Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2752 Apr 06 2017 at 4:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,334 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I hate left handed red headed step children, and engage in targeted attacks against that set of people, then the only people who are afraid are those in the group.
What have I ever done to you that would cause you to hate me?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#2753 Apr 06 2017 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
What have I ever done to you that would cause you to hate me?
Lack of soul.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2754 Apr 06 2017 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The House Ethics Committee is investigating the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for unauthorized releasing of classified information as part of the Russia investigation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2755 Apr 06 2017 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You'd have thought we could hit 100 days before entering Wag the Dog territory.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2756 Apr 06 2017 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,221 posts
So... wohr wy Syria.. and retaliatory war at that. I didn't know US was annexed? Can someone explain concept of retaliation when you are not a party to the offense?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2757 Apr 07 2017 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Twitter is suing to keep a Twitter poster that is "critical" to 45's identity anonymous from the administration the same day that Don Rickles dies presumably of either from the ridiculousness of that news or of old age.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2758 Apr 07 2017 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,152 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Samira wrote:
So Bannon is off the National Security Council, which falls short of public evisceration but is still somewhat reassuring.


So what does it mean? Security apparatus finally got a deal with Trump after the several months of public negotiations? McMaster is level 99 ninja? What?

Edited, Apr 5th 2017 7:54pm by angrymnk


Probably that Jared Kushner maneuvered Bannon out, possibly in conjunction with McMaster.

On the "meh" side, we back filled Bannon's evil with Perry's stupidity, but I'm less worried about him. McMaster will tell him to sit down and shut up until he knows what he's talking about, effectively silencing him permanently.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2759 Apr 07 2017 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The House Ethics Committee is investigating the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee for unauthorized releasing of classified information as part of the Russia investigation.


Jophiel wrote:
You'd have thought we could hit 100 days before entering Wag the Dog territory.


Eh. I see a heck of a lot of smoke, but very little fire going on anywhere.

What I do find interesting is that Susan Rice has essentially admitted that Trump was right about being spied upon by the Obama administration. When you combine the NSA (that's the person, not the organization) selectively unmasking members of the Trump campaign, later justifying it as something that might be done as part of an investigation of those people, and then combine Obama's executive order to spread the intelligence around to a dozen additional agencies (making leaks much more likely and much harder to track down), there's a pretty clear pattern here, that comes right from the top, so to speak.

We're more or less at the point of questioning whether the surveillance itself may have violated FISA rules (using taps of non-us persons to surveil us persons requires a FISA warrant). What's not even in question anymore is whether that surveillance occurred at all. Which is funny given that just a few weeks ago Trump was being mocked for making such a crazy and unsubstantiated claim. Which means that regardless of the legality of the surveillance, we're still left with the incredibly questionable political aspect of a sitting president using the intelligence services to spy on the campaign of the opposition party's presidential candidate in the middle of an election.

Which, except for the flashlights, puts us squarely in to Watergate territory.

Edited, Apr 7th 2017 3:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2760 Apr 07 2017 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Eh. I see a heck of a lot of smoke, but very little fire going on anywhere.

Of course.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2761 Apr 07 2017 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eh. I see a heck of a lot of smoke, but very little fire going on anywhere.
You could say the same right after a nuclear explosion.

You see what you want to see.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2762 Apr 07 2017 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Eh. I see a heck of a lot of smoke, but very little fire going on anywhere.

Of course.


Aside from the Obama administration using the claim about Russian collusion by the Trump campaign to engage in a national security fishing expedition, I have not seen a single actual "fact" for anything at all. Tons of innuendo and claims being tossed around, but the only thing we actually know for certain is that Obama's national security adviser ordered our intelligence services to unmask the identity of any members of the Trump campaign if they happened to be on the US side of a tapped conversation of a non-US target. And we know that Obama followed that up with an executive order to disseminate that intelligence to a whole list of organizations, which normally do not receive or work with unmasked intelligence (kinda for exactly the reason that it'll create a FISA violating condition).

