Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What You Might Need To Know About Politics In United States Of America

politics USA

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 01:23 AM

The formerly top-secret document that is the basis of this thread is viewable at the link below.

What you just may need to know when interpreting current events. From this May 23, 2017 piece that is relevant to the bleeping "witch hunt" that is being conducted (special prosecutor) in US politics that might result in the wrong people being ... we shall see. One such thing is the impeachment of a US President.
 

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.
...
Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true.
...


Edited by scherado, 22 September 2017 - 01:25 AM.


#2 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 09:27 AM

The original poster will think this is a good thing, but the cited web site, circa.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has been buying up local TV stations in the US, and has been most recently in the news for starting to force their stations local news operations to air pro-Trump propaganda by Boris Epshteyn.
 
So you can pretty much discount most things published on circa as propaganda.
 
As to the specific allegations, there is a kernel of truth there: the NSA under Obama has done surveillance that they should not do, but the NSA has been doing that for ages and it was at the very least no worse under Obama than it was under Bush or Clinton or especially GHW Bush, who some may remember was Director of the CIA. It also brings up the tired "unmasking" accusation which Republican intelligence appointees have resoundingly rejected.
 
The irony of the "unmasking" story that Republican congresscritter Devin Nunes pushed so hard is that the only thing it "unmasked" was the importance of communications between Trump officials and the Russians between the election and inauguration.
 
The whole article is quite simply a great example of right-wing hyperventilating selection bias. TL;DR, both the article and probably this thread.
 
If you'd like unbiased coverage of the NSA, DoD intelligence and the CIA, I recommend Marcy Wheeler and Spencer Ackerman who are both career specialists in the intelligence community, have the best sources and do not pull punches for either conservative or liberal politicians.
 
 
Military Intelligence is an oxymoron, :phones:
Buffy
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2811 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 10:27 AM

The original poster will think this is a good thing, but the cited web site, circa.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has been buying up local TV stations in the US, and has been most recently in the news for starting to force their stations local news operations to air pro-Trump propaganda by Boris Epshteyn.

 

So you can pretty much discount most things published on circa as propaganda.

 

As to the specific allegations, their is a kernel of truth there, the NSA under Obama has done surveillance that they should not do, but the NSA has been doing that for ages and it was at the very least no worse under Obama than it was under Bush or Clinton or especially GHW Bush, who some may remember was Director of the CIA. It also brings up the tired "unmasking" accusation which Republican intelligence appointees have resoundingly rejected.

 

The irony of the "unmasking" story that Republican congresscritter Devin Nunes pushed so hard is that the only thing it "unmasked" was the importance of communications between Trump officials and the Russiand between the election and inauguration.

 

The whole article is quite simply a great example of right-wing hyperventilating selection bias. TL;DR, both the article and probably this thread.

 

If you'd like unbiased coverage of the NSA, DoD intelligence and the CIA, I recommend Marcy Wheeler and Spencer Ackerman who are both career specialists in the intelligence community, have the best sources and do not pull punches for either conservative or liberal politicians.

 

 

Military Intelligence is an oxymoron, :phones:

Buffy

I had not heard of this Boris Alexandrovich Epshteyn, but at first I thought you were joking, i.e. Russian forcing channels to air pro-Trump propaganda. 

 

I say, you don't think Scherado is a Russian stooge, do you? :)


  • Buffy likes this

#4 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 11:04 AM

I say, you don't think Scherado is a Russian stooge, do you? :)


His identity has been verified as American, although the NSA was not involved, and Obama didn't order it.

People who watch a lot of cable news got very sick of Boris during the election because he was one of Trump's most obnoxious spokespeople, for a while more visible than Kellyanne. He lost his job at the White House because not even Fox News could stand him.


Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order and the like, :phones:
Buffy



#5 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 02:09 PM

The original poster will think this is a good thing, but the cited web site, circa.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which has been buying up local TV stations in the US, and has been most recently in the news for starting to force their stations local news operations to air pro-Trump propaganda by Boris Epshteyn.
...

.
I didn't know that. It's my lucky day!!!

Further, I don't acknowledge anything from he wiki-pee-D-uh site.

