Found an early portrait of him:
JK Aloha. You're not THAT old.
Top secret documents
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
JK Aloha. You're not THAT old.
You are exactly right regarding assessment and determination of compromise and to whom. That's standard procedure and, long ago and far away, I've done those - or been on the team that did them. But mishandling is a sure thing in the case of Biden. Though it may well be the case with Trump, there is a real possibility of Trump having declassified those be had . Yes, there is a declassification procedure, but the President, while in office, has the absolute power to ignore the procedure and merely declassification by saying so. Trump says he did so and no one has said he didn't. He doesn't have to sign anything, just say so.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
You were doing well until you bought into Trump being able to declassify without any notification that it was indeed declassified. You want to pretend that no one refuting Trump's stance is somehow proof but the only thing people can vouch for is whether or not Trump said it in front of them. Plus, just saying it doesn't declassify anything. There is an actual procedure to follow (which wasn't done).
Trump baselessly claimed he could have declassified documents just by thinking about declassifying them
"If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying: 'It's declassified,'" Trump claimed without substantiation.
Has a single person come forward backing up Trump's story? If Trump ever said "I declassify this" then one would think someone would have come forward and corroborated that. Has that happened? His lawyers wouldn't even attest to it in court, which is a major red flag and more telling than basing it off no one disputing Trump's lie. If Trump declassifying it was true, then his lawyers would have been singing that to the rafters in court.
There is no difference between Trump's mishandling of classified info and Biden's mishandling of classified info. Attempts to pretend Trump secretly declassified stuff without so much as a peep about it to anyone else is about as crazy as thinking Jewish space lasers started fires in California.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
SIAP:
Fact check explores presidential authority to declassify
More than two months after FBI agents seized boxes of materials at former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence, known as Mar-a-Lago, the federal investigation continues amid conflicting legal interpretations of a president’s authority
The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.
Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.
In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.
Is there not a process to check classified documents out and back in sorta like checking out a book at the library?
I agree with sone of that, but I think the chances Trump declassified the documents he had are something very close to zero. If he did declare them declassified while President there would be a record of it. Also, they’d still have to notify holders of the information and originators. Someone would’ve said it happened other than Trump. His lawyers don’t even say it happened. It would also be extremely irresponsible. I’d bet quite a bit of money he never did it at all.
I do not disagree with your view, however, the American Bar Association has done a "Legal Fact Check" on Trumps statement that he declassified and the ABA notes that the authority of the President to declassify has not been challenged anywhere. Having noted that, I am frustrated every time this subject comes up here as the information posted by nearly all posters indicated major shortcomings regarding nearly every facet of the US's classification systems and its operating procedures,, systems and requirements. My security clearance was Top Secret/ ESI/SIOP - meaning that, If my duties required, I had access to all three classifications and several special handling instructions like ESI/SIOP II - Extra Sensitive Information/Strategic Integrated Operational Plan Category II. That meant access to any part of the national War Plan but never all of it at one time. Though the name of that access has been changed, I have never been debriefed from those limitations, though my duties have not required access for over 50 years when I was discharged.
All conjecture, but Biden appears intent on running again. There is the appearance that the shield we conservatives feel that Democrats tend to get from quite a bit of the "mainstream" (CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc.) media has been removed from Biden. Reason being that they realize he isn't a good candidate in 2024 so protecting him isn't in the best interests of their party.
Conjecture? Conspiracy? Absolutely. However, I think the idea that the coverage has turned and some rats may be jumping ship does have some merit.
So, I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are saying when the MSM doesn't report on the bad things Dems do, it's for the good of the party, but when they do report on the bad things Dems do, it's for the good of the party.
I am saying I think they have a bias and that the they filter their coverage of that news through their bias.
2020 there are few questions about "hiding in the basement Joe" that they don't brush away. 2022 and they are more willing to let those questions seep through. Why? Because I think many of them don't want him to run again. So they have to muck him up a little bit.
