cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I also wonder if that reputation for corruption continued after the election that did not break Moscow’s way.Is it possible you answered your own question?
I also wonder if that reputation for corruption continued after the election that did not break Moscow’s way.Is it possible you answered your own question?
i think for the most part, it's the incredible volume of material they have to handle, and they're probably understaffed. they also expect government officials to follow the procedures they're all supposed to know. mistakes happen, people think they can take something home to continue work they're in the middle of and it won't be a big deal, papers get shuffled into piles and forgotten...none of that is acceptable, or even good excuses, but it's reality.From an outsider perspective, it doesn't look like the USA and it's institutions handle "classified" documents very well at all. It's a problem.
How do you think your government should fix it? It certainly isn't a voter issue. Is it a staffing issue? Documentation problem? Lack of resources? Corrupt activity within the ranks? I rub your back, you rub mine? How are the National Archives setup to protect against this from happening?
In the end, both the former potus and the present one was found to have documents in very questionable circumstances. Who's in charge of that stuff? I keep better track of my music gear and expenses than your country does for documents that affect entire populations of people.
Staffing issue comes to mind, thanks to the small-government legislators.From an outsider perspective, it doesn't look like the USA and it's institutions handle "classified" documents very well at all. It's a problem.
How do you think your government should fix it? It certainly isn't a voter issue. Is it a staffing issue? Documentation problem? Lack of resources? Corrupt activity within the ranks? I rub your back, you rub mine? How are the National Archives setup to protect against this from happening?
In the end, both the former potus and the present one was found to have documents in very questionable circumstances. Who's in charge of that stuff? I keep better track of my music gear and expenses than your country does for documents that affect entire populations of people.
So it was the national archives fault that both presidents had classified documents? I buy that.Staffing issue comes to mind, thanks to the small-government legislators.
The other factor is that we have two news superorganizations: regular and pro-fascist. It generates the spurious appearance of similar severity. Forerunners of this manufactured news split include Benghazi, her emails, his laptop, and a three-monkeys approach to Republican and Russian abuses.
I will openly and clearly say i do not want Trump in office again. Didn't vote for him I voted for Biden. But I do believe in fairness and playing bythe same set of rules no matter who is in office.you seem to want a good man to die, politically, so your bad men can take his place...that makes you a bad man too, as far as ethics are concerned...
Please define "regular" in this context.The other factor is that we have two news superorganizations: regular and pro-fascist.
It's too bad the average American isn't able to see through the red herring, move the goal posts, and distract tactics employed by news outfits. On both sides. And trust me, I understand what roles some of these propaganda sites play in American politics. That's another problem that needs to be addressed IMO. Unfortunately your setup is so convoluted, the country isn't able to solve basic issues. It's like a guitar student trying to play the major scale but they have full on distortion, chorus, reverb, and a ping pong delay going in stereo and they can't figure out why they can't keep a bsic time with the metronome. There's just too much shit in the way obscuring a possible positive result that can be arrived at in a very quick and efficient manner.Staffing issue comes to mind, thanks to the small-government legislators.
The other factor is that we have two news superorganizations: regular and pro-fascist. It generates the spurious appearance of similar severity. Forerunners of this manufactured news split include Benghazi, her emails, his laptop, and a three-monkeys approach to Republican and Russian abuses.
no. It was the fault of generations of legislators who trimmed operating budgets below stall. Archives, IRS, even INS are desperately understaffed because “small government” is a selling brand among populists, of whom we have quite a few, usually on the right side of the aisle.So it was the national archives fault that both presidents had classified documents? I buy that.
operating from a basis of fact.Please define "regular" in this context.
On both sides? Please provide links to non-right-wing alt-fact.It's too bad the average American isn't able to see through the red herring, move the goal posts, and distract tactics employed by news outfits. On both sides. And trust me, I understand what roles some of these propaganda sites play in American politics. That's another problem that needs to be addressed IMO. Unfortunately your setup is so convoluted, the country isn't able to solve basis issues. It's like a guitar student trying to play the major scale but they have full on distortion, chorus, reverb, and a ping pong delay going in stereo and they can't figure out why they can't keep a bsic time with the metronome. There's just too much shit in the way obscuring a possible positive result that can be arrived at in a very quick and efficient manner.
I guess you must be talking about fox news. They are fair and balanced right?operating from a basis of fact.
Fox plays an interesting game. Their local stuff is generally unexceptionable. Their national stuff otoh is built on a riveted-steel frame of propaganda. They use the local stuff to say “see? We’re a news organization.” Their opinionists are paid actors, not journalists.I guess you must be talking about fox news. They are fair and balanced right?
How would you describe MSNBC. I am just curious as to what you really think.Fox plays an interesting game. Their local stuff is generally unexceptionable. Their national stuff otoh is built on a riveted-steel frame of propaganda. They use the local stuff to say “see? We’re a news organization.” Their opinionists are paid actors, not journalists.
nope, not even closeI guess you must be talking about fox news. They are fair and balanced right?
Full disclosure, I do not watch cable news of any kind. They are all slanted to one side or the other in my opinion. I don't want someone giving me their take on issues. I just want the news and form my own opinion.nope, not even close
Haven’t watched enough of it to have a useful opinion. I read most of the news I consume, usually from AP or Reuters, when the latter decides to remember my subscription.How would you describe MSNBC. I am just curious as to what you really think.
Seems fair enough.Haven’t watched enough of it to have a useful opinion. I read most of the news I consume, usually from AP or Reuters, when the latter decides to remember my subscription.
They're not specifically the same, but IMO leaving certain things out of a story, or just ignoring a topic, can be considered alt-fact by some. I'm not playing this provide me with links game. It's the way I see things through my own experience. It isn't a black and white issue.On both sides? Please provide links to non-right-wing alt-fact.
A tool I use is Media Bias/Fact Check. They give a good quick read on a news-aligned site’s ideology and veracity.Seems fair enough.