Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump: Making America Great Again...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    When your salaried work for the government ends, you should lose your security clearance. I don’t care who you are. I'm surprised to find otherwise.
    They've been trusted for years, and have still-classified knowledge and experience. Seems like good people to reach out to when you need an expert opinion on something. As long as their clearance is still valid, it's not a crime to explain the situation to them and get their input.

    Without the credentials, they still have the knowledge and experience, but they can't receive information that could inform their expertise and allow them to provide good counsel. Who loses out? The person or administration who is seeking the expert opinion.

    One of the counter-arguments to the "Trump has no experience in.. anything related to the office" was always "oh, he'll surround himself with experts." You can't surround yourself with the best experts if you arbitrarily yank their security clearance for petty-ass reasons.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LVAllen View Post
      They've been trusted for years, and have still-classified knowledge and experience. Seems like good people to reach out to when you need an expert opinion on something. As long as their clearance is still valid, it's not a crime to explain the situation to them and get their input.

      Without the credentials, they still have the knowledge and experience, but they can't receive information that could inform their expertise and allow them to provide good counsel. Who loses out? The person or administration who is seeking the expert opinion.

      One of the counter-arguments to the "Trump has no experience in.. anything related to the office" was always "oh, he'll surround himself with experts." You can't surround yourself with the best experts if you arbitrarily yank their security clearance for petty-ass reasons.
      lol... let me sum up:

      The Post’s Philip Bump outlined the reasons why former officials need to keep their security clearances, which essentially fall into two categories: things that might help the government (the current administration might need to consult with them on something, or they might sit on government advisory boards)—and things that will personally profit the clearance holder. As Bump wrote, many ex-officials “provide consulting services for which a clearance is at least an asset” for outside defense firms—meaning they get paid more money than most Americans earn in 10 years to say things like “yeah, this Yemen thing is really fucked up” to Raytheon once every six weeks.

      There is a free speech issue here: The president is doing something to harm a critic for no other reason than because he criticized him. Trump should not have done this. It is arbitrary and dumb, and comes from the same part of his Swiss cheese brain that spits out the word “COLLUSION!” on Twitter like a broken cuckoo clock and that desperately wants to silence the loud chorus of criticism on Russia. It is also in no way the most pressing free speech issue facing Trump critics today; just one more important one would be the case of Manuel Duran, a journalist detained by ICE in the act of reporting, who only narrowly escaped deportation.

      The Washington insider media class should think about whether their painful, urgent boner about John Brennan—who both oversaw and justified torture, and then lied about spying on Senate staffers who were working on the torture report—is because of their Commitment to Free Speech, or because it’s centered on the national security elites that they are so enamored of. It is this class that brought us takes like “John Kelly will save us from Trump because he is a Military Man and therefore loves Honor,” and “Trump truly became president when he brought out the widow of a Navy SEAL who died for an applause line.” It’s also this class that was deeply appalled when Trump wouldn’t say John McCain’s name at the defense bill signing. I cannot fathom getting mad about that; we should be naming our defense bills after people we hate, given that their legacy would then be tied to dead Yemenis.

      The shit these people get themselves whipped into a frenzy about is so, so far detached from any of the Trump administration’s actions that tangibly cause pain, misery, and death for real people, at home and abroad, that you have to wonder if it’s because the vast majority of this segment of the media is also pretty detached from the populations most at risk from Trump. They’re mostly not Manuel Durans; they live in nice houses in Washington and go to the same nice restaurants as Sarah Sanders and Stephen Miller. This isn’t just a stylistic critique: Lionizing military figures, and acting like things like “I will give up my right to hear who we droned yesterday” are the most moving acts of patriotism simply because they come from A War Guy, makes it harder to advance broader critiques of American imperialism.

      It’s bad for Trump to do arbitrary and capricious things to attack his critics. But I’d give my left arm for a media that has just a little bit more hesitancy in falling over itself to applaud the national security class at every turn.

