*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

You gotta help me out here, what do these things have to do with each other? Yes, preppers might like to hoard these.

Ok. So remember that when you read media reports saying that people were found "having zip ties". Just because someone has zip ties, is not proof of anything nefarious. There was one widely circulated picture of a guy with cuffs. Not a good look. 6 out of 10 ZOMGs. My first thought when I saw that was "It's probably a cop who was embedded in the crowd". I think I've heard since that was not the case. But still, it's one guy.

Are you saying these 1-3 people went there carrying these, because they just wanted to be prepared for the collapse of civilization while they peacefully protest?

It's likely these people walk around all day every day prepared for the collapse of civilization.

I've seen a lot of memes and imagery about getting Trump out of the WH or inside bars, but can't say I recall many "kill Trump" ones.

Hollywood celebrities are notorious for this. When Trump was inaugurated, Madonna was allowed to pick up a microphone and tell a crowd "I have dreams of blowing up the white house!" Kathy Griffin posed with a bloody mannequin head. That's not a defense of what the capitol protesters were chanting. I'm just saying there is a strong historical precedent for assuming protest chants are hyperbole. I'm sure Mike Pence was never in any real danger. So...yawn.

Why shouldn't it matter?

Because you haven't said anything. Your citation is some vague source called "information". What information? From who? What does the information say? You claim the person was an "operative"? What does that mean? What is this russian person's official title? his occupation? his employer? Do we know this? What operation was the operative operating? You're tossing the phrase "russian operative" around like it means something. Why?

If Russian spies used this protest as a cover to infiltrate the US Capitol and steal secrets, and then one of those spies was caught red handed....somehow I think it would be a bigger story. Not to doubt "information", but I'm gonna wait and hear from another source.

I find it peculiar that I remember you deriding and condemning all occupy movements,

No. Not me. Talk about twisting words!!

A lot of that information is CLASSIFIED.

So? I sincerely would like an answer to that. So what if it's classified?

Remember Hillary's emails?

Yeah. Hillary got in hot water for leaving classified information in an unsecured place. That's a bad thing to do. And any Capitol workers or congresspeople who left classified information out in the open has also done a bad thing. that's my point. thank you.

I don't think your reaction to those was "PFFFFFTTTTT".

You can either not mention things like this, or you can take the time to find out what I actually think. Assuming I'm the kind of cookie-cutter conservative that they rant about on TYT is a mistake. It's really not helpful to the conversation

That's twice in one post where you completely invented an opinion and mapped it on to me just to argue.

[CoccoBill]

Because you haven't said anything. Your citation is some vague source called "information". What information? From who? What does the information say? You claim the person was an "operative"? What does that mean? What is this russian person's official title? his occupation? his employer? Do we know this? What operation was the operative operating? You're tossing the phrase "russian operative" around like it means something. Why?

If Russian spies used this protest as a cover to infiltrate the US Capitol and steal secrets, and then one of those spies was caught red handed....somehow I think it would be a bigger story. Not to doubt "information", but I'm gonna wait and hear from another source.

I don't have a clue, I wasn't there. All of that info about people there was just from what I've read. But don't you think that those are good questions to ask, meaning they should matter?

No. Not me. Talk about twisting words!!

Hm could have sworn you had opinions about occupy wallstreet, but can't find anything with a quick search. Ok, my bad.

So? I sincerely would like an answer to that. So what if it's classified?

Information is typically necessary to classify, if the disclosure of it can put national interests at risk. It can eg. reveal something about foreign policy, military operations or financials that in the wrong hands can cause damage. They don't classify just any information, it needs to have a legal or regulatory reason for doing so, so Ted Cruz's love letters to Trump or the senate lunch menu would not qualify.

Yeah. Hillary got in hot water for leaving classified information in an unsecured place. That's a bad thing to do. And any Capitol workers or congresspeople who left classified information out in the open has also done a bad thing. that's my point. thank you.

That's a quick turnaround from "I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy", but glad you agree. Ivanka did exactly the same didn't she.

I know that at least there were several unlocked workstations, where I can understand that locking it when an angry mob is running your way might not be everyone's first priority, but they should at least automatically lock after a couple minutes of inactivity. I guess it's possible they left just before the mob arrived.

