Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

So all the protest votes, people who just didn’t want Hilary, people who support trump but historically don’t support republicans etc. Etc.

The republicans are at fault but putting it purely down to them is disingenuous, I have no idea why I have to keep reminding people that politics is a spectrum and people can vote for many many reasons

 Ustrello wrote:
Aka "DEM LIBTARDS MADE US VOTE FER TRUMP"

AKA "We refuse to acknowledge the fact that our side of the political spectrum has been an absolute circus for the last 10 years, and people grew quite weary of it"

Sorry, Jack.

Most of those guys just wanted to be left the hell alone, and then after years of being smeared and slandered for daring to have an opinion to the slight right of a Portland Hipster they got fed up with it.

So, keep it up.

Mattis is still an option, just a casual reminder.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

Honestly I ignore most of your articles because 90 percent of the time they refute your position

Ah... so you responded in bad faith.

Can you respond in bad faith to someone who has posted in bad faith for nigh on 8 years?

I posted opinions and backed it up with sources galore... just because you didn't like them doesn't mean they were in "bad faith". The ignore button is there for a reason...

Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

The Paul's are a strange bunch to be sure, though I at least like Ron on a personal level and, among all the Derp, had some good points from time to time. Rand...not so much.

whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

The comparisons to events under Obama are disenguous. Between the FBI and the DOJ, the best they could find regarding the IRS scandal was people enforcing rules they didnt understand and use of IRS accounts for personal messages.

No that's the spin.

The IRS own IG

As of 2017, the Treasury Department IG found that both conservative and progressive groups were targeted.

and Senate Committee reports completely demolishes this spin...

The senate report with diverging partisan conclusions?

and the fact that the IRS had settled the case speaks volume.

Because those groups were impacted, but the settlement doesn't mean it was a politically organized and Obama directed effort at attacking political enemies, it means the IRS borked up and inappropriately impactes these groups.

If the press would simply call balls and strikes... and be honest, the Trump admin strikes out plenty... this media #FakeNews narrative would fall flat.

This goes waaaaayyyy beyond "fake news", it's discrediting anything that isn't polishing his pole, and denouncing them as a threat to the nation.

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

When attacked collectively and declared to be an enemy of the people, that's not an unreasonable response, particularly when we are talking about elements that arent all owned under the same roof.

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

We can speculate on possibilities all we like, however "the media" is not some singular juggernaut acting in cohesive concert under a single direction, its many thousands of organizations pursuing their own agendas. There's a difference between calling out a specific outlet or report or writer for borking a story (which is entirely fair) and attacking the entire institution and broadly decalring vast swathes to be enemies of the people.

Equivocating the two is disingenuous.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Aka "DEM LIBTARDS MADE US VOTE FER TRUMP"

AKA "We refuse to acknowledge the fact that our side of the political spectrum has been an absolute circus for the last 10 years, and people grew quite weary of it"

Sorry, Jack.

Most of those guys just wanted to be left the hell alone, and then after years of being smeared and slandered for daring to have an opinion to the slight right of a Portland Hipster they got fed up with it.

So they went out of their way to vote for someone who embodies all those accusations, confirmed and doubled down on them, and made them standing policy?

As a Portland hipster myself, that doesn't sound like a convincing plan

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

Honestly I ignore most of your articles because 90 percent of the time they refute your position

Ah... so you responded in bad faith.

Can you respond in bad faith to someone who has posted in bad faith for nigh on 8 years?

I posted opinions and backed it up with sources galore... just because you didn't like them doesn't mean they were in "bad faith". The ignore button is there for a reason...

No you don't a vast majority of the time your sources refute the positions you post, then when you are called out over it we go through this same old song and dance. Plus why would I want to ignore a train wreck?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Rand Paul seems like the worst kind of attention whore tbh.

Worse than Trump AND Ted Cruz?

Exactly what I was thinking.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The IRS own IAs of 2017, the Treasury Department IG found that both conservative and progressive groups were targeted.

Good find on the link, and not to be jerk but I'm looking at the actual report. On page 102 of the report it says that fewer than 10 of the groups, out of 283 were politically left. Over 3/4 were conservative and the remainder did not have a clear political leaning.

So... yeah, there were 'some' but it was not an even spread.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

So in your opinion - we shouldn't call people who graduated from medical school doctors? He graduated from Duke. He hasn't renewed his licences because he doesn't need to - and he is opposed to regulations.