There's zero evidence provided at any level to support the initial claim though. None. So we have the smoke and fall out from that claim, but no support for the claim itself. Which looks suspiciously like the claim was made up, then exaggerated, and then used as an excuse to engage in a surveillance operation for political purposes. At the very least, if they did have a legitimate reason for spying on the campaign and transition team of the other party's candidate, don't you think they ought to be required to provide it? To someone at least?

The first question we ought to be asking (heck, demanding) is whether they sought proper FISA approval for that surveillance. And if so, have our intelligence committees examine the application and evidence to determine if it was legitimate. And if not, then there's a serious problem here. If we're concerned about a foreign government meddling in our election process, we ought to be 100 times more concerned about our own government doing so. I kinda expect other governments to want to manipulate us if they can. It's them doing their jobs, in fact, and in no way damages our own democratic system. Our own government doing so? That's a huge problem that does undermine our democracy in pretty scary ways.

I'll point out again, that what Susan Rice and Obama did was effectively as bad as Watergate. In some ways worse, actually. There's little evidence that Nixon himself ordered the break in at the DNC offices. It was done several layers down in his campaign. And there's no evidence that "official" government resources were used for this (it was operatives that said campaign folks knew, but were working completely off the books). Nixon's problem was when he did use government resources to cover it up after the fact. But in this case, it looks as though Obama personally ordered the unmasking (that's kinda what the National Security Adviser does, right?) and dissemination of the unmasked data. So what we have is a president using the direct power of the executive branch to attempt to gain secret/damaging information about the opposing party campaign, presumably to gain an advantage for his own party's candidate and campaign.

Which, I would hope we should all agree is a Really Bad Thing(tm). A few weeks ago, I would place even weight on each of the sides claims about the other. But now? There's actual proof of one side's actions, and still nothing but speculation about the others. It really is starting to look like the entire "Russian collusion" thing was just made up to provide an excuse to effectively spy on the Trump campaign. And it's looking like that has totally backfired on them and is likely only going to get worse as we find more information about what exactly happened.

But hey. If there's actual evidence out there to support that starting claim, then the whole thing can be explained away and justified. But so far, I've not seen any such evidence, and I'm not aware that anyone else has as well.

Edited, Apr 7th 2017 4:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2763 Apr 07 2017 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Eh. I see a heck of a lot of smoke, but very little fire going on anywhere.
You could say the same right after a nuclear explosion.

You see what you want to see.


I see what's there. Tell you what. Why don't you tell the class what actual facts there are to support the claim that the Trump administration colluded with the Russian government to manipulate the election.

Heck. Let's start by you explaining exactly what form this collusion could have taken. What exactly do you think the Trump administration even could have done that would qualify? The only actual election affecting thing I'm aware of was the leak of the Podesta emails. But even if we assume that was done by the Russians (and I'm not convinced of that), exactly how could the Trump administration have "colluded" with them in this? The conspiracy theory is that the Russians hacked the DNC servers, found the emails, then handed them off to Wikileaks. And then, Wikileaks leaked it. What exactly did Trump's people do here? Heck. What could they have done? It's not like there's even a step in there where any interaction with Trump's campaign would have been required, or in any way affected the result.

That's just how laughable the claim is. No one can even seem to define exactly what it is they're claiming happened. And that's before getting within 100 miles of anything remotely resembling evidence of whatever it is we haven't actually been told may or may not have happened.


You seriously don't even stop and question this? At all?

Edited, Apr 7th 2017 4:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2764 Apr 07 2017 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
***
1,032 posts
I question why Republicans like treason so much, sometimes. They just can't seem to stop.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#2765 Apr 07 2017 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
Look, little buddy: While I can't say for any certainty what happened it's clear that this President and his people are extremely opaque is all their doings. Something (or several somethings) have occurred which have a stink about them and people want clear answers which are not forthcoming from this administration.

"We think something stinks and needs investigating at the highest levels" was a good enough excuse to go after Hillary for years. It's certainly sufficient for an investigation of President Cheeto and his posse.

____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2766 Apr 07 2017 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
I question why Republicans like treason so much, sometimes. They just can't seem to stop.


You have to remember that Reagan is their role model.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2767 Apr 07 2017 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Look, little buddy: While I can't say for any certainty what happened it's clear that this President and his people are extremely opaque is all their doings. Something (or several somethings) have occurred which have a stink about them and people want clear answers which are not forthcoming from this administration.


