I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I know I'm going to regret this, but if Russian spies are being monitored and Trump's campaign or transition team pops up in those communications such that Rice feels the need to unmask them, why shouldn't she?

A totally credible defense. We have yet to get that info. But as I understand it, she had to chose who to unmask based on the substance of conversations. If these conversations were regarding potential criminal acts, fine. If it was just political talk or regular business, not fine.

Is there evidence that she did so without following the law?

Unknown.

Is there evidence she leaked the information somehow (to no one of consequence since we never found out)?

She has said she did not, and WSJ has written that there was another person involved in ordering the unmasking. She has also denied doing so on TV. I doubt she'd lie like that if she had been the leaker. So my guess is, she is not the leak.

Are you just parroting the Administration's talking points because it sounds bad?

I'm not parroting the Admin's talking points. I cited a story stating that she had unmasked Trump admin people. The Bloomberg story said this was unusual, but not necessarily criminal.

But as to why I'd cite this story, here? This story upsets the narrative here. Any fact that challenges a narrative, any fact that contradicts any person's belief, should be shown to that person. That's the essence of a thinking public: Holding no story too dearly... always being upon to taking a 180 on anything you've heard, and almost any value you hold. If I had a dream, it would be for people to believe in next to nothing, and always be open to suggestion. How much more interesting of a world would that be?

Isn't it more likely, based on all of the contact between this Administration and Russia, that there is something there that the AG should have been looking into?

Yes. Absolutely. I support a full investigation of the Russia connection.

What is your point?

Believe nothing. Stop taking a side. Stop falling right into Trump's, and the larger political machine's, playbook. Stop deifying people, and getting behind politicians. The system is broken.

Assume it's all worth nothing but extreme skepticism. And try to work across the aisle. Become post-party.

Be an angry moderate. It's not a solution, but it's an essential starting point for any useful one.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I worked with the only sources I had: Bloomberg and that guy. They were both accurate.

Still ignoring my point. I'm stunned.

Today's Daily Dose is a slow burning organ-driven instrumental. James Polk and the Brothers with "Just Plain Funk."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzCTiO6Ydqs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Still ignoring my point. I'm stunned.

Happened to me re healthcare just recently. Shocking!

Cernovich is a true prince.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

None of the shit you think you're doing is happening. People on this board are talking about the actual actions the current administration is taking and the actual relationships the people in that administration seem to have. You're the only idiot who thinks anyone here sees things in a binary way. And that makes you look ridiculous because you think you're poking people by saying stupid shit when everyone is really only interested in talking about actual substance.

TM

I offered substance. Flower said he's more interested in the messenger.

You may be interested exclusively in facts. The rest of this board is not. There is very much an emotional pull in a lot of the stuff written here.

This board isn't alone. I'll credit it that. There's such a crazy split in the country right now... I've seen grown people argue like it's high school debate class. In bars, in restaurants. It's nuts. And a lot of it is orchestrated.

People do realize, the media doesn't really care. Maddow is on Maddow's side. As O'Reilly is on O'Reill'y side... as are the rest of them. This is their golden era -- the greatest political firestorm in history. From Vox, to the New Yorker, to Drudge, to Brietbart, the framers of this fiasco are its chief profiteers. And the arguments we're having right here - which are only exclusively substantive so long as that substance does not challenge the left-lean of this board's posters - are feeding the frenzy.

It's all quite emotional. But yes -- that is what makes it fascinating.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If these conversations were regarding potential criminal acts, fine.

That's not the standard. They can be unmasked if doing so makes the intelligence easier to understand.

If you want to keep making the most that can be made of this, follow Eli Lake's lead:

...the scandal is that what she did was most likely legal. It is not outrageous that a national security adviser can discover the names of Americans caught up in legal surveillance of others when there is a threat of a terrorist or cyber attack. It is outrageous that it's so easy to do this in the absence of such a rationale.

The Bloomberg story said this was unusual, but not necessarily criminal.

No, the Bloomberg story said:

The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

Be an angry moderate.

One day you'll finally be able to admit to yourself that you're not a moderate.

ETA: You know what's telling about your "outside it all" posing? I finally actually read the Cernovich post. No one objective would have failed to see the red flags (not about his sociopathy, but the substance). He explicitly argues that the unmasking proves that Trump was "being spied" on during the campaign. You can't see how that's a ridiculous overstatement?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's not the standard. They can be unmasked if doing so makes the intelligence easier to understand.