I think your personal political bias is showing.
I think the news organizations you mentioned in your post above are straight up reporting facts - not biased conclusions - as they discover them. You want facts reported in a way that can slanted in your preferred candidate's favor. If you don't get those, then the "media" must be biased.
Your "hiding in the basement Joe" example above is evidence of this bias. If someone doesn't taint the campaign with your bias of Biden's "hiding in the basement", then your conclusion is that the media must be biased. It's not.
Where is your evidence that Biden was "hiding in the basement"? Biden could avoid campaigning and win against Trump; Trump was that bad of a candidate. Why should Biden campaign when the election was in his favor? Why do the "media" owe Republicans any advantage?
Shorter Crazy: if you're not with me, you're agin me.
Balderdash.
And I believe your bias is creeping in on how he was covered. We aren't going to agree because this topic has been covered on this board in years past and we just go in circles.
Bing asked a question and I gave him the likely viewpoint of where the poster was coming from.
Negative. MSM is absolutely biased - left. Goes back to the makeup of journalism schools/editorial departments etc. Not only in how something is covered, but what's chosen to be covered. IU did a survey on it, among countless other groups. The profession attracts those who lean left. Industry specific like so many others
Last edited:
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Why? because Biden not holding rallies isn't much of a story for normal people.
That's against the rules ...you can't admit that a conservative news site i biased. 🤣 🤣
I was just razzing you but I remember looking a while back at bias ratings and FOX was way to the right but surprisingly most of FOX local stations were rated in the middle.... just click on the different options in the page that is linked and you'll see what I am talking about.
You searched for fox - Media Bias/Fact Check
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Last edited:
For sure. I like our local foxI was just razzing but I remember looking a while back at bias ratings and FOX was way to the right but suprisingly most of FOX local stations were rated in the middle.... just click on the different options in the page that linked and you'll see what I am talking about.
You searched for fox - Media Bias/Fact Check
That's what we watch in the morning. The morning anchor (Scott Jones) is a major dork, but pretty funny, and has pretty good banter with the weather guy. The co-anchor is a younger woman who has dealt with colon cancer, so you kind of get invested in that.
They’re always kind of dorky. Many of our local guys have gone on to big national gigs. They say because Stl people don’t have an accent. I hardly watch other than for the weather when it’s going to be bad
What's funny is that they don't have a sports guy (I'm wondering if that isn't a cost-cutting move across all local networks), and they try to cover sports stories by committee.
Listening to them describe the action in yesterday's IU game, PU game, and the football games was equal parts cringeworthy and hilarious.
Your post is all about grandstanding for the peanut gallery, isn't it? Nudge - nudge, wink-wink . . . the old "media" saw works every time . . . .
I noticed that you alleged, but didn't prove, that "IU did a survey on it, among countless other groups." Show your work . . . I want to see how recent the studies are . . . .
I think anyone who watches the news can see the bent of the lion's share of media, trickling all the way down to 60 minutes type shows. Anderson Cooper doing a story on the dangers of facial recognition tech versus a feel good cop story, by way of generic example. But again the bias is pervasive. What's more i trust the temporal element has only strengthened my belief that the media is overwhelmingly left biased. Journalism is a field that attracts liberals. That this impacts what they disseminate isn't surprising. I remember reading a story about a former NYT editor noting the makeup of their news office and how same was overwhelmingly liberal with only one noted conservative. I don't have time to find the article. Maybe later today. IU is reflected in the Atlantic article
Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum
A Pew Research Center study based on a representative online survey finds striking differences in news habits along the ideological spectrum.
www.pewresearch.org
Why Readers See The Times as Liberal (Published 2016)
Fairly or unfairly, many complain that they see bias when they look at paper.
Report: Journalists Are Miserable, Liberal, Over-Educated, Under-Paid, Middle-Aged Men
Mostly
You gave him the "likely viewpoint of where the poster was coming from". Why didn't you let that poster speak for himself?
