On the topic of spying, Some stories are now circulating of a blimp being seen in Maryland and people are commenting on Snowdens release that the NSA developed a spy blimp.
"Back in 2004, a division of the NSA called the National Tactical Integration Office fitted a 62-foot diameter airship called the Hover Hammer with an eavesdropping device, according to a classified document published Monday by The Intercept. The agency launched the three-engine airship at an airfield near Solomons Island, Maryland. And from there, the blimp was able to vacuum up “international shipping data emanating from the Long Island, New York area,” the document says. The spy equipment on the airship was called Digital Receiver Technology — a proprietary system manufactured by a Maryland-based company of the same name — which can intercept wireless communications, including cellphone calls." https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/nsa-blimp-spied-in-the-united-states/
So first the report was conclusive that nothing major happened and now it's a lie? Which is it? Lol, you're the one who cited the report in the first place.
Of course you fail to mention i cited the report to correct your erroneous claim of '17 agencies' when the only report that came out was 3.
It became evident your arguments were based on false information.
And yes, when it comes to questions of expertise, I tend to trust the opinions of experts. If your argument is basically that no one can be trusted to tell the truth on this issue, then I have no more reason to believe your sources than you have to believe mine and further conversation is pointless. Usually when you see someone with the mindset that "all the experts and authorities have it wrong and only I and a select few have it right," you're seeing someone who's struggling with confirmation bias.
I think we've spun our wheels on this as far as they're going to spin, yeah?
If only the evidence wasn't so flimsy as i demonstrated, and the 'experts' didn't consist of the most distrustful agencies in America.
Of course it doesn't escape my notice that you don't really want to discuss the details, That's been a trend in this thread whenever a claim is shown to be flawed.
I have no problem discussing the details, i am a developer by trade and worked alongside cybsecurity.
The 'code' X-Agent, was maintained by Crowdstrike to be Russian exclusive malware, unfortunately ESET has obtained X-Agent outside Russian circles.
We also know via wiki-leaks that the CIA and NSA and anyone can fake geographic signatures.
So first the report was conclusive that nothing major happened and now it's a lie? Which is it? Lol, you're the one who cited the report in the first place.
Of course you fail to mention i cited the report to correct your erroneous claim of '17 agencies' when the only report that came out was 3.
It became evident your arguments were based on false information.
And yes, when it comes to questions of expertise, I tend to trust the opinions of experts. If your argument is basically that no one can be trusted to tell the truth on this issue, then I have no more reason to believe your sources than you have to believe mine and further conversation is pointless. Usually when you see someone with the mindset that "all the experts and authorities have it wrong and only I and a select few have it right," you're seeing someone who's struggling with confirmation bias.
I think we've spun our wheels on this as far as they're going to spin, yeah?
If only the evidence wasn't so flimsy as i demonstrated, and the 'experts' didn't consist of the most distrustful agencies in America.
Of course it doesn't escape my notice that you don't really want to discuss the details, That's been a trend in this thread whenever a claim is shown to be flawed.
No, it's not a trend, it's just what you keep saying is a trend.
The agencies are all named. You are arguing semantics about independent investigations. All of them deemed to come to the same conclusion based on what they saw. If you want to call James Clapper a liar then just do so. Until that is proven, your number of "3" is just your spin on things.
Of course little attention is paid to when a State alleges the U.S. own Government tried to hack them over the election.
The secretary of state of Georgia is asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain what appears to be an attempted breach of the state’s voter registration database by someone in the federal government.
In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson dated Thursday, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp said the state had discovered an unsuccessful attempt to breach the firewall of state computer systems. That attempt was linked to an IP address associated with DHS, he said.
“At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,” wrote Mr. Kemp, a Republican. “Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network.”
The fact that Russia attempted to directly intervene in the 2016 election represents a genuine national security threat that is not going to go away.
We have had this particular payback coming for a long time now. Over the years, in how many other nations have we influenced elections, provided we didn't engage in outright regime change via military action? If we didn't want someone else meddling in our affairs then perhaps we shouldn't have been meddling in the affairs of others. In other words, if self-determination was good enough for us when we were founded then self-determination is good enough for everyone else, even if they choose a course of action with which we may disagree.
