• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rifleman62 said:
There are lots of people who should voluntarily submit to a psychiatric assessment.

There is a simple solution to  :ignore: people like that on social media.  :)

They screen candidates for employment where I used to work for the traits they want, including stability, patience, tolerance of diversity, good interaction and social skills, calmness under stress, and low impulsivity. The evaluations include personality and cognitive testing and a comprehensive psychological interview that lasts two and a half hours.

A few "bad hombres" may find their way in, but they still have an 18-month probation, which gets rid of many of them.

Not to suggest candidates for POTUS should be subjected to that, of course.







 


 
That's exactly what the States needs... a group of people who screen the leader of the free world for the desired traits.  :facepalm:

 
Flavus101 said:
That's exactly what the States needs... a group of people who screen the leader of the free world for the desired traits.  :facepalm:

I was careful to say, "Not to suggest candidates for POTUS should be subjected to that, of course."

I don't know or care what your politics are. But, "stability, patience, tolerance of diversity, good interaction and social skills, calmness under stress, and low impulsivity" might be desired traits for a POTUS.

From what I have read in the news, there seems to be an increasing concern about his mental health. 
 
The left is the MSM. They have been calling his decisions into question since the get go. Now that people are behind him, they'll  question his sanity. Next will come all the sorid and horrible things that go on behind closed doors.  Then the inevitable marriage on the rocks stories and anything else they try smear him with. They are losing their grip though. Most people have watched enough of the coverage of fake news and the implications of the MSM printing the false Obama narratives that people are now judging him on his performance rather than the smears perpetrateď by the left. And people like what they see. The left is getting  desperate. Just my  :2c:
 
recceguy said:
The left is the MSM. They have been calling his decisions into question since the get go. Now that people are behind him, they'll  question his sanity. Next will come all the sorid and horrible things that go on behind closed doors.  Then the inevitable marriage on the rocks stories and anything else they try smear him with. They are losing their grip though. Most people have watched enough of the coverage of fake news and the implications of the MSM printing the false Obama narratives that people are now judging him on his performance rather than the smears perpetrateď by the left. And people like what they see. The left is getting  desperate. Just my  :2c:

I don't think yet another "marriage on the rocks" would rattle Trump much if it turned out. Been there! Done that!  ;D
 
mariomike said:
I was careful to say, "Not to suggest candidates for POTUS should be subjected to that, of course."

I don't know or care what your politics are. But, "stability, patience, tolerance of diversity, good interaction and social skills, calmness under stress, and low impulsivity" might be desired traits for a POTUS.

From what I have read in the news, there seems to be an increasing concern about his mental health.

That is why we have elections. In a democratic republic like the United States the electorate is meant to screen candidates for the traits they desire in a leader.

I am not a believer in complete direct democracy, I do believe that there must be checks and balances (which should be provided by the different branches of government and not some arbitrary group). What the United States doesn't need is more layers of bureaucracy that are meant to serve the purpose of another already in place layer of bureaucracy.



 
For reference to the discussion,

Goldwater Rule,

"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule


 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I don't think yet another "marriage on the rocks" would rattle Trump much if it turned out. Been there! Done that!  ;D

It's not to rattle Trump but to show him in a horrible light to taxpayers. It really has little to do with him personally. They've been very sparse reporting honestly since before the election. If they can smear Trump, they will. Truth and honesty in print and over the air, have proved elusive to those that will say and repeat whatever lie is giving the best traction. They might as well stick the New York Times and Huff Post in the racks with all the crap about Blake and his wife or so and so's untreatable toe nail fungus. Same editors, journalists and fake stories.
 
I think we need to dust off the sedition law and nip all this in the bud.When Obama is said to be facilitating the opposition for the goal of overthrowing the duly elected government its not fun and games anymore.
 
The main stream media has an extreme bias against Trump, but that doesn't make their stories fake. I challenge anyone on this site to fact check the new york times or Huffington post or the wall street journal and show me some stories that are fabricated, wrong, or down right lies.

I'm not saying they are being fair; they are definitely being negative towards Trump and running as many negative stories about him as they can. But hell I'll take Sean Hannity over Breitbart or InfoWars (and I did vomit in my mouth a little typing that).

kP4Yax1.jpg

 
Lumber said:
I challenge anyone on this site to fact check the new york times or Huffington post or the wall street journal and show me some stories that are fabricated, wrong, or down right lies.
And that's why people get away with calling MSM fake news -- they can be wrong, so the next logical leap is that they're ALWAYS wrong.

All media - MSM, pro-left, pro-right, alternative, whack job, whatever - leave stuff out because they they want to keep things easy to read.  All media are trying to attract eyes/ears.  What varies is what they leave out, and how they craft that to attract eyes/ears.  Which is why you need to read a range of media to get something close to what's happening - and even then, no guarantees.