And you think my bias is creeping in on how he was covered? What bias is that? Is it bias in favor of Biden? Or bias regarding the media coverage?
I'm not biased in favor of Biden. On this very board, I preferred him to Trump because Trump . . . and said that the country wanted a one-term, caretaker president out of Biden. That he's too old to be president. I think your criticism of me is just your "if you ain't with me, you're agin me" attitude talking.
You don't think the "media" have adjusted to the criticisms made against them? You don't believe that market competition applies in news? I think it's time to retire the old saw about the "media" being biased against the Publican party. It's balderdash today . . . .
Your "work" - the articles you linked - are 9, 7 and 9 years old, respectively. You got anything more recent than that? There've been a lot of changes in the media over the last 5 years, much less the last 9 and 7 years. You don't think the "media" have adjusted to the criticisms made against them? You don't believe that market competition applies in news?I think anyone who watches the news can see the bent of the lion's share of media, trickling all the way down to 60 minutes type shows. Anderson Cooper doing a story on the dangers of facial recognition tech versus a feel good cop story, by way of generic example. But again the bias is pervasive. What's more i trust the temporal element has only strengthened my belief that the media is overwhelmingly left biased. Journalism is a field that attracts liberals. That this impacts what they disseminate isn't surprising. I remember reading a story about a former NYT editor noting the makeup of their news office and how same was overwhelmingly liberal with only one noted conservative. I don't have time to find the article. Maybe later today. IU is reflected in the Atlantic article
Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum
A Pew Research Center study based on a representative online survey finds striking differences in news habits along the ideological spectrum.
Why Readers See The Times as Liberal (Published 2016)
Fairly or unfairly, many complain that they see bias when they look at paper.www.nytimes.com
Report: Journalists Are Miserable, Liberal, Over-Educated, Under-Paid, Middle-Aged Men
Mostlywww.theatlantic.com
BTW, your first link was about media audiences, not the media themselves. Be sure to show all of your work . . . .
Delete the first article and read the other two that support the same assertion. you have more than enough "work" here chief. Or read the thousands of other articles noting same. Hell even the wash post notes same. and no i think it's only gotten worse over the last five years, not better. remember that includes the trump years. and 7 years isn't old in an industry. do you think there's been that much turnover. that journalists have suddenly become conservatives? during the trump years. what's more do you have a tv? do you read articles? think for yourself. it's right before your eyes. and as for that first article it's no coincidence that the audience leans left, nor that it would inure to benefit of the times to cater to same.
you can look for yourself. there are countless articles indicating that the majority of journalists lean left. a better argument would be to claim that this doesn't relate to bias and that they can still be objective. i don't believe that's the case but it would be more "believable."
Last edited:
No, classified material is kept in secured facilities. For members of Congress to view them the member must go to the secured facility, may not take staff, may not take notes nor copy anything and may not remove the material. They are supervised by security officials while there. Only members whose position - committee assignment and the like - requires them to receive the material may see it.
Actually, she comes on later. The one with Scott Jones is Lindy Thackston.
(On a side note, I think Ganote was a lead reporter on the story about the fertility doctor in Zionsville.)
I generally don't watch morning news. I prefer for my day to begin sucking once I get to work.
I think that you have the benefit of a public space that is much more geared with making your political viewpoints comfortable. There are obviously glaring examples of certain stations (Fox News) that cater more to my worldview that is higher rated, but that is because it was the only station that jumped in to cater to that space.
I am saying that on programs like "Face the Nation" that "balance" was generally achieved by having 2 liberals, a moderate, and then a Republican, being questioned by a liberal moderator. The manner in which the questions are set up is and was more consistently in line with how a liberal views the world. In times when people are not talking over each other, the "conservative" position would still be only be getting 1.5 minutes to every 2.5 the liberals have to make their points.
