• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Pook said:
With respect Remius, I suspect that you have no greater insight into what they believe, what their motives are, than do any of the rest of us.

And for many people the unknown is a fearful prospect.  For others it offers hope.

No I don't have any insight at all.  But actions are telling.  Their motive is clear enough, they've been upfront about it or at least seemingly so.  And I'm not sure people need to fear the unknown as they've been upfront about their plans from the beginning. 


Take the One China policy flap.  One could say it was inexperience.  I'm more inclined to say it was a case of being uninformed.  They backtracked and it seems were able to fix that particular faux pas.

It has been a rocky first three weeks by any standard one would use to measure them by. 

But I will agree that he is indeed offering hope but if they keep acting the way they are with things like badly crafted and badly communicated executive orders (and hastily crafted I might add) this experiment into the unknown may not last beyond a term.  Or maybe it will.  God knows he can beat the odds.
 
Just a thought here. Was the leak of the Flynn info done since it was illegally obtained? Flynn is entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Maybe the leaker thought the only way they could get the info out was to throw it out to the press, and not a administration friendly one at that.

Here is a article the ACLU wrote when Bush was President. Does it still apply and will the ACLU still hold this view in Trump's favour?

https://www.aclu.org/other/nsa-spying-americans-illegal
 
Remius said:
No I don't have any insight at all.  But actions are telling.  Their motive is clear enough, they've been upfront about it or at least seemingly so.  And I'm not sure people need to fear the unknown as they've been upfront about their plans from the beginning. 


Take the One China policy flap.  One could say it was inexperience.  I'm more inclined to say it was a case of being uninformed.  They backtracked and it seems were able to fix that particular faux pas.

It has been a rocky first three weeks by any standard one would use to measure them by. 

But I will agree that he is indeed offering hope but if they keep acting the way they are with things like badly crafted and badly communicated executive orders (and hastily crafted I might add) this experiment into the unknown may not last beyond a term.  Or maybe it will.  God knows he can beat the odds.

I would argue that the possibility exists that there is a belief that the US has been taken for granted and the rest of the world assumes that the US is predictable.  This makes for bad strategy.  If the enemy (and even military allies can be commercial enemies) knows what you will do, or more precisely not do, in any given situation then they have the upper hand.

Going in to negotiations Trump let it be known that predicting his response was going to be problematic.  He wanted, and wants it, that way.  That I don't have to suppose.  He has said as much and has published that strategy long before he decided to run for President.

Arguably it has had a salutory effect on the world at large.  People from London to Beijing are yelling at the tops of their lungs; "You can't do that.  That's UnAmerican.  We rely on you not to do that."

People that planned on America picking up slack on their decisions have now announced broadly and loudly to their electors that the America they love to yell at in public is in fact the guarantor of the modern world.

And many folks are of the opinion that that guarantee has a cash value and the bill has come due.  At very least, they can pay for the privilege of telling the Americans how much they detest them.

Or they can keep quiet and help.

By, for example, funding another few Amphibious Task Forces or Light Carrier Groups to project order abroad.
 
milnews.ca said:
Questions about leaks?  Fair ball. 

I have no proof, but if I had to bet a loonie, though, I'd bet it's the Ambassador's line, not Flynn's, that's tapped by intelligence/SIGINT folks.  Or is THAT out of bounds now, too?

To tap a phone in the US legally even a Russian embassy phone requires a warrant issued by the FISA Court. Evidently no warrant existed. But lets say the ambassador's phone was bugged,as soon as a US citizen is involved the tap has to be shut down.This clearly wasnt done,so what we now have is evidence of an illegal wiretap which then was leaked by parties unknown,but probably work at the FBI.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Media Matters is a far left Soros funded organization. Of course I lean to conservative blogs such as gatewaypundit.  :camo:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/media-matters-or-does-it/

I prefer to get my news from credible news sources, like the media. I prefer to read opinions of knowledgable people, rather than someone's rant from inside the bubble.

You can call me naieve if you want, but it keeps me from going off like a rabid dog.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Congress is asking the FBI why Flynn's phone calls were bugged ? No outcry from the privacy groups now. Those responsible need to be prosecuted.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/14/fbi-needs-to-explain-why-michael-flynn-was-recorded-gop-intelligence-chairman-says/?utm_term=.f9c2343e17ff

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the most significant question posed by the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn is why intelligence officials eavesdropped on his calls with the Russian ambassador and later leaked information on those calls to the press.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

I don't think that the intelligence services were specifically tapping Flynn's phone. Because that would be a violation of several laws, as President Cheney showed us. But as Eddy Snowden showed us, things may get caught in the net as bycatch. I suspect the services were monitoring all calls to and from the Russian Embassy. Which goes to show you that Politicians like to distract from the real story, which is how can Mike Flynn be so f'ing dumb as to call the Russian Embassy when he knows that they are monitoring it. Or did he hit his head on a rock?
 
kkwd said:
Just a thought here. Was the leak of the Flynn info done since it was illegally obtained? Flynn is entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Maybe the leaker thought the only way they could get the info out was to throw it out to the press, and not a administration friendly one at that.