At which point the question becomes: Is meddling in elections bad regardless of whether the U.S. or Russia does it, or is it okay regardless of whether the U.S. or Russia does it?
I've opposed it in both cases. Should I instead support it in both cases? Because condemning America and then excusing Russia for the same behavior would be a double standard.
So "Russian interference" can really be interpreted as "highlighting the corrupt practices of Democrats".
By leaking information on the Democratic party. But not the Republican party.
Even if we think the Democratic party deserved to be exposed (personally I think the actual information leaked amounted to precious little despite the hype), we have to wonder why Russia would only want to harm one party.
If it was some independent hacking group (or even the GOP) doing this out of a sense of moral obligation, then it would be different. But it was a foreign government, and not even a friendly one.
The Russian government is not doing this because they want to help the United States.
The agencies are all named. You are arguing semantics about independent investigations. All of them deemed to come to the same conclusion based on what they saw. If you want to call James Clapper a liar then just do so. Until that is proven, your number of "3" is just your spin on things.
The Treasury Department doesn't conduct international cyber-warfare investigation jjstraka34, nor the...energy department.
By leaking information on the Democratic party. But not the Republican party.
Even if we think the Democratic party deserved to be exposed (personally I think the actual information leaked amounted to precious little despite the hype), we have to wonder why Russia would only want to harm one party.
Actually the GOP had an attempted hack, this was news itself.
As I have said before, there is more evidence and a more direct connection between Clinton and middle eastern governments through her foundation than there is of any. single. connection. between Trump's campaign and Russia's exposing of democrats and liberal media to be in collusion to unethically and undemocratically aid their chosen oligarch.
Virtually zero hyperventilating about middle eastern interference. Is paying off politicians less cause for concern than exposing important facts?
This sort of selective outrage is quite common in the Trump era.
@vanatos: They attempted briefly to hack the GOP, but then quickly stopped. And they did not take, nor did they leak, any damaging information on the GOP.
People have speculated that Russia might have some information on the GOP or Trump they haven't released yet, but if they do, they've failed to leak it.
The agencies are all named. You are arguing semantics about independent investigations. All of them deemed to come to the same conclusion based on what they saw. If you want to call James Clapper a liar then just do so. Until that is proven, your number of "3" is just your spin on things.
The Treasury Department doesn't conduct international cyber-warfare investigation jjstraka34, nor the...energy department.
And I never said they did. As my post of the Politifact article makes clear. It says all 17 agencies came to the same conclusion based on the information and investigations that had been done. No one EVER claimed 17 agencies did seperate investigations.
The other 14, smaller agencies are largely irrelevant; this issue wasn't in their jurisdiction to begin with. They would not have been the ones to study it. The CIA, NSA, and FBI--the agencies who were responsible for investigating these kinds of threats--all came to the same conclusion.
@vanatos: And they did not take, nor did they leak, any damaging information on the GOP.
The GOP almost as a complete whole hated Trump, opposed Trump, many prominent conservatives vowed Never Trump, yet they got their man. No evidence of backdoor Cruz supporting or Fox News giving debate questions to Cruz.
Maybe, just maybe, there isn't equivalent corruption between the two parties.
And I never said they did. As my post of the Politifact article makes clear. It says all 17 agencies came to the same conclusion based on the information and investigations that had been done. No one EVER claimed 17 agencies did seperate investigations.
Lol thats not how it works. Under the Umbrella Agency is numerous sub-agencies, the head of the Agency (James Clapper) will support whatever a particular agency in the particular field may say, but thats not 'all 17 agencies came to the same conclusion' like you state.
I'll give you an example, the Treasury Agency might make a determination over some finance, Clapper might endorse that, That's not saying the Aviation Agency came to the same conclusion.
They attempted briefly to hack the GOP, but then quickly stopped. And they did not take, nor did they leak, any damaging information on the GOP.
