Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2802 Apr 14 2017 at 8:10 AM 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.

With the caveats that I'm no authority, my understanding from various reports and reading is that the MOAB isn't especially useful against hardened targets underground. It works great to flatten earthwork tunnels over a large area but is significantly less effective at damaging underground reinforced concrete. Of course we also have specially designed weapons for those purposes though they don't get to brag about being the largest non-nuclear ordnance, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2803 Apr 14 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,199 posts
They aren't bunker busters, but that's not the prime usage for NK tunnel networks. They are primarily logistics tunnels used to move artillery around, and somewhat susceptible to partial collapses and disjunction etc.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2804 Apr 14 2017 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Jophiel wrote:
With the caveats that I'm no authority, my understanding from various reports and reading is that the MOAB isn't especially useful against hardened targets underground.
They're not really for destroying underground targets. The MOAB blows up slightly above ground and sends out a massive concussive force which, unlike other types of explosives, can easily travel down tunnels and long pathways and take out targets (including the tunnels themselves), which is why it was dropped in this case. Other types of bombs and missiles are more targeted, generally burrowing/digging/sinking into the target before exploding, but after the initial explosion that's it so people can escape them by simply traveling further into tunnels and networks, and after a distance the rest of the network of passages are basically unharmed. It isn't much of a message to North Korea though, since MOABs aren't exactly that great an idea to drop anywhere near populated areas since concussive forces of that magnitude don't exactly care even if you're in a regular house.

Kind of like the difference between a water balloon and a super soaker versus an ant hill. Water balloon is going to take out the hill and the water will continue into the tunnels, while a super soaker can destroy deeper into specific parts of the hill but the rest of the ants will be relatively okay.

Edited, Apr 14th 2017 10:45am 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.
#2805 Apr 14 2017 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gotcha. I thought you were referring more to underground nuclear facilities and labs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2806 Apr 14 2017 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
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.


Actually, I don't believe they can. Not in terms of legal action anyway. They could, having evidence of said crime, go get a warrant and begin legal surveillance of the US person, which can then be used as evidence. Um... but that wasn't actually what I was saying.

What I was saying is that you can't use surveillance of a foreign person to intentionally capture the conversations of a US person in the hopes that you may stumble across something that US person is doing.

Doing so is expressly forbidden under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's forbidden specifically because of the massive potential for abuse it would cause. The government can *always* excuse surveillance on a US person under the guise of "we were really just listening to the guy on the other end of the line. Honest!'. It's too easy to do. Which is why it's illegal. And the way we ensure that it's not being abused in this manner is by masking the identities of any US persons on the other end of the line. So that we can't even "accidentally" track that person's conversations by searching through the mass of surveillance data we've collected.

I thought I was quite clear on this. What's funny about this is that I'm quite positive that your position on this would be completely reversed if the political party of the people involved were reversed. You're not accepting surveillance of Trumps transition team because you really think it's just fine for our government to use foreign surveillance to collect data about US persons. In fact, you'd be screaming bloody murder if this were done say by the Bush administration (against just about anyone). You're accepting it because you don't like the people who were spied on.

And what is scary is just how many people think the same way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2807 Apr 14 2017 at 10:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In this case, we have a FISA court giving a warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump associate because the judge felt that there was probable reason to think he was communicating with Russian agents. So all the hand-wringing is more than a little misguided.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2808 Apr 14 2017 at 10:49 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,208 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
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.


Actually, I don't believe they can. Not in terms of legal action anyway. They could, having evidence of said crime, go get a warrant and begin legal surveillance of the US person, which can then be used as evidence.
That's called "acting on it" you lunkhead.Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
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.
#2809 Apr 15 2017 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,289 posts
Just gonna leave this here.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2810 Apr 15 2017 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Something something Rice something something unmasking something something lemme check the blogs!!!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2811 Apr 17 2017 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, we have a FISA court giving a warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump associate because the judge felt that there was probable reason to think he was communicating with Russian agents.
Yeah, but what do the courts know about the law?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2812 Apr 18 2017 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Apparently the guy that started the movement for a CalExit dropped the bid for the state to secede and moved to Russia. Here's hoping the rest of the state follows suit, and encourages Texas and Florida.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2813 Apr 18 2017 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Apparently the guy that started the movement for a CalExit dropped the bid for the state to secede and moved to Russia.