Lastly, there is no dispute that Former UN Delegate Ms. Powers requested an obscene 120+ "unmasking" requests, in a short time before the end of the previous US Presidential Adminstration all of which was...well. Do you MS. "Buffy" know the reason?

#6 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 02:38 PM

Further, I don't acknowledge anything from he wiki-pee-D-uh site.


The one link I provided to Wikipedia was informational, not provided as proof of anything, and if you read it, it's unlikely to say much that you'd disagree with, precisely because Sinclair makes sure the page is properly curated to not make them look bad.

The rest of the links are substantive and provide evidence detrimental to your arguments, but you conveniently ignored them. No one here is wondering why anymore.
 

Lastly, there is no dispute that Former UN Delegate Ms. Powers requested an obscene 120+ "unmasking" requests, in a short time before the end of the previous US Presidential Adminstration all of which was...well. Do you MS. "Buffy" know the reason?


To claim there is "no dispute" is laughable. The accusation was made by Devin Nunes, who, as I said, by making this accusation looks to have made a fool of himself in focusing Special Prosecutor Mueller's investigation into coordination in trying to prevent the firing of Mike Flynn.

Oops.

Mr. Nunes made the accusation and provided no proof, claiming that the information was "classified" and no one in the Intelligence Community has even tried to confirm it. Nunes quote has been endlessly repeated by the right-wing Noise Machine, basically verbatim, surrounded only by bluster and consternation about how inherently evil "unmasking" is.

In fact, and the references I provide above will confirm it, there has been concern on the Left and Right about the weakening of the unmasking rules that Obama implemented in 2011.

What's so ironic is that the reason that Obama did that was to appease the folks who are paranoid about "violent Islamic extremism" in order to avoid accusations that the US government was not being vigilant enough in tracking down terrorists.

If you are scared to death of "extremists" you should be FOR unmasking. Are you going to argue that their privacy should be protected?

Or are you going to argue that unmasking should only be done for "people who might be Muslim?"

 

As a conservative, don't you think that it's worth the loss of civil liberties in the pursuit of safety? Or are you going to say only people of a specific religion should be singled out in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

 

Why do you hate the Constitution so?

 

 

I been to one world's fair, a picnic, and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard! :phones:

Buffy


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#7 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 03:13 PM

The one link I provided to Wikipedia was informational, not provided as proof of anything, and if you read it, it's unlikely to say much that you'd disagree with, precisely because Sinclair makes sure the page is properly curated to not make them look bad.

The rest of the links are substantive and provide evidence detrimental to your arguments,
...

.
What arguments? Do you even know what forum you're in at the moment? Doesn't everyone know the reason I asked whether Admin "Buffy" is drinking while typing AND I opined that she should be relieved of her responsibilities? I self-identify as "Constitutional Conservative"!!!! (profile) and she asks:
.

...
Why do you hate the Constitution so?
...

.
Unbleeping believable!! By definition I want to stop the destruction of the American Constitution.

An asylum for the insane, is this? Perhaps.

#8 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 22 September 2017 - 04:00 PM

The one link I provided to Wikipedia was informational, not provided as proof of anything, and if you read it, it's unlikely to say much that you'd disagree with, precisely because Sinclair makes sure the page is properly curated to not make them look bad.

The rest of the links are substantive and provide evidence detrimental to your arguments,
...

What arguments? Do you even know what forum you're in at the moment?


Dear, your post #1 in this thread made accusations about unmasking. Of the links in my post #2, the first one--and the only one you then responded to--was a definitional link to Wikipedia to identify Sinclair broadcasting. The second was a link to identify and give background on Mr. Epshteyn, and the rest in that post attacked your unmasking thesis.
 

I self-identify as "Constitutional Conservative"!!!! (profile) and she asks:

Unbleeping believable!! By definition I want to stop the destruction of the American Constitution.


The problem of course is that just because you claim to be a "Constitutional Conservative" doesn't mean you understand it.

Unfortunately it is exactly your refusal to engage on the questions I pose in post #6 above that proves that you have no idea that the ideas you are arguing in this and other threads are in contravention of the Constitution.