People have speculated that Russia might have some information on the GOP or Trump they haven't released yet, but if they do, they've failed to leak it.
Correct that we don't know if they manage to obtain any information, So we can't really say if 'Russia' (which is not even proven) selectively chose not to leak one side compared to the other.
A piece of the proposed tax overhaul would nearly double the standard deductions that both individuals and families can claim on their returns, Fox News reported. Under the proposal, the tax cuts for individuals and married couples filing separately will increase from $6,300 to $12,600. The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly will jump from $12,700 to approximately $24,000.
@vanatos: And they did not take, nor did they leak, any damaging information on the GOP.
The GOP almost as a complete whole hated Trump, opposed Trump, many prominent conservatives vowed Never Trump, yet they got their man. No evidence of backdoor Cruz supporting or Fox News giving debate questions to Cruz.
Maybe, just maybe, there isn't equivalent corruption between the two parties.
I don't think there is, and though I vastly prefer the Democratic party for multiple, I don't know which one might be less corrupt. Theoretically, the GOP could have all kinds of dirty laundry that just never made it to light, but I can't just assume that evidence exists somewhere.
We have had this particular payback coming for a long time now. Over the years, in how many other nations have we influenced elections, provided we didn't engage in outright regime change via military action? If we didn't want someone else meddling in our affairs then perhaps we shouldn't have been meddling in the affairs of others. In other words, if self-determination was good enough for us when we were founded then self-determination is good enough for everyone else, even if they choose a course of action with which we may disagree.
At which point the question becomes: Is meddling in elections bad regardless of whether the U.S. or Russia does it, or is it okay regardless of whether the U.S. or Russia does it?
It is a Very Bad Thing (tm) for nation A to meddle in the elections being held in nation B. The United States shouldn't do it, Russia shouldn't do it, India shouldn't do it, China shouldn't do it, and so on. *No one* should be meddling in anyone else's business. That being said, it is clear that I hold a rather idealistic opinion on this topic. A lot of thing which "shouldn't" happen wind up happening on a daily basis; I need not elaborate with a list of examples.
There are two linked yet distinct questions here: 1) did Russia intervene in the 2016 election in an effort to change its outcome? and 2) did anyone in the RNC or the Trump Campaign work with Russia in order to influence the election? Based on the evidence available I would have to conclude that the answers are as follows: 1) yes, but more indirectly than directly, as often happens when nations meddle in each other's business and 2) I strongly doubt this--engaging in this sort of collusion is criminal activity of the highest order, possibly even treasonous, and no one is going to take on that sort of risk willingly, even if they think the deck is stacked in their favor because the negative consequences of being discovered or outed are too costly. The final question to ask on that topic is this: is anyone going to face prison time or be kicked out of office over this topic? I highly doubt it--there is not enough solid evidence to nail any specific person to the wall about this.
There's not enough solid evidence because both the House and Senate republican investigations are not doing their jobs. The house investigation was a joke with Devin Nunes sabotaging the thing then recusing himself and his replacement is also a Trump transition team member.
Unfortunately, the adults in the room, the Senate is not better. It's underfunded, understaffed, and basically has not done anything or even talked to anyone. There's 7 staffers without investigation experience slow poking things compared to 46 staffers and 8 interns for Bengahzi.
"Sanctuary City" is not even a term that exists legally. It is nothing more than cities and municipalities deciding what their law enforcement priorities are, which they are entitled to. Most local police forces do not have the funds to wage Trump's war on undocumented workers. If an undocumented immigrant is charged with a felony, they are required to have a hearing, and are then deported or sent to prison depending on the case. What cops in these cities are NOT doing is acting as Trump's stormtroopers and providing free holding cells for ICE. Local law enforcement in these places have no interest in "papers please" policing, nor the resources to check the immigration status of everyone who gets a traffic ticket. A "sanctuary city" is nothing more than setting local law enforcement priorities based on available resources and manpower, as every police department and City Hall does. They aren't required to act as Trump's deportation force and drain local resources and funds. Immigration is a federal issue, and Trump can do his own round ups. He does not get to dictate local law enforcement priorities.