Snowden?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2814 Apr 18 2017 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Some mook going by Louis Marinelli.

Did the forum area just shrink or is it just me?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2815 Apr 18 2017 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,777 posts
It's a huge new ad panel on the right. Forcing the forums to shrink in width even when blocked.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2816 Apr 18 2017 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's being annexed by Russia.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2817 Apr 18 2017 at 12:00 PM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
So long as I'm not the only one mildly inconvenienced. Dasvidanya, slightly more reading area.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2818 Apr 18 2017 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,199 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Apparently the guy that started the movement for a CalExit dropped the bid for the state to secede and moved to Russia. Here's hoping the rest of the state follows suit, and encourages Texas and Florida.


Russia has become a bastion for leftist revolutionaries again?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2819 Apr 18 2017 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In this case, we have a FISA court giving a warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump associate because the judge felt that there was probable reason to think he was communicating with Russian agents. So all the hand-wringing is more than a little misguided.


Uh huh. Already covered that though:

gbaji, earlier in this thread wrote:
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.


And let me point out (again), that a month or so ago, everyone was mocking Trump for claiming that his campaign was even being surveilled at all.

And let me also point out that whether they obtained a proper warrant for surveillance on one person connected to the Trump campaign back in July does not at all explain or justify the decision by Rice to unmask members of the Trump transition team many months later. At the point at which Trump has won the election and is transitioning into the office, it's hard to make an argument that *any* communication he or his team has with anyone else (yes, that includes Russians) can be surveilled for any reason other than political ones. Certainly, the bar should be much much higher. Merely "having a conversation" with someone can't possibly be considered suspicious or used to justify surveillance. And even political deal making doesn't work either. You'd need to have evidence that someone was engaged in a direct criminal act as part of the conversations. And even that's tough, since said criminal act would have to be something that could not be "legal" as performed by the executive branch of the US. Remember, we're talking about the part of our government that can do things like order airstrikes, wet ops, toppling of governments, manipulation of currency, make deals, etc.

The whole thing reeks of political desperation on the part of the outgoing Obama administration. They were basically grasping at any straw they could here. The only thing that possibly makes sense (well, legally) is if they thought that maybe they could find something sufficiently illegal, that they could do what? Get the election results undone? Have Obama refuse to give up his office because Trump is unfit or something? Try to charge Trump with a crime before he takes office? The crisis that would have caused is pretty staggering, but it looks like that's what they were trying to do. Well, it's the only thing they could have done legally with the information.

And failing that, it looks like they settled for "gather up whatever we can and try to use it politically later". Which puts us squarely into "abuse of power for political purposes" territory. Which puts us right back into "this is a lot like Watergate".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2820 Apr 18 2017 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
So does the Facebook killer or the Fresno killer get the top headline today? Which one you choose apparently determines which side of the political spectrum your website lies on.

I'm not sure what else needs to be said about America at the moment; that pretty much sums up the current situation well. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2821 Apr 18 2017 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Right. So your defense for a judge finding sufficient cause to conduct surveillance on someone is "BUT IT WAS PROBABLY POLITICAL!!!!" despite the fact that the entire purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that surveillance only occurs when there's legitimate reason/need.

Welp, can't argue logic like that.

Multiple Congressmen from both sides of the aisle say the Rice accusations are a joke. Bush's former NSA and CIA head says it's a sack of shit. I realize that this is the tiny, thin thread your side is clinging to but there's nothing to engage you about here.
Quote:
Which puts us right back into "this is a lot like Watergate"

That's okay. Benghazi was "Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten" so this must be small potatoes Smiley: laugh

Edited, Apr 18th 2017 6:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2822 Apr 18 2017 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:


That sounds suspiciously like a UK media outlet re-reporting CNN coverage of an earlier UK reporting of a long debunked claim for which no one has ever found any support. The sheer word parsing in these articles is pretty amazing if you actually bother to step back from the innuendo and just read the facts. Literally, the only statements in either the Independent's article or the CNN article it references that are given an actual real source (rather than vague "a source" or "an intelligence source") is the UK intelligence org denying it spied on Trump, a couple claims by Spicer, one by a Fox news commentator, and, amusingly an actual US senator denying something which wasn't actually the allegation which preceded the quoted statement.

So yeah. About the level of reporting we've all become accustomed to, I guess.

