New immigration bill is great. Brings in a merit/point-based system a la Canada and Australia, while still allowing for spouses and children of current American citizens / legal residents to come in.

(08-02-2017 06:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  New immigration bill is great. Brings in a merit/point-based system a la Canada and Australia, while still allowing for spouses and children of current American citizens / legal residents to come in.

Far too sensible. What we have seen politically is that no one wants a sensible immigration policy.

Ideally, the United States should have immigration that is plentiful, legal, and controlled. Unfortunately, there is noisy opposition to each one of those principles: those who want to halt immigration altogether; those who have a vested interest in encouraging illegal rather than legal immigration; and those who seem to want no restrictions of any kind.

(08-02-2017 06:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 06:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  New immigration bill is great. Brings in a merit/point-based system a la Canada and Australia, while still allowing for spouses and children of current American citizens / legal residents to come in.

Far too sensible. What we have seen politically is that no one wants a sensible immigration policy.

Ideally, the United States should have immigration that is plentiful, legal, and controlled. Unfortunately, there is noisy opposition to each one of those principles: those who want to halt immigration altogether; those who have a vested interest in encouraging illegal rather than legal immigration; and those who seem to want no restrictions of any kind.

I'll admit I'm not well studied on this, and caught the tail end of a segment on the news, but they discussed how Lindsay Graham was against the bill because it would curtail migration too much and affect the agriculture industry in South Carolina.

(08-02-2017 06:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  New immigration bill is great. Brings in a merit/point-based system a la Canada and Australia, while still allowing for spouses and children of current American citizens / legal residents to come in.

That will never fly. It will destroy the emotional soap operas that are the current political fodder.

Tick tock, tick tock.

Report: Mueller convenes grand jury in Russia investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-rober...d=40556755

At a federal level, as of Nov 24, 2014, federal grand juries indict at a rate of 99.99%.

This is a pretty good breakdown of Trump's call with the Australian PM.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...idiot.html

At this point, anyone who tries to argue that Trump is not a complete idiot is not someone I can take seriously.

(08-03-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This is a pretty good breakdown of Trump's call with the Australian PM.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...idiot.html

At this point, anyone who tries to argue that Trump is not a complete idiot is not someone I can take seriously.

He may be an idiot in some arenas of life, but he clearly figured out how to pull off the biggest presidential election upset that anyone alive has ever seen. So he clearly understands how to get a lot of people to buy into what he's saying.

(08-04-2017 11:11 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This is a pretty good breakdown of Trump's call with the Australian PM.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...idiot.html

At this point, anyone who tries to argue that Trump is not a complete idiot is not someone I can take seriously.

He may be an idiot in some arenas of life, but he clearly figured out how to pull off the biggest presidential election upset that anyone alive has ever seen. So he clearly understands how to get a lot of people to buy into what he's saying.

I go back and forth on wondering whether Trump is an idiot, a genius, or something else entirely.

He definitely knew how to play on people's fears and anxieties to drum up support.

(08-04-2017 11:11 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This is a pretty good breakdown of Trump's call with the Australian PM.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...idiot.html

At this point, anyone who tries to argue that Trump is not a complete idiot is not someone I can take seriously.

He may be an idiot in some arenas of life, but he clearly figured out how to pull off the biggest presidential election upset that anyone alive has ever seen. So he clearly understands how to get a lot of people to buy into what he's saying.

Actually find the leak troubling and disgraceful. The fact that this is happening to this extent will simply mean it will be de riguer from all sides to leak as full transcripts as possible.

The historical implications of these acts is truly troubling. While I am not a fan of Obama (and far from it), it would have chilled me to the bone to have transcripts akin to these of his administration leaked.

But, to be honest, I don't think the 'opposition' to the 'resistance' will forget the methods being used here. This course bodes no side any goodies from here on out.

Progressives should note that borking Bork and cloturing Alito led directly to the Gorsuch stall.

And nuking the filibuster on judicial appointments led to the nuking of it for SCOTUS appointments.

And at this point I see zero de-escalation in the works, let alone being possible at this rate.

(08-04-2017 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:11 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-03-2017 06:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This is a pretty good breakdown of Trump's call with the Australian PM.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...idiot.html

At this point, anyone who tries to argue that Trump is not a complete idiot is not someone I can take seriously.

He may be an idiot in some arenas of life, but he clearly figured out how to pull off the biggest presidential election upset that anyone alive has ever seen. So he clearly understands how to get a lot of people to buy into what he's saying.

Actually find the leak troubling and disgraceful. The fact that this is happening to this extent will simply mean it will be de riguer from all sides to leak as full transcripts as possible.

The historical implications of these acts is truly troubling. While I am not a fan of Obama (and far from it), it would have chilled me to the bone to have transcripts akin to these of his administration leaked.

