Red Mosquito

Oh god he's going to speak

I hope Abe gives a long, clear speech, and then Donald just leans over and says "I agree."

Oh my god he kind of did

Observer: The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins

A senior National Security Agency official explained that NSA was systematically holding back some of the “good stuff” from the White House, in an unprecedented move. For decades, NSA has prepared special reports for the president’s eyes only, containing enormously sensitive intelligence. In the last three weeks, however, NSA has ceased doing this, fearing Trump and his staff cannot keep their best SIGINT secrets.

What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

This is madness

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is madness

This is Sparta!

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:This is madness

This is Sparta!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallu ... roval.aspx

Down to -15. Keeping the right, losing the middle.

Birds in Hell wrote:

4/5 wrote:From Politico's article on the Appellate Court's decision:

The decision says it is "well established" that when considering the legality of government actions courts can consider public comments such as Trump's public call for a ban on immigration by Muslims.

I don't know if Spenno is still around, but I'm curious what his take (or anyone else) is on this since he has been pretty adamant that the comments surrounding the ban don't matter at all and shouldn't be cause for people becoming hysterical about it since the ban doesn't say "Muslim", but this indicates that there is a judicial precedent in the U.S. that allows the courts to do just that when considering the constitutionality of an action.

I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate summary of my feelings on the matter but, with the admission that I've had other things going on and so haven't kept up with this as much in the last few days, I don't see why my feelings on the matter should change on the basis of whatever the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thinks.

Other considerations aside, eg. the constitutionality of the law, I still think it seems to be a reasonable policy in broad terms - and very popular electorally, I suspect.

96583UP wrote:I think people on this board have been a little unfair trying to stereotype Spenno as some generic vanguard for the Trump administration. Let's just try to step back and calm down and let free and unbiased exchange of ideas run its course and we'll be all the better for it.

First of all, if my question offended Spenno then I'm sorry for that. I definitely wasn't trying to sterotype him or exaggerate what he's said over the past few weeks. He has repeatedly stated that comments made by Trump and people associated with Trump aren't relevant to judging the Executive Order itself. He has used the word 'hysterical' to describe the protests and condemnations of Trump's actions both in his own posts and articles that he's linked.

I used his name in my post because the quote I was posting seemed to be a pretty direct response to what he's said on the issue so I was curious to hear his thoughts on the fact that apparently U.S. judicial precedent includes the principle that comments by policymakers are considered relevant when considering legal issues regarding the policies they have enacted. Obviously I wasn't asking if that changes his personal opinion, but to see if in his view perhaps it legitimizes the private citizens who are using his, and others close to him, comments to suggest that this ban is in fact religiously motivated. Or at least that isn't unreasonable to do so, even if he personally believes they are irrelevant. There was nothing about my post that was not calm, or intended to be unfair, or discouraging a free exchange of ideas. If it appeared otherwise, then that was not my intention.

Personally, I want Spenno to post more in this thread. I miss LittleWing, Glorified_Version, Buffalohed, PunkDavid, and all the other people who had strong opinions that sometimes went strongly against the board consensus. I think this place becoming an echo chamber is very undesirable, so I welcome any dissenting opinions, from Spenno or anybody else.

McParadigm wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Down to -15. Keeping the right, losing the middle.

not terribly important two years from midterms.

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Down to -15. Keeping the right, losing the middle.

not terribly important two years from midterms.

but maybe a few months before the commie uprising, which will be put down by the president, then, newly empowered, it's on to Poland!

So why doenst N Korea just bomb S Korea?

legit question. They are obviously heading towards the capacity to Launch missile. Is it beacuse they legit dont have the capacity to launch a long range missile? Do they actually fear repercussions from the international community? I dont get the sense that either of the above excuses are true for them. So what gives? Someone explain international diplomacy for me when it comes to dictatorships.

Also, building nukes has got to be a pretty basic thing at this point considering we built them 70 years ago?

Strat wrote:Also, building nukes has got to be a pretty basic thing at this point considering we built them 70 years ago?

Conceptually basic but practically very difficult. Enriching euranium requires facilities far beyond the scope of what is allowed by the UN, and those facilities are too large and advanced to function in secret.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:Also, building nukes has got to be a pretty basic thing at this point considering we built them 70 years ago?

Conceptually basic but practically very difficult. Enriching euranium requires facilities far beyond the scope of what is allowed by the UN, and those facilities are too large and advanced to function in secret.

But NK doesnt give a fuck about the UN. He already deprives his country and people of basic needs so really what is stopping him?

I just feel like North Korea may be the bigger threat?

I'm really speaking honestly and from a place of ignorance on this. Im very curious.

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Strat wrote:Also, building nukes has got to be a pretty basic thing at this point considering we built them 70 years ago?

Conceptually basic but practically very difficult. Enriching euranium requires facilities far beyond the scope of what is allowed by the UN, and those facilities are too large and advanced to function in secret.

But NK doesnt give a fuck about the UN. He already deprives his country and people of basic needs so really what is stopping him?

I just feel like North Korea may be the bigger threat?

I'm really speaking honestly and from a place of ignorance on this. Im very curious.

But the UN monitors NK very closely. If he tried to enrich euranium without UN approval, UN would impose further sanctions on their already extremely limited trade. The dictatorship functions by keeping the populace malnourished and misinformed. But there's a limit to how much they'll stand for (and the trade of black market news and culture is at an all-time high). It's a tricky balance, keeping your nation scared enough that they won't completely revolt. Inviting further meddling from the outside world risks collapse of the dictatorship.

There's a terrific Frontline episode on all this, I think you can still stream it from pbs.

I was wondering what was up with these tweets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... ald-trump/

Uranium