be or not.
I generally don't moderate in this thread because I have a conflict of interest, but your posting is degrading with each passing minute. Really? You're going to single me out? Like I have said til I have been blue in the face, I don't start shit around here. I'm as a nice as this thread lets me be. There are literally dozens of liberal shitposts for every one of mine. Almost none of them get actioned (and I'm too nice to report every one of them; I'm guessing the other conservative posters are, too). If you mods aren't going to do your job and action shitposts like hunts, then at least have the courtesy to leave me alone.
i'd gladly action the numerous liberal shitposts; sadly they still won't let me 
that said, you really aren't as nice as the thread lets you be, and you're well known for starting shit.
also, shoudln't this be more of a website feedback thing? I recommend moving further discussion there.
|
On May 16 2017 09:01 micronesia wrote:
@ Dangers and DPB: Then how about you both take a step back and actually lay out your policy goals and explain how they align with the current parties, administration, or other candidates? Maybe there would actually be something to discuss then other than the tweet of the hour.
@who? Seriously.
I'm hoping we can actually identify that (1) it's not close minded to currently support the party that most aligns with your politics (2) it's absolutely closed minded to only spout arguments meant to criticize said politics. Until that conflict is resolved, there's no point asking for goals and alignments because they historically and currently aren't even being examined. I'd rather talk about the tweet of the hour than someone who can't note the difference between holding political beliefs and attacking the beliefs of others. I don't know if you need to re-read the last ten pages to understand it can be a fundamentally fruitless exercise if you take a step back from your own personal political beliefs.
|
On May 16 2017 08:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:23 hunts wrote:On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action. And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie? That's the hilarious part, this thread is like an experiment into how far people on both sides, myself included, will go to defend those who they percieve in a positive notion and the opposite for someone they perceive in a negative notion. We had people minimizing all clinton's faults back then, whereas the right wing posters would relentlessly attack. Now the tides have turned and we are seeing the opposite. It's a duh statement, but it's really funny when you just take a step back and look at the positions taken by the posters and use the litmus test of : "how would you react if this was hillary clinton." I know danglars thinks he's immune to these hypotheticals, but we already have proof in this thread how people react: Like partisan hacks.
it is indeed sad how high the % of partisan hacks is.
also partisan hacks are more likely to be involved in politics/voting/discussions; which makes it more noticeable.
which is why I sometimes wonder if non-voters would actually do a better job at voting; while they're less knowledgeable, they're also less biased, so what little knowledge they have is more accurate rather than heavily tainted.
|
Can you imagine what would be happening right now if Pence had won? ACA repealed. Capital gains taxes eliminated. Medicaid/Medicare replaced by vouchers. Public schools replaced by vouchers. Pass through taxation eliminated. Payroll taxes increased to offset upper income tax cuts. Full Dodd-Frank repeal with a totality repeal of every regulation of leverage.
Every Trump scandal like this is literally saving the country from policy catastrophes. Moreover, his idiocy may be the thing that finally gets the Democrats to get back to being a broad party that accepts the moderate refugees from the Republicans. I am loving this.
|
I'll ask it again, for the 5th time, I guess. Could you please provide me with what you are standing behind politically and why do you think Trump has the potential to be a great president?
I think this was originally for xDaunt, but I think you (Danglars) align well enough with him that you can fill in for him. Or you can both give me some stuff where you think the other is lacking, I don't care, I just want to know from the other side why you believe in what you believe. I am all for fruitful discussion. Perhaps we can find some middle ground... somewhere (even though I'm pretty skeptical about that if I'm putting all my cards on the table  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