Way to basically chuck the entire concept of 60% of the bill of rights out the window. You do understand that we have due process rules precisely because "has a stink about him" isn't a great reason to base the use of executive power on, right? I mean, you do actually understand this? Please tell me you do...

Quote:
"We think something stinks and needs investigating at the highest levels" was a good enough excuse to go after Hillary for years. It's certainly sufficient for an investigation of President Cheeto and his posse.


I'm sorry. Could you show me the point at which unwarranted surveillance (or even warranted) was used against Clinton at any point in this? No one's saying that having an investigation is wrong. What we're saying is "secretly using our intelligence services to spy on someone because you don't like them" instead of having an above board investigation is a serious problem and represents a break down of some of the most fundamental constitutional protections that folks like Obama were supposed to be upholding. He took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the odds of his party winning the next election. It's pretty clear that he put one of those in front of the other, and it wasn't the constitution he was protecting.

How massive must your blinders be for you not to see this? On the one hand we have nothing to support the claim that Trump or his campaign did a single thing to justify being spied upon. On the other, we absolutely know that the Obama administration, apparently under the direct orders of Obama himself (unless you think that the National Security Adviser position is anything other than the presidents direct link to our intelligence agencies, and orders from said person are treated as coming directly from the president, that is), engaged in direct and targeted surveillance of members of the Trump campaign.

Again, even if there was a FISA warrant obtained (and guess what? We have no evidence or confirmation of that, which you'd think would be the very first thing that would be trotted out if you were trying to justify what you did), It still has a very very negative political connotation. We can't have a system where the party in power uses what should be non-political agencies for political reasons. And if you think that "detecting and preventing some kind of wrongdoing" was remotely as much a motivator for this spying as "finding something we can use against Trump to help Clinton win", you are probably the most naive person on the planet.

Given that the *only* effect we've seen from this surveillance was the illegal leaking of the contents of a conversation by Flynn, and it was leaked specifically to damage him and Trump, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that this was precisely why the unmasking and distribution of that surveillance was done in the first place. Where's the supposed collusion that prompted all of this? I'll give you a prediction: It didn't happen. But we'll spend the next couple years with demands for investigations, and then investigations, and speculative news stories, and as much smokescreen as possible, all designed to do maximum political damage based on what "might be", but over time, the topic will shift, and you'll have forgotten that the original claim, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, was never proven. And it wont matter to you by then either.

Because this is how these things work. Remember the massive smoke screen of the Plame investigation? Remember how we had to get to the bottom of who leaked Plames identity and CIA employment? Remember a freaking movie made that dramatically (and hysterically falsely) went off on a dream quest of all the people presumably harmed because of her outing? You remember all of that, right? Do you also remember how none of it was true. There was no outing. She wasn't really a secret agent of the CIA. There were no secret lists of contacts at risk. And the source of the "leak" of her identity wasn't anyone connected to the Bush white house, and worse, the investigators knew that before they even started their investigation. The purpose of the investigation itself wasn't ever about finding out who outed her, because it wasn't a crime and they already knew. The purpose was entirely about causing political damage to president Bush, by the mere act of having an investigation.

This is no different. It's a political party finding themselves out of power, and using any trick they can to try to cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the other direction. And heck, it worked back in the mid 2000s, leading to the Dems retaking congress and the White House, so maybe it'll work this time too? I guess when your party doesn't have any actual platform to stand on that can sufficiently win them elections, the only thing they've got left is "make the voters afraid of the other guy". We'll see how well it works this time around.

Edited, Apr 7th 2017 6:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2768 Apr 07 2017 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
Politi-fact about Rice.

Just putting it here, no agenda.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2769 Apr 07 2017 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Politi-fact about Rice.

Just putting it here, no agenda.


Sorry. I know this will come as no surprise, but I don't buy it. The author attempts to give her a bit of cover:

Quote:
It’s possible, given the question asked, Rice was trying to say that she didn’t know what Nunes was specifically talking about, as opposed to not knowing anything about incidental surveillance pickups of Trump’s associates generally...


