|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 13 2019 00:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:26 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 00:23 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism. Don't you live in CA? I'm in Colorado, but we have sanctuary cities here as well. Are you sure you want to be for the policy of going after the local population of a state to get back at the opposition leadership? You really want to be behind that? Because this is about using people as pawns to get back at his political opponents I want people who pursue and advocate stupid policies to bear the consequences of those policies. That's far more fair than making others who oppose those policies bear the burden. I'm all for it. Lets apply that to all the stupid Republican policies aswell.
So half the country can enjoy trickle-down economics without healthcare while the other half gets a working social security net.
I'm 100% for this. Going to be so much fun.
|
Just think of all the money we could save if we didn’t have to support these underperforming states that were completely dependent on federal assistance to exist. I’m also into this plan.
|
What would happen is that poor republicans will migrate into rich, community focused democratic states. Those red states will not be sending their best. Whilst we are at it, in order to bear the consequences, proportional representation is a must.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On April 12 2019 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2019 15:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
Of course it’s about that.
At least in the court of certain public opinion in certain quarters Assange is double-fucked, as alongside people who want him punished for ‘getting Trump elected’ you have the whole rape angle, while riding on the crest of a wave of MeToo.
Which I’m also having issues with as it’s an important societal conversation which is being tarnished by association with politics, as well as getting into some crazy territories all by itself.
Also apparently holding more than one idea in your head at once is apparently impossible for some people.
So ideally for me Assange would have faced trial for the Swedish sex charges independent of other risks, or be proportionally charged with US crimes, in the US. Which I’m not confident is going to happen, we’ll thats an understand that.
In the same way perhaps Manning did commit a crime, not just technically but in a moral sense too, in being cavalier with some of the stuff being offered to others. On the other hand solitary confinement while being held, not really so fair and certainly exposes a level of punitive vengeance as opposed to justice.
I'm often, and somewhat accurately, accused of providing a similarly reductive portrayal of the US as we're highlighting here of Assange and Wikileaks. I've learned (the hard way) that it's counterproductive to present the hypocrisy by way of mirroring. In essence, my main motivation has been and is, to move beyond the reductive and to the dialogical. I'm glad we've been able to, but I fear this won't last. What can be done to preserve this type of dialogue and to draw more people into it and away from the more reductive discourse that typically pervades political discussions here and elsewhere — in your view?
Tsk such a lack of ambition, one must move from the dialogical to the dialectical.
In seriousness to the actual question, which I'll probably expand upon further later. I actually don't think it's possible, without a whole slew of shifts in different directions that occur simultaneously, or at least on a vaguely similar timeframe. Not impossible by the laws of space and time, but in a de facto sense may as well be.
Which to my mind constitute largely, but aren't entirely limited to, a restoration of some kind of central pillar of general media that is vaguely trusted as not being full of shit. Regulation, either self-imposed or imposed from outside upon the social media sphere that would bring them into some kind of vague line with standards of veracity and accountability that the traditional media are held to. The populace have to either develop a much better bullshit meter and develop the nuance to distinguish between ideological slants and bias there, and stuff that just is just actually untrue. Or if they can't/won't do that, more widely adopt some kind of deference to expertise and knowledge.
I can't say honestly I really ultimately care all that much for say, Trump when this vague trend is something I've been concerned about for quite some time and has only got worse and worse.
I don't think ultimately you can have a functioning civic society at all, or at least not a desirable or pleasant one if the 'post-truth' zeitgeist is actualised to something approaching its maximum potential.
|
On April 13 2019 00:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism. Not really surprised, you were always into petty satisfaction when it comes to politics. I wish I could be more like you, but sadly I realize my personal gratification isn’t a productive political motivation to create policy. Also, living around one of those cities, I can tell you that they are more than capable of dealing with migrants and many would likely assist if asked. But I get that it isn’t about helping or solving the problem, but sticking it to the libs though the use of government power. The New Conservative political platform. Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:35 Danglars wrote:
The northeast would start talking "crisis" in a week if they even received 10% of the result of catch-and-release policies. Nah. We would be fine. The sanctuary cities have enough immigration advocates and aid services set up anyways. They would only need money and notice. This is the dumb part about the administration’s plan. If Trump had any leadership skills, he could have easily handled this problem with the assistance from the rest of the country. And I don't know where this weak and timid northeaster states reputation comes from, but it has to have been created by silly people who have never been to New York, Boston, New Hampshire or Maine.