Here is a article the ACLU wrote when Bush was President. Does it still apply and will the ACLU still hold this view in Trump's favour?

https://www.aclu.org/other/nsa-spying-americans-illegal

But what you are overlooking is that it is legal to spy on foreign entities, which is what they were doing. The fact that the conversation involved a US citizen only becomes relevant if he becomes a principle target of the surveillance operation. Again it's a case of him being caught in a large net.

Besides, what's to say that they didn't request an allied intelligence service outside the US to pick up the info, allowing the US services to skirt the laws?
 
The Wall Sreet Journal is reporting that the Intelligence Services are holding back certain elements of the information presented because they do not feel that the President and his Administration can be trusted in keeping the information confidential.

Spies Keep Intelligence From Donald Trump
Decision to withhold information underscores deep mistrust between intelligence community and president

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spies-keep-intelligence-from-donald-trump-1487209351

U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

A White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening.”

Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade. At times, they have decided that secrecy is essential for protecting a source, and that all a president needs to know is what that source revealed and what the intelligence community thinks is important about it.

But in these previous cases in which information was withheld, the decision wasn’t motivated by a concern about a president’s trustworthiness or discretion, the current and former officials said.

It wasn’t clear Wednesday how many times officials have held back information from Mr. Trump.

The officials emphasized that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted. Still, the misgivings that have emerged among intelligence officials point to the fissures spreading between the White House and the U.S. spy agencies.


Mr. Trump, a Republican, asked Monday night for the resignation of Mike Flynn, his national security adviser, after the White House said the president lost trust in him, in part, because he misstated the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump castigated the intelligence agencies and the news media, blaming them for Mr. Flynn’s downfall.

“The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy. Very un-American!” Mr. Trump tweeted.


Mr. Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr. Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.

The current and former officials said the decision to avoid revealing sources and methods with Mr. Trump stems in large part from the president’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his call, during the presidential campaign for Russia to continue hacking the emails of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia stole and leaked emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to undermine the election process and try to boost Mr. Trump’s chances of winning, an allegation denied by Russian officials.

Several of Mr. Trump’s current and former advisers are under investigation for the nature of their ties to Moscow, according to people familiar with the matter. After Mr. Flynn’s dismissal, lawmakers have called on the government to release the transcripts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and to disclose whether Mr. Trump was aware of or directed Mr. Flynn’s conversations.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he has heard concerns from officials about sharing especially sensitive information with Mr. Trump.

“I’ve talked with people in the intelligence community that do have concerns about the White House, about the president, and I think those concerns take a number of forms,” Mr. Schiff said, without confirming any specific incidents. “What the intelligence community considers their most sacred obligation is to protect the very best intelligence and to protect the people that are producing it.”

“I’m sure there are people in the community who feel they don’t know where he’s coming from on Russia,” Mr. Schiff said.

Tensions between the spy agencies and Mr. Trump were pronounced even before he took office, after he publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency and others of leaking information about alleged Russian hacking operations to undermine the legitimacy of his election win. In a meandering speech in front of a revered CIA memorial the day after his inauguration, Mr. Trump boasted about the size of his inaugural crowd and accused the media of inventing a conflict between him and the agencies.

In a news conference on Wednesday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Trump again lashed out at the media and intelligence officials, whom he accused of “criminal” leaks about Mr. Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador last December.

Mr. Trump didn’t explain Wednesday why he asked for Mr. Flynn’s resignation. Instead, he suggested the leaks and the media were to blame for his ouster.

“General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media,” Mr. Trump said. “And I think it’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly.”

“I think in addition to that from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked,” Mr. Trump said. “It’s criminal action. It’s a criminal act and it’s been going on for a long time before me but now it’s really going on.”

Reviving his line of criticism against intelligence officials during the transition, Mr. Trump said the “illegally leaked” information was from people with political motivations. “People are trying to cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton,” Mr. Trump said.

A person close to Mr. Trump said he was reluctant to let go of Mr. Flynn because Mr. Flynn had vigorously supported him at a stage of his presidential campaign when few people did. Mr. Trump also felt Mr. Flynn did nothing wrong in his conversations with the U.S. ambassador to Russia and had good intentions.

“They both continue to support each other,” this person said.

For intelligence veterans, who had hoped that Mr. Trump’s feud with the agencies might have subsided, Wednesday’s comments renewed and deepened concerns.

“This is not about who won the election. This is about concerns about institutional integrity,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior intelligence official.

“It’s probably unprecedented to have this difficult a relationship between a president and the intelligence agencies,” Mr. Lowenthal said. “I can’t recall ever seeing this level of friction. And it’s just not good for the country.”

Several congressional probes are examining Russia’s alleged meddling in the election. On Wednesday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a Justice Department briefing and documents related to Mr. Flynn’s resignation, including details of his communications with Russian officials.
 
I'm going to guess that the POTUS and gang can get ahead of this. I'm smelling a coup.
 
recceguy said:
I'm going to guess that the POTUS and gang can get ahead of this. I'm smelling a coup.

There are certain suggestions that this was orchestrated by the "Deep State" as a way of preventing (specifically) the release of documents about the Iran deal which would overturn the Obama Administrations narrative of what happened and why, and more generally to try and prevent the establishment rice bowls from being overturned.