But, to be honest, I don't think the 'opposition' to the 'resistance' will forget the methods being used here. This course bodes no side any goodies from here on out.

Progressives should note that borking Bork and cloturing Alito led directly to the Gorsuch stall.

And nuking the filibuster on judicial appointments led to the nuking of it for SCOTUS appointments.

And at this point I see zero de-escalation in the works, let alone being possible at this rate.

I too find this leak really troublesome. My friends and I were talking about that last night - this leak is the only one where I have really worried about the future implications you discuss.

I found the numbers and extent of leaks troublesome in the past. This one really is really worrisome.

I don't see how the cart gets turned to normal at this point. Really fing bad precedent here.....

It shouldn't be too hard to find out who the leaker is. Just give everyone in D.C. a spelling test and ask them to spell Nobel Prize.

(08-04-2017 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found the numbers and extent of leaks troublesome in the past. This one really is really worrisome.

I don't see how the cart gets turned to normal at this point. Really fing bad precedent here.....

I have not been worried about the volume of leaks because the vast majority have likely come from people on Team Trump. In fact, this one did too.

I don't worry about the precedent it sets because of future leaks. I worry about the impact it has on how foreign leaders feel talking to POTUS over the phone, if they can't trust that their conversations remain private (to a certain extent).

(08-04-2017 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found the numbers and extent of leaks troublesome in the past. This one really is really worrisome.

I don't see how the cart gets turned to normal at this point. Really fing bad precedent here.....

I have not been worried about the volume of leaks because the vast majority have likely come from people on Team Trump. In fact, this one did too.

I don't worry about the precedent it sets because of future leaks. I worry about the impact it has on how foreign leaders feel talking to POTUS over the phone, if they can't trust that their conversations remain private (to a certain extent).

I think a substantial number of leaks (at least of items pre-inauguration) have come from the virtual militia that Rice and Powers armed via the unmaskings. You neglect that lil' ol' facet there.

(08-05-2017 01:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I found the numbers and extent of leaks troublesome in the past. This one really is really worrisome.

I don't see how the cart gets turned to normal at this point. Really fing bad precedent here.....

I have not been worried about the volume of leaks because the vast majority have likely come from people on Team Trump. In fact, this one did too.

I don't worry about the precedent it sets because of future leaks. I worry about the impact it has on how foreign leaders feel talking to POTUS over the phone, if they can't trust that their conversations remain private (to a certain extent).

I think a substantial number of leaks (at least of items pre-inauguration) have come from the virtual militia that Rice and Powers armed via the unmaskings. You neglect that lil' ol' facet there.

What? I don't follow at all.

Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, and which allow US intelligence to see who the American in intercepted intelligence communications is, created a militia of people? And remember, it's come out recently that H.R. McMasters believes Rice did nothing wrong.

And at the moment, this leak, nor the majority of leaks, happened pre-inauguration. These were phone calls after Trump was POTUS. The Russia/Israel intelligence leak was after Trump was POTUS. The Flynn-Trump strong dollar call was when Trump was POTUS.

There have been leaks of information about items during the campaign and transition that have leaked, but those also didn't leak until well after the inauguration.

(08-05-2017 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, ...

Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?

Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

(08-05-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, ...

Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?

Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

For real?

She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?

Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

(08-05-2017 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, ...

Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?
Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

For real?
She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?
Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

(08-05-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, ...

Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?
Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

For real?
She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?
Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

Her job is going to be both. Understanding who foreign entities, agents, nationals, etc are talking to can be very important to the big picture.

I'd much rather the higher levels be the ones making unmasking decisions as opposed to the peons.

(08-05-2017 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2017 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Somehow Rice using the powers well within her scope, ...

Why were those powers well within her scope? What did she need to know about that in order to do her job?
Those are questions that need to be answered IMO.

For real?
She was the national security advisor. How is understanding who the US citizens talking to foreign operatives are not within her scope?
Can you give me an example of how her, in her role as the NSA, unmasking an individual would have been outside her scope?

Because that's not the level at which she should be working. Her job is big picture, not down in the details. Or at least it should be.

Her job is going to be both. Understanding who foreign entities, agents, nationals, etc are talking to can be very important to the big picture.

I'd much rather the higher levels be the ones making unmasking decisions as opposed to the peons.

Perhaps you would care to try and explain the UN Ambassador making "hundreds" of unmasking requests?

I sure can think of no good reason for an unmasking by this position, let alone "hundreds". And yes, those "hundreds" carry a taint to other positions that reside in the first orbit level of the President.

Had the requests been made at the analyst level, or director of operations level I see a very good reasoning.

DNI? Be serious. This is like Rex Tillerson making decisions at Exxon relating to a ream of copy paper.... Or Jack Welch making a hiring decision for an entry level engineer....