• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who controls the Deep State?

Sure, if you believe in the Illuminati rule the world. Or that it's the Famous Corporation, run by Ed McMahon, that secretly picks the President. (10 points to anyone who gets the reference)

No. Whens someone says "when you take him literally" that means there was no literal wire tapping but it means something else. You don't say "if you take such and such literally" then it's not true unless there is more to it. If there was nothing at all, then you'd just say something more like, "There's been no evidence that anything of the like was going on." You'd make a clear definitive statement.

Because it's still under investigation -- and the FBI and DoJ are not allowed to make official comment until the conclusion is finished.

I might add that dealing with the President shooting his mouth off, and accusing the President like this, doesn't speed up that process.

This response makes no sense. I'm talking about the leakers. Why are the people leaking only enough to give the appearance of a scandal but not provide the smoking gun? They've already committed serious crimes to leak in the first place so why not provide hard evidence? You answered a question I didn't ask.
 
I didn't say that makes it less severe of a crime. What it does is point out that screaming "LEAKS!" doesn't prove there is a conspiracy afoot.

And how often does it need to happen before it can be described as systemic?

I've already said several times on DP that it is very possible there isn't any collusion.

That doesn't change the fact that there was more than enough reason to be worried about the direction of this administration.

Sure, there are tons of things to worry about with this admin. That's entirely different than saying there was collusion between Trump and Russia to win the WH.
 
Not really. The whole concept of "deep state" is just silly and is meant to be a ruse to disguise Trump's failures. Those buying in need to wake up.

Trump's failures has nothing to do with the apparent systemic leaks that have been occurring.

Again, you refer to intelligence services as if they are one large monolithic entity, all working for the same cause. That's just not true.

You spliced up my comment to take it out of context. The CIA is an entity, singular. Yes, it's made up of a lot of people. No, that doesn't negate the fact that the CIA, as an entity, has a long history of doing extremely unethical and illegal activities.

I'm not discussing politics, I'm simply presenting the idea that leaking isn't inherently wrong or immoral (even if it's illegal). So far, nothing which has been leaked about the Trump Administration has put lives in danger, only provided embarrassment for the President. There's nothing to suggest the intelligence agencies are going to ignore a command from the President.

No, leaking isn't inherently immoral. That's not what I was pointing out, though. There are methods to use to pass on info for investigation that's more secure and better than telling it to a reporter. Especially considering, as you pointed out, no one's life is on the line. That aside, I note your downplaying of the undermining of the Trump administration. If it was your team in office you'd be screaming for blood. Hell, you think Comey telling Congress, Congress not the MSMs, that they found more Hillary emails on Weiner's computer was a big deal. This blatant double standard shows the partisan nature of your POV.

This is false. If the information being released is undermining the legitimacy of the President, then it is the President's (and his administration) actions which are undermining their legitimacy. Again, just like with Clinton's e-mails, the release of information can only be damaging if it is true.

False. Leaking things out of context and only providing enough information for innuendo, it's a problem.

These are self-inflicted wounds. It is those actions which have embarrassed the President.

Self-afflicted wounds is an interesting way to describe leaking of classified information.
 
I believe the 'deep state' is simply another term for the military-industrial complex. It would be a privately-affiliated faction, not necessarily anything to do with the u.s. government itself.

I think that is definitely an aspect of it.
 
No. Whens someone says "when you take him literally" that means there was no literal wire tapping but it means something else. You don't say "if you take such and such literally" then it's not true unless there is more to it. If there was nothing at all, then you'd just say something more like, "There's been no evidence that anything of the like was going on." You'd make a clear definitive statement.
Trump is the one who made a clear, definitive accusation -- that Obama personally ordered surveillance on Trump's campaign.

I might add, he's the ****ing President. His words have meaning. We are supposed to take him literally, because he is supposed to know what he talks about. He made an accusation, and as a result, Congress and the FBI and the White House have had to spend their time chasing his conspiracy theory nonsense.


This response makes no sense. I'm talking about the leakers. Why are the people leaking only enough to give the appearance of a scandal but not provide the smoking gun? They've already committed serious crimes to leak in the first place so why not provide hard evidence? You answered a question I didn't ask.
good grief

We don't know who the leakers are, so we don't know their motivations. Speculation is not evidence.

And again... there is no Deep State in the US. There are literally millions of people working at or for US intelligence agencies, and control of the agencies are distributed across thousands of career bureaucrats. The top dogs get replaced on a regular basis, especially when power changes hands legitimately, which doesn't happen when there is a real Deep State.

This is just nonsense, drummed up to delegitimize the perceived enemies of a handful of partisan conspiracy theory whackos.
 
Trump is the one who made a clear, definitive accusation -- that Obama personally ordered surveillance on Trump's campaign.

I might add, he's the ****ing President. His words have meaning. We are supposed to take him literally, because he is supposed to know what he talks about. He made an accusation, and as a result, Congress and the FBI and the White House have had to spend their time chasing his conspiracy theory nonsense.

Nice dodge.

good grief

We don't know who the leakers are, so we don't know their motivations. Speculation is not evidence.

Ah...so the leakers are competent enough to leak, without getting caught, but also wholly incompetent to provide, you know, actual evidence of wrongdoing. I'll note you cannot deal with this question, either.
 
Our Country wants to break up monopolies, yet the two most powerful & dangerous ones make the laws in our Country (Republican & Democrat Party)!

We need a movement to have more educated (preferably non-lawyers) run for political office as independents that care about their fellow citizens and not the political parties that weld way too much influence in our daily lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom