What would it take?

As far as the left can take it

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Just curious, are the only truths you accept the ones coming out of the Trump's mouth? You read like my coworkers, aka the guys I generally respect for their knowledge about the job we do yet would never discuss politics with because Trump has taught them to distrust anyone that's not him.

Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-missile-violating-treaty-and-challenging-trump/ar-AAmVID5?li=BBnb7Kz)

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c5/c595586b491836bb2135fb603c2f4e5997ce0e2f8e41c30a81 af650f568eaff8.jpg

I guess since Trump and Putin are bros it's all good.

Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-missile-violating-treaty-and-challenging-trump/ar-AAmVID5?li=BBnb7Kz)

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c5/c595586b491836bb2135fb603c2f4e5997ce0e2f8e41c30a81 af650f568eaff8.jpg

I guess since Trump and Putin are bros it's all good.

I guess the next thing he will do is invade Crimea

Just curious, are the only truths you accept the ones coming out of the Trump's mouth? You read like my coworkers, aka the guys I generally respect for their knowledge about the job we do yet would never discuss politics with because Trump has taught them to distrust anyone that's not him.
I distrust most of the media (including fox just saying) and standard politicos. That doesn't mean I trust everything out of Trumps mouth I just think his lies/faults are more self-evident.

I have a son who lies at times to cover his faults. But he is a terrible liar and I can tell his intent and when/why he's lying pretty easily. My ex on the other hand is what I would call a nuanced liar. A LOT of what she says has manipulations or distortions intended to lead to her ends.
I consider trump closer to my son, in his boisterous hyperbole shake my head when a stupid is as stupid does moment happens. I consider the political parties and major media groups more as my ex wife. They have agendas and hidden agendas and they will distort and even outright lie if it accomplishes their ends.

Take this Flynn leak. The level of the intrigue that is actually involved in gaining transcripts of his calls and pushing out innuendoes and discourse is very scary from who theoretically would even have access to the material in the first place. Are they putting it out for altruistic purposes or are they simply trying to tear down an elected president. Who benefits from his demise. Not the country which benefits from a stable security structure, not Trump who now is mired in a broughaha, but the democrats certainly do, and really so do the Russians when our security apparatus is chasing high level leaks like these.

I know this rambled a bit but that's the best I can say. I listen to every channel of news from the Rachel maddow show to Kennedy to the messy truth to Hannity. I try to listen and weed out obvious bias on all sides and try to understand who is gaining form the spin put on any message/news. I also try to acknowledge my libertatarian hatred for big government /nanny state / intolerance of social differences concepts of life when I listen to media.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I distrust most of the media (including fox just saying) and standard politicos. That doesn't mean I trust everything out of Trumps mouth I just think his lies/faults are more self-evident.

I have a son who lies at times to cover his faults. But he is a terrible liar and I can tell his intent and when/why he's lying pretty easily. My ex on the other hand is what I would call a nuanced liar. A LOT of what she says has manipulations or distortions intended to lead to her ends.
I consider trump closer to my son, in his boisterous hyperbole shake my head when a stupid is as stupid does moment happens. I consider the political parties and major media groups more as my ex wife. They have agendas and hidden agendas and they will distort and even outright lie if it accomplishes their ends.

Take this Flynn leak. The level of the intrigue that is actually involved in gaining transcripts of his calls and pushing out innuendoes and discourse is very scary from who theoretically would even have access to the material in the first place. Are they putting it out for altruistic purposes or are they simply trying to tear down an elected president. Who benefits from his demise. Not the country which benefits from a stable security structure, not Trump who now is mired in a broughaha, but the democrats certainly do, and really so do the Russians when our security apparatus is chasing high level leaks like these.

I know this rambled a bit but that's the best I can say. I listen to every channel of news from the Rachel maddow show to Kennedy to the messy truth to Hannity. I try to listen and weed out obvious bias on all sides and try to understand who is gaining form the spin put on any message/news. I also try to acknowledge my libertatarian hatred for big government /nanny state / intolerance of social differences concepts of life when I listen to media.



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Fair enough. As far as the leak goes, it's safe to say we might never know the intentions of the leaker. But this article I read from an admittedly biased source basically says how you feel about it depends on what side of the aisle you sit on. The party in power (this is true even for Obama) will always say that the issue at hand is somebody leaked classified material, in this case somebody who had access to wiretaps on the Russian ambassador's phone.

The people that side with the party that isn't in power are typically more occupied with what the leak is about, which is why the left will be calling for Flynn's head and wondering how extensive the Russian ties to our gov't are, and the right will be trying to crucify the leaker responsible, whomever that might be. I agree with the article/op-ed though, if you have to commit a felony to expose the truth it's a necessary price to pay. The gov't is supposed to represent the people and have our best interests at heart. When somebody at the highest levels of gov't is willing to lie to the people he's entrusted to protect, there needs to be repercussions.