I'm seeing smokescreen here, and nothing else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2823 Apr 19 2017 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm seeing smokescreen here, and nothing else.
No one is surprised you're seeing what you feel like seeing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2824 Apr 19 2017 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
gbaji wrote:
Certainly, the bar should be much much higher. Merely "having a conversation" with someone can't possibly be considered suspicious or used to justify surveillance.
Smiley: dubious

I'll repeat my amusement that any of this is at all an issue. Of course Trump was spied on, why wouldn't he be? Why wouldn't every single person in his team be looked over? Don't see how one could expect our intelligence services to do any less. I get that people on both sides are hoping to score political points here but the whole thing seems pretty silly.

Edited, Apr 19th 2017 8:51am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2825 Apr 19 2017 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'll repeat my amusement that any of this is at all an issue.
I kind of thought we'd have to wait more than two months before everyone that was so against the man would insist he was beyond reproach. I mean it was going to happen, I just thought it'd be more slow and subtle.

At least wait until there was an actual administrative success to hide the hypocricy behind.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2826 Apr 19 2017 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Well he did shoot some missiles an airstrip in the middle of the desert when he got emotional. I mean not personally, of course, but he did tell others to do it.

That still sort-of counts right?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2827 Apr 19 2017 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
everyone was mocking Trump for claiming that his campaign was even being surveilled at all.

No, people were mocking Trump's Tweets saying that Obama was wiretapping him.

However, from that mockery came the point that even if Trump WAS being wiretapped, that would mean that a FISA court found cause to do so which actually reflected worse on Trump than on anyone else doing the tapping. As does this despite your weird attempts to say otherwise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2828 Apr 19 2017 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:

And? The high profile ones tend to also be the ones that had the broadest impact, and thus are more likely to be known. Thus, they're inherently more likely to share many of the features associated with terrorism. That in no way means that all hate crimes are terrorism, which, if you recall, was the point I was questioning.
Being high profile has more to do with ratings and attention spans. As events continue to happen, the severity must increase to maintain the same level of air time. When a "new" event happens, it takes up much more airtime. For example, being dragged off a plane.

Gbaji wrote:
No. It puts fear into you. If the aspect of your existence that it targeted is shared by a group, then it puts fear into that group. That's not the same as the population as a whole. If I plant bombs in random places where people congregate and set them off to randomly kill whomever happens to be there at the time, then everyone is at risk, and everyone is fearful. 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.

The former case is terrorism (well, most likely). The latter is hate. While they can overlap, they are not the same.


Gbaji wrote:
Again though, that's the point. The objective of terrorism is to put fear into everyone, not just the victims of the attack, or those who share some criteria with those victims. That is, arguably, the defining characteristic of terrorism. It's not targeted at a single group. It's specifically designed to make everyone take the terrorist seriously because anyone could be killed.


Gbaji wrote:

I gave two examples. One showing how hate crimes don't always meet the criteria to be terrorism, and another showing how terrorism doesn't always meet the criteria to be a hate crime. You've chosen to ignore the first one. I'll repeat it for you:


If there were a person going around killing red headed children in your neighborhood, are you telling me that you would not have any increase of fear, even if you or your family didn't fit the demographic? Sane people would realize that there is nothing preventing the individuals from changing targets and would be afraid as well.


Furthermore, define the scope of population. Is it terrorism if the actions only target the USA, but not Mexico, Canada, Europe or Asia? If so, how much of the population within the US must be affected in order to be considered terrorism? Can a hate crime target all white people and not be terrorism?

#2829 Apr 19 2017 at 2:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That would mean that a FISA court found cause to do so which actually reflected worse on Trump than on anyone else doing the tapping.
Given they only turn down 0.03% of requests, one could argue it's probably not the highest hurdle to get past.

Was under the impression the court was more to keep people from wasting resources tracking their ex-spouses and what not than any major balance to surveillance abilities.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2830 Apr 19 2017 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,289 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That would mean that a FISA court found cause to do so which actually reflected worse on Trump than on anyone else doing the tapping.
Given they only turn down 0.03% of requests, one could argue it's probably not the highest hurdle to get past.


Is that because people only go to the FISA court when they have a great case, or does the FISA court grant requests like crazy? You could argue it either way.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2831 Apr 19 2017 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That would mean that a FISA court found cause to do so which actually reflected worse on Trump than on anyone else doing the tapping.
Given they only turn down 0.03% of requests, one could argue it's probably not the highest hurdle to get past.


