1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 01, 2025, 02:40:45 AM »

It’s one thing to say that we’re deploying troops to an area.  It’s quite another to say that the planes are taking off right now and bombs should be dropping in 2 hours.   I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference.

Both an announcement that you are deploying troops to an area and that you are sending out planes to an unspecified target have some amount of hypothetical risk.

No, they don't.  The houthies know that they are targets.  If they get 2 hours notice that jets are coming their way, they they have time to prepare a welcome.

However, the Secretary isn't a random officer spilling secrets. They have access to classified intel and a team of advisors on the response capabilities of the enemy, and they are trusted to judge what to share and when. If they do say something like, "Planes are taking off now" in an unclassified medium, it's not an accident. It is because they've decided the benefit of disclosure to the audience outweighs the risk.

Tom, did you miss the part where they didn't realize that an unauthorized journalist was included in the chat?  They weren't declassifying information for public release.  They were discussing an ongoing military air strike against an enemy that has air defenses on personal devices that may or may not have been hacked by our adversaries.  Top government and military personnel have secure government issued devices for a reason.

Maybe this will explain the situation more clearly:

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 31, 2025, 01:40:42 PM »

It's only problematic to the desperate anti-trump leftists and liberal media hype meisters. The average people see through this.

i like to think that I'm not that far from "average people" as well as a military veteran and I find this level of incompetence at the very top of the military command to be very problematic.  And so should anyone who thinks that keeping sensitive information out of the hands of people not authorized to have it is a good idea.

Part of the job of the Secretary of Defense is to tell us sensitive information though. He is a communicator of sensitive information. How many times have we heard over the years things like "We are sending another x thousand troops to the frontline". Maybe you could not communicate things like this when you were in the military, but the Secretary of Defense can.

It’s one thing to say that we’re deploying troops to an area.  It’s quite another to say that the planes are taking off right now and bombs should be dropping in 2 hours.   I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference.

We are talking about the nuance of what he can and can't say publicly or on unclassified networks, which goes beyond the well known rules for a soldier. You guys are applying the wrong rules to the wrong person. The SecDef has extra responsibility and classification powers for his special role. Whether he is giving out sensitive information to the public, or to VIPs, he has additional freedom and responsibility of disclosure. The partial operational activities he provided were not necessarily "obviously classified" or improper to communicate to anyone.

Tom, rule number one of operational security is that you don’t talk about ongoing operations on an unsecure platform with people who are not authorized to have that information.  Rule number two of operational security is, when in doubt, see rule number one.  Trump and his staff can’t seem to grasp that concept either.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 31, 2025, 12:20:35 AM »

It's only problematic to the desperate anti-trump leftists and liberal media hype meisters. The average people see through this.

i like to think that I'm not that far from "average people" as well as a military veteran and I find this level of incompetence at the very top of the military command to be very problematic.  And so should anyone who thinks that keeping sensitive information out of the hands of people not authorized to have it is a good idea.

Trump's approval rating  has increased during the incident, suggesting that this has not moved the dial.

Approval ratings depend greatly on who you ask and polls are trivially easy to skew.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: March 30, 2025, 01:30:25 AM »

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 29, 2025, 06:45:37 PM »

Don't play ball?  That lifesaving food aid is now gone.

Sadly, much of that lifesaving food aid is confiscated by warlords and never makes it to the people who need it the most anyway.
https://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/armedconflict/anderson.htm

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 29, 2025, 03:13:01 PM »

Your "Espionage Act" angle is a stretch. The law targets willful or grossly negligent leaks of info that harms or intends to harm national security. Where's the harm here? You've got none.

Actual harm doesn't matter.  Through gross negligence, sensitive military information was disseminated to someone who was not authorized to receive it.  It's as simple as that.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 27, 2025, 12:19:55 PM »

Tom may be OK with that level of incompetence at that level, I don't think many other people are.

Actually , the people that matter are okay with it.

That’s even worse.  Incompetence should never be tolerated at such a high level. 