Wait, I'm being naive again, aren't I?

P.S. - The chart left out globalresearch.ca from the "Liberal Utter Garbage/Conspiracy Theories" section  ;D
 
tomahawk6 said:
I think we need to dust off the sedition law and nip all this in the bud.When Obama is said to be facilitating the opposition for the goal of overthrowing the duly elected government its not fun and games anymore.

I'd really love to see some tangible proof. 
 
TheHead said:
I'd really love to see some tangible proof.

"Tangible proof"?  [:D

George Wallace said:
We have to remember to check if we are in RADIO CHATTER before we want to "seriously" comment on a less than "serious" thread.    [:D
 
TheHead said:
I'd really love to see some tangible proof.

We are living in a post truth world where facts are superfluous and only get in the way.

You wan't proof? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!
 
Sorry - but this doesn't sound to me like "playing fair"

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/federal-workers-signal-app-234510

Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump
Agency employees are turning to Signal and other incognito forms of communication to express their dissent.
By ANDREW RESTUCCIA, MARIANNE LEVINE and NAHAL TOOSI 02/02/17 05:07 AM EST

Federal employees are using new technology to express dissent against President Donald Trump's administration.

Federal employees worried that President Donald Trump will gut their agencies are creating new email addresses, signing up for encrypted messaging apps and looking for other, protected ways to push back against the new administration’s agenda.

Whether inside the Environmental Protection Agency, within the Foreign Service, on the edges of the Labor Department or beyond, employees are using new technology as well as more old-fashioned approaches — such as private face-to-face meetings — to organize letters, talk strategy, or contact media outlets and other groups to express their dissent.


The goal is to get their message across while not violating any rules covering workplace communications, which can be monitored by the government and could potentially get them fired.

At the EPA, a small group of career employees — numbering less than a dozen so far — are using an encrypted messaging app to discuss what to do if Trump’s political appointees undermine their agency’s mission to protect public health and the environment, flout the law, or delete valuable scientific data that the agency has been collecting for years, sources told POLITICO.

Fearing for their jobs, the employees began communicating incognito using the app Signal shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Signal, like WhatsApp and other mobile phone software, encrypts all communications, making it more difficult for hackers to gain access to them.

One EPA employee even got a new, more secure cellphone, and another joked about getting a “burner phone.”

“I have no idea where this is going to go. I think we’re all just taking it one day at a time and respond in a way that seems appropriate and right,” said one of the EPA employees involved in the clandestine effort, who, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions.

The employee added that the goal is to “create a network across the agency” of people who will raise red flags if Trump’s appointees do anything unlawful.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While many workers across the federal government are still in wait-and-see mode, the first two weeks of the Trump administration — with its flurry of executive orders that have in some cases upended lives — have sent a sobering message to others who believe they must act now.

In recent days, career employees at the State Department gathered nearly 1,000 signatures for what’s known as a “Dissent Channel” memo, in which they express their anger over a Trump executive order that bars immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries and halts refugee admissions to the country. The number of signatures was extraordinarily high, even though the letter was submitted after White House spokesman Sean Spicer essentially warned the dissenting diplomats they were risking their jobs.

The executive order on immigration and refugees caused widespread panic at airports, spurring protests and outrage around the world.

It also led to what has been the most high-profile act of defiance yet from a Trump administration official: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday ordered the Department of Justice’s lawyers not to defend the order in court. Yates was fired that same night.

Current and former employees of the Labor Department, meanwhile, are using their private email accounts to send around a link to a letter asking senators to oppose the nomination of Andrew Puzder for secretary of their agency. The employees may sign on to the letter using Google Docs. The letter will not be submitted to the Senate HELP Committee, and the signatures will not be made public, unless 200 current employees sign on.

A federal worker familiar with the letter’s circulation said that it’s being signed by hundreds of current and former DOL employees.

According to a draft of the letter obtained by POLITICO, the employees write that they have "serious concerns" about the fast-food magnate’s willingness to protect the rights of workers given some of his past comments and actions.

The draft of the letter criticizes Puzder's comments about women, and cites his restaurants’ advertisements, some of which feature women in bikinis eating burgers. Puzder has defended the ads.

"One of us once heard a colleague ask, quite seriously, whether it would violate workplace rules of civility and prohibitions against sexual harassment to view Mr. Puzder’s ads on a government computer," the letter says. "We think the question is a good one."

The federal employees interviewed for this story stressed that they see themselves as nonpartisan stewards of the government. But several also said they believe they have a duty to speak out if they feel a policy is undermining their mission.

Drafts of the Dissent Channel memo signed by the State Department employees insist, for instance, that instead of protecting U.S. national security through his new executive order on refugees and immigrants, Trump is endangering the United States by bolstering the terrorists’ narrative that the West hates Muslims.

