America - The Official Thread

[eran0004]

Britain is now following suit and enforcing similar bans. As much as I'd like this situation to point a further finger at Trump's madness I suspect it's actually rooted in a genuine intelligence assessment.

But if laptops are a security risk, why not ban laptops?

 

[TenEightyOne]

But if laptops are a security risk, why not ban laptops?

In the circumstances (which we know very few details of) it's clearly the carrying of a smart device larger than a phone in the cabin that presents the problem. We don't know why and quite possibly never will.

 

[eran0004]

In the circumstances (which we know very few details of) it's clearly the carrying of a smart device larger than a phone in the cabin that presents the problem. We don't know why and quite possibly never will.

In the cabin of a few selected flights only.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the cabin of a few selected flights only.

In one case it's selected flights from eight countries, in another it's all flights from six countries. I infer that you don't like it but you have to have some trust in their reasoning or at least be prepared to err in caution.

 

[eran0004]

In one case it's selected flights from eight countries, in another it's all flights from six countries. I infer that you don't like it but you have to have some trust in their reasoning or at least be prepared to err in caution.

Trust in the US government? Not even Americans do that

http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015/

 

[Biggles]

From what I understand, the point is that certain airports are considered not to have adequate security measures, or security measures that may be compromised by infiltration or influence from outside interests.

 

[Northstar]

On the other hand, he's a seasoned politician and understands that he has to at least appear to be serving the entire country and cannot go to war with the rest of the world just because the TV said nasty things about him.

I'm not so sure on that. If they do find something bad enough to remove Trump and Pence takes over, he won't really have any incentive to actually try working with the Democrats as there is no way in hell he would get re-elected simply because he will forever be associated with Trump.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Numerous studies have found that it's much harder to change somebody's mind than it was to get them to accept the initial idea in the first place.

In other words, Comey's first letter, strongly insinuating that Hillary had done something wrong, was readily accepted as true. But the second letter, saying "oops, turns out there's nothing to see here" had much less of an effect on those same people. They had already incorporated that new, incorrect information into their view of Hillary, and from that point, human nature made them resistant to facts that contradicted what they now believed to be true.

This is one of the main reasons that law enforcement usually doesn't comment on investigations before they're finished. It's irresponsible to plant ideas in the public mind when you don't yet know them to be true.

Argue over the scope of the impact of Comey's letters all you want, but you can't deny they had an impact.

Which I actually noted in my posts already. If people already believed Clinton was guilty or not a honest candidate, all the second investigation did was reaffirm it for those in that camp.

So to say that the first investigation wasn't a blow to her, but someone this second and lesser version was, is grasping massively. So no human nature didn't dictate that somehow they accepted she was investigated a second time and thus must be guilty, but somehow days later didn't accept the innocent of wrong doing given to the national press.

Unless they already were seeing her as guilty. Also no one is denying an impact what's being denied is an impact of some great proportion or even marginal one compared to the initial. All it did was remind the public of what Trump had been saying his entire campaign, so if reaffirming what a loud mouth was saying caused Hillary to lose, then clearly the superposition of events to that point are far more damaging.

 

[Biggles]

Which I actually noted in my posts already. If people already believed Clinton was guilty or not a honest candidate, all the second investigation did was reaffirm it for those in that camp.

So to say that the first investigation wasn't a blow to her, but someone this second and lesser version was, is grasping massively. So no human nature didn't dictate that somehow they accepted she was investigated a second time and thus must be guilty, but somehow days later didn't accept the innocent of wrong doing given to the national press.

Unless they already were seeing her as guilty. Also no one is denying an impact what's being denied is an impact of some great proportion or even marginal one compared to the initial. All it did was remind the public of what Trump had been saying his entire campaign, so if reaffirming what a loud mouth was saying caused Hillary to lose, then clearly the superposition of events to that point are far more damaging.