It's more than a little bit ironic. You're in good company though, virtually every "Constitutional Conservative" I know spends most of their time arguing that various bits of it should be repealed, although they have no idea that they're doing so.

Not a club I'd want to belong to.

So do you wish to engage in discussion or do you simply want to call people names and browbeat them about how "unbleeping believable" we all are?


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything, :phones:
Buffy
  • JMJones0424 likes this

#9 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:18 AM

Dear, your post #1 in this thread made accusations about unmasking.
...

.

The formerly top-secret document that is the basis of this thread is viewable at the link below.
...

.
I didn't make any accusations about unmasking: the copy of the Judge's order is view-able at the link!!!! It is signed:

Rosemary M. Collyer
Judge, United States Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court


That means that I don't have to argue anything!!!! It's already been decided by a sitting Federal Judge.

Unbleeping believable!!!!! Roflmfao!!!!!

............Added (more evidence)

Letter from Chairman Nunes to Director Coats on 'unmasking'

Edited by scherado, 23 September 2017 - 01:46 AM.


#10 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:08 AM

I didn't make any accusations about unmasking: the copy of the Judge's order is view-able at the link!!!! It is signed:

Rosemary M. Collyer


In Post #1:
 

...this May 23, 2017 piece that is relevant to the bleeping "witch hunt" that is being conducted (special prosecutor) in US politics that might result in the wrong people being ...

 

There's nothing in the piece whatsoever about how the piece is "relevant to the bleeping 'witch hunt,'" and the only thing that could be is Devin Nunes unmasking.

By not bothering to say wat the "relevance" is, along with the fact that there's only been one connection made even by the right-wing press, there's only one conclusion.

Moreover the only link you provided was to the circa article. No really, go look. Try searching for "Collyer" on that page. Try.
 

That means that I don't have to argue anything!!!! It's already been decided by a sitting Federal Judge.

 

Now if you had bothered to read my Post #2, you'd be flabbergasted to find that yes, just about everyone believes in the Judge's conclusion that the Obama Admin overstepped its own stated limits. The links to experts I provided agree with that assessment.

What that leads to though is exactly the discussion in my Post #8, that those actions of the Obama Administration--and really, carried out by James Clapper, who is a *Republican*--were done precisely because of the paranoid rantings on the right about scary terrorists. The rules were bent to find those "violent Muslim extremists" you keep ranting about in so many of your threads.

Either you want to limit constitutional protections for Muslims so we can catch the bad ones, or you believe in protecting the Constitution.

You can decide which you want or you can keep arguing both sides and demonstrate the limits of your mental capacity. Your choice.


The world is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be, :phones:
Buffy


  • exchemist likes this

#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2811 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 09:37 AM

The rules were bent to find those "violent Muslim extremists" you keep ranting about in so many of your threads.

Either you want to limit constitutional protections for Muslims so we can catch the bad ones, or you believe in protecting the Constitution.

You can decide which you want or you can keep arguing both sides and demonstrate the limits of your mental capacity. Your choice.


 

This, I think, is the essence of Scherado's problem. Same with the incoherent stance about anti-religious prejudice laws in the UK. 



#12 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:04 AM

In Post #1:


There's nothing in the piece whatsoever about how the piece is "relevant to the bleeping 'witch hunt,'" and the only thing that could be is Devin Nunes unmasking.

By not bothering to say wat the "relevance" is, along with the fact that there's only been one connection made even by the right-wing press, there's only one conclusion.

Moreover the only link you provided was to the circa article. No really, go look. Try searching for "Collyer" on that page. Try.


Now if you had bothered to read my Post #2, you'd be flabbergasted to find that yes, just about everyone believes in the Judge's conclusion that the Obama Admin overstepped its own stated limits. The links to experts I provided agree with that assessment.

What that leads to though is exactly the discussion in my Post #8, that those actions of the Obama Administration--and really, carried out by James Clapper,
...

.
Samantha Powers, former Delagate to United Nations, it is asserted by evidence requested about 260 unmasking requests in the months--I don't know how few months--of the previous Administration. That role--never mind the preposterous, obscene numbers--her role as UN Delegate has never been abused in such a fashion, and she was "following orders".