Especially Boston sports fans.
Additional benefit: taco trucks on every corner.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism.
I can't say we align all that often politically if this thread is anything to go by, but 100% agreed with you on this at least, especially as it pertains to immigration.
|
On April 13 2019 00:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:26 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 00:23 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism. Don't you live in CA? I'm in Colorado, but we have sanctuary cities here as well. Are you sure you want to be for the policy of going after the local population of a state to get back at the opposition leadership? You really want to be behind that? Because this is about using people as pawns to get back at his political opponents I want people who pursue and advocate stupid policies to bear the consequences of those policies. That's far more fair than making others who oppose those policies bear the burden.
I'm excited to hear you're joining the military
____________________________________________________________________________
Joe Manchin is supporting Republican Susan Collins for reelection
This guy shouldn't have a D next to his name or any position of power in the party.
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin endorsed GOP Sen. Susan Collins for reelection on Thursday, in a rare rebuff of partisan politics in an increasingly polarized Senate.
The moderate West Virginia senator also offered to campaign for the vulnerable Maine incumbent. It’s a boon for Collins, who Democrats likely need to beat if they hope to take the Senate majority in 2020.
“I would go up and campaign for Susan Collins. If she wanted me to, I would campaign for Susan Collins. For America to lose somebody like Susan Collins would be an absolute shame. I feel that strongly about her," Manchin said on Thursday.
www.politico.com
|
Anyone who doubts Nunes should look at this. This is a FISA court memo from April of 2017 that reports the results of an audit that was performed at the request of Admiral Rogers because he noticed irregularities in the NSA and FISA databases. Go to page 81 of the report, which describes a problem that Rogers reported:
In May and June 2016, NSA [ie Rogers] reported to oversight personnel in the ODNI and DOJ that, since approximately 2012, use of [REDACTED] to query communications in [REDACTED] had resulted in inadvertent violation of the above-described querying rules for Section 702 information [ie FISA information]. Id. The violations resulted from analysts not recognizing the need to avoid querying datasets for which querying requirements were not satisfied or not understanding how to formulate [REDACTED] queries to exclude such datasets.
So what the Court is saying is that people were making queries of the FISA database for which they did not have authorization. Specifically, they were making overly-broad searches. So how big is the problem? Let's see....
NSA examined all queries using identifiers for "U.S. persons targeted pursuant to Sections 704 and 705(b) of FISA using the [REDACTED] tool in [REDACTED]... from November 1, 2015 to May 1, 2016. Id. at 2-3 (footnote omitted). Based on that examination, "NSA estimates that approximately eighty-five percent of those queries, representing [REDACTED] queries conducted by [REDACTED] targeted offices, were not compliance with applicable minimization procedures." Id. at 3. Many of these non-compliance queries involved use of the same identifiers over different date ranges. Id. Even so, a non-compliance rate of 85% raises substantial questions about the propriety of using [REDACTED] to query FISA data. While the government reports that it is unable to provide a reliable estimate of the number of non-compliance queries since 2012, id, there is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015-April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error rate."