Except that in the very quote by Rice above that, she said this:

Susan Rice wrote:
I think it’s important for people to understand what "incidental" means. That means that the target was either a foreign entity or somebody under criminal investigation, and the Americans who were talking to those targets may have been picked up.


She very clearly knows exactly what Nunes was referring to when he said that Trump's people may have been "caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals". She specifically defines what that exact case entails.

And frankly, it's hard to imagine that she didn't understand the question itself. She was being asked if she knew about such "incidental" surveillance of the Trump team. Not just that but then also the "disclosure" of their identities (the "unmasking" of their names in the transcripts, subsequently made available to additional agencies). Given that Rice has since been identified as the person who actually ordered the unmasking of Trump associates in any surveillance that was obtained, she not only knew that it was done, and knew that their identities were "disclosed/unmasked", but she's the one who freaking did it.

I don't see how anyone can possibly see this as anything other than her lying her **** off in that interview. Now, of course, we can assume she's not going to admit to some super secret surveillance going on, and doesn't even want the suggestion that it happened, by giving the stock "no comment" kind of answer. But, um... that's still lying. And if it turns out that they did not get FISA approval for those actions, then it's entirely possible that this goes beyond just lying to the American people (and that appears to have been a habit of hers, given she did the same freaking thing with the Benghazi lie), and enters into massive felony territory.


And again, even if it was done "legally", the political ramifications of this are pretty horrific. Which, I'm sure, is why she lied about it. Even the suggestion of using our national security apparatus in this way harkens us back to the bad old days. No one likes that idea. And for what? Seriously. To come remotely close to justifying spying on a presidential transition team (which is what I think they're specifically referring to in this interview), you'd have to have something on a treason level scale. And maybe even more that that, given that you're talking about the incoming president, who kinda has the authority to decide things like what interactions to have with foreign powers in the first place. If president Trump decides that handing Alaska back to the Russians is a great idea, it's not treason, it's a legitimate foreign policy action (subject to Senate approval of the deal, and almost certain political backlash of course).

It's just hard to imagine anything that could justify surveillance in that scenario. I mean, just to put the whole "what could he or his people do that would be illegal here" into context, does anyone remember the whole open mike thing with Obama directly telling Putin that he'd have more leeway to deal with him after the election (back in 2012). We actually captured the US president basically telling a foreign leader that he had to pretend to be tougher on him to win re-election but would change his position if/when he won. And guess what? While that may be politically damaging, it's not illegal.

It's hard to imagine what possible justification there could be to legally engage in surveillance of an incoming presidential transition team. Again, key word is "legal" here. I'm reasonably certain that they did not actually get FISA approval for this, and chose instead to skirt around the rules and collect and disseminate that information anyway. Which is incredibly problematic. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you should not want your government to engage in this sort of thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2770 Apr 07 2017 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,262 posts
The linked article, citing Rice's tweet wrote:
"I said I did not know what reports Nunes was referring to when he spoke to the press. I still do not. But the full (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) needs to know," she tweeted.

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2771 Apr 07 2017 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
No one's saying that having an investigation is wrong. What we're saying is "secretly using our intelligence services to spy on someone because you don't like them"
My understanding if the situation is that the people being surveilled were know criminals and other assorted (non-US citzen) a$$holes. The fact that they were in constant communication with highly placed people surrounding Trump is the issue.

"If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".


Edited, Apr 7th 2017 8:48pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2772 Apr 07 2017 at 10:33 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
gbaji wrote:
I have not seen a single actual "fact" for anything at all.
When has that ever stopped you from believing something?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2773 Apr 10 2017 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Trump: The U.S. government spied on me! Outrage!

Common people: Don't you remember what that Snowden guy said? The government spies on everyone. Get over yourself.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2774 Apr 11 2017 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Speaking of Fatal Foot In Mouth Disease, what's the over under on Spicer now? After his nice little Hitler comment today it's got to be close to 1:1.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2775 Apr 11 2017 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The linked article, citing Rice's tweet wrote:
"I said I did not know what reports Nunes was referring to when he spoke to the press. I still do not. But the full (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) needs to know," she tweeted.