I suspect that the Comey report, which really didn't confirm any misdeeds on Clinton's part, but merely reported the existence of additional Emails to be investigated, was the final straw in persuading a significant number of Democratic voters, especially Sanders supporters, to sit out the election & not vote for Clinton. Low Democratic voter turn out handed the election win to Trump.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I suspect that the Comey report, which really didn't confirm any misdeeds on Clinton's part, but merely reported the existence of additional Emails to be investigated, was the final straw in persuading a significant number of Democratic voters, especially Sanders supporters, to sit out the election & not vote for Clinton. Low Democratic voter turn out handed the election win to Trump.

Sanders supporters were out the door the moment wikileaks confirmed they were denied a voice by the same national convention that elected who they(DNC) wanted. Bernie selling out didn't sway any favor for Clinton. As for those on the border about Clinton or not Clinton, I highly doubt registered dems that weren't for Bernie sat out with the risk of Trump getting elected.

If riding the hope that some how there were more registered dems voting in key states was all the reason Hillary lost, then that was an awful plan and shows exactly why she lost. Which is still bar Comey, cause as you said his report said they were just investigating further what had already been well investigated prior, and still not fully accepted as showing "innocence".

I think progress could be better found by actually trying to make right the wrongs that were the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016, cause if this is going to be the trend of pointing fingers at a person or group for losing...progress wont ever come.

 

[Biggles]

Sanders supporters were out the door the moment wikileaks confirmed they were denied a voice by the same national convention that elected who they wanted. Bernie selling out didn't sway any favor for Clinton. As for those on the border about Clinton or not Clinton, I highly doubt registered dems that weren't for Bernie sat out with the risk of Trump getting elected.

If riding the hope that some how there were more registered dems voting in key states was all the reason Hillary lost, then that was an awful plan and shows exactly why she lost. Which is still bar Comey, cause as you said his report said they were just investigating further what had already been well investigated prior, and still not fully accepted as showing "innocence".

I think progress could be better found by actually trying to make right the wrongs that were the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2016, cause if this is going to be the trend of pointing fingers at a person or group for losing...progress wont ever come.

Sometimes your syntax is so dense that the meaning of what you're trying to say is completely lost.

I don't think Sanders supporters were "out the door" en masse, but some were undoubtedly turned off to the extent that they didn't vote. Once Bernie was out of the running there was unquestionably an "enthusiasm problem" with a significant chunk of the democratic base.

Bernie didn't "sell out", he understood that Trump winning the election could have dire consequences for the causes he believed in. He chose to throw his support behind Clinton for that reason - a perfectly understandable decision.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Sometimes your syntax is so dense that the meaning of what you're trying to say is completely lost.

Point out the issue, I'll address it. A general, "hey I don't get it" doesn't do anyone any favors.

I don't think Sanders supporters were "out the door" en masse, but some were undoubtedly turned off to the extent that they didn't vote. Once Bernie was out of the running there was unquestionably an "enthusiasm problem" with a significant chunk of the democratic base.

Then we disagree, I find it more likely that many took the same position a certain Sanders voter on here did, which was sit out. It was clear that the DNC was stacked against them and their candidate and wikileaks only proved it. If your argument is they were the rest of the democratic base, I yet again don't agree. I see it as three types of dems, those that really wanted Hillary, those that were Obama progressives who were against Hillary in 08, and Sanders voters.

The only group I see up for discussion would be Obama voters that were unsure of Clinton. I think that in mass Bernie supporters didn't want Hillary, and either went third party (I've seen plenty of Bernie stickers on campus get covered with Stein instead) or sat out.

Bernie didn't "sell out", he understood that Trump winning the election could have dire consequences for the causes he believed in. He chose to throw his support behind Clinton for that reason - a perfectly understandable decision.

Sure he did, his convictions or the ones he was trying to sell the American public wasn't the same as those of Hillary, and clearly that of what the DNC wanted in a leader. To turn around and say "you win", and agree to their terms at the cost of what you sold people, is selling out. In the end it came down to team politics rather than speaking for the American voter, the better thing to have done would have been go third party try to to win that way and preach how both candidates were undeserving.

On an aside in regards to the politics of it all and why I say and have said what I have...

I'm not sure if you're a democrat or what, I know you have liberal leaning views from seeing your posts through the years. So my point is that, I'm giving my view on a situation from an unbiased perspective liberal nor conservative. I don't see any virtue in selling out your personal beliefs of bettering a nation, just to help some group who I'll remind everyone stabbed the guy in the back, just to stop some supposed common enemy. There is no common enemy, there is only serving the American populous and making sure their future only gets better.