85% of the searches were improper! That's a big problem! Now you may be wondering what that [REDACTED] is that was being used to query the NSA database. It's contractors. Look at the next section starting p. 83:
On March 9, 2016, DOJ oversight personnel conducting a minimization review at the FBI's [REDACTED] learned that the FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information [ie FISA information] to a [REDACTED]. Compliance Report at 92. [REDACTED] is part of the [REDACTED] and is "largely staffed by private contractor" [REDACTED] certain [REDACTED] contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems [REDACTED]. Id. The apparent purpose for the FBI's granting such access was to receive analytical assistance from [REDACTED]. None the less, the [REDACTED] contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests; [REDACTED]. The FBI discontinued the above-described access to raw FISA information as of April 18, 2016. [REDACTED].
How much do you want to bet that the agency whose name is redacted there who was overseeing these private contractors was the CIA?
Now go to footnote 69 on Page 87:
The improper access granted to the [REDACTED] contractors was apparently in place [REDACTED] and seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking. [REDACTED]. Compliance Report at 92-93. ([REDACTED] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into [REDACTED]). Despite the existence of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers), no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016. Of course, such a memorandum of understanding could not override the restrictions of Section 702 minimization procedures.
Now isn't this special. The [CIA?] contractors who had improper access to this stuff were apparently given this access deliberately by someone as memorialized in an interagency MoU that was hidden from the FISA court and which is not in compliance with the law. Who would have drafted and approved such an MoU? DNI Clapper? Brennan? Dare I say Obama? I promise you that Nunes has seen this stuff and knows exactly who is involved.
So to summarize. Rogers sees a huge noncompliance rate in contractor searches and reports it to the FISA court. The FISA court looks into this and found that a contractor working for some redacted federal agency (I bet it's the CIA) was improperly receiving FISA information from the FBI and from the NSA database. The FISA court then digs deeper and finds that the improper access was granted pursuant to an MoU that was written and deployed that was inconsistent with existing law and which had not been cleared with the FISA court.
Perhaps now is a good time to mention that Nellie Ohr -- a CIA contractor and someone who was working with Fusion GPS -- had access to the FISA database. Still think Nunes is full of shit?
|
|
|
On April 13 2019 00:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 00:23 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism. Don't you live in CA? I'm in Colorado, but we have sanctuary cities here as well. Are you sure you want to be for the policy of going after the local population of a state to get back at the opposition leadership? You really want to be behind that? Because this is about using people as pawns to get back at his political opponents
Trump has just been playing tropico too much.
This, attack the opposition, always, is not a great sign for a democracy.
|
On April 13 2019 03:17 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:26 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 00:23 IyMoon wrote:On April 13 2019 00:22 xDaunt wrote:
I'm all for dumping illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities and other liberal bastions that support illegal immigration. I'm a strong believer in the power of NIMBYism. Don't you live in CA? I'm in Colorado, but we have sanctuary cities here as well. Are you sure you want to be for the policy of going after the local population of a state to get back at the opposition leadership? You really want to be behind that? Because this is about using people as pawns to get back at his political opponents Trump has just been playing tropico too much. This, attack the opposition, always, is not a great sign for a democracy. When your own policies are impossible to defend. what other option is there but to attack?
|
On April 13 2019 00:07 xDaunt wrote:
The casual dismissals from you guys are hilarious in light of the breathtaking scope and severity of the allegations, the known evidence, and the fact that the AG just testified this week that he does believe that Trump was spied upon. When the indictments start coming down, I suspect that Trump supporters are going to be having more fun than they did on election night 2016.
He testified spying then spent hours redefining that word to mean legally conducting an investigation of other people.
Under his testimony if my phone is being tapped under a warrant and you call me the FBI is "spying" on you so ya I don't take it seriously because Nunes is a joke and Barr looked like a fool trying to say things to make the president happy.
|
On April 13 2019 03:47 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 00:07 xDaunt wrote:
The casual dismissals from you guys are hilarious in light of the breathtaking scope and severity of the allegations, the known evidence, and the fact that the AG just testified this week that he does believe that Trump was spied upon. When the indictments start coming down, I suspect that Trump supporters are going to be having more fun than they did on election night 2016. He testified spying then spent hours redefining that word to mean legally conducting an investigation of other people. Under his testimony if my phone is being tapped under a warrant and you call me the FBI is "spying" on you so ya I don't take it seriously because Nunes is a joke and Barr looked like a fool trying to say things to make the president happy.