Is that because people only go to the FISA court when they have a great case, or does the FISA court grant requests like crazy? You could argue it either way.
Assuming the numbers from the wiki are still accurate (last numbers are for 2013) they probably get around 1500-2000 requests a year. So it means on average it's one of the top 4-5 new domestic intelligence thingies that could use looking into today.

Edited, Apr 19th 2017 2:25pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2832 Apr 19 2017 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That would mean that a FISA court found cause to do so which actually reflected worse on Trump than on anyone else doing the tapping.
Given they only turn down 0.03% of requests, one could argue it's probably not the highest hurdle to get past.

Almost all rejected requests were post 2003 though (0.03% goes back to '79) and another 500+ which had to be modified to get approval between 2003-2013 (the total modifications between 1979-2002 was six). It also doesn't count requests prematurely withdrawn before the final ruling. There's also the basic point that the mere existence of such an agency means that you don't bother submitting a request unless you're already pretty solid on its legitimacy. As opposed to, say, wiretapping a presidential campaign on a lark.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2833 Apr 19 2017 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Is that because people only go to the FISA court when they have a great case, or does the FISA court grant requests like crazy? You could argue it either way.

ABC News wrote:
“That shouldn’t lead anyone to believe it’s easy to get the order," said Matt Olsen, a former NSA official who is now an ABC News contributor. "The fact that the government is successful in almost always getting approval is just an indication the government knows what the standard is."

There's a little more information in this story from both perspectives.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2834 Apr 19 2017 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As opposed to, say, wiretapping a presidential campaign on a lark.
Which leads me to wonder more about just what justification would be needed to do surveillance on a likely future president. I mean, I'm all for privacy and all, but at the time there's a 50/50 chance this guy is about to have access to a whole lot of restricted information. How do you not do your due diligence to assess any potential intelligence risks in that situation?

Edited, Apr 19th 2017 2:57pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2835 Apr 19 2017 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In other news, Bill O'Reilly is back to humping falafels now that he got canned from Fox News on account of a bajillion sexual harassment cases.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2836 Apr 19 2017 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Right. So your defense for a judge finding sufficient cause to conduct surveillance on someone is "BUT IT WAS PROBABLY POLITICAL!!!!" despite the fact that the entire purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that surveillance only occurs when there's legitimate reason/need.


Um... Which more or less consists of some intelligence organization coming to them and telling them "this is really important". You do realize that the primary purpose of the FISA court is to have independent tracking of when our government does this kind of surveillance, right? It's not so much about determining whether said surveillance is necessary because... and this may just boggle your mind, the only people who could tell them if it is are the very people asking for the warrant.

It was created specifically to make it harder for our government to spy on domestic political enemies without any evidence of it happening (absent a leak or something). By requiring this process, it means that if they spy for political purposes, there will be political ramifications for the action itself. Or at least sufficient risk of such that it will act as at least some amount of deterrent.

The problem is that there's no way to know from the mere fact that surveillance occurred (or even that it was done legally) whether said surveillance was done for legitimate reasons or for political ones. My earlier point was that assuming that the existence of surveillance means that the person under surveillance must be a "bad person" and thus deserving of the surveillance itself is a terrible assumption to make. It can just as easily be an abuse of power. We have no idea which is which.

Quote:
Multiple Congressmen from both sides of the aisle say the Rice accusations are a joke. Bush's former NSA and CIA head says it's a sack of shit.


That's your own paraphrasing. I read the same article you did, and all I got from it is that he doesn't know why Rice did what she did, and that it could have been legitimate, or it could not have been. And sure, his innate assumption is that nothing untoward occurred, because he's a firm believer in the integrity of those who work in our intelligence services. So his first reaction is that no one would use this for political reasons, largely, perhaps, because he would not do so. And while that's admirable of him, you'll have to forgive me for being less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that seemed to make a habit of using what should be non-political executive agencies for political objectives.

This entire "Russian collusion" claim is a huge house of cards built up on a lot of speculation, leading to surveillance, leading to investigation, followed by assumptions about what the mere existence of those things must mean. It's devolved into a series of "OMG! This person talked to a Russian! It proves that they were colluding...". Um. what? I mean, let's imagine that a whole lot of conversations were occurring between members of the Trump team and foreign parties. Is that unusual either? You're going to great lengths to argue that Rice's actions, and those of others in the administration were perfectly normal and even routine, but can't the same be said for Trump's people?