You can either not mention things like this, or you can take the time to find out what I actually think. Assuming I'm the kind of cookie-cutter conservative that they rant about on TYT is a mistake. It's really not helpful to the conversation

That's twice in one post where you completely invented an opinion and mapped it on to me just to argue.

Well what was your reaction to Hillary's email scandal back in the day? "I don't believe there is very much in that server that is deserving of privacy"?

[Mr.Banana]

I don't have a clue, I wasn't there. All of that info about people there was just from what I've read.

Just some friendly advice, I think you should have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

They don't classify just any information,

I've worked for Department of Defense contractors. I've been trained in the procedures to protect classified information. This statement, and most of everything else you say about classified documents, is wrong. They classify a TON of shit. and by the way, they un-classify stuff all the time too.

it needs to have a legal or regulatory reason for doing so,

Not true at all. That standard is "I have the clearance to mark things classified, and I don't want anyone to see this". Anyone who can say that can magically "classify" anything he wants.

so Ted Cruz's love letters to Trump

Classified

or the senate lunch menu

Classified

That's a quick turnaround from "I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy",

No it's not.

Ivanka did exactly the same didn't she.

I don't know. Was there "information" about it?

Well what was your reaction to Hillary's email scandal back in the day?

Mostly indifferent. Technically she broke the rules. And if that could be used to take her down, that's fine. She's the most corrupt poltician I've ever seen in my lifetime, and that kind of stuff is fair game when you're running for national office. What I didn't like was how the FBI decided to be very flexible with their interpretation of the law in order to let her off the hook.

"I don't believe there is very much in that server that is deserving of privacy"?

Sure. close enough. I'll say that.

[CoccoBill]

Just some friendly advice, I think you should have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

You're right. Can you point out where I made such a claim.

I've worked for Department of Defense contractors. I've been trained in the procedures to protect classified information. This statement, and most of everything else you say about classified documents, is wrong. They classify a TON of shit. and by the way, they un-classify stuff all the time too.

"Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1)amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

"Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction."

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy...s/cnsi-eo.html

If you see classified data that does not fill that criteria, it shouldn't be classified.

I don't know. Was there "information" about it?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...urity-concerns

Mostly indifferent. Technically she broke the rules. And if that could be used to take her down, that's fine. She's the most corrupt poltician I've ever seen in my lifetime, and that kind of stuff is fair game when you're running for national office. What I didn't like was how the FBI decided to be very flexible with their interpretation of the law in order to let her off the hook.

How were they flexible?

[Mr.Banana]

Ok - I need a mod here. Bill's post is the epitome of bad faith....I'm being serious here. Tell me if I'm seeing things but it sure looks like Bill is just trying to start shit.

I mean, let's start with this....

There's information that there were Russian operatives

have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

You're right. Can you point out where I made such a claim.

Is it me? Or is this clown world stuff? Are we taking issue with the word "infiltrated"? or maybe "spies"? Are those really hairs we need to split? You say there were "Russian Operatives" there. Everyone knows what is implied by that statement. You mean spies (which means something less dramatic than what you see in movies). You mean russian government agents. You mean people loyal to the russian governement conducting an "operation" at its behest. Or what else could you have meant by "Russian operatives"?

Your question is asked in the worst of bad faith. You said "operatives were there". There's an implication there that is ostensibly the same as "spies infiltrated". And even if we agree that poetic license was used for a slight exaggeration...who cares! You made this claim about Russian operatives without ANY evidence, detail, or context. That's the problem. That was the POINT of what I said. You're dodging that by poking me with this bad faith charade.

"Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

What are you trying to prove here?

If you see classified data that does not fill that criteria, it shouldn't be classified.

Yet it happens all the time! Showing me the rules doesn't change that. The government does lots of shit it shouldn't do. Sheesh.

How were they flexible?

It's KNOWN that Hillary mishandled classified information. That's not in dispute. She was never charged with it though. That's also a fact not in dispute. How can those two facts be true without flexibility somewhere in the system. Clearly it's not a black & white issue because it was a major political scandal for years! It's also been over for years. Are you really asking to relive it now?

I don't want unnecessary conflict here but I'm not gonna let people poke me like this without speaking up. Bill's questions can't be real. It's bad faith trolling if I've ever seen it.

[CoccoBill]

Ok - I need a mod here. Bill's post is the epitome of bad faith....I'm being serious here. Tell me if I'm seeing things but it sure looks like Bill is just trying to start shit.