Gee. It's like she's so used to lying, she doesn't even notice when she's doing it.

Here's the exchange from the link, since I apparently need to quote the whole thing for people:

Quote:
Woodruff: "We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?"

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.


The question she was answering does not mention anything about reports Nunes was supposedly referring to. The question specifically asks her if she knows anything about the claims themselves. Specifically "that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed". She said "I know nothing about this".

The "this" she's referring to was not about where Nunes got his information, but about the information itself. There's no other way to interpret this exchange.

She may very well have also mentioned something about not knowing what reports Nunes was getting his information from, and then chose to tweet about that instead, but that's totally irrelevant to the actual issue. She wasn't asked "do you know what reports Nunes might have read which may have given him this idea?". She was asked, quite directly, if she knew anything about the Trump transition team being caught up in surveillance. She said she knew nothing about it. Which was a flat out blatant lie.

EDIT: Oh. Worse. The question also specified "in that their identities may have been disclosed". Given that she was the one who ordered their identities disclosed, it makes the lie even that much worse. Can we please all just acknowledge that she lied and move on now?

Edited, Apr 11th 2017 3:32pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2776 Apr 11 2017 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No one's saying that having an investigation is wrong. What we're saying is "secretly using our intelligence services to spy on someone because you don't like them"
My understanding if the situation is that the people being surveilled were know criminals and other assorted (non-US citzen) a$$holes.


Your understanding is incorrect. We spy on pretty much every non-US person of interest that we can. Every diplomat. Every ambassador. Every foreign minister. Our foreign intelligence casts a super wide net and basically grabs up everything we can. This isn't your fathers intelligence service, where you identify key threats and targets and then send out the spies to plant bugs in their offices, or something. We put listening devices in every location we can outside the US borders. Every phone junction. Every internet tap. Everything.

Modern surveillance operations do not consist of setting up surveillance. It consists of running search algorithms on the massive farms of data we have collected, using key words, names, etc to find information on the people we're interested in. The purpose of masking US people at the source, is specifically to make it impossible for some random analyst to "accidentally" just happen to run a search on "people in the Trump transition team" and thus violate the FISA prohibition against using surveillance of foreign targets to conduct surveillance on US people. In this context, the act of unmasking those people is the same as spying on them, and requires a warrant.

What Rice did was remove that protection. When you combine that with Obama's executive order distributing that intelligence across a dozen different agencies, it becomes pretty obvious that the intent was to ensure that "incidental" surveillance on Trump and his people was first identified as such, and then preserved and spread so as to be used later. That's not just a little bit illegal. It's a **** of a lot illegal. And it's not just a little bit of an ethics violation. It's a massive one. And it's not just a little bit of an abuse of government power for partisan political reasons, it's a gigantic one.

Quote:
The fact that they were in constant communication with highly placed people surrounding Trump is the issue.


No. Because you obviously don't know who "they" were. And you have no context to use the word "constant" either.

Quote:
"If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".


What's scary is that the claim you're making (that if you're on the US end of a conversation with someone we're collecting surveillance on means you are automatically a criminal or spy or enemy of the US) is in exact polar opposition to the basic reason why FISA exists and why its rules are set up the way they are, and for that matter, the entire concept of needing a warrant in the first place. What kind of authoritarian world do you seem to want to live in where "if the government is spying on you, you must be guilty" is an acceptable argument?

That's... insane. You've just tossed the basic concept of our Bill of Rights out the window. You don't actually think that's a good idea, do you?

Edited, Apr 11th 2017 3:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2777 Apr 11 2017 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Speaking of Fatal Foot In Mouth Disease, what's the over under on Spicer now? After his nice little Hitler comment today it's got to be close to 1:1.

God, that was painful. "Even Hitler didn't use gas! .. Ok, I mean he used gas but he brought them to Holocaust Centers [wtf?] and then gassed them ... What I meant was that Hitler didn't drop poison gas on innocent people ... By 'innocent people', I meant people who were in cities at the precise moment of their poison gassing ... You probably shouldn't kill any innocent people, I guess."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2778 Apr 11 2017 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Speaking of Fatal Foot In Mouth Disease, what's the over under on Spicer now? After his nice little Hitler comment today it's got to be close to 1:1.