It's okay - he doesn't need a medical licence to be a senator. Nor does it stop him from doing things like this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/?utm_term=.4fafd2c05601

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

So in your opinion - we shouldn't call people who graduated from medical school doctors? He graduated from Duke. He hasn't renewed his licences because he doesn't need to - and he is opposed to regulations.

It's okay - he doesn't need a medical licence to be a senator. Nor does it stop him from doing things like this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/?utm_term=.4fafd2c05601

Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

Also would you still call a person a doctor if they have not been practicing their profession or studying for decades? That would be like calling a pre-civil war doctor a doctor in todays terms.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

So in your opinion - we shouldn't call people who graduated from medical school doctors? He graduated from Duke. He hasn't renewed his licences because he doesn't need to - and he is opposed to regulations.

It's okay - he doesn't need a medical licence to be a senator. Nor does it stop him from doing things like this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/?utm_term=.4fafd2c05601

Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

A clearance being taken from a former government employee =/= an independent accreditation that takes 8+ years to earn being taken away.

 Ustrello wrote:
Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

Hi, yes- hello. Someone who works with security clearances here.

Yeah, a 'security clearance' is not an 'award' or 'degree' or a special badge of being awesome. It's not a title or anything like that.

It is literally the level of access which you can be entrusted. If you are no longer employed by [insert organization] and no longer require the access to this information, then your clearance is stopped. Plain and simple. It happens to everyone- from low-ranking dudes that get out after 4 years with a Security Clearance to literally any retired person holding one. This is pretty standard procedure that's being used for political theatrics right now, so don't fall for this nonsense- okay? It's a routine procedure to stop someone's clearance access.

A good example is a job that requires you to have a key code and a badge to enter the facility. When you quit, they take that badge from you and your personal key code is invalidated.

Just to make it clear- imagine if your apartment complex had maintenance guys, and those guys have access to every home. One of the guys quits, retires, gets fired, laid off- whatever- and is no longer employed at your apartment complex. Would you think it would be okay for him to keep keys to all of the apartments?

It's pretty much the same concept.

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

So in your opinion - we shouldn't call people who graduated from medical school doctors? He graduated from Duke. He hasn't renewed his licences because he doesn't need to - and he is opposed to regulations.

It's okay - he doesn't need a medical licence to be a senator. Nor does it stop him from doing things like this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/?utm_term=.4fafd2c05601

Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

A clearance being taken from a former government employee =/= an independent accreditation that takes 8+ years to earn being taken away.

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

One of the reasons, it didnt help that you have diploma mills and certification boards that could be bribed to let you get your degree and certified. Unless you are trying to imply we should not expect better of our doctors and people who use that title to garner voters attention etc.

Ie) Rand Paul, "Judge" jeanie etc

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

Plus, Dr as a title doesn't just apply to medical doctors. It applies to anybody who has a Doctorate level degree. Degrees don't expire. If you get a Doctorate, you are thereafter Dr So-and-so till you die.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

Hi, yes- hello. Someone who works with security clearances here.

Yeah, a 'security clearance' is not an 'award' or 'degree' or a special badge of being awesome. It's not a title or anything like that.

It is literally the level of access which you can be entrusted. If you are no longer employed by [insert organization] and no longer require the access to this information, then your clearance is stopped. Plain and simple. It happens to everyone- from low-ranking dudes that get out after 4 years with a Security Clearance to literally any retired person holding one. This is pretty standard procedure that's being used for political theatrics right now, so don't fall for this nonsense- okay? It's a routine procedure to stop someone's clearance access.

A good example is a job that requires you to have a key code and a badge to enter the facility. When you quit, they take that badge from you and your personal key code is invalidated.

Just to make it clear- imagine if your apartment complex had maintenance guys, and those guys have access to every home. One of the guys quits, retires, gets fired, laid off- whatever- and is no longer employed at your apartment complex. Would you think it would be okay for him to keep keys to all of the apartments?

It's pretty much the same concept.

Except it's not the same, that's just a cheap obfuscation to make this seem like it's not a big deal.

Clearance doesn't mean you have access to everything. Even with security clearance a person can't just walk into the Pentagon and say "give me everything on the latest missile program" and have that honored. Things actually operate on a need to know basis.

And as has been outlined over the previous pages there's plenty of reason to not revoke clearances. Not the least of which is that clearances shouldn't be used as tokens of favor.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

So in your opinion - we shouldn't call people who graduated from medical school doctors? He graduated from Duke. He hasn't renewed his licences because he doesn't need to - and he is opposed to regulations.