“I think we all have to look within ourselves and say ‘Where is that line that I will not cross?’” one Foreign Service officer said.

Since Trump was elected in November, many State Department employees have also met quietly for other reasons. Groups of Muslims who work at Foggy Bottom, for instance, have held meetings to discuss fears that they could be subject to witch hunts and see their careers stall under the new administration. A few of Trump’s top aides have spoken out against radical Islamism in such harsh terms that some Muslims believe the aides are opposed to the religion of Islam as a whole.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, indicated that it’s too soon to say whether there’s a broad trend of bureaucratic resistance to Trump taking hold.

"Quite a few federal employees seem to be looking for constructive ways to express discontent," he said. "Meanwhile, tension is still growing, not subsiding."

EPA employees are uniquely concerned about their future, having faced barbs from Trump advisers who have toyed with cutting the agency's staff by two-thirds and from other Republicans who want to eliminate the agency altogether. So career staffers are discussing the best way to alert the public to what’s happening behind the scenes.

“I’m suddenly spending my days comparing the importance of the oath I took when I started my career service and the code that I have as an American,” an EPA employee said.

EPA employees have started reaching out to former Obama administration political appointees, who they hope will help them spread the word about any possible improper conduct at the agency.

“It’s probably much safer to have those folks act as the conduit and to act as the gathering point rather than somebody in the agency,” the employee said. “You’re putting your career and your livelihood and your paycheck at risk every time you talk to somebody.”

Organizations such as the Government Accountability Project, which advocates for whistleblowers, have been busy as federal employees fret about what their new bosses may ask them to do.

“We’ve had a significant number of federal employees who have contacted us in recent weeks,” said Louis Clark, the nonprofit’s CEO. “It has to be the largest influx of people trying to reach us that we’ve seen.”

The largest group of callers? “The people who want to know what to do if they’re asked to violate the law,” Clark said.

Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said EPA employees are in perhaps the “deepest pit of despair” among his group’s membership.

He said his group has been fielding calls on everything from what triggers a reduction in the federal workforce to how long they can carry health insurance benefits if they are pushed out.

Asked how EPA employees are feeling, Ruch said, “In the broadest sense, scared and depressed.”

Rachael Bade contributed to this report.

And apparently I'm not the only one on this point either

America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

Damon Linker

February 14, 2017

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America's democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!" It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.

This doesn't mean the outcome was wrong. I have no interest in defending Flynn, who appears to be an atrocious manager prone to favoring absurd conspiracy theories over more traditional forms of intelligence. He is just about the last person who should be giving the president advice about foreign policy. And for all I know, Flynn did exactly what the anonymous intelligence community leakers allege — promised the Russian ambassador during the transition that the incoming Trump administration would back off on sanctions proposed by the outgoing Obama administration.

But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

What if Congress won't act? What if both the Senate and the House of Representatives are held by the same party as the president and members of both chambers are reluctant to cross a newly elected head of the executive branch who enjoys overwhelming approval of his party's voters? In such a situation — our situation — shouldn't we hope the deep state will rise up to act responsibly to take down a member of the administration who may have broken the law?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That's bad. But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.

As Eli Lake of Bloomberg News put it in an important article following Flynn's resignation,

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. [Bloomberg]

Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump.

It is the role of Congress to investigate the president and those who work for him. If Congress resists doing its duty, out of a mixture of self-interest and cowardice, the American people have no choice but to try and hold the government's feet to the fire, demanding action with phone calls, protests, and, ultimately, votes. That is a democratic response to the failure of democracy.

Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn't an acceptable alternative.

Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying

And Linker is right.  You must play by the rules.  Or else there is nothing to play for.  And too many people are in "Ends justify means mode".  And that is deeply troubling.

The good news about Trump is that he is encouragng the reactivating of all the controls that were de-activated when the "Correct" decisions were being taken and right was on the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way - democracy be dammed.
 
An example of fake news.There have been so called leaks by people in the intelligence community. Russian involvement in the campaign is something that came up in the campaign and Obama ordered an investigation but there never was any proof. Trump has taken over a government full of democrats who continue to try and undermine the President. They have to get their own people in these agencies ASAP.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-times-says-trump-campaign-had-repeated-contact-034259560.html
 
tomahawk6 said:
... Russian involvement in the campaign is something that came up in the campaign and Obama ordered an investigation but there never was any proof ...
... other than a consensus view of 17 int agencies saying this:
... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.  Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.  We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump ...  Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.  We assess with  high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks ...
 
The intelligence community used to be A political,that all changed with Obama. If I were POTUS I would not believe what they told me unless it could be corroborated. priority one would be to flush the democrats out of State,Defense,CIA and Justice for starters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top