The only reason the fact of such conversations matters at all is because of the previous allegations. But those allegations have yet to be shown to be anything other than wild conspiratorial speculations.

Quote:
I realize that this is the tiny, thin thread your side is clinging to but there's nothing to engage you about here.


I could say the exact same thing about your side and the whole collusion claim too. Except that, you know, there's actual solid evidence that the Obama administration did use our intelligence services to spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team. Your side has... nothing. Well, except the evidence of the spying, which you're now claiming somehow proves that there must be something to the claim of collusion, because.. apparently, there's no possible way government power could ever be abused for political reasons.

Yeah. But that's not naive at all. Smiley: lol

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2837 Apr 19 2017 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,788 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'll repeat my amusement that any of this is at all an issue. Of course Trump was spied on, why wouldn't he be? Why wouldn't every single person in his team be looked over? Don't see how one could expect our intelligence services to do any less. I get that people on both sides are hoping to score political points here but the whole thing seems pretty silly.


Not sure if you're being tongue in cheek, but are you saying that it's perfectly ok and normal for our intelligence services to spy on a presidential candidate and team, you know, just to make sure they aren't bad people or something? By that reasoning, shouldn't Clinton and her team *also* have been spied on?

Were they? Would the same folks hand waving this away be doing the same thing if she was? And if not, then why is it ok for one candidate but not the other? And if that's the case, then doesn't that still basically leave us at trying to believe that the executive branch of our government, which was currently under the control of a Democrat, just happened to decide, in a totally impartial and non-partisan manner, that the Republican candidate running to replace the guy currently in charge was such a threat (but, you know, not politically, but in some other nefarious, evil, anti-American way), as to justify targeting that candidate and his team for surveillance.

Which I find infinitely less likely than that this was a classic case of abuse of government power for political purposes. Given that far left folks actually believe that merely having the GOP in power is a threat of epic proportions and which must be fought against with all power available and using any means necessary, it does not surprise me one bit that the Obama administration would engage in such an abuse of power. This is the same administration that inserted a false narrative about a video being the cause of an attack on our embassy buildings in Libya, purely and obviously because the truth, that this was the result of a growing anti-American Islamic fundamentalist movement in the country, would undermine the Presidents claims that such movements were "on the ropes", and "in decline" and that Libya was such a success story (in contrast to Iraq), that we need not even bother to upgrade our security there.

There's no doubt in my mind that those involved in this probably honestly believed that Trump represented a grave threat to the US, not because of collusion with Russia, but merely for being Republican. Heck. Merely not being a Democrat would be sufficient for those people. They've drunk their own kool aid for years, and can't see out of their own echo chamber. So yeah. My money is on "we really really really needed Clinton to win, so our agenda could continue, so we did everything we could to make that happen".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2838 Apr 19 2017 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I could say the exact same thing about your side and the whole collusion claim too. Except that, you know, there's actual solid evidence that the Obama administration did use our intelligence services to spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team. Your side has... nothing.

Well, it's nice that you believe that. Maybe you can type another 5,000 words about how there's really absolutely no evidence or nothing until you've convinced yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2839 Apr 20 2017 at 7:17 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For example, being dragged off a plane.
They were just trying to help the dude avoid getting married.
gbaji wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that those involved in this probably honestly believed that Trump represented a grave threat to the US, not because of collusion with Russia, but merely for being Republican.
Which is a weird claim since you believed 45 was a grave threat to the US back during the primaries.
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe you can type another 5,000 words about
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2840 Apr 20 2017 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that those involved in this probably honestly believed

WTF is this word salad Smiley: laugh

There's NO DOUBT that this PROBABLY happened!!! This is why I'm barely engaging on this. You're so worked up and desperate to turn this into a "OMG OBAMA BAD!!!!" moment as deflection that you barely even know what you're saying. You'll type thousands of words rambling on about shit you just read off FreedomWatch or some nonsense convincing you that there's a huge Democratic conspiracy at work here forcing the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc to coordinate after Trump ("Because he's Republican!") but... whatever. You do you, man. Keep sliding down that hole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2841 Apr 20 2017 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I'll repeat my amusement that any of this is at all an issue. Of course Trump was spied on, why wouldn't he be? Why wouldn't every single person in his team be looked over? Don't see how one could expect our intelligence services to do any less. I get that people on both sides are hoping to score political points here but the whole thing seems pretty silly.