It's okay - he doesn't need a medical licence to be a senator. Nor does it stop him from doing things like this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/14/rand-paul-leaves-the-campaign-trail-for-eye-surgeries-in-haiti/?utm_term=.4fafd2c05601

Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

Also would you still call a person a doctor if they have not been practicing their profession or studying for decades? That would be like calling a pre-civil war doctor a doctor in todays terms.

Well I don't think he should be able to practice without meeting the requirements set out by whatever agency oversees ophthalmology licencing. No. You have to play by the rules - he is just trying to change the rules because he doesn't want the state to have control over his profession because states are in charge of that.

The reality is - you are arguing that you shouldn't call a good doctor with lets say 3-4x more experience ( who let his licence expire for whatever reason) an actual doctor. However - a bad doctor (constantly has people die under his care, ect, basically the bare minimum to not get fired) that basically pays some fees and submits some CME credits online and gets his licence renewed - he can still be called a doctor.

Renewing a medical licence is just a fee basically is all I am saying. Why do you think he opposes it?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

Plus, Dr as a title doesn't just apply to medical doctors. It applies to anybody who has a Doctorate level degree. Degrees don't expire. If you get a Doctorate, you are thereafter Dr So-and-so till you die.

Yes but we are arguing about medical professionals here, people with their M.D. D.D.S etc, not a PhD or doctorate

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Weren't you just arguing that Brennen and others don't deserve their security clearances once they retire? But yet you still think he should be called doctor

Hi, yes- hello. Someone who works with security clearances here.

Yeah, a 'security clearance' is not an 'award' or 'degree' or a special badge of being awesome. It's not a title or anything like that.

It is literally the level of access which you can be entrusted. If you are no longer employed by [insert organization] and no longer require the access to this information, then your clearance is stopped. Plain and simple. It happens to everyone- from low-ranking dudes that get out after 4 years with a Security Clearance to literally any retired person holding one. This is pretty standard procedure that's being used for political theatrics right now, so don't fall for this nonsense- okay? It's a routine procedure to stop someone's clearance access.

A good example is a job that requires you to have a key code and a badge to enter the facility. When you quit, they take that badge from you and your personal key code is invalidated.

Just to make it clear- imagine if your apartment complex had maintenance guys, and those guys have access to every home. One of the guys quits, retires, gets fired, laid off- whatever- and is no longer employed at your apartment complex. Would you think it would be okay for him to keep keys to all of the apartments?

It's pretty much the same concept.

Except it's not the same, that's just a cheap obfuscation to make this seem like it's not a big deal.

Clearance doesn't mean you have access to everything. Even with security clearance a person can't just walk into the Pentagon and say "give me everything on the latest missile program" and have that honored. Things actually operate on a need to know basis.

And as has been outlined over the previous pages there's plenty of reason to not revoke clearances. Not the least of which is that clearances shouldn't be used as tokens of favor.

Nobody is saying that it works that way. However why would that matter? That might make it more important that clearance be removed but you can't argue why someone who doesn't need access to something anymore should still retain the ability to access it. It makes literally no sense. Plus - if in the future he the FBI or CIA needed him to discuss the details of a case he worked on or something - they can get him a temporary one - or renew his clearance. I don't care if that is more work - protecting secrete information/ peoples personal information is a BIG deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

Wow I didn't even know he could practice without a certification in Kentucky. That makes the argument even more moot. That's kind of like saying you can't be a doctor if you practice in Kentucky because they don't licence ophthalmologist.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
If you are no longer employed by [insert organization] and no longer require the access to this information, then your clearance is stopped.

Clearly false. If this was the case then Trump would not have revoked the guy's security clearance, and this would not be news. Some low-level HR person would have done it as part of the standard paperwork for leaving the job, just like it's a low-level HR person and not the CEO that shuts off your door access and asks you to turn in your badge on your way out. We also wouldn't see job postings asking for people who already have a security clearance, since it would not be possible to have one before starting the job.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

He is not board certified and when he was it was from a board he incorporated and ran. Does that make him an actual doctor? No, it is literally the same system we used pre-civil war and one reason why medicine was so bad back then

Except the state of Kentucky, where he practices, does not require board certification to practice. So he's still a doctor, and there's quite a few places that do not require it based on what particular field you practice.

So, he's still a doctor. And by his state law, he's a doctor. And in quite a few states, he's still fully capable of practicing. Optometry and a few other types of medical work are like this.

And why medicine was so bad back then had a lot more to do with the degree of medical technology than having a board of 24 people make a choice on your practice. Just saying.