The idea that there's something scandalous in a top national security official wanting to know who's talking to agents of the Russian government -- that's totally absurd. The people trumpeting this nonsense are doing it for the most transparently bogus reasons. Sebby wants to keep a little distance from them, but it's hard to sling shit without smelling like it. But that's OK, because he doesn't really believe it -- he's trolling us, and enjoying the outraged reaction.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I offered substance. Flower said he's more interested in the messenger.

No. I did not. If you want to understand the effect making untrue statements like this has on your credibility, and how doings so tends to make people disregard everything you write as utter bullshit, you should go back and read what I actually wrote. Ha ha ha, JK!!!! I know you won't actually do that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The idea that there's something scandalous in a top national security official wanting to know who's talking to agents of the Russian government -- that's totally absurd. The people trumpeting this nonsense are doing it for the most transparently bogus reasons. Sebby wants to keep a little distance from them, but it's hard to sling shit without smelling like it. But that's OK, because he doesn't really believe it -- he's trolling us, and enjoying the outraged reaction.

A troll knows that what he's saying is bullshit. Sebby likes to pretend otherwise, but as his track record with Hillary demonstrates, he actually believes Rice was likely up to something nefarious.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

If the messenger dresses up some information as coming from "independent media" and neglects to mention that that it actually comes from an alt-right misogynist troll, then yes, shoot that fucker.

No point here worth considering.

Because yes, I do consider the source of the information I am presented with when determining whether or not it is true, and I also assess whether the information (or the source) has been presented in a misleading way, which might make me suspicious about whether the information is more about ideology than fact.

Bloomberg was cited offering the same info in the same post. Your suspicion of Bloomberg was?

More important, my actual point had nothing to do with the merits of the Susan Rice story, but rather was about how the way you present information undermines your credibility and leads everyone here to dismiss pretty much everything you say, sometimes unfairly.

I fully expect that. If the opposite were to occur, I'd be disturbed. If you can;t free the Id here...? I mean, really.

I'm not even a teensy bit surprised that you failed entirely to grasp this (or more likely, simply ignored it in order to devastatingly attack a variety of points I did not make).

I didn't think it needed addressing, or was interesting. In much the same way, I read Ty's health care bit yesterday, found it more slieght of hand than substance, thought about replying, but then figured, "Eh, fuck it. He missed my point, I missed his, and we'll never agree."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

No. I did not. If you want to understand the effect making untrue statements like this has on your credibility, and how doings so tends to make people disregard everything you write as utter bullshit, you should go back and read what I actually wrote. Ha ha ha, JK!!!! I know you won't actually do that.

I uh... get that. I. Don't. Find. It. Interesting. Don't care.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

A troll knows that what he's saying is bullshit. Sebby likes to pretend otherwise, but as his track record with Hillary demonstrates, he actually believes Rice was likely up to something nefarious.

I still think she did something illegal (not the emails, but re the fund). I also think someone under Trump did something illegal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

A troll knows that what he's saying is bullshit.

Not exactly. He doesn't care about whether it's true or not, but there has to be something to it for it to have the right effect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read Ty's health care bit yesterday, found it more slieght of hand than substance, thought about replying, but then figured, "Eh, fuck it. He missed my point, I missed his, and we'll never agree."

Masterfull trolling, sir! To Adder's point, not completely inaccurate. You did miss my point, but I granted yours. And more importantly, you basically couldn't be bothered to respond. But you do intuit that calling my post "sleight of hand" will irritate me, so job done. Of course we'll never agree -- you're trying to get a rise out of people, not agree with them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

That's not the standard. They can be unmasked if doing so makes the intelligence easier to understand.

Right. And I believe it was the NSA's Hayden who said this could be used to "reverse acquire" political info.

ETA: You know what's telling about your "outside it all" posing? I finally actually read the Cernovich post. No one objective would have failed to see the red flags (not about his sociopathy, but the substance). He explicitly argues that the unmasking proves that Trump was "being spied" on during the campaign. You can't see how that's a ridiculous overstatement?

Who care about that? I figure you're enough of an adult to ignore the messenger, particularly alongside a Bloomberg cite. I thought wrong.

Was he wrong about Rice having gotten the info?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

What you don't get is that enabling insurers to offer that kind of coverage to everyone instead of just some people under 30 may, as a practical matter, prevent anyone from buying the sort of coverage that the ACA now requires, e.g., coverage of pre-existing conditions.

I do not agree with this, but I'll grant it, as you granted my earlier point.

The rights of individuals to buy the policies they feel like buying trump the interests of cost-sharing.

You're talking about rights, and I'm not. I'm saying libertarianism has a massive blind spot here, one you are doing your best to show off.

Finding that some people deserve to have their costs offset by forcing others to buy insurance is a troubling encroachment enough. That they must do so in particular form of policy is beyond the pale.