![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony » February 16th, 2017, 4:38 pm wrote:This might seem off-topic. I thought about starting another thread, but this is about truth and politics. But more than that, it is about maintaining the proper methodology a democratic republic requires. Some may think the ends justify the means. I've been guilty of that line of reasoning myself at times.
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying
What do you think?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » February 17th, 2017, 3:33 pm wrote:You would think so, but remember that journalism sometimes benefits from an anonymous insider, like "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal. People have jobs they need to keep, bills to pay, children to feed, so they may need anonymity for purely practical reasons of survival. Not everyone who has inside information to leak is prepared to fall on their sword when they do so. If leaks are more beneficial than harmful, then the way to foster them is to preserve the option of anonymity as a protection from a vengeful and, in some cases, criminal reprisal.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » February 17th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:You would think so, but remember that journalism sometimes benefits from an anonymous insider, like "Deep Throat" and the Watergate scandal. People have jobs they need to keep, bills to pay, children to feed, so they may need anonymity for purely practical reasons of survival. Not everyone who has inside information to leak is prepared to fall on their sword when they do so. If leaks are more beneficial than harmful, then the way to foster them is to preserve the option of anonymity as a protection from a vengeful and, in some cases, criminal reprisal.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
d30 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:52 pm wrote:
We can hope that the intelligence community leakers have good, patriotic intentions, assessed a serious threat to national security, and are acting, behaving, for the good of, the salvation of,` democracy and America, in a way they deemed therefore justifiable - in a presently uncivilized situation, wherein "kill or be killed."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony » February 17th, 2017, 3:33 pm wrote:d30 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:52 pm wrote:
We can hope that the intelligence community leakers have good, patriotic intentions, assessed a serious threat to national security, and are acting, behaving, for the good of, the salvation of,` democracy and America, in a way they deemed therefore justifiable - in a presently uncivilized situation, wherein "kill or be killed."
But isn't that the problem? How do we know the leakers have "good, patriotic intentions"? What if they have an agenda that is good for them but bad for the rest of us? How can we know the truth in a post-truth world?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » February 17th, 2017, 8:46 pm wrote:Mike Pence is Trumps security ace in the hole so they can't kill him :-)
All the other agencies are full of incompetence and should be rebuilt and streamlined.
None of which is going to happen because most Americans are too busy fornicating and smoking dope to really care.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
- PaulAnthonyBut isn't that the problem? How do we know the leakers have "good, patriotic intentions"? What if they have an agenda that is good for them but bad for the rest of us? How can we know the truth in a post-truth world?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:36 am wrote:
It's a good question, and my answer is a speculative suggestion that we may judge the leakers by the results that we, as a nation, derive from the leaks. Michael Flynn, a man grossly incompetent for the NSC position, was dumped. And we are a step closer to getting an investigation, sorely needed, of Putin's possible involvement in a plot to disrupt our democracy and sovereignty, and the President's role, if any. Those are good results. Especially when so few in the President's party seem willing to question anything he does. Is John McCain the last remaining Republican with some spine and integrity?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony » February 18th, 2017, 8:34 am wrote:Besides, I am not shocked that a foreign government would attempt to influence our elections. Our own government has been interfering in other nations for decades. Interference from within our own government troubles me more.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
d30 » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:40 pm wrote:
According to the banner headline at the bottom of the screen on CNN yesterday or day before, "Trump aides in continuous contact with Soviet agents during the campaign." (maybe not verbatim, but this NYT article gives verification. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0)
So, when you say "Interference from within our own government troubles me more," are you saying U.S. intelligence agencies should not have interfered in this apparent collusion by Trump and/or his staff with Putin and/or his agents, Putin having turned Russia back into a totalitarian nation, reportedly murderously censoring the press, those and other of his opponents winding up in jail or dead, citizens afraid to speak out again, etc.?
This reported Trump-people/Putin-people collusion is of great gravity to U.S. national security, and as Braininvat said, if not for our intelligence people's leaks, how would we have even known such egregious seeming treason threatening us all has been going on?
I mean, what it seems like you're saying is that there should have been no U.S. intelligence interference with Russia's interference in our election.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:54 pm wrote:
On another tpic, I did also wonder at what point someone might well become above the law. Without intending to make any assertions about Trump, suppose, and I do mean this entirely hypothetically, just suppose Trump or any other President did have something in his past that Russia (China? ISIS? you take your pick) could successfully blackmail him over. Would it even be treaon with a President if he decided to open up all the books for a foreign country, change national policy, etc? At this point, someone like Trump could pretty much do that as much as he wanted to just because the GOP (who probably wouldn't be getting all the "truth" anyway) may not have the power to stop him.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony » February 18th, 2017, 4:27 pm wrote:d30 » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:40 pm wrote:I mean, what it seems like you're saying is that there should have been no U.S. intelligence interference with Russia's interference in our election.
Don't believe everything you read. Some of Trump's people have business dealings in Russia. That could be why they are in "continuous contact" with other business people in Russia. "Soviet Agents" have not been named by the media. They could just be Russian businessmen.
This sort of headline is intended to create a sense of misbehavior. Someone should tell those "investigative reporters" at CNN that no one in Russia has been a "Soviet" since the fall of the USSR. :)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Even if there was a possibility of Trump being compromised AND able to surrender the nation to a foreign power, shouldn't you have been just as fearful with a Clinton presidency, given her reliance on foreign governments for the funding of the Clinton Foundation?
If you're going to be paranoid at least be non-partisan about it. :)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:37 am wrote:
Your example was phrased in a somewhat partisan manner, too. Clinton divested from the CF, precisely to avoid any taint of foreign influence peddling, and independent auditors of the CF gave it the highest ratings in terms of ethical handling of donations.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony wrote:There is a sort of unwritten rule in politics. During a campaign there is a high tolerance for mudslinging and lying, but once the voting is over we respect the office of the Presidency even if we don't respect the person occupying it. To do otherwise is to undermine the democratic principles that govern us.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:20 pm wrote: If this were 1941 and the Japanese were to bomb Pearl Harbour today, how many would shrug it off as fake news?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paul Anthony wrote:Glad you brought up Pearl Harbor - (with or without the British spelling). :)
Rumors abound about how much the US government knew before the attack and if they allowed it happen in order to persuade the American people to enter a war they had no taste for.
Paul Anthony wrote:George W. Bush was also unqualified, and blundered us into a mess in the middle east.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests