US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

Let it be, it's ok.
I have made around ten or so attempts in the last days to write some "elaborated" stuff here, even longer ones. I read it through and deleted all of them. Not because i'm afraid of Rockstar or threats, but "You are either a hater, or not." I choose not to be. I'm out.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Look at the way Bilge_Rat (and others) debate people here.

moi?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

let's see, WaPo story, no sources..

..let's see what National Security Adviser McMaster, who actually was in the meeting, says about the WaPo story:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...propriate.html

..so how long before Democrats call on McMaster to resign? Oh wait, that has already happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.3fec7ead8664

A close vasall of Trump says what Trump did was okay. So it must be true, if a close vasall says so.

C'mon. Is 1+1 really 11 ?

Not to mention the criminalization of free journalism that the US has seen in the past decade plus, under the strawmen excuse of "counter terrroism" and national security.

It is journalist ethics that sources are to bve protected. And nobody would speak with journalists anymore if the journalists would reveal the sources' identity against its will. The press then could not serve its counter-controlling function anymore. Which is what alkready the past amdionstraitons in the WH wanted to limit. The Duck of the United States just tries to enforce this by behaving like a Trump in a China shop.

[Platapus]

The issue of presidents and classified information is complicated.

The president is the ultimate authority of classification for all classified information generated by the US. He has what is called Original Classification Authority (OCA). Sometimes it is called original classifying authority.

The president can designate other US government officials with OCA. For example, the Secretary of State has OCA for all classified information originating from the Department of State, but not for information originating from, for example, the Department of Defense.

When an OCA determines that a piece of information is to be protected at a classification level (classification), at another classification (reclassification) or that the information is no longer classified (declassification), this decision has to be documented. Otherwise there is a real risk that different organizations will treat the same information at different levels.

One could make the argument that the PotUS ain't gonna do no documentation as he has people to do so. That is probably a viable viewpoint. I don't think anyone expects the PotUS to actually sit down and fill out the classification/reclassification/declassification paperwork. However, that means that the PotUS needs to coordinate his classification decision either before disclosure (best practice) or immediately after disclosure. In any case, the PotUS' classification decisions need to be documented.

A wise president would carefully coordinate classification decisions with the major stakeholders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. The president is the OCA for the United States and not just for the Executive Branch.

There are no federal laws that restrict the president's OCA concerning information whose classification originates from the United State's government. There are, however, policies that govern the OCA activity.

6 U.S. Code § 485 is a federal law that establishes policy for information sharing within the US and foreign governments but does not limit the president's OCA. 6 U.S. Code § 485 does not address classified information at all, but uses general terms such as "terrorism and homeland security information".

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information to someone, he has not violated any federal law. He may have violated policy however. But Law and policy are two different things. If Trump did use his OCA in disclosing this information, there needs to be documentation of that classification decision. Again, that is policy not law.

All this applies to classified information that originates from the US.

One of the issues of the alleged action was that the disclosure involved information that was classified by another country and given to the US under an information sharing agreement. Some of these agreements are very sensitive. Rarely are they are governed by US federal law (especially the sensitive relationships). However, there are US policies governing how this information needs to be handled. There may be foreign laws involved, and most importantly, there are sensitive relationships that are formulated on mutual trust.

If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information that originated from a foreign government he has

1. Not violated any US federal law.
2. May have violated US policy.
3. May have violated the laws of the other country. Not that this matters much as the president is, for practical purposes, not bound by federal laws of other countries.
4. Probably violated the trust with regards to not only the country of agreement, but with other countries we have other agreements. If he violated the trust of country A, why would countries B-Z think he would not violate their trust.

Assuming that Trump did what he is being accused of, and that has not been settled. Trump has

Not broken any federal laws
Broken policy
Certainly adversely affected the level of trust in other nations.

My opinion: What he did was not illegal, but incredibly shortsighted, in violation of existing policy, and potentially harmful to the US' relationships of trust that will take years/decades to repair.

[Skybird]

Platapus, nobody ever said he knew what he was doing, and that he violated a law. That is right the point: he is too dumb to realise what he is doing. He behaved like a stupid prolet of the block showing around his brandnew thick, fat golden clock to impress the others.

I just have read that Israel seems to be very happy. The DOTUS seems to have compromised Israeli agents' lives and safety. It seems that much of the information/sources/material this all is about comes from or links to Israeli intel operations. Its further reprted in German media that the US intel community was busy today with sending intense warnings to their - former? - Israeli colleagues. Via Russia, the informaiton indicated or revelaed by Trump could end up in Israel's and Washington's arch enemy, Iran.

