COMMUNITY United States Politics Thread: Trump's Second Term

Not defending what happened, but the two are different. Obama did this to prevent leaks of classified information, like what happened with Manning and Snowden where classified info was stolen and leaked. Specific actions led to that reaction.

Hegeseth doesn’t want any negative press coming out. Unauthorized isn’t the same as classified in this case.

And he asked journalists to sign a pledge that essentially gives him editorial approval of every story they seek to publish.

There’s a reason every news outlet, including Fox and Newsmax, declined to accept that agreement.
Screenshot_20251016-082744.png
 
I thought I read that it wasn't just classified info and it was really just anything negative about the administration
See reporting on drone strikes or operation fast and furious. Most foia requests were denied withholding info to suppress negative coverage that wasn't security related
 
You'll stop at nothing to try and both sides shit.

All of that happened in response to multiple leaks of Classified information. Putting aside the right and wrong of it, it wasn't just about silencing the Press. They got much stricter on handling Classified information in general.

Hegseth, on the other hand, blatantly just wants to screen what comes out of the Pentagon because he doesn't like the reporting. Classified isn't even the issue with him. He's mad about the leaks that address him personally (e.g., him having a makeup room at the Pentagon and him falling apart in meetings). The only people that have actually leaked Classified info are him and the others on that Signal chat.

Maybe Obama's administration did some wrong things, but trying to claim that they set the precedent for what Hegseth is doing now is dumb. At no point did Obama require the Press to only put out what he deemed appropriate. Are you crazy?
Obama was more targeted on a case by case basis which had an overall effect. Trump administration just turned it into a blanket policy. So yeah I said what I said.
 
Even though it’s $@&k Orange man

I gotta say we did our taxes last night and our tax bill was THOUSANDS ( 5 figures) of dollars less than last year s tax bill

Idk if it’s got anything to do with what he been doing at the IRS but if so props to him

Before yall say anything yes I’d rather pay a massive tax bill then have him in office
 
See reporting on drone strikes or operation fast and furious. Most foia requests were denied withholding info to suppress negative coverage that wasn't security related
That's not what I was talking about. You said:
Didn't say it was the same thing I said Obama arguably set the precedent.

The spirit of what the Pentagon is doing is cloaked in "national security interest" to restrict journalists from soliciting classified (or as the policy states "unauthorized") materials.
But that wasn't accurate
 
That's SCI/CUI information. It's still stuff that's not supposed to just be floating around unchecked.

Again, this is not comparable to Hegseth trying to eliminate any reporting that he doesn't like. I'm sure you understand that though and are just running with your established schtick at this point.
"It discouraged leaks on topics like budgetary waste, procurement fraud, or policy errors by treating them as potential "threat indicators" if disclosed unauthorizedly.

1. Employees discussing unclassified audit findings on wasteful spending (e.g., $10 billion+ in Afghanistan reconstruction fraud per SIGAR reports) with outsiders could trigger reports. In practice, this chilled tips on non-security waste, like the 2014 revelation of $43 million gas station in Afghanistan (unclassified but embarrassing).

2. 2014 VA employees hesitated to leak unclassified data on manipulated wait lists (causing patient deaths due to policy failures). Initial tips came anonymously, but post-ITP, a 2015 VA OIG report noted reduced internal reporting due to fear of being labeled "insiders."

3. 2015 Gold King Mine spill (policy failure releasing toxins) saw initial internal tips stifled; a 2016 EPA OIG audit blamed overbroad monitoring for reducing whistleblower media contacts on waste (e.g., $1.2 billion Animas River cleanup overruns).

4. IRS Targeting Scandal (2013): Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under ITP scrutiny saw employees wary of leaking unclassified policy missteps (e.g., improper scrutiny of tea party groups, a failure in neutral administration)."
 
Obama was more targeted on a case by case basis which had an overall effect. Trump administration just turned it into a blanket policy. So yeah I said what I said.

And what you said was wrong. Obama wasn't targeting on a case by case basis. He was responding to a perceived threat to national security and overstepped in an effort to stamp out that threat. The Trump administration is just going to war with any media outlet that covers them in a way they don't like. Those aren't close to being the same thing and one is not a precursor for the other.

"It discouraged leaks on topics like budgetary waste, procurement fraud, or policy errors by treating them as potential "threat indicators" if disclosed unauthorizedly.

1. Employees discussing unclassified audit findings on wasteful spending (e.g., $10 billion+ in Afghanistan reconstruction fraud per SIGAR reports) with outsiders could trigger reports. In practice, this chilled tips on non-security waste, like the 2014 revelation of $43 million gas station in Afghanistan (unclassified but embarrassing).

2. 2014 VA employees hesitated to leak unclassified data on manipulated wait lists (causing patient deaths due to policy failures). Initial tips came anonymously, but post-ITP, a 2015 VA OIG report noted reduced internal reporting due to fear of being labeled "insiders."

3. 2015 Gold King Mine spill (policy failure releasing toxins) saw initial internal tips stifled; a 2016 EPA OIG audit blamed overbroad monitoring for reducing whistleblower media contacts on waste (e.g., $1.2 billion Animas River cleanup overruns).

4. IRS Targeting Scandal (2013): Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under ITP scrutiny saw employees wary of leaking unclassified policy missteps (e.g., improper scrutiny of tea party groups, a failure in neutral administration)."

And trying to hide all of that stuff is bad. Obama deserved and has received criticism for all of that. What he did is still completely different than the Trump administration launching government backed lawsuits on media networks because he didn't like how he was covered, using government officials to get comedians fired because he doesn't like their jokes, and having an entire department mandate that journalists need approval to publish stories about said department.

If you don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. It's like looking at a salmon and a whale shark and being like "Well, yeah, they're practically the same animal because they're both fish."
 
The problem with politics is ppl get so caught up in partisanship they never step back to ask how we got here. And if u do that, u will find that both sides have much more in common than your algorithm will point out.

The problem with "both sides" is it allows you to constantly fence sit instead of calling shit out for what it is and make comparisons to things you admit aren't equivalent. If you do can't do that then you're really not as much in the middle as you want to think you are.
 
And what you said was wrong. Obama wasn't targeting on a case by case basis. He was responding to a perceived threat to national security and overstepped in an effort to stamp out that threat. The Trump administration is just going to war with any media outlet that covers them in a way they don't like. Those aren't close to being the same thing and one is not a precursor for the other.



And trying to hide all of that stuff is bad. Obama deserved and has received criticism for all of that. What he did is still completely different than the Trump administration launching government backed lawsuits on media networks because he didn't like how he was covered, using government officials to get comedians fired because he doesn't like their jokes, and having an entire department mandate that journalists need approval to publish stories about said department.

If you don't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you. It's like looking at a salmon and a whale shark and being like "Well, yeah, they're practically the same animal because they're both fish."
First u said he was responding to a perceived threat to national security and in the same post quoting me where I listed examples where it had nothing to do with national security u hit me with "yea that's bad but he got criticized for it"

Contradiction
 
The problem with "both sides" is it allows you to constantly fence sit instead of calling shit out for what it is and make comparisons to things you admit aren't equivalent. If you do can't do that then you're really not as much in the middle as you want to think you are.
I can believe a lot of things Trump is doing is bad without posting about it on an Internet message board. I seen y'all wanting answers so I'm giving them to u.
 
Back
Top