One thing the book "The Revolt of the Elites" made quite clear (as far back as 1994) is the reordering of politics, the economy, academia and social institutions was to concentrate power and wealth to the new "internationalist" class of people. You can be quite sure that they will be doing everything in their power to prevent a populist and nationalist revolt from taking away their power and perques, and this is not just an "American" thing. Of course, since America is the greatest and most powerful of nations, a successful revolt against the "elites" there will rapidly spread, whereas even events like the Brexit might plausibly be contained and limited.
 
tomahawk6 said:
To tap a phone in the US legally even a Russian embassy phone requires a warrant issued by the FISA Court. Evidently no warrant existed. But lets say the ambassador's phone was bugged,as soon as a US citizen is involved the tap has to be shut down ...
So there's no monitoring of calls into/out of the Russian (or any foreign power's) embassy on U.S. soil?  I find that hard to believe.
 
Thucydides said:
One thing the book "The Revolt of the Elites" made quite clear (as far back as 1994) is the reordering of politics, the economy, academia and social institutions was to concentrate power and wealth to the new "internationalist" class of people. You can be quite sure that they will be doing everything in their power to prevent a populist and nationalist revolt from taking away their power and perques, and this is not just an "American" thing. Of course, since America is the greatest and most powerful of nations, a successful revolt against the "elites" there will rapidly spread, whereas even events like the Brexit might plausibly be contained and limited.

And what,  pray tell, is wrong with this situation?  I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism? We have the municipal level, the provincial (or state)  level,  the federal level, and now that the world is much smaller, we have the international level; and what's wrong with that? We have a country that has regional differences, but which shares common moral and standards of conduct throughout,  thanks to the fact that we are a federal sovereign state. What's so wrong about the idea of a global federal state? Move over North Korea.
 
Lumber said:
And what,  pray tell, is wrong with this situation?  I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism? We have the municipal level, the provincial (or state)  level,  the federal level, and now that the world is much smaller, we have the international level; and what's wrong with that? We have a country that has regional differences, but which shares common moral and standards of conduct throughout,  thanks to the fact that we are a federal sovereign state. What's so wrong about the idea of a global federal state? Move over North Korea.

Short form - Billions of people don't trust Donald Trump to be President of one country.  There is NOBODY that I would trust to be President of the World.

Equally - Millions of Western Canadians don't trust the current government in Ottawa.

I dislike order.  A degree of chaos is necessary for life to thrive.  The point is to tolerate alternate ways of looking at the world and manage (not eliminate but manage) chaos.

You can't stop the markets reacting as they will.  You can't stop people trading.  You can't stop people communicating.  You can't stop the climate from changing.  You can only manage your life and deal with the chaos.
 
Chris Pook said:
There is NOBODY that I would trust to be President of the World.

CNN
November 5, 2008
Barack Obama is 'President of the world'
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/international.press.reaction/

 
Lumber said:
And what,  pray tell, is wrong with this situation?  I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone has a problem with globalization and internationalism. How is it any different than federalism? We have the municipal level, the provincial (or state)  level,  the federal level, and now that the world is much smaller, we have the international level; and what's wrong with that? We have a country that has regional differences, but which shares common moral and standards of conduct throughout,  thanks to the fact that we are a federal sovereign state. What's so wrong about the idea of a global federal state? Move over North Korea.

People group themselves into nations and then states. A nation may be composed of many states (the people living in the nation are similar enough on the outside, but there are distinct differences between the societies of the various states).

Think of this concept like the Holy Roman Empire of old. There was a collection of states who had very similar shared beliefs and morals, they interacted through a limited central authority (what the UN of today tries to be) but yet remained almost completely sovereign. The nation in this case are the germanic peoples with the state being the various independent states that formed the HRE.

Canadians and Americans share very similar beliefs for the most part. However, we disagree on a large number of things. Trying to combine the two states means that people would have to set aside a large number of their morals and beliefs. In my opinion it would be too large a number to set aside and there would be a lot of internal unrest.

Now imagine attempting this with two states where the people did not belong to one nation. Thus they do not share nearly as many morals and beliefs. It would never work.

While the goal of having humanity come together and work towards a common goal for all is noble, it is not how nature works. Those who continue to push for this need to start realizing this soon as there are a lot of people unhappy with how globalization has affected their personal fortunes and family fortunes.

My alien invasion reference was meant to be only a half joke. People will always look for ways to further themselves and their group over others (even the most noblest). Until there is an external force that poses an existential threat to the way of life that we currently hold dear your goal of one humanity will never be realized.

Even if this external force came to exist there will still be collaborators (those who believe they have something to gain from the external force or actually believe that the external force's ideology is superior). World War Two is an example of this.
 
mariomike said:
CNN
November 5, 2008
Barack Obama is 'President of the world'
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/international.press.reaction/

To borrow :  Not my president
 
Chris Pook said:
To borrow :  Not my president

I'm not even eligible to vote in their elections.  :)

I'm sure there were a lot of peed off people when he got elected. And re-elected.  :)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top