You can be within the allowed range of laws - and still be a retard doing plenty of damage and risking lives.

[skidman]

The most powerful nation in the world is run by an derisory amateur. And even now there are some subsimers defending him. Absolutly unbelievable and very very sad.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A close vasall of Trump says what Trump did was okay. So it must be true, if a close vasall says so.

so let me see if I understand your logic.

WaPo makes a claim and provides zero backup, zero on the record sources, zero evidence, but it is anti-Trump so it must be true?

H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson. Dina Powell all make on the record statements that the WaPo story is false, so they must be lying?

The onus here is not on the White House, WaPo made an accusation, they have to back it up.

To backtrack, WaPo accused Potus of disclosing "highly classified info", "code word" info which according to them is the most secret info and of compromising an intel source.

according to McMaster, Tillerson and Powel, the WaPo story is false:

McMaster’s central contention was that the details discussed in that meeting concerned ongoing operations that were public for months and information available in “open source reporting.”

“The president in no way compromised any sources or methods in the course of this conversation,” McMaster said.

The same official publicly had refuted The Washington Post report on Monday evening, describing the claims as false.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...propriate.html

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

so let me see if I understand your logic.

WaPo makes a claim and provides zero backup, zero on the record sources, zero evidence, but it is anti-Trump so it must be true?

H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson. Dina Powell all make on the record statements that the WaPo story is false, so they must be lying?

The onus here is not on the White House, WaPo made an accusation, they have to back it up.

To backtrack, WaPo accused Potus of disclosing "highly classified info", "code word" info which according to them is the most secret info and of compromising an intel source.

according to McMaster, Tillerson and Powel, the WaPo story is false:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...propriate.html

First you - metaphorically speaking - beat up somebody and cut off his tongue and threaten to ruin his career and to imprison him, and then you wonder why he is avoiding you and does not speak out in public anymore?

Okay, we both have understood that we do not wear the same colours. Lets leave the thread nuking button covered for today.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Okay, we both have understood that we do not wear the same colours. Lets leave the thread nuking button covered for today.

No need to get worked up on this story, this is at most a two day story. By tomorrow the News lemmings will be onto a new "scandal".

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

No need to get worked up on this story, this is at most a two day story. By tomorrow the News lemmings will be onto a new "scandal".

You must be a multi-gold metalist in mental gymnastics!!

Trump was an idiotic choice for President. Own it.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

No, it isn't. I've seen trolling of the lowest form, and this is not even close.

When a person here acts like a 5 year old continuously and then dares to tell his opponent "stop acting like a child", and when a person dismisses every argument the other side brings up because he has no argument to deliver and instead creates some cheap diversion like the collective attack of the source in general instead of what was said, yes, that is trolling of the lowest form, in my opinion. You disagree? Fine. No need to agree, I have my opinion, you have yours. Just please don't tell me what I have to see as trolling and what not.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While that is true for some, I read all the threads and I don't see that here.

Then open your eyes. Sorry, but it's so blatant, so obvious, I don't know what else to tell you. You can easily spot it by the hypocritical acts of some people here, like condoning the use of "unknown sources" (for example) one day when it suits their point of view, and criticizing the same the next day, when it is against their own views.
But again, have it your way - I don't need you to approve.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The swearing part is a written rule that I can actually read and enforce without guessing the intent. There is no such rule governing debate tactics.

Yes, exactly. That's the point. There is none, but maybe there should be one if discussions on this board are, often, no longer of any value because some people often refrain to the dirtiest debate tactics only because they run out of arguments. It is questionable if there has to be a written rule for that at all. Doesn't that fall among the usual Nettiquette of "being respectuful" and against trolling etc? To me it does, but maybe our views differ here, again.
Think of political talk shows. Two sides argue, one guy is the "referee" that steps in when it gets nasty - and I don't talk solely about insults here, mostly I'm referring to what we just witnessed a few pages back, when a person while participating in a debate isn't doing anything useful and is behaving dismissive/deconstructive.
No easy job and there's sure potential for bad judgement. But that's just how it is - and still worth it in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We've been over that already, and Neal stated his reasons. Since it is his site, that should be the end of it.

Should be, could be - why would I care?
Yes, Neal's page, his rules, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it/talk about it (granted, not necessarily if it is OT, sure)?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've seen people here "debate in most despicable and mean way", and again I've seen none of that in this thread. Maybe you've forgotten some of the true trolls we've had in the past.