The Washington Times, a notoriously right-wing paper, and FOX News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, agrees with me:
I didn't invent the term, clearly. The word "sanctuary" is also misleading--it isn't like local police departments are going to arrest someone for a felony, have sufficient evidence to hold them and charge them, but upon discovering they are not a citizen or legal immigrant suddenly say, "oh! we're very sorry--you are free to go". All it really means is that even though Sgt. Joe Friday is still going to obtain "just the facts" he isn't going to do ICE's job for it.
I am going to interrupt my holiday just to say.. I Don't believe in the Russian boogeyman. Even for arguments sake I assume the imaginary Russian hackers/mafia/trolls/whatever do actively sabotage elections, virtue signalling against then isn't exactly going to change anything lol.
Perhaps politicians should perhaps learn how to not be corrupt instead? Russians can't exactly leak anything if no skeletons are in the closet.
Everything Trump's tried to do has been for millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations at the expense of the environment, the poor and working class. He has also tried to throw a bone to his anti-immigrant base as well.
I think it's the other way around. Hillary was loved by the elite (especially Hollywood) while Trump gets blue collar support. This seems to be the norm worldwide now most alternative conservative leaders rally support from middle class working citizens while the left caters for the elite, social justice pushers and minorities and mass migration.
The part of the environment (or should I say eco-socialism) is true the left are still the champions of that...
In my opinion, he single handily turned the leadership race into a circus. It was hard to take any other candidate serious when they were competing against him. I am glad he out of the race, and voters can focus on issues instead of personalities.
Sanctuary cities are simply indefensible. Law enforcements job is to enforce laws, laws aren't subject to your opinion, if you want to hinder law enforcement's mission or not cooperate in any way I totally agree that you should get zero public dollars until you do so. And if you accept that deal you're only betraying the citizens you are supposed to represent in the first place even more than you already are by refusing to enforce laws in the first place. All to protect a group that are lawbreakers...from the law.
And then you have people like Jeff Rosen who plead down even violent offending immigrants just to spare them deportations. The full audio clip of the man's assault- on a women no less- can be heard for yourself in the link if you have the stomach for it.
American politics and American society are supposed to protect American citizens, not wife beaters just because of their immigration status, not illegal immigrants because some loony left wing city governor doesn't want to do his job and enforce the law. Someone remind the left.
Isn't it ironic that the party that labels itself as protectors of the poor and working class support open borders, possibly the most anti poor and working class measure there is? Bernie understands this but DNC money makes the rest of the Dems not.
Also, Ann Coulter, after being banned from Berkley after repeated mass chaos when right wingers gather, is officially canceling her event after repeated threats of violence caused the students organizers themselves to ask her not to come.
Liberal ideology will have you running to protect criminals and violent offenders while trying to beat down right wingers wherever and whenever they show themselves to silence them into submission.
Try as I might, I simply can not find college republicans burning down even one university because some left winger was going to speak and they didn't like it. Just from last year I can point out a repeated pattern.
Sanctuary cities are simply indefensible. Law enforcements job is to enforce laws, laws aren't subject to your opinion, if you want to hinder law enforcement's mission or not cooperate in any way I totally agree that you should get zero public dollars until you do so. And if you accept that deal you're only betraying the citizens you are supposed to represent in the first place even more than you already are by refusing to enforce laws in the first place. All to protect a group that are lawbreakers...from the law.
And then you have people like Jeff Rosen who plead down even violent offending immigrants just to spare them deportations. The full audio clip of the man's assault- on a women no less- can be heard for yourself in the link if you have the stomach for it.
American politics and American society are supposed to protect American citizens, not wife beaters just because of their immigration status, not illegal immigrants because some loony left wing city governor doesn't want to do his job and enforce the law. Someone remind the left.
Isn't it ironic that the party that labels itself as protectors of the poor and working class support open borders, possibly the most anti poor and working class measure there is? Bernie understands this but DNC money makes the rest of the Dems not.