I mean, let's start with this....

Is it me? Or is this clown world stuff? Are we taking issue with the word "infiltrated"? or maybe "spies"? Are those really hairs we need to split? You say there were "Russian Operatives" there. Everyone knows what is implied by that statement. You mean spies (which means something less dramatic than what you see in movies). You mean russian government agents. You mean people loyal to the russian governement conducting an "operation" at its behest. Or what else could you have meant by "Russian operatives"?

Your question is asked in the worst of bad faith. You said "operatives were there". There's an implication there that is ostensibly the same as "spies infiltrated". And even if we agree that poetic license was used for a slight exaggeration...who cares! You made this claim about Russian operatives without ANY evidence, detail, or context. That's the problem. That was the POINT of what I said. You're dodging that by poking me with this bad faith charade.

I'm assuming these are serious questions, so here goes.

- I said there's information, aka I've read about it, which I later elaborated on
- You said that I claim there were

I made no claim, I said what I had read. Do you see the difference? Like what exactly are you accusing me of, what do you think I'm doing?

I don't know if there were Russians involved, and if there were I don't know who they were or what they were doing. All of that's irrelevant, when the point was just to demonstrate there were all kinds of people. They weren't all insurrectionists, but they weren't all just protesters either. What are you trying to achieve by getting hung up on this detail? Was this the only weak point you could find and try to attack?

What are you trying to prove here?

Nothing, why do you assume I'm trying to prove something? You seemed to have no idea how data gets classified, so I provided you with the information.

Yet it happens all the time! Showing me the rules doesn't change that. The government does lots of shit it shouldn't do. Sheesh.

Since you seem to be under the impression that people classify stuff on a whim, it seemed appropriate to explain why that's not the case. Does some data sometimes get "overclassified" just in case? Absolutely. Does data sometimes get erroneously classified without proper legal or regulatory cause? I'm sure it does. Is all classified data just bs that's classified for shits and giggles? I'm sure you know the answer, so why even try to make that inane argument?

It's KNOWN that Hillary mishandled classified information. That's not in dispute. She was never charged with it though. That's also a fact not in dispute. How can those two facts be true without flexibility somewhere in the system.

How do you know that what she did warranted a charge? Why wasn't Ivanka charged for essentially the exact same thing?

Clearly it's not a black & white issue because it was a major political scandal for years! It's also been over for years. Are you really asking to relive it now?

Yes, I found it quite amusing how the right made it a headline issue for years. I'm sure it was all out of pure patriotic concern, nothing political about it.

I don't want unnecessary conflict here but I'm not gonna let people poke me like this without speaking up. Bill's questions can't be real. It's bad faith trolling if I've ever seen it.

If your new tactic is to just endlessly try to find some blame on others, with may I say pretty flimsy arguments, maybe we should just end it right here.

[Mr.Banana]

I made no claim, I said what I had read. Do you see the difference?

No actually. What you said was abundantly clear. The only reason you brought up what you read was to suggest that Russian government agents were present at the Capitol demonstrations and the implication is that their purposes were not beneficial to the united states. You weren't suggesting that the Russian secretary of cheese just happened to be strolling by, were you?

Whether you made a claim or just implied one is really not a meaningful distinction in the context of this conversation.

Like what exactly are you accusing me of, what do you think I'm doing?

I think you know exactly what you implied/suggested/claimed/said when you brought up "russian operatives". And I think you're purposefully trying to nitpick any response for the slightest incongruent syllable so you can fuel a ridiculous argument about nothing. I just don't understand 'why' you're doing it.

I don't know if there were Russians involved, and if there were I don't know who they were or what they were doing. All of that's irrelevant,

HUH???

when the point was just to demonstrate there were all kinds of people.

Ooooh, you just brought up Russians to illustrate ethnic diversity? I get it now.

You seemed to have no idea how data gets classified

Except I worked for three years at a job where I handled classified data every single day. I know what kind of shit gets classified. I know how it gets classified. I already told you this. But you thought your five second google search result would change my mind huh?

Since you seem to be under the impression that people classify stuff on a whim,

They do

How do you know that what she did warranted a charge?

This has to be a troll!

Why wasn't Ivanka charged for essentially the exact same thing?

Cuz flexibility!!!