Not sure if you're being tongue in cheek, but are you saying that it's perfectly ok and normal for our intelligence services to spy on a presidential candidate and team, you know, just to make sure they aren't bad people or something? By that reasoning, shouldn't Clinton and her team *also* have been spied on?
Yes I'd consider that normal, and yes I'd assume Clinton likely has been given the same treatment at some point too, along with many relatives and any notable social contacts. It's basic risk assessment. You need to know who they're talking to and who are the concerns if information is inadvertently leaked. You can't really turn someone away from the presidential office because they're a security risk, the best you can hope for is to at least be aware of where problems might occur, and where that information may end up going if it does get out.

If you're asking why this isn't an issue with the Clintons this year, I'd point out they've been around for a long time and are likely a pretty well understood problem at this point, and are probably more used to working with the intelligence community too. Whereas Trump is fresh on the scene and more of an unknown. Add in that he has a large number of social contacts and family members that are foreign nationals and I'm sure he kept the intelligence community very busy in the run-up to the election. A wire tap at some point being part of that doesn't seem at all far fetched.

gbaji wrote:
...control of a Democrat, just happened to decide, in a totally impartial and non-partisan manner, that the Republican candidate running to replace the guy currently in charge was such a threat (but, you know, not politically, but in some other nefarious, evil, anti-American way), as to justify targeting that candidate and his team for surveillance.
I'm under the assumption that the intelligence agencies would keep the President up to date on matters related to national security, yes. Pretty sure that's in the job description. The idea they'd want the president to give his blessing on a plan to wire tap someone as important as a Presidential candidate from a major party also seems pretty prudent; basic CYA if you will.

gbaji wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that those involved in this probably honestly believed that Trump represented a grave threat to the US, not because of collusion with Russia
Don't think collusion with Russia by Trump himself is even the concern, but there's enough people around him that have ties to other countries, including Russia, that they're going to want to know what those people know. In this case I'd wager the wire taps likely weren't even about Trump, but given Trump Tower is where many contacts were happening, it'd make sense to have eyes and ears there.

Edited, Apr 20th 2017 9:18am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2842 Apr 20 2017 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Don't think collusion with Russia is even the concern

As reported, it was. British intelligence noticed connections between people on Trump's campaign and Russia and put up a red flag for American intelligence.

Edited, Apr 20th 2017 11:07am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2843 Apr 20 2017 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Don't think collusion with Russia is even the concern

As reported, it was. British intelligence noticed connections between people on Trump's campaign and Russia and put up a red flag for American intelligence.
Whoops, well I worded that badly. Go figure. Smiley: blush

Meant by Trump himself. Reading back, that maybe wasn't even gbaji's point either, just some morning pre-coffee logic for you. Smiley: rolleyes

Was just trying to empathize that Trump shouldn't necessarily be condemned because he really wasn't the problem. I.e. They didn't think Trump was colluding with Russia, they were concerned about the various members of his staff with foreign connections. Any bugging of Trump's residence likely having little to do with Trump himself.

Edit: There, edited above a bit.

Edited, Apr 20th 2017 9:27am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2844 Apr 21 2017 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Hey look, the bottom of the barrel.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2846 Apr 21 2017 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm actually amused the Palin is relegated to visiting with Kid Rock and Ted Nugent as just another celebrity mouthpiece rather than being treated as a politician/statesman.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2847 Apr 21 2017 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,249 posts
I mean, it was the robe she chose to wear... It's not like they forced her out of politics or anything.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2848 Apr 21 2017 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,172 posts
So, Chaffetz. Live boy or dead girl?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2849 Apr 21 2017 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Guy made a name for throwing himself into investigating anything and everything Democratic no matter how big or small and suddenly found himself in front of the trainwreck that is 45. Gotta have some sympathy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2850 Apr 21 2017 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,172 posts
Looking for sympathy.... sympathy not found.

Is it your position that Chaffetz can no longer justify refusing to investigate the current Administration, then?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2851 Apr 21 2017 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,392 posts
Oh, I'm sure he can justify it just fine. I just think he doesn't want to deal with everyone that doesn't accept his personal justification, which is an ever growing number from both sides of the aisle.
____________________________
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: 101 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (100)