Also, Ann Coulter, after being banned from Berkley after repeated mass chaos when right wingers gather, is officially canceling her event after repeated threats of violence caused the students organizers themselves to ask her not to come.
Liberal ideology will have you running to protect criminals and violent offenders while trying to beat down right wingers wherever and whenever they show themselves to silence them into submission.
Try as I might, I simply can not find college republicans burning down even one university because some left winger was going to speak and they didn't like it. Just from last year I can point out a repeated pattern.
Yeah, and they do enforce the laws. What they AREN'T doing is going out of their way to LOOK for undocumented workers. Because how do you propose they do that without harassing EVERYONE of Hispanic descent?? Do you have the ability to discern this?? Do you think law enforcement does?? Or do you just not care because it will never be an issue for you?? As I stated in my last post, people who are charged with felonies are brought to trial or deported. By the way, the guy who was the subject of the article WASN'T EVEN HERE ILLEGALLY. He was on a valid visa. A Silicon Valley CEO nonetheless, which I hear is the typical job of most illegal immigrants. It has no bearing at all on this discussion. But if you want to talk about the effects of this policy and domestic violence, have a look at this:
Reading the details, once again, reveals that all of this is a big nothing-burger and what ive read here don't even address the actual arguments put forth by either side in Government or State.
There are two issue's, At the core was that Jeff Sessions has demanded that States comply with Section 1373 which essentially says local law enforcement may not withhold illegal immigrant information from immigration officers.
hardly controversial.
This is the first issue.
The second issue, is that illegal immigrants detained because of crime are sometimes requested to be further held so ICE can easily arrive to detain and deport them.
The argument's 'against' these has nothing to do with work-load at all, and at no point was anyone suggesting local law enforcement act in the stead of ICE by anyone.
The argument 'against' both issue's is simply this, some cities have maintained as policy that local law enforcement may not work with ICE (whether information or pended holding) to give the appearance they are friends to the illegal immigrant community as they believe this is a better arrangement to work with them. on issues.
That is quite literally it.
Regardless of your position on this, please at least accurately echo the actual arguments given by both sides here, otherwise who are you arguing for?
For my part, I think its a stupid issue that should be easily solved but blown out of proportion. Illegal immigrant criminals Are a threat to the illegal immigrant community as well, Is there some thought that illegal immigrant rapists, for example, treat their own community nicely but arbitrarily go out and rape citizens? And we should 'look away' for fear the community will hate us? I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants who commit crime are committing it in the immigrant community primarily.
Comments
"Back in 2004, a division of the NSA called the National Tactical Integration Office fitted a 62-foot diameter airship called the Hover Hammer with an eavesdropping device, according to a classified document published Monday by The Intercept. The agency launched the three-engine airship at an airfield near Solomons Island, Maryland. And from there, the blimp was able to vacuum up “international shipping data emanating from the Long Island, New York area,” the document says. The spy equipment on the airship was called Digital Receiver Technology — a proprietary system manufactured by a Maryland-based company of the same name — which can intercept wireless communications, including cellphone calls."
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/24/nsa-blimp-spied-in-the-united-states/
https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/3675980-hover-hammer-the-steerable-airship/
I will give the NSA some points for imagination here.
It became evident your arguments were based on false information. If only the evidence wasn't so flimsy as i demonstrated, and the 'experts' didn't consist of the most distrustful agencies in America.
Of course it doesn't escape my notice that you don't really want to discuss the details, That's been a trend in this thread whenever a claim is shown to be flawed.
I have no problem discussing the details, i am a developer by trade and worked alongside cybsecurity.
The 'code' X-Agent, was maintained by Crowdstrike to be Russian exclusive malware, unfortunately ESET has obtained X-Agent outside Russian circles.
We also know via wiki-leaks that the CIA and NSA and anyone can fake geographic signatures.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/
The agencies are all named. You are arguing semantics about independent investigations. All of them deemed to come to the same conclusion based on what they saw. If you want to call James Clapper a liar then just do so. Until that is proven, your number of "3" is just your spin on things.