Again, you have your POV, I have mine.
Just because we had worse trolls/incidents doesn't mean that this sort of behavior doesn't fall under trolling.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As to the "disrespecting vs swearing" problem: As I've said, we do try to keep it civil, and there are certain lines we do enforce, but they have to be specific, such as name-calling.

Honestly, I do not think they always have to be "specific".
That sure makes it easier for the staff, but as I said above, think of it like a political talk show. No infractions or bans there either - never asked for that. I asked for moderation, not "punishment".

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We do have specific rules regarding hate speech, and we enforce them the best we can, but not without first trying the other means mentioned above. Sometimes it's hard to know from a written post whether the person is being serious or not. You may think he really wants "them" all dead. whereas I may think from other posts that he's really making fun of people he thinks want "them" all dead. Sometimes we'll ask him privately to clarify what he really means. In that case you'll never even know, just as you are unaware of most of what goes on behind the scenes.

I do not care what goes on "behind the scenes", nor do I care for this approach, but your example just proves what a bad call it is, especially because the "public never knows" - that's the whole problem.
And no, the person I am referring to was dead serious about it, at least it was absolutely in line with the usual drivel of the person in question, and it wasn't the first time either things like that were said here (by multiple people over the years).

Again: I do not need you to approve of my observations and/or opinions, I am here long enough and I do know the active members well enough by now. In the end, I can only judge people by what they say, and if someone seriously suggests to use nuclear weapons wherever just because he's a right-wing nut that is unable to think further than a yard and a half, sorry, I will judge him accordingly.
It's called self-responsibility.
People surely judge me by my output as well, hence, I only say what I mean. And if in doubt, there's a nice collection of smileys available.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Oh, and about the swearing? You can blame that 100% on me, as I'm the only one who has ever gone out of his way to enforce that. Since bad news sticks around long after good news has gone, you may not have noticed that I slacked off on that a long time ago, so you're complaint there is a bit dated.

I get the feeling that you misunderstood a part of my post.
The point isn't swearing or not, it is the fact that swearing is (was?) still the number one thing here that must never ever happen, while other things like trolling or the call for mass-murder is largely ignored, as this thread proves.
I mean, how "dangerous" is an f-bomb in comparison to the above? That's my point.
I'm fine with the no-swearing rule in general, or while I find it silly if enforced like crazy, I can accept it.
What happens here on Subsim reminds me of something that happened during the Vietnam war: You may drop lots of Napalm on civilian villages and burn women and children, but beware not to write "F... you Charlie!" onto the bomb before take off - that's really rude and not very Christian!
Do you see my point? No need to agree, just curious if I fail so badly to bring my point across, which of course is a huge possibility considering English isn't my native language and I get lost in translation at times, without noticing.
Oh and yes, I noticed you're not throwing around infractions like crazy anymore as soon as a questionable term arises. I did indeed.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree to a point, but we don't have specific rules on how people must debate, and that's the way Neal wants it.

Yes, got that. And that's the problem in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Honestly, if every debate had to follow the true rules of debate, most of the people here would never be allowed to post, including yourself.

Oh you'd be surprised how nice and civil I can be, when the usual trolls do not get the better of me and my often weak self-control.
If a debate is fruitful and civil in the first place, with people participating that use solid argumentation without the usual "muh derm librul traitorz!!" kind of drive-by posting, then I see no reason to be snarky/aggressive or deconstructive myself - while I do not mean to condone such behavior in the first place, don't get me wrong.
Oh and by the way, the same as you rowed back on infractions for the slightest bad word, I rowed back on being too direct, at times. At least I'm trying, I promise.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It has even been suggested on occasion that General Topics be shut down altogether. That's not going to happen since this is where most of the posting goes on these days.

Yeah, I wouldn't think it's a bad call altogether, honestly.
While GT is - in theory - a nice section with lots of potentially great debates, or topics in general (not always about debating, isn't it?), I see no big point at the moment when I take a look at the debates happening here, or the meaningless spam-attacks by some members. Sure, the quality or necessity of any post is always subjective and up for interpretation/opinion, but that's how I see it with GT at the moment. 95% of the topics could be purged if it were me.
However, considering the threads that should be valuable, while they aren't (like this one), I believe they are useless due to a handful of people participating in them using debate tactics with the sole purpose of being deconstructive, to destroy the political enemy, ignoring any argument - not even addressing it (that for example, is a form of trolling).
This can only happen because there's no moderation in that regard. Yes, I know, different opinions here - but it is my honest opinion about it, based on months, actually years, of participating and/or observing what's going on here.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Some might argue that there never has been quality debate here. That's possibly true of any internet forum. Unless we have absolute debate rules that everybody has to follow that will continue to be the case. If we have such rules many people will be restricted from saying anything. While you may be happy that applies to people you don't like, it will also affect many with honest opinions but no formal training. In other words, if you can't say it exactly the way the rules require your opinion won't count, because you can't say it at all.