God, that was painful. "Even Hitler didn't use gas! .. Ok, I mean he used gas but he brought them to Holocaust Centers [wtf?] and then gassed them ... What I meant was that Hitler didn't drop poison gas on innocent people ... By 'innocent people', I meant people who were in cities at the precise moment of their poison gassing ... You probably shouldn't kill any innocent people, I guess."


Yeah. It was a fumbled mess. Um... But you did kinda have to go there with the statement (which to be honest, he should have been prepared for). There's a pretty huge distinction between using poison gas to kill people in concentration camps, and dropping bombs with chemical warheads on them when engaging in military attacks. It was clear to me that he was making the point that chemical weapons were banned after the effects of them were seen on the battlefields in WW1, and that even someone as nasty as Hitler complied with that rule of war.

The key point was that the prohibition was against using them as weapons in warfare. What he did in the concentration camps was a whole different level of evil, but (and this is a point that's difficult to make without looking like a jerk), not actually in violation of the Geneva Protocol, nor any later variations of said law. They're all specific to the use of such weapons "in warfare". Spicer's problem was assuming that everyone would get what he was talking about, and then not being prepared when many people didn't get it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2779 Apr 11 2017 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Haha... Only you, man. Only you...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2780 Apr 11 2017 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Apparently to conservatives playing golf on Memorial Day is worse than lessening the Holocaust during Passover.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2781 Apr 11 2017 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CNN wrote:
After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.
[...]
However, over the last week, several members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees have reviewed intelligence reports related to those requests at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.

One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as "normal and appropriate" for officials who serve in that role to the president.
And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents.

However...
Washington Post wrote:
The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.

The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.


So the Rice story is a nothingburger and a FISA court was convinced last year that there was reasonable cause to think a Trump advisor was working with the Russian government. Hey, maybe that Spicer blunder was planned after all!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2782 Apr 11 2017 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Apparently to conservatives playing golf on Memorial Day is worse than lessening the Holocaust during Passover.


It's not a zero sum game. Two things can be equally evil while still being evil for different reasons. In no way does observing that even Hitler complied with existing restrictions on the use of chemical weapons during warfare while Assad has not lessen the Holocaust. The point, in case you all missed it, was that even a guy like Hitler, who did horrible things, and actively worked to kill off an entire group of people, including rounding them up and gassing them, still refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield.

If that somehow offends someone, then they're trying to darn hard to be offended.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2783 Apr 11 2017 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
Modern surveillance operations do not consist of setting up surveillance. It consists of running search algorithms on the massive farms of data we have collected, using key words, names, etc to find information on the people we're interested in. The purpose of masking US people at the source, is specifically to make it impossible for some random analyst to "accidentally" just happen to run a search on "people in the Trump transition team" and thus violate the FISA prohibition against using surveillance of foreign targets to conduct surveillance on US people. In this context, the act of unmasking those people is the same as spying on them, and requires a warrant.
You could have just written "I don't know how intelligence services operate" and left it that, but I know you love to type, so...
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2784 Apr 11 2017 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,162 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's scary is that the claim you're making (that if you're on the US end of a conversation with someone we're collecting surveillance on means you are automatically a criminal or spy or enemy of the US) is in exact polar opposition to the basic reason why FISA exists and why its rules are set up the way they are, and for that matter, the entire concept of needing a warrant in the first place.
No. What's scary is that you seem to think that when information pointing toward an American breaking a law is discovered during the surveillance of a foreign national that the government can't act on it.

Edited, Apr 11th 2017 8:45pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#2785 Apr 11 2017 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,291 posts
gbaji wrote:
If that somehow offends someone, then they're trying to darn hard to be offended.
Those silly Jews. Always making such a big deal over the Holocaust.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2786 Apr 11 2017 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If that somehow offends someone, then they're trying to darn hard to be offended.