"Russia influenced the election, this is a fact."
"No they didn't and Hillary Clinton's third cousin knew a Russian!"
The secretary of state of Georgia is asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain what appears to be an attempted breach of the state’s voter registration database by someone in the federal government.
In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson dated Thursday, Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp said the state had discovered an unsuccessful attempt to breach the firewall of state computer systems. That attempt was linked to an IP address associated with DHS, he said.
“At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network,” wrote Mr. Kemp, a Republican. “Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network.”
The alleged attempted intrusion by the federal government on a state computer system responsible for election security was detected by a third-party security firm working for the state of Georgia. The attempt was unsuccessful, according to the state. The computers also house information about company incorporations.
-https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960
Hmmm, wonder why, Perhaps because this would implicate the Obama administration?
Pretty important allegation here.
I've opposed it in both cases. Should I instead support it in both cases? Because condemning America and then excusing Russia for the same behavior would be a double standard. By leaking information on the Democratic party. But not the Republican party.
Even if we think the Democratic party deserved to be exposed (personally I think the actual information leaked amounted to precious little despite the hype), we have to wonder why Russia would only want to harm one party.
If it was some independent hacking group (or even the GOP) doing this out of a sense of moral obligation, then it would be different. But it was a foreign government, and not even a friendly one.
The Russian government is not doing this because they want to help the United States.
Virtually zero hyperventilating about middle eastern interference. Is paying off politicians less cause for concern than exposing important facts?
This sort of selective outrage is quite common in the Trump era.
People have speculated that Russia might have some information on the GOP or Trump they haven't released yet, but if they do, they've failed to leak it.
Maybe, just maybe, there isn't equivalent corruption between the two parties.
Under the Umbrella Agency is numerous sub-agencies, the head of the Agency (James Clapper) will support whatever a particular agency in the particular field may say, but thats not 'all 17 agencies came to the same conclusion' like you state.
I'll give you an example, the Treasury Agency might make a determination over some finance, Clapper might endorse that, That's not saying the Aviation Agency came to the same conclusion.
Thats simply not how organizations work. Correct that we don't know if they manage to obtain any information, So we can't really say if 'Russia' (which is not even proven) selectively chose not to leak one side compared to the other.
White House sources also said the plan would eliminate the marriage penalty.
-http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/04/26/trumps-tax-plan-to-include-large-increase-in-personal-deductions.html
Lots of married couples will be happy over this.
There are two linked yet distinct questions here: 1) did Russia intervene in the 2016 election in an effort to change its outcome? and 2) did anyone in the RNC or the Trump Campaign work with Russia in order to influence the election? Based on the evidence available I would have to conclude that the answers are as follows: 1) yes, but more indirectly than directly, as often happens when nations meddle in each other's business and 2) I strongly doubt this--engaging in this sort of collusion is criminal activity of the highest order, possibly even treasonous, and no one is going to take on that sort of risk willingly, even if they think the deck is stacked in their favor because the negative consequences of being discovered or outed are too costly. The final question to ask on that topic is this: is anyone going to face prison time or be kicked out of office over this topic? I highly doubt it--there is not enough solid evidence to nail any specific person to the wall about this.
Unfortunately, the adults in the room, the Senate is not better. It's underfunded, understaffed, and basically has not done anything or even talked to anyone. There's 7 staffers without investigation experience slow poking things compared to 46 staffers and 8 interns for Bengahzi.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress-idUSKBN17R05E
It's like Rand Paul said Republicans don't want to investigate Republicans.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/kfile-rand-paul-republican-investigations/
The Washington Times, a notoriously right-wing paper, and FOX News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, agrees with me:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/7/are-sanctuary-cities-legal/
The poll shows that President Trump has broad public support in his effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.
A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/320487-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-sanctuary-cities
Venezuela death toll hits 29, protesters battle security forces
-http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKBN17S2SI
Hmm Venezuala is sitting on one of the biggest oil reserves, Seems like a matter of time before some country directly intervenes.