Plus, Dr as a title doesn't just apply to medical doctors. It applies to anybody who has a Doctorate level degree. Degrees don't expire. If you get a Doctorate, you are thereafter Dr So-and-so till you die.

Yes but we are arguing about medical professionals here, people with their M.D. D.D.S etc, not a PhD or doctorate

Pretty sure it was a discussion on if RP can be called Dr or not. He clearly can, despite you claiming its a "Fake accreditation". Nothing about his Doctorate is phony. He's just not board certified. That just means he can't practice medicine in certain areas. It doesn't mean he's not longer a Doctor.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

No.

Trump doesn't happen without the media falling all over themself during the primary to prop of Trump.

No. Trump doesn't happen without the factual void that is the Republican manifesto.

If the Republican party hadn't conditioned its voter base to reject facts in favour of partisanship then they wouldn't have fallen for a populist con-man, with or without media coverage.

And the media coverage of Trump during the primaries was not positive.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Except it's not the same, that's just a cheap obfuscation to make this seem like it's not a big deal.

Clearance doesn't mean you have access to everything. Even with security clearance a person can't just walk into the Pentagon and say "give me everything on the latest missile program" and have that honored. Things actually operate on a need to know basis.

And as has been outlined over the previous pages there's plenty of reason to not revoke clearances. Not the least of which is that clearances shouldn't be used as tokens of favor.

Yes, I'm very well aware of Compartmentalized Information, that even with a 'Top Secret' clearance, you must be specifically cleared to work on certain things- a 'compartment' of information at your clearance level- such as things related to the Afghanistan operations, Russia, etc. As I said, someone who works with security clearances here.

It's not a cheap obfuscation, whether you like it or not. It is a simple fact.

If you are no longer employed by an organization that requires a security clearance, they shut down your clearance. This is primarily because those holding clearances are routinely screened- their credit, travel, criminal records, etc. are monitored. No business, organization, department, etc. is going to continue this process on someone who no longer has access to said information, it's a waste of time and money.

Specialist Joe Snuffy, US Army, with a Top Secret Clearance has his shut down when he completes his 4-year enlistment and goes home. Special Agent Jason Bourne, 30 years CIA black ops and panty-snatching- his goes away when he hands in his retirement papers. Routine, normal, and par for the course.

Now let's just say someone takes a die-hard stance against persons who'd be in their chain of command, to any degree that could be considered 'working against them'. When Joe Snuffy joins Antifa and openly claims "No USA at all"- he'll lose his clearance (and it's true, it's considered an 'anarchist organization' and you lose clearance for claiming allegiance to them). When Jason Bourne tells President Trump that he's going to destroy his Presidency, he loses his clearance.

Had I made political statements about Trump, Obama, or Bush while holding that security clearance- mine would have been yanked, too. This is a normal standard that literally every single person holding a clearance is being held to, and Brennan is no exception.

Whether your like it or not, because you hate Trump- this is the way of things and it has been for some time.

But for right now- a man with a key to the building had to turn in his key to the building and it doesn't help he's suspected of selling the company's secrets or at least using them to his advantage outside the company- which, while under suspicion and during investigations, security clearances can and will be revoked.

It's being preached up for theatrics, plain and simple.

Oh, and daily reminder that this all traces back to someone leaking some rather disturbing emails from the opposition campaign and exposing their dirty deeds, no real 'hacking' to manipulate numbers or hijack the mainframes or whatever we believe these Cheekibreeki Russian Hackers do.

 Vaktathi wrote:

whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

The comparisons to events under Obama are disenguous. Between the FBI and the DOJ, the best they could find regarding the IRS scandal was people enforcing rules they didnt understand and use of IRS accounts for personal messages.

No that's the spin.

The IRS own IG

As of 2017, the Treasury Department IG found that both conservative and progressive groups were targeted.

That is a supplemental document that does not deny or dispute the accepted and established premise that conservative groups were unequally targeted. Don't believe me? Read the report:
https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2017reports/201710054fr.pdf
It even quoted that 2015 Senate Committee report, see page 2 of above pdf:

While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for
heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged
some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing. In order to centralize
these cases for review and processing, names and descriptions of several
left-leaning groups were placed on the BOLO spreadsheet. Some left-leaning
applicants experienced lengthy processing delays and inappropriate and
burdensome requests for information.

Note the distinction... "While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups..." vs. "Some left-leaning applicants ..."

On page 10:

...Of the 199 (c)(4) cases,9 approximately ¾ appear
to be conservative leaning, while fewer than 10 appear to be liberal/progressiveleaning
groups based solely on the name.