      Dump them all President Trump... drain the swamp! Have anyone re-apply for clearance as necessary.
      You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay
      Almost everything you post is snarky, smug, condescending, or just downright mean-spirited. --Jeffrey Lebowski

      Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace. --President Donald J. Trump
      You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war. --William Randolph Hearst

      Comment


      • Why Is the White House Trying to Block a Key Election Security Bill?

        Despite significant bipartisan support, the Election Security Act hit a massive roadblock this week



        Hours after the Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for interfering in the 2016 election, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned that Russia is still very much a threat to America’s democratic process. “The warning lights are blinking red again,” he said. “Today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack.” President Trump doesn’t seem to share his intelligence director’s concern. On Wednesday Yahoo reported that the White House intervened to block a bipartisan Senate bill that would have fortified election security nationwide.
        Introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) and co-sponsored by a powerful bipartisan cadre of lawmakers including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Susan Collins (R-ME), the Secure Elections Act would have fostered greater coordination between states and the federal government in combating election interference. Top state election officials would have been given clearance to receive information regarding threats, an advisory board would have been established to outline the best ways to combat cybersecurity threats and states would have been required to conduct an audit following federal elections. The bill also focused on creating a paper record of votes that could not be manipulated by hacking efforts. “Paper is not antiquated,” Lankford said while defending the bill. “It’s reliable.”
        Lankford and the co-sponsors had already secured bipartisan support, and the bill was scheduled to go up for a vote in October. Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO) was set to conduct a markup of the bill on Wednesday, but the review was abruptly canceled after Blunt claimed it lacked enough Republican support. According to congressional sources interviewed by Yahoo, it was the White House that stepped in to kill the effort. “Elections are the responsibility of the states and local governments,” White House spokesperson Lindsay Walters said in a statement. “We cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and operation of elections.”
        Lankford disagreed, arguing that states should not be expected to protect against attacks from foreign adversaries, and that because the elections in question are federal, the federal government should work with states to ensure their integrity. “Your election in Delaware affects the entire country,” the senator told Yahoo. “Your election in Florida affects the entire country.” Klobuchar added in a statement that “each and every day Vladimir Putin, hostile nations, and criminal forces devise new schemes to muck up our democracy and other infrastructure” and that “when our nation is under attack from foreign governments there is a federal obligation to act.”

        https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...y-2018-715204/

        Comment




        • Thanks Obama!
          "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
          "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
          "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
          GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post


            Thanks Obama!
            It's possible for both Obama and Trump to be wrong, you know.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
              It's possible for both Obama and Trump to be wrong, you know.
              Or for both of them to be correct.
              PLesa excuse the tpyos.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                Or for both of them to be correct.
                sure. But they're wrong. NAFTA is fine.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                  sure. But they're wrong. NAFTA is fine.
                  I know nationalists typically oppose free trade, but are libertarians against it well?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
                    I know nationalists typically oppose free trade, but are libertarians against it well?
                    No. All Libertarians are free traders in theory. But some of the more extreme variety oppose free trade agreements because they usually involve some negotiations baked in that make them technically less than 100% restriction-free trade. The practical problem with that is that despite those concessions (hey, if you let us still have a 1% tariff on product x we'll drop all of our tariffs on everything else, etc.) is that the agreement is always going to be more free trade than what the countries or set of countries had before.

                    A HUGE problem with what Trump is threatening to do now is trashing NAFTA as it currently exists and renegotiating something similar to what we already have with Mexico but cut Canada completely out of it. That's insane.
                    Last edited by BlueK; 08-28-2018, 11:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Now he's promoting conspiracy theories about Google search results? What they're doing is "illegal" and they should be regulated? Geez, enough of this idiocy.

                      https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/tec...ged/index.html
                      Last edited by BlueK; 08-28-2018, 12:02 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                        Now he's promoting conspiracy theories about Google search results? What they're doing is "illegal" and they should be regulated? Geez, enough of this idiocy.