Perhaps politicians should perhaps learn how to not be corrupt instead? Russians can't exactly leak anything if no skeletons are in the closet. I think it's the other way around. Hillary was loved by the elite (especially Hollywood) while Trump gets blue collar support. This seems to be the norm worldwide now most alternative conservative leaders rally support from middle class working citizens while the left caters for the elite, social justice pushers and minorities and mass migration.
The part of the environment (or should I say eco-socialism) is true the left are still the champions of that...
The conservative candidate that has been dubbed Trump lite, just dropped out of the leadership race for the party.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/04/26/kevin-oleary-to-quit-tory-leadership-support-bernier.html
The media despised him and his candidacy as these two headlines attest.
Clown Down: The post O'Leary Conservatives
Bye, Kevin O'Leary! Good luck with your next wearable Bluetooth-umbrella venture
In my opinion, he single handily turned the leadership race into a circus. It was hard to take any other candidate serious when they were competing against him. I am glad he out of the race, and voters can focus on issues instead of personalities.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/
Can't say i expect anything good to happen for this guy in the future, Spy's don't suffer a good fate.
China Deploys Floating Nuclear Power Plant to South China Sea
http://thebulletin.org/floating-nuclear-power-plants-china-far-first9522
Hmmm, Have to say not sure if i trust China to run this well.
And then you have people like Jeff Rosen who plead down even violent offending immigrants just to spare them deportations. The full audio clip of the man's assault- on a women no less- can be heard for yourself in the link if you have the stomach for it.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/california-how-a-sanctuary-da-pleaded-down-a-wife-beater-to-spare-him-deportation/article/2620517
American politics and American society are supposed to protect American citizens, not wife beaters just because of their immigration status, not illegal immigrants because some loony left wing city governor doesn't want to do his job and enforce the law. Someone remind the left.
Isn't it ironic that the party that labels itself as protectors of the poor and working class support open borders, possibly the most anti poor and working class measure there is? Bernie understands this but DNC money makes the rest of the Dems not.
Also, Ann Coulter, after being banned from Berkley after repeated mass chaos when right wingers gather, is officially canceling her event after repeated threats of violence caused the students organizers themselves to ask her not to come.
Liberal ideology will have you running to protect criminals and violent offenders while trying to beat down right wingers wherever and whenever they show themselves to silence them into submission.
Try as I might, I simply can not find college republicans burning down even one university because some left winger was going to speak and they didn't like it. Just from last year I can point out a repeated pattern.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/ice-dhs-immigration-domestic-violence-protections
But I'm sure those people don't count, because they didn't cross the border legally. Who is important is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
There are two issue's, At the core was that Jeff Sessions has demanded that States comply with Section 1373 which essentially says local law enforcement may not withhold illegal immigrant information from immigration officers.
hardly controversial.
This is the first issue.
The second issue, is that illegal immigrants detained because of crime are sometimes requested to be further held so ICE can easily arrive to detain and deport them.
The argument's 'against' these has nothing to do with work-load at all, and at no point was anyone suggesting local law enforcement act in the stead of ICE by anyone.
The argument 'against' both issue's is simply this, some cities have maintained as policy that local law enforcement may not work with ICE (whether information or pended holding) to give the appearance they are friends to the illegal immigrant community as they believe this is a better arrangement to work with them. on issues.
That is quite literally it.
Regardless of your position on this, please at least accurately echo the actual arguments given by both sides here, otherwise who are you arguing for?
For my part, I think its a stupid issue that should be easily solved but blown out of proportion.
Illegal immigrant criminals Are a threat to the illegal immigrant community as well, Is there some thought that illegal immigrant rapists, for example, treat their own community nicely but arbitrarily go out and rape citizens? And we should 'look away' for fear the community will hate us? I'm pretty sure illegal immigrants who commit crime are committing it in the immigrant community primarily.
Do it yourself tough guy, it's your job. It's not the states responsibility to do your job for you using state resources
These Terrifying "Evil World Leader" Masks Are Going for Crazy Amounts of Money on Ebay