 

[andrea]

and of course, who would have expected anything else

 

[Chrunch Houston]

and of course, who would have expected anything else

I was in the army in the late 80's.

Before I moved to Germany I had to get a "top secret" security clearance. All of my friends back home were questioned by federal agents, about me, before I got it. I am sure I was not privy to any real secrets.

There are multiple levels of clearance, this means nothing.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I know I am double posting, but this is important.

I don't know the source of this, but anyone reporting this would (or should) know that there are different levels of security clearances.

This is disinformation (a lie). There is so much of this kind of propaganda coming from the left I am sure it is easy to keep leftist like yourself confused.

President Trump said "top level security clearance". I am not accusing you of conflating what the President said with what the unknown author of this said.

I blame the unknown author. I am sure He/she knew better.

The same thing happens on the right. Sean Hannity is a perfect example. He is nothing more than a right wing propagandist. In fact, he disgusts me. He does more harm to my cause with his half truths, than if he just told the whole truth.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There is so much of this kind of propaganda coming from the left

And there's none coming from the right? Trump has actively campaigned to undermine the press at every opportunity to the extent that he could be caught in a scandal so earth-shattering as to make Watergate look like water cooler gossip and still walk away unscathed.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

And there's none coming from the right? Trump has actively campaigned to undermine the press at every opportunity to the extent that he could be caught in a scandal so earth-shattering as to make Watergate look like water cooler gossip and still walk away unscathed.

Good god, are you blind?

The same thing happens on the right. Sean Hannity is a perfect example. He is nothing more than a right wing propagandist. In fact, he disgusts me. He does more harm to my cause with his half truths, than if he just told the whole truth.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is disinformation (a lie). There is so much of this kind of propaganda coming from the left I am sure it is easy to keep leftist like yourself confused.

Wow

Firstly you don't even have a proper "left" in America ( ), secondly why might "leftists" by more confused by left-wing propaganda than "rightists" by right-wing propaganda as per your implication?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Good god, are you blind?

No, just pointing out that Trump does it, too. More to the point, he does it exclusively.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Firstly you don't even have a proper "left" in America ( ),

I am an American, to me the American left is the only left that counts.

secondly why might "leftists" by more confused by left-wing propaganda than "rightists" by right-wing propaganda as per your implication?

The right wing propaganda comes from marginalized sources, where as the left wing propaganda comes from the big networks.

 

[Scaff]

The right wing propaganda comes from marginalized sources, where as the left wing propaganda comes from the big networks.

The White House is a marginalised source?

Fox news is a marginalised source?

Keep in mind that the White House is also doing a lot to communicate only via outlets it wants to, just looking at Tillersons 'press pack' on his Aisa trip illustrates that.

One of the issues you are also overlooking here is that she will not be a government employee, will not have to swear the oath (a you did) and will not have to follow the ethics regulations for a government employee (which is why they are going to great pains to say she will follow it voluntarily).

As such she gets clearance without many of the normal safeguards that come with it. No oversight, no confirmation process, as such the level of security clearance is a distraction (and given her presence in meetings with world leaders to date I going to go out on a limb and say it's going to be far higher than yours was). The issue is the almost unprecedented route that is being taken to provide it, the lack of normal safeguards and the fact that it comes at a time when the office itself is under investigation.

Attempting to brush it away as a nothing propaganda line is both wide of the mark and out of step with the facts.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Fox news is a marginalised source?

Fox news gets the highest ratings of the other cable news networks because most Americans believe it over the other cable new networks. It doesn't mean that the major three broadcast networks show them any respect. They don't.

The White House is a marginalised source?

Lets take one thing for example "wire tap". President Trump is 70 years old. He said "wire tap". The networks here have constantly gone with that term.

I doubt that anyone has had a federal agent literally go into their basement and literally cut into their phone lines to tap into their phone lines since the 1970s.

They know what he meant, but refuse to let it go.

Was he surveilled? Hopefully we will find out.