Further more, the 17 terms explored in the latest TIGTA report is not even remotely comprehensive to what was used during the scandal...the new document was not meant to supplant previous findings, but to augment them with examinations of how other search terms were treated. It simply does not prove what you want it to prove as it does in no way disputes the 2013 TIGTA report. Even at the end of that latest TIGTA report, the IRS management's response on pg 114 states in part:

Since the time period covered by the report, the IRS has made significant changes in the way we handle the review process for tax-exemption applications. There has been dramatic improvements in this area since 2013. The IRS remains committed to processing tax-exempt application in a time manner using a fair process guided by the tax law and nothing else.

For example, the IRS discontinued using all the 259 criteria by June 2013. As such, TIGTA did not make any recommendations for changes in this audit and does not that, since the time frames covered in the report, we have completely revamped the review process to improve the handling of all applications for tax-exempt status. As confirmed by TIGTA, we addressed all nine (9) recommendations from the previous 2013 audit. Further, we also implemented all of the recommendations in the Senate Finance Committee's report that are within our tax administration jurisdiction (i.e. other than tax policy or legislative matters), and we hope that these efforts contribute to bringing that matter to a close.

Makes sense now?

and the fact that the IRS had settled the case speaks volume.

Because those groups were impacted, but the settlement doesn't mean it was a politically organized and Obama directed effort at attacking political enemies, it means the IRS borked up and inappropriately impactes these groups.

The TIGTA report in 2013/2017 and the 2015 Senate Finance Committee reports found otherwise.

Furthermore, the IRS 'sincerely' apologized over this scandal. I find it hard to believe that if that organization truly believe they were in the right, would back down... especially when you'er talking about the IRS.

If the press would simply call balls and strikes... and be honest, the Trump admin strikes out plenty... this media #FakeNews narrative would fall flat.

This goes waaaaayyyy beyond "fake news", it's discrediting anything that isn't polishing his pole, and denouncing them as a threat to the nation.

Oh agreed... I'm just pointing out that the media's reaction feeds into this narrative.

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

When attacked collectively and declared to be an enemy of the people, that's not an unreasonable response, particularly when we are talking about elements that arent all owned under the same roof.

If these were times governed by Conventional Wisdoms... you'd be right. But, I'm not sure we are.

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

We can speculate on possibilities all we like, however "the media" is not some singular juggernaut acting in cohesive concert under a single direction, its many thousands of organizations pursuing their own agendas. There's a difference between calling out a specific outlet or report or writer for borking a story (which is entirely fair) and attacking the entire institution and broadly decalring vast swathes to be enemies of the people.

Equivocating the two is disingenuous.

I disagree. The media during the primary made two equally important decision.
1) Its indisputable that during the primary, the HRC campaign and supporters believe Trump would be HRC's weakest competition
2) Trump gave rating gold to these media outfits

Combining the two, explains their behavior during and after the primary.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh... just saw this:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/h_86ac28968952537f78f596fd87885dfd

You still think the media at large is calling balls and strikes in good faith??? When CNN wants the names of the jurists while they're deliberating??

I mean... CNN is basically saying "We're not enemies of people! Also we want the names and addresses of jurors. No reason."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
If you are no longer employed by an organization that requires a security clearance, they shut down your clearance.

Again, this is obviously false. If it was a routine procedure for all former employees then it would have been handled by a low-level HR person as part of the standard leaving the job paperwork. He would not still have a security clearance for Trump to revoke, just like the CEO of a company doesn't personally take you off the door access list when you leave. The fact that Trump got involved in the first place is indisputable proof that security clearances are NOT revoked as soon as you leave a job.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
If you are no longer employed by an organization that requires a security clearance, they shut down your clearance.

Again, this is obviously false. If it was a routine procedure for all former employees then it would have been handled by a low-level HR person as part of the standard leaving the job paperwork. He would not still have a security clearance for Trump to revoke, just like the CEO of a company doesn't personally take you off the door access list when you leave. The fact that Trump got involved in the first place is indisputable proof that security clearances are NOT revoked as soon as you leave a job.

He's right for non-political appointees.

But, for political appointees Trump *is* disrupting the norms here.

Just a personal pet peeve, but the title “Doctor” has absolutely nothing to do with medical practice. It’s simply an academic title, nothing more and nothing less. An MD just spend a lot of time in school to get the title “Doctor of Medicine”, and that will be his title for life even if he never actually practices or even gets a license to practice. An DO is a doctor, a DNP is a Doctor, a PHD is a Doctor, a DPh is a Doctor. All “Dr. [Name]” means is that you got a piece of paper admitting you to an academic degree.