It is what it is and the right needs to make a more concerted effort to get people involved in the arts and journalism because they completely surrender the playing field on every topic. Every conversation has to be had on a paradigm that makes liberals comfortable. When you disagree with a message, you become much more cognizant of its omnipresence than someone who just believes the message is the way things should be.
Biden's treatment has been kid glove in comparison to a similarly acting Republican President. He acts dumber than Bush. He is as corrupt as Trump. He speaks with more bravado in dangerous times than Reagan. He is more forgetful than Reagan. If he was. Republican he would have been metaphorically tarred and feathered for having those documents that went back to his days in the Senate. His inability to remember things correctly would have talk of Article 25. The fact he sounds like a moron would have nicknames like "shrub" applied to him. Not by partisans like me, but by the commentariat that pushes popular opinion everywhere. How do I know? Because I have multiple examples in my lifetime. "You are whining Crazy..." No, I am just indicating reality. The left has a larger megaphone in this country and that megaphone and opinion making machine is rarely deployed against another member of that tribe until and unless they are viewed as a liability.
Joe is a liability. None of you guys wanted to vote for him (supposedly) but there was Trump. Well now people have gotten enough of a taste of Biden that maybe even Trump might have a punchers chance and if the Democrats put Biden up against any of the other more palatable GOP candidates in 2024, he is going to get steamrolled. He won't be able to hide from interviewers as President in 2024. Putting him on stage with a mid-40's Ron DeSantis type is a juxtaposition that would be awful for him. You don't see incumbents get primaries often, so the only way to get rid of Grandpa is to convince him to retire. They have a few months to do that now before campaign season starts and they have to get back behind him to advance the progressive cause. And they will absolutely do that if the spotlight they are shining on Joe's foibles doesn't get him to step aside.
All of the media does this. All of it. The difference is that the conservative portion of that media is siloed to a much smaller area. And outside of factual media, anything that isn't internet (which is geared to put everyone in their own bubble) and political talk radio is almost wholly monopolized by 1 POV.
That is as far down this road I am willing to travel because, as I said, we have done this dance many times on this board and your responses so far are showing that it is going to be the same old waltz.
Thank you. Your post is more precise than mine. However, very few folks understand this field at all. It is very serious. The vast majority of classified material at all classification levels and handling procedures are military messages regarding military matters and are handled through military channels
Spot on save the right getting more involved in arts and journalism. that won't happen. it's just the way people are wired. journalism will always be a left dominated profession. no different than you won't ever get conservatives pursuing MSWs. Just not the way they think
So you're going to cut and run?
I don't think that I'm doing the same old waltz. I'm challenging your notion that today's media is biased in favor of Democrats. Dan Rather hasn't been a news anchor since 2006. You haven't addressed this . . . instead you've relied on the old saw that the "media" is biased in favor of Democrats and against Publicans. I don't think that's true. I think Publicans want media biased in their favor . . . and when the "media" don't oblige and ask uncomfortable questions they get pissed. On Face The Nation on Sunday Margaret Brennan was asking a GOP representative - Mike Turner - from Ohio about the classified material found at Biden locations. Turner wanted to conflate the Biden and Trump classified documents matters, and Brennan clarified the differences between the two . . . is that "biased" in favor of Biden? I don't think so . . . I think it's fact-based, not preferring either one.
Watch Face The Nation Season 2023 Episode 4: 1/22: Face The Nation - Full show on CBS
This week on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," 10 people are dead following a mass shooting near Los Angeles after a Lunar New Year celebration. Here in Washington, we've learned of even more classified material uncovered at President Biden's home in Wilmington, Delaware, following a...
Let the chips fall. I'm OK with that.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Regarding media bias, here's a useful service:
www.allsides.com
Media Bias
Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides makes media bias transparent, helping you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.
www.allsides.com
Yep.Regarding media bias, here's a useful service:
Media Bias
Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides makes media bias transparent, helping you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.
Yep, because libs are much more focused on pointing out societal injustice, while cons are all about themselves.
(Shitshow in 3...2...1...)