How about Michael Flynn? Who lost his job because of a transcript of a private phone call. Who is transcribing your phone calls?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm still confused how this supposed higher rating means most american's believe them, because it's such a broad statement you can't possibly think it true for face value.

 

[McLaren]

and of course, who would have expected anything else

He said he was not trying to get top level security clearance for his children. That doesn't mean Ivanka can't try on her own. As Crunch also pointed, you don't just get a security clearance and suddenly have access to everything, either. You'd have more of a point if you went after the article's hint of Ivanka still profiting off her company whilst trying to work in the White House like they did Melania. Try sourcing it as well next time:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-white-house-236273

But, typical nonsense from you making vague posts to create a point.

 

[Scaff]

Fox news gets the highest ratings of the other cable news networks because most Americans believe it over the other cable new networks. It doesn't mean that the major three broadcast networks show them any respect. They don't.
Lets take one thing for example "wire tap". President Trump is 70 years old. He said "wire tap". The networks here have constantly gone with that term.

I doubt that anyone has had a federal agent literally go into their basement and literally cut into their phone lines to tap into their phone lines since the 1970s.

They know what he meant, but refuse to let it go.

Was he surveilled? Hopefully we will find out.

How about Michael Flynn? Who lost his job because of a transcript of a private phone call. Who is transcribing your phone calls?

Neither of which makes them marginalised.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He said he was not trying to get top level security clearance for his children. That doesn't mean Ivanka can't try on her own.

Nor does it mean that he isn't trying to get security clearance for her or that her gaining clearance was considered a given. Also, "Top Level" can feasibly be higher than "Top Secret". I've had clearance for "Top Secret" although I ultimately didn't see anything, and all the secret stuff I did see was as dull as spanners... there are plenty of levels beyond that (as @Chrunch Houston can probably tell you too).

So all I see is a denial that he's not trying to get Top Level clearance. The White House have confirmed that she'll have access to confidential, compartmentalised information. Nothing says that Donnie T has "tried" to get that... but it seems vanishingly unlikely that it happened without his knowledge.

 

[Imari]

I'm not so sure on that. If they do find something bad enough to remove Trump and Pence takes over, he won't really have any incentive to actually try working with the Democrats as there is no way in hell he would get re-elected simply because he will forever be associated with Trump.

Because the only reason any President ever works with other politicians is if he has a shot at re-election?

I'm pointing out that Pence might actually do things for the good of the US because he's a politician that might actually have some interest in the welfare of the country, rather than just being in it to prove to the world that he does in fact have the largest member in the history of the human race.

Seriously, everyone's saying it. It's a great member, a fantastic member. Fake news will try to tell you that it's small, but trust me. Huge!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've had clearance for "Top Secret" although I ultimately didn't see anything, and all the secret stuff I did see was as dull as spanners... there are plenty of levels beyond that

That's because you didn't have Double Secret Probationary clearance.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Ok Scaff, I love you because you taught me how to tune.

But

Neither of which makes them marginalised.

Neither of which makes who marginalized? This answers nothing.

If you are talking about the Whitehouse, the press won't let go of the term "wire tap". A term uttered by a 70 year old man. They are using that as a straw man argument, when they know damn well what he meant.

Why don't you have any comment about Flynn? The American citizen that was spied on illegally and lost his job.

 

[Scaff]

Ok Scaff, I love you because you taught me how to tune.

But

Neither of which makes who marginalized? This answers nothing.

You claimed right wing propaganda only comes from marginalised sources, neither the White House or Fox are marginal sources.

If you are talking about the Whitehouse, the press won't let go of the term "wire tap". A term uttered by a 70 year old man. They are using that as a straw man argument, when they know damn well what he meant.

He's the commander in chief with access to the highest level of intelligence in arguably the world. He also claimed to have evidence of it, as such he's old and misspoke doesn't really fly at all.

Why don't you have any comment about Flynn? The American citizen that was spied on illegally and lost his job.

You have proof he was the target of the surveillance rather than the person he was speaking to?

Surveillance on Russian officials is not exactly odd or unusual, in fact it's what one branch of the intelligence services exists to do. If Flynn was recorded as part of that it's not illegal.