...says the man who went ape irate over flag pins.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2787 Apr 12 2017 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
There's a 90% chance I'll be in Afghanistan in early 2018, 9% wherever this budding World War III is leading to, and 1% I'll figure out a way to remain in a less explody country. Then unless the rotation calendar changes it's a clear ride to retirement. Options A and 3 aren't so bad (relatively speaking, that is), but β could be a hassle. The thing is my contract technically ends July18 so I could also possibly just walk away.

Anyway, speaking of World War III, 45 explained that the pointless strike on Syria was Obama's fault and should have totally happened all those years ago when 45 was actively insisting on Twitter how it totally should not be done at any cost and praising Obama for not taking any military action. Because consistency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2788 Apr 12 2017 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
The less explody options sounds good at least. Need to up those odds somehow.

lolgaxe wrote:
Anyway, speaking of World War III, 45 explained that the pointless strike on Syria was Obama's fault and should have totally happened all those years ago when 45 was actively insisting on Twitter how it totally should not be done at any cost and praising Obama for not taking any military action. Because consistency.
I thought it was all an emotional response to seeing hurt kids? Because that's supposed to make us feel better about the whole thing or whatever.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2789 Apr 12 2017 at 11:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
Mr.T just hired neocon advisors. Nothing else really explains the strike.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2790 Apr 13 2017 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Looks like Assad is taking a page out of our playbook. When confronted with videos and images during an interview published Thursday by Agence France-Presse Bashar al-Assad dismissed them and said that The West, mainly the US, "fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack" and that the evidence collected was actually by Al-Queda.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2791 Apr 13 2017 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
But why are chemical weapons materially different than, say, barrel bombs?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2792 Apr 13 2017 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
Killin' people outside in is considered more humane than inside out?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2793 Apr 13 2017 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Well on the bright side, now it looks like there may not be much left in Afghanistan by 2018. Except maybe fragments of really big bombs.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2794 Apr 13 2017 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
Huh, they actually dropped a MOAB. I guess they really don't care about indiscriminate weapons anymore.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2795 Apr 13 2017 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
Looks like word on the street is that it was a message to NK that tunnels can be easily targeted by with non nuclear ordnance. That and asphyxiation is not to be ruled out as a viable weapon class, regardless of Syrian intervention.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2796 Apr 13 2017 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
This was probably my favorite quote:
Quote:
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the US had used a “large, powerful and accurately-delivered weapon” to disrupt the movements of militants in the country.
The idea of accurately delivering something with a 1-mile blast radius is a fairly amusing thought. Sounds like they dropped it in the mountains by the border at least, so there's less likelihood it killed lots of innocent people.

Not that you'd ever be able to tell, of course...

Little bobby went out to collect the sheep and never came back, No remains were ever found or anything, so the government says no one knows what happened to him, but there's a mile wide crater where the pasture used to be that's been officially determined to be unrelated to his disappearance.. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 12:33pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2797 Apr 13 2017 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
This was probably my favorite quote:
Quote:
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the US had used a “large, powerful and accurately-delivered weapon” to disrupt the movements of militants in the country.
The idea of accurately delivering something with a 1-mile blast radius is a fairly amusing thought.
Was that before or after we killed like a dozen allied fighters in Syria because we had "the wrong coordinates" ?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2798 Apr 13 2017 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,193 posts
Please it's "alternative coordinates," and just because the liberal media says they're wrong doesn't mean they are. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2799 Apr 13 2017 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,178 posts
I mean the allied fighters were fighting IS not Assad so I guess it was just a happy little accident.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2800 Apr 13 2017 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Looks like word on the street is that it was a message to NK that tunnels can be easily targeted by with non nuclear ordnance

Of course, so can Seoul.

Anyway, all the nuclear labs and bases are probably soon to be renamed "Kim Jong-Il Memorial Nuclear Facility & Orphanage".

Edited, Apr 13th 2017 5:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2801 Apr 14 2017 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,291 posts
In his first speech as the director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo called Wikileaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service" that is often abetted by "state actors like Russia." Yesterday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Pompeo called Assange a "fraud," someone with no “moral compass” and a “narcissist who has created nothing of value.” Which is amusing, considering barely six months ago he had no problem praising and citing Wikileaks when they were more focused on Democrats and Clinton.

Edited, Apr 14th 2017 9:38am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)