This is a complete misconstruction of what Barr testified to. He said "spying," and then said that the real question was whether the "spying" was properly predicated.
And let's get real: "spying" is the correct term. When FISA warrants, NSA database inquiries, and actual spies -- confidential informants who attempt to infiltrate and manipulate an organization -- are employed, that is called spying. There simply is no other way to define it.
|
On April 13 2019 04:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 03:47 Adreme wrote:On April 13 2019 00:07 xDaunt wrote:
The casual dismissals from you guys are hilarious in light of the breathtaking scope and severity of the allegations, the known evidence, and the fact that the AG just testified this week that he does believe that Trump was spied upon. When the indictments start coming down, I suspect that Trump supporters are going to be having more fun than they did on election night 2016. He testified spying then spent hours redefining that word to mean legally conducting an investigation of other people. Under his testimony if my phone is being tapped under a warrant and you call me the FBI is "spying" on you so ya I don't take it seriously because Nunes is a joke and Barr looked like a fool trying to say things to make the president happy. This is a complete misconstruction of what Barr testified to. He said "spying," and then said that the real question was whether the "spying" was properly predicated. And let's get real: "spying" is the correct term. When FISA warrants, NSA database inquiries, and actual spies -- confidential informants who attempt to infiltrate and manipulate an organization -- are employed, that is called spying. There simply is no other way to define it.
Well, he repeated the question in the affirmative, which isn’t exactly choosing the word. But we get the point that Barr served of some lovely red meat directly to the President and his supporters during that hearing. And everyone is going to run with it until the IG report this summer comes out and disappoints everyone. Then it will off to claiming the IG that did the job was an Obama plant.
|
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message
|
On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message
Have you considered it's intentional?
|
On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional?
Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities.
|
On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional?
Ascribing intent to Trump’s tweets is a fools errand. The only thing they are good for is figuring out what TV show he is watching at the given time.
On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities.
I’m sure that is exactly how it looks and it’s a huge with for the White House. It doesn’t look like the White House making petty, weak attacks on its political opponents. Makes Trump look very strong.
|
On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities.
Look at those silly democrats, not wanting the executive to use people as political pawns! Silly silly
That's the thing you're not getting....
Think for a second, I don't give a shit if they started locating these people into communities that wanted them if they had a good motive behind it. Owning the libs isn't a good motive, it's Trump being a dick and using poor people in order to do it.
Did you get that? Did you understand why people are mad?
|
On April 13 2019 05:27 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 05:23 xDaunt wrote:On April 13 2019 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2019 05:09 IyMoon wrote:
So after the WH comes out and says the dumping if immigrants in sanctuary cities saying it was considered and then rejected. Trump tweets out that that is still being considered.
The WH is a well oiled machine of not knowing how to stay on message Have you considered it's intentional? Of course it's intentional. The Democrat response to it has been predictably terrible. They look like massive hypocrites when they promote open borders policies and massive benefits for illegals and then object to the illegals being dumped in their communities. Look at those silly democrats, not wanting the executive to use people as political pawns! Silly silly That's the thing you're not getting.... Think for a second, I don't give a shit if they started locating these people into communities that wanted them if they had a good motive behind it. Owning the libs isn't a good motive, it's Trump being a dick and using poor people in order to do it. Did you get that? Did you understand why people are mad?
People are mad because they are mindlessly buying a stupid talking point. Think about it from the perspective of the illegal alien who is crossing the border today. Where do you think he wants to go? The liberal sanctuary city that won't report him and is also willing to provide him all sorts of government-funded benefits, or some other city where he's far more likely to be deported and that will not provide him benefits?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