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 27, 2025, 03:06:00 AM »

There is nearly zero comparison between the USA and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Yeah, that's what the USA thought when they went into Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 25, 2025, 11:20:13 PM »

Your imagined rules for discretion mean nothing, and if they did apply, would apply to low and medium level soldiers, and not the people who make the rules and communicate military activities.

It isn't a question of discretion.  It's a question of national security.  Then again, when your boss is the kind of man who likes to keep top secret documents in a bathroom at his country club, I suppose national security is more of an offhand notion than an actual concern.  I can't help but to wonder what your reaction would be if this happened on Biden's watch.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 25, 2025, 04:49:23 PM »

Something to keep in mind about Signal; it isn’t officially approved by the government for secure communication

Neither is CNN, NBC, or FOX News, but we can find plenty of government and military leaders who have talked about about the commencement of operations, areas of focus, and about active wars in general.

We aren’t talking about operations in the past tense.  We’re talking about operations that are either in the planning stages or are about to happen.   Do you honestly think that it’s okay to give a target the heads up that they’re about to be attacked?

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 25, 2025, 01:45:06 PM »

Something to keep in mind about Signal; it isn’t officially approved by the government for secure communication and therefore can’t be downloaded on to government phones.  This means that high ranking military and government officials are using personal devices to discuss top secret information.   This alone should worry even the most diehard MAGA supporter.

12

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: March 20, 2025, 08:26:36 PM »

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 20, 2025, 02:05:20 PM »

Correct. Trump told them to march peacefully, and that is what the majority of them did. It is a minority of people who acted with violence.

Incorrect.  Trump told the crowd to “fight like hell” and he would be right there with them.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 20, 2025, 02:58:25 AM »

Freedom of the press isn’t about how many questions Trump answers.  It’s about which members of the press are allowed to ask which questions and what they get to say about the answers.Every President must answer every question from every news agency ALL THE TIME!!!

*sigh* Again, freedom of the press has nothing to do with how many questions Trump does or doesn't answer.  If you don't like my definition, try this one:

Freedom of the press is the protected right to freely publish communications and expressions of opinions through various forms of media . Freedom of the press limits the government’s control or censorship over the media, except in the most severe national security risk potential. The right is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Trump's constant attacks on the media are not conducive to a free press;
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/15/trump-media-attacks
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/business/media/trump-musk-attack-journalists.html

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 18, 2025, 07:59:41 PM »

It isn't trolling according to LD, when a president who has answered over 1500 questions from the press in 57 days, is somehow against freedom of the press.

And that is questions he has personally answered, not even counting the number of press briefings given by his administration!

LMMFAO!!!

MORE COMEDY GOLD!!!

You can't make this shit up!!!

Freedom of the press isn’t about how many questions Trump answers.  It’s about which members of the press are allowed to ask which questions and what they get to say about the answers.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2025, 09:35:38 PM »

LD thinks the mob had a working gallows on site!

MORE COMEDY GOLD!!!

LMMFAO!!!

Close enough for mob justice,

You can't make this shit up!!!

You keep saying that.  You must not have much of an imagination,

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2025, 05:04:19 PM »

Do the citizens have the constitutional right to threaten the life of the vice-president for doing his constitutionally mandated duty?

Yes, the specific way he was targeted was legitimate. The MAGA narrative is typically to find traitors guilty in a military tribunals and then hang them. Chants of "hang mike pence" are legitimate in the sense that they are calling for the military to hang him on charges of collusion and treason.

What makes you think that the mob had any intention of waiting for a military tribunal to convict Pence before hanging him?  Seems to me that they were ready for some good old fashioned vigilante justice.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 17, 2025, 01:15:53 AM »

The other thing you are forgetting (perhaps not, you probably just have no real clue) is that the US Capitol is a traditional public forum, and the citizens of the United States have a constitutional right to air their grievances in such a forum.

Do the citizens have the constitutional right to threaten the life of the vice-president for doing his constitutionally mandated duty?

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 15, 2025, 10:29:17 PM »

It looks like it really does pay to support Trump.

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: March 11, 2025, 11:16:56 PM »

Suspiciously, no one anywhere ever uses them!

Nonsense.  Over 2000 atomic and nuclear bombs have been used in test explosions over the years by at least 8 countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests#Tests_by_country