                        https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/28/tec...ged/index.html
                        I recall a poll a while back, as mentioned by National Review's Jonah Goldberg, that nearly half of Republicans supported the idea of courts shutting down news sources that are biased or inaccurate. Trump loves that part of his base, and he noted earlier this morning that "This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!" One wonders what he'll propose to cut back on the First Amendment, as he has previously threatened to do. As disturbing as that is, I remain confident that he'll fail, perhaps spectacularly, in any such endeavor.

                        I'm reminded, as I am pretty much daily, of God@TheTweetofGod's observation that "In an ideal scenario the President of the United States and the worst human being in the world would be two different people."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                          I recall a poll a while back, as mentioned by National Review's Jonah Goldberg, that nearly half of Republicans supported the idea of courts shutting down news sources that are biased or inaccurate. Trump loves that part of his base, and he noted earlier this morning that "This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!" One wonders what he'll propose to cut back on the First Amendment, as he has previously threatened to do. As disturbing as that is, I remain confident that he'll fail, perhaps spectacularly, in any such endeavor.

                          I'm reminded, as I am pretty much daily, of God@TheTweetofGod's observation that "In an ideal scenario the President of the United States and the worst human being in the world would be two different people."
                          according to many Republicans it's perfectly ok for the president of the US (if it's Trump anyway) to threaten to do things that are obvious violations of the First Amendment because our system keeps them from actually doing it. Did I get that right?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                            according to many Republicans it's perfectly ok for the president of the US (if it's Trump anyway) to threaten to do things that are obvious violations of the First Amendment because our system keeps them from actually doing it. Did I get that right?
                            Another poll of Republicans showed that around 50% would support postponing the next presidential election if Trump proposed such a thing. I'd consider becoming an independent but I feel the need to help hold down the Republican fort a bit longer.

                            BTW, in a recent podcast, the aforementioned Goldberg played the opening scene from The Godfather, in which the eponymous character is holding court. A supplicant by the name of Amerigo Bonasera beseeches Vito to wreak revenge on two thugs who beat up Amerigo's daughter. Corleone is at first offended because for many years Amerigo hadn't come to him or tried to befriend him, noting that he was doing so only now because the American justice system had failed him. Amerigo becomes very contrite, kisses Vito's ring, and begs for Vito's help. Corleone nods approvingly, says he may call upon Amerigo in the future, and assures him that the requested punishment will be inflicted immediately on the wrongdoers.

                            Goldberg's point is that frustrated people are more willing to forsake the justice system and societal norms generally if they feel the system isn't working for them (okay, here I go again angering others), and that Trump is playing on that tendency.

                            Amerigo Bonasera is Italian for "Goodnight, America."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                              I recall a poll a while back, as mentioned by National Review's Jonah Goldberg, that nearly half of Republicans supported the idea of courts shutting down news sources that are biased or inaccurate. Trump loves that part of his base, and he noted earlier this morning that "This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!" One wonders what he'll propose to cut back on the First Amendment, as he has previously threatened to do. As disturbing as that is, I remain confident that he'll fail, perhaps spectacularly, in any such endeavor.

                              I'm reminded, as I am pretty much daily, of God@TheTweetofGod's observation that "In an ideal scenario the President of the United States and the worst human being in the world would be two different people."
                              Yes but there was that Pew poll a while back that said a large chunk of millenials think the government should prohibit speech that is hurtful to minorities. The fact is that almost all groups, not just Trump's base (whatever that is, precisely), finds that pesky first amendment to be a great annoyance when the speech in question is not what they like.
                              PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                                Yes but there was that Pew poll a while back that said a large chunk of millenials think the government should prohibit speech that is hurtful to minorities. The fact is that almost all groups, not just Trump's base (whatever that is, precisely), finds that pesky first amendment to be a great annoyance when the speech in question is not what they like.
                                Agreed. People have a hard time accepting that a primary purpose of the free speech clause is to protect offensive speech. If it wasn't there would be no need for a free speech clause.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X