You really misunderstand me, I think.
I am not asking for some magic rule that can be enforced like a hammer as soon as a person says something "wrong".
I am asking for moderation, for moderators to chime in at point X and remind person Y that he/she should start to deliver some arguments and be so kind to actually address the arguments of the opponent, instead of being a dismissive Richard that insults the other side of "being childish", while acting like a 5 year old himself. God, please, Steve, tell me you see what I mean here? I swear I'm close of tearing up.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

See? Even you can't bring up that discussion without resorting to mockery and insult. It affects all of us.

Oh please, calling a friggin Nazi that denies the holocaust and got banned anyways "Fartenbohn" is such a big deal Steve, really.
Meanwhile, let's enjoy how others continues to troll those that try to have a debate by being dismissive, inflammatory and insulting.
Perfect example. The term proportionality comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Now it's my turn.

From my own point of view you seem to spend a lot of time looking for reasons to criticize the Moderation Staff. There's nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be making it your sole purpose for posting lately. The bigger problem is that you can't start your own thread to discuss the subject, where people can answer or ignore at their leisure, but seem to have the need for derailing other threads. This makes you just as guilty as the ones you accuse. This thread is for the discussion of US Politics. Please try to keep it that way.

Not quite, but close.
I'm not looking for reasons to criticize the moderation, I just happen to stumble over them and that gets frustrating as I really, really liked Subsim once. Not much at all anymore, honestly - but that sure is my problem and not the point. And it sure isn't my sole purpose for posting, it's just all that I can post at the moment because this is, for me, a huge problem and I simply see no reason to invest the time and energy into participating in detail, like vienna for example, only to see my posts to be dismissed without any counter-argument. Hell, we have people here that have been "caught" not even reading links/sources others provide, yet they participate and say "it's all lies, fake news! muh!". No thanks, I won't waste my time as long as this practice is tolerated here.

And yes, technically I am very guilty of derailing the thread by bringing this up. However, if that is such a big deal considering the value (subjective) of most debates here lately, is another question - but technically you're spot on, sure. I do not see, or agree, that this makes me "just as guilty", though. I didn't complain about people derailing - a very minor problem tbh -, I complain about trolling, about sinister motives and questionable moral-viewpoints.
I'd like to believe that there is a rather big difference?

Yes, the topic is US politics. But is it really off-topic to point out when the topic suffers by the actions of certain people? While it is technically OT/derailing, the intention is a very different one.
I see your point, and hope you see mine.
Again, no need to agree, I'm not asking for that.

Thanks for the honest exchange.

[Von Due]

I'm not going to comment on whether it was legal or illegal to share whatever he shared, simply because I have no idea about the details of what was shared. What I can say though is that, especially because it is unknown, it was unwise.

What seems clear is that the information was gotten from an allied intel organisation under agreement that the info would not be shared without the permission of the original intel organisation, as is common in that business, and if there is something that will damage the cooperation between different nations' intel, it is when trust is damaged. Regardless of legal status according to US law, this can have severe consequences on future collaboration between different nations in a time when cooperation is key to face international terrorism and organised crime.

So, right or wrong (according to US law). It was very unwise and potentially damaging to intel, US intel included.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Trump was an idiotic choice for President. Own it.

I blame the Democrats, they picked Hillary.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

When a person here acts like a 5 year old continuously and then dares to tell his opponent "stop acting like a child", and when a person dismisses every argument the other side brings up because he has no argument to deliver and instead creates some cheap diversion like the collective attack of the source in general instead of what was said, yes, that is trolling of the lowest form, in my opinion. You disagree? Fine. No need to agree, I have my opinion, you have yours. Just please don't tell me what I have to see as trolling and what not.

That looks very much like trolling. I have reported your post.

[Jimbuna]

A bit late in the night for me to respond in detail but I have read the exchange between you (Nippelspanner) and Steve.

IMHO a frank and fair exchange but life, the internet and moderation are usually never in sync.

The moderation team attempt to do their best in as fair and balanced a way as possible but are only human at the end of the day.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.