Trump

[mimekiller]

[El Jefe]

[Phoebe]

Oh, I don't know, those fallacies seem pretty first-rate. I'm sure there are other good fallacies in the world but these are surely impressive.

I'm just in laugh-at-the-world mode over the fact that one person can call white supremacists good people and hire people like Miller and snub the whole MLK holiday and on and on, but one picture of another person smiling next to Louis Farrakhan could have been enough to tank their campaign. I have so often found myself arguing against the widespread view that race is some minor small issue that doesn't have much effect on people - "well, my friends and I don't care about race, so I just can't believe a whole city of voters would base their school choices on segregation, or that employers wouldn't treat everyone basically the same!" Lol. When you try in what seems like a totally positive, tiny, harmless way to move the fairness needle 0.00000001 degree, there are highly motivated people ready to punish you for it. I can't really express how real this is and how shocking that it's real. I think most people truly in their hearts don't believe that there is that much racism and that much motivation to act on it.

[mimekiller]

[Phoebe]

Already educated about it, thanks. What she did was wrong and it was not a legitimate case of whistleblowing. Although she claims that she vetted some of the information to protect against damage, there is no way she could possibly have reviewed all that information herself; she didn't know what all was captured in this big dump. I think there's evidence that what she did caused real damage, but let's put that aside and suppose you're right - suppose no military interest was hurt, no diplomacy was affected, and no informants or other allies were harmed or killed because their information was made public. Even if nothing happened, we simply cannot have members of Army intelligence deciding on the basis of their own whimsy to release enormous amounts of classified information! That is an absolute disaster on both pragmatic and ethical grounds. Of course she committed a crime and of course she needed to be punished for it. If I were her I would slink away with my tail between my legs and try to live my best quiet life making good decisions from that point forward, but she has no shame, apparently. Why on earth would people elect someone to a post involving lots of sensitive information when she had already been convicted for violating those very principles?!

[bralbovsky]

I have to agree in this case. Despite my disgust and disappointment with her opponent and his party.

I have a certain level of discomfort already with mixing military and civilian. Sure, one's military qualifications should be able to count, but they ought to have been transmogrified away from the business of war. There is a regulation about the period between leaving the service and entering civilian government that came up recently, but I think we don't pay as much attention as we should, to our peril. I'd put the term in Leavenworth in as military time.

As far as violating oaths, etc, not a good indicator. Too grey as far as courage, etc, motivations in general.

Having said that, Insubordination is the kind of infraction that indicts the superior officer as well as the junior, but we don't yet look at it that way. Whistleblowing, is absolutely unsafe, and shouldn't be. The lack of these appropriate processes to declare orders illegal, or fight graft, or consider your constitutional oath ahead of unit cohesion, is a structural problem.

In this case, and in Snowden's, are we glad we know? Absolutely. Are we shooting the messenger? Absolutely. Did either of the work hard enough for a way to get their info out? Not according to the unclassified info. Let's say Ellsworth is the benchmark. I'm not sure I want him in congress either.

[bralbovsky]

Do I understand that gender identity is uncomfortable, and that the Ds don't wish to lose a safe seat over it, ya. That doesn't make them less disgusting.
To be fair, it's easier to be nominated as a child molester than it would be for an exotic dancer or prostitute or porn star, even if he/she had only worked in Nevada. We have issues about this that are deep. Word from my sister in law (who is my local DC source)is that Paul Ryan is marginally worried about the harassment issues, but with men.
When this isn't looked on as worse than the endemic m/f issues, we'll have made some progress.

[El Jefe]

[Mike]

[El Jefe]

Snowden's path is...more challenging in that regard. That's a fair assessment. The unique nature of civilian contractor for official intelligence agencies makes that path far less clear. But there were still unexplored options even in this case. Snowden's leak also tends to get a little less of a critical eye, because what it exposed was a direct (rather than indirect) impact on American citizens. It also doesn't hurt Snowden's public perception that the only confirmed exposure of an intelligence asset was done by improper redacting on the part of the New York Times (and not by Snowden directly).

The funny part about Snowden is how the other whistleblowers that came before him get ignored. He was actually one of the last ones in a group of about four that revealed information to media sources on the same areas and projects of concern. The others get forgetten and never mentioned. It is interesting that they initially managed to stay anonymous and avoided disclosing anywhere near the amount of raw data that Snowden did.

The issue with Manning, for a number of folks (myself included), lies entirely in the fact that there were options for independent review through the DoD. Assuming the well was poisoned (in terms of the nearest branches of the chain of command), specific programs had already been put in place inside the DoD prior to Manning's leak BECAUSE of prior leaks that pointed out a failing in situations exactly like this. Additionally, there are multiple confirmed reports of exposure of intelligence assets and allies. A great deal of that can be laid at the feet of improper redacting on the part of Wikileaks staff. Some of it falls at the feet of Manning, as the material was not curated before release to the media, as Snowden attempted to do with his. It should be noted that Manning went through AIT as an analyst, and served time as an analyst. Snowden was involved in intelligence less directly (through the communications side). And yet Snowden managed far better redaction and curating of the released information. For myself, that's another big issue with casting Manning in a heroic light. More assets at risk, less care, and a general refusal to acknowledge that there were any negative impacts at all.

Whistleblowing is ugly business, and it always will be. There's a lot smarter (and knowledgable) folks who've dealt directly with intelligence issues that have covered this better. And in most cases, I tend to fall on the side of whistleblowers by default. But these cases aren't as clear cut, and there's a lot there worth looking at critically.

[Phoebe]

Couldn't possibly improve on that response El Jefe.

[bralbovsky]

ditto, nicely done

[mimekiller]

[Phoebe]

[FlameBlade]

Can anyone explain to me why Trump is ignoring the law that congress overwhelmingly passed about Russia sanctions?

[bralbovsky]

Short, cryptic answer: fear of Putin

[mimekiller]

lmao SNL nailed the neo libs that are having a love affair with George W in the Trump era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpkRFHSpvGI

[mimekiller]

[Phoebe]

Many many people are saying reaction was positive! Give the people what they want! Jimmy Kimmel was almost right: "I think this country has become cruel." It didn't "become"! And the people are cruel to themselves as well, without knowing it.

[akiva]

I am more scared than ever about the future of the country. Leading Republicans are no longer passively abetting Trump; they're actively abetting him. Paul Ryan saying the FBI needs to be cleansed is terrifying. As is the lies and sloppiness of the Nunes memo that tens of millions of people will believe.

I don't know how we undo this damage. A large chunk of the population is so wedded to GOP tribalism that they literally disregard actual evidence that undercuts their views, and sees the other side as enemies to be destroyed, not opposition.