Fair enough. As far as the leak goes, it's safe to say we might never know the intentions of the leaker. But this article I read from an admittedly biased source basically says how you feel about it depends on what side of the aisle you sit on. The party in power (this is true even for Obama) will always say that the issue at hand is somebody leaked classified material, in this case somebody who had access to wiretaps on the Russian ambassador's phone.

The people that side with the party that isn't in power are typically more occupied with what the leak is about, which is why the left will be calling for Flynn's head and wondering how extensive the Russian ties to our gov't are, and the right will be trying to crucify the leaker responsible, whomever that might be. I agree with the article/op-ed though, if you have to commit a felony to expose the truth it's a necessary price to pay. The gov't is supposed to represent the people and have our best interests at heart. When somebody at the highest levels of gov't is willing to lie to the people he's entrusted to protect, there needs to be repercussions.
So does that hold true across political lines for you? Because I am certain it was proved both in the bush administration and a certain secretary of state that top officials lied about WMDs and attacks on US Embassies.

In the Flynn case the saw is the cover-up is worse than the action and that's great for media intent on not allowing Trumps presidency to succeed. There is nothing I have seen that said there was any topics spoken of that harmed US interests. At the worst, that I can tell, is a discussion of sanctions that were being imposed at the time. Is it much different then a sitting president telling a top Russian advisor off mike that he will have more leeway after the upcoming election?

I dunno. For me its about an establishment that is clawing and scraping and pulling evil(imo) machinations to keep its power in play when a new administration Is coming in to town and purposefully turning over the apple cart.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-deploys-missile-violating-treaty-and-challenging-trump/ar-AAmVID5?li=BBnb7Kz)

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c5/c595586b491836bb2135fb603c2f4e5997ce0e2f8e41c30a81 af650f568eaff8.jpg

I guess since Trump and Putin are bros it's all good.
Did you read the part where the deployment took place in December?

Interesting that it is published the day that a besieged NSA director rresigns.

Look. Trump wants to get Islam, doesn't like China, and his wife is Slovenian so has at least some ties to eastern bloc (cold war language) countries. Is it really that shocking he will be most likely to sync up with Russia. In the geopolitical realm if we want to make both China and Iran think twice about their dealings with us - having some level of cooperation with Russia would be helpful. Hillary wanted a reset at one point Bush made nice with them. This isn't some great capitulation.

Finally remember when TU bombers were flying along our coasts (in international airspace like the trawler was)

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

And now for.something completely different --

Before video games no one ever said "Oh Crap. I died"

When you drop your phone upside down it turns into a Schroedinger phone

The internet is pretty much like ancient Egypt. People write on walls and worship cats.


Thanks to @justshowerthoughts for that intermission

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

So does that hold true across political lines for you? Because I am certain it was proved both in the bush administration and a certain secretary of state that top officials lied about WMDs and attacks on US Embassies.

In the Flynn case the saw is the cover-up is worse than the action and that's great for media intent on not allowing Trumps presidency to succeed. There is nothing I have seen that said there was any topics spoken of that harmed US interests. At the worst, that I can tell, is a discussion of sanctions that were being imposed at the time. Is it much different then a sitting president telling a top Russian advisor off mike that he will have more leeway after the upcoming election?

I dunno. For me its about an establishment that is clawing and scraping and pulling evil(imo) machinations to keep its power in play when a new administration Is coming in to town and purposefully turning over the apple cart.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I forgot to link to the article I read:
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/

For me it absolutely crosses party lines. Just like Obama did with Chelsea Manning and Snowden, I fully disagree with. He basically attacked whistleblowers, which is contrary to the message they were putting out at the time. If the gov't is doing shady shit, they need to be called out for it. Letting it go unchecked just lets them know they can keep pushing the line all they want, which is unacceptable.

As for Flynn, it's not so much what they were talking about as it is the fact that he lied to Pence and/or the rest of the administration. Pence goes out and puts out a message based on the information he received from his trusted advisers. When your adviser is lying to you you end up looking like a fool. They had no choice but to dump him.

Did you read the part where the deployment took place in December?

Interesting that it is published the day that a besieged NSA director rresigns.

Look. Trump wants to get Islam, doesn't like China, and his wife is Slovenian so has at least some ties to eastern bloc (cold war language) countries. Is it really that shocking he will be most likely to sync up with Russia. In the geopolitical realm if we want to make both China and Iran think twice about their dealings with us - having some level of cooperation with Russia would be helpful. Hillary wanted a reset at one point Bush made nice with them. This isn't some great capitulation.

Finally remember when TU bombers were flying along our coasts (in international airspace like the trawler was)

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I just looked through the whole article and can't find where it says the actual deployment took place in December? I see the part where it said it started testing in 2008, but nothing relevant besides that.