The entire thing, all those involved could be locked in Federal prisons for very long times if the US government weren't dysfunctional to a frightful degree. This last underlined part is another topic.

#13 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 10:36 AM

.
Samantha Powers, former Delagate to United Nations, it is asserted by evidence

 

The only "evidence" is Devin Nunes word. No one else has seen his "evidence." The fact that Breitbart, Newsmax and the hundreds of other propaganda sites you think are the only truth have copied the same unsupported allegations almost verbatim does not make them any more true.

 

And again you ignore the actual import of any of it. 

 

Were there unmaskings? Undoubtedly.

 

Do Republican intelligence experts say that unmasking is often legitimate, and in the Rice case, certainly so? Yes.

 

Is surveillance always legitimate? Certainly not, and as I've said, there's bipartisan support for that notion, but it's certainly not limited to Obama, and the motivation is in trying to catch the "violent Muslim extremist" bogeymen you fear so much, so the question is, why are you against such surveillance?

 

Should only Muslims be surveilled?

 

So far in this thread you've done nothing but claim that Obama or his proxies did something bad a lot, without specifying a thing about what was actually bad about it (something I had to contribute, but which didn't support whatever it is you're trying to say), refusing to make any comparisons to related issues.

 

Is this thread about anything other than to just exclaim "OMG! Obama bad!"?

 

 

Knowledge without application is like a book that is never read, :phones:

Buffy



#14 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 12:48 PM

The only "evidence" is Devin Nunes word. No one else has seen his "evidence." The fact that Breitbart, Newsmax and the hundreds of other propaganda sites you think are the only truth have copied the same unsupported allegations almost verbatim does not make them any more true.

And again you ignore the actual import of any of it.

Were there unmaskings? Undoubtedly.

Do Republican intelligence experts say that unmasking is often legitimate, and in the Rice case, certainly so? Yes.

Is surveillance always legitimate? Certainly not, and as I've said, there's bipartisan support for that notion, but it's certainly not limited to Obama, and the motivation is in trying to catch the "violent Muslim extremist" bogeymen
...

.
Do you expect me to believe that the about 260 unmasking requests during the end of the Presidential campaign and the final months of Samantha Power's tenure at the United Nations has something to do with "bogeymen", Islamic, Presbeterian, Methodist or otherwise?

Do you smoke crack as well as sipping booze when you type?

Do you understand either of those questions?

#15 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:09 PM

Do you expect me to believe that the about 260 unmasking requests during the end of the Presidential campaign and the final months of Samantha Power's tenure at the United Nations has something to do with "bogeymen", Islamic, Presbeterian, Methodist or otherwise?


Do you expect everyone to take Devin Nunes word for it with no proof?

It sounds, dear, like you have already shoved sharp pencils in both ears. At least 3 inches deep.

 

 

When a man has once brought himself to accept uncritically all the absurdities that religious doctrines put before him and even to overlook the contradictions between them, we need not be greatly surprised at the weakness of his intellect, :phones:

Buffy



#16 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 01:33 AM

Do you expect everyone to take Devin Nunes word for it with no proof?
...

.
Do you expect everyone to deny what's in the document written by:
.

... signed:

Rosemary M. Collyer
Judge, United States Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court


That means that I don't have to argue anything!!!! It's already been decided by a sitting Federal Judge.
...



#17 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:03 AM

There is one other thing that one most definitely needs to know about USA politics, present-day, is that of the two candidates nominated to run, in fall of 2016, by the only two parties that had a chance of winning, both candidates, Clinton and Trump, were under Federal investigation!: Clinton for the server/email accusations and Trump....for what exactly?, that is the subject of the previous administration's use of Samantha Powers to unmask hundreds, the subject of the OP and, we all should believe by now, in an attempt to derail the potential Trump Presidency.

This borders on insane and must look quite so from outside America.

Keep in mind the second preposterous fact that the investigator (policeman) and the prosecutor (lawyer) played the same role in the pre-November 5, 2016 American politics--the detestable and insufferable James Comey.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: politics, USA