If he is still practicing/licensed, he would be a Physician. Then he is practicing medicine. But even if he gets his license taken away or let’s it expire, he would still hold the academic title he earned.

 whembly wrote:

Oh... just saw this:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/h_86ac28968952537f78f596fd87885dfd

You still think the media at large is calling balls and strikes in good faith??? When CNN wants the names of the jurists while they're deliberating??

I mean... CNN is basically saying "We're not enemies of people! Also we want the names and addresses of jurors. No reason."

Yeeeaaaah. I'm not one to get on board the whole "The Press is the Enemy of the People" thing here (poor wording, Donnie-boy). I'd never say they were our 'enemy'. But I will say that if the Press is our Friend, they're the kind of friend that tells you part of the story and neglects some significant details that could significantly alter your position and association. The kind of friend that tells you Bubba Budrow down the block has been following him and threatening him, but leaves off that part about him slapping Betty Budrow on the ass and calling her a hoe.

Not all of them, and not one side either- the right wing's got its manufactured outrage peddlers, and I spent about 3 hours with some of my relatives explaining how a lot of these 'news' outlets have about as much credibility as a Nigerian Prince (also, I had to explain the Nigerian Prince scam, too- they're old people).

I get that Alex Jones himself has some very outlandish and very offensive (to some) content that he peddles, and he tends to go far off the deep end- the epitome of 'fake news'. But he's not the only offender out there by a long shot (although the most ludicrous and amusing), but... if you apply the same standards that shut him down to every news organization out there- we'd be short on options for online news. Very short.

But hey, that's what happens when you gotta run Infotainment networks 24/7. Someone's gotta stir the poopoo pot or spin it up to be interesting, I guess. Sort of like meeting relatives at Christmas and they have all their great vacation stories, and they look over at you and now you're trying to make "I sat out in the back yard and drink beer for 14 days in a row" into an interesting vacation story. Something's gonna get embellished and stretched and fudged.

All I'm saying is that at some point, we're gonna start putting a credibility rating on various news sources and they're gonna lose their minds over it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Oh... just saw this:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/h_86ac28968952537f78f596fd87885dfd

You still think the media at large is calling balls and strikes in good faith??? When CNN wants the names of the jurists while they're deliberating??

I mean... CNN is basically saying "We're not enemies of people! Also we want the names and addresses of jurors. No reason."

Yeeeaaaah. I'm not one to get on board the whole "The Press is the Enemy of the People" thing here (poor wording, Donnie-boy). I'd never say they were our 'enemy'. But I will say that if the Press is our Friend, they're the kind of friend that tells you part of the story and neglects some significant details that could significantly alter your position and association. The kind of friend that tells you Bubba Budrow down the block has been following him and threatening him, but leaves off that part about him slapping Betty Budrow on the ass and calling her a hoe.

Not all of them, and not one side either- the right wing's got its manufactured outrage peddlers, and I spent about 3 hours with some of my relatives explaining how a lot of these 'news' outlets have about as much credibility as a Nigerian Prince (also, I had to explain the Nigerian Prince scam, too- they're old people).

I get that Alex Jones himself has some very outlandish and very offensive (to some) content that he peddles, and he tends to go far off the deep end- the epitome of 'fake news'. But he's not the only offender out there by a long shot (although the most ludicrous and amusing), but... if you apply the same standards that shut him down to every news organization out there- we'd be short on options for online news. Very short.

But hey, that's what happens when you gotta run Infotainment networks 24/7. Someone's gotta stir the poopoo pot or spin it up to be interesting, I guess. Sort of like meeting relatives at Christmas and they have all their great vacation stories, and they look over at you and now you're trying to make "I sat out in the back yard and drink beer for 14 days in a row" into an interesting vacation story. Something's gonna get embellished and stretched and fudged.

All I'm saying is that at some point, we're gonna start putting a credibility rating on various news sources and they're gonna lose their minds over it.

Isn't that basically what Elon Musk proposed a few months back? Some website that ranked journalists based on their how accurately they have reported stories in the past?

 DrGiggles wrote:
Isn't that basically what Elon Musk proposed a few months back? Some website that ranked journalists based on their how accurately they have reported stories in the past?

You mean right before they started tearing into the guy and doing hit-pieces on him in coordination?

Yeah, that. Because that right there is pretty much all the reason in the world to think we might need something like that.