Tell me again how simply holding low level confidential emails on a server in your basement is so much worse than actively and directly handing highly classified secrets from foreign intelligence partners out to adversaries. (or handing binders full to your lover, Petreus-style. How come he didn't get locked up again?)

Its hilarious when you think about how much he has yelled at people for leaking information, and he just flat out betrayed a crucial ally by leaking information.

I blinked and missed McMaster's statement to the press.

Not leaking, so much as handing it out. (Say, did you mention how inviting foreign journalists into the Oval Office to install surveillance equipment is a STRICT no no? Trump is such a Russian agent, my god.)

Who leaked the story to the WaPo? There were only a handful of ppl there.

FAKE NEWS!

McMaster, apparently in an official statement, confirmed the story.

(that is, sources and methods weren't disclosed, but that wasn't the allegation. He DID NOT deny that highly sensitive intelligence was shared)

So he denied something that wasn't even at issue?

Trump's the guy that asked Mar-a-lago waiters to use cell phones to light up his table to read top secret documents. Security only applies to anyone else.

He probably didn't do it on purpose, he was just uncontrollably bragging about all the awesome presidential stuff he knows.

Where is the daily Trump thread? These conversations are starting to make me regret my conservatism ideals from earlier on this year lol. Well deal with it Im young and fickle so touch my pickle. Any who... Where is the thread for where this buffoon is put in a zoo and observed?
Idk my main reason to support Trump was "better a blabbering Buffoon than a slithering snake"(in so fucking good at alliterations).
Any who I just didn't feel safe when Clinton (probably) had a hidden agenda to attend to in office.
Anyways
FUck the Electorialal College (Votes get lost in the system (probably))
Gn

@DammmDaniel

1. Trump is not a real conservative, he's pro big-government and if very clearly not in favor of free markets.

2. the electoral college gives the state's a voice as well, hence us being a Republic and not a Democracy: that's why every state starts off with 2 electoral college votes.

i'm still fine with a SPLIT electoral college vote: Hillary wins with that too btw

The best solution to trump is the 2nd ammendment

it's national self defense lol

Breitbart blames this fiasco on deep state. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/deep-state-leaks-highly-classified-info-to-washington-post-to-smear-president-trump/

Just kinda wondering which Obama holdover attended the Lavrov-Trumpov-Kislyak meeting in the Oval Office. Maybe it was a Trump appointee who leaked?

Hauta: Yes, he denied a few things that weren't even at issue:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hr-mcmaster-trump-classified-information-denial-20170515-story.html

JamesYanik:
"the electoral college gives the state's a voice as well, hence us being a Republic and not a Democracy: that's why every state starts off with 2 electoral college votes."

The electoral college doesn't really give the states a voice, but assuming that it did, such a circumsance would have nothing to do with the difference between a republic and a democracy. Every state and DC start out with three electoral college votes, not two.

The will of the states trumped the will of the people in 2016 via the electoral college.

@JECE

Two for being a state, and one as a minimum bound for population

And also, saying the states "trumped the will of the people" ASSUMES that the will of the people are the ONLY factor. This is not true, we have both states and people represented, this is a method used to make smaller states more necessary for campaigning, and to prevent the mob rule of democracies.

Republics are used to separate chains of powers, via the states and federal government, whereas democracy directly elects a single leader. Anatchal democracies have no representatives.

Perhaps my terminology is off... but nonetheless, I still think states should split votes. It allows for a better representation of minority voices. Hillary should have won with the way I propose things: I'm not trying to justify Trump, I just have problems with direct, unitary democracies

I hope most people would interpret "will of the people" to mean the "popular vote" in this context.

I actually *like* the electoral college. I hate that we got Trump as a result, but I think that Hillary ran a terrible campaign and the Democrats put forth a terrible candidate.

It was their race to lose and they made every mistake in the book and had a few tough breaks. You can't win like that.

I think that choosing a president with a stupid institution designed to protect slavery is disgusting and mostly eliminates the legitimacy of the US. None of the Presidency, the Senate nor the House are controlled by the party with the most votes. The same horrible fascistic unrepresentative aspect of the electoral college that treats sheep in Wyoming as more important than humans in California is also true of the Senate and with Gerrymandering and voter suppression, Democrats have to win by five percent to break even in the house.

Today Donald Trump said "No politician in history... has been treated more unfairly" than he has.

HAHAHAHAHA oh my fucking god how delusional can you be?

There are dozens of politicians I could name who have been murdered or imprisoned for nothing more than daring to challenge unjust authority - and Donald Trump thinks he has it worse than them? Piss off, Donald.

Yo pisaré las calles nuevamente . . .

I really can't decide whether politicians like Trump and Mayhem believe what they say, which makes them delusional, or are just downright liars.

@"
2. the electoral college gives the state's a voice as well, hence us being a Republic and not a Democracy: that's why every state starts off with 2 electoral college votes."

Just a side note, you might call this a mixed democracy. Unless the states are not democratic on the local level. (You could for example have kings in elected in each state, and then have the electoral colleges choose who is to be king of kings.... like a really 'not a democracy' - but you don't, cause the US is a democracy... also a republic.)

@"Republics are used to separate chains of powers, via the states and federal government, whereas democracy directly elects a single leader. Anatchal democracies have no representatives."

See it is interesting that you can ignore the technical definition of a republic, and use the context in which that word is used, but you can't do the same for the democracy.

Direct Democracy, doesn't use a single directly elected leader, all members of the electorate get to vote on every issue. That means everyone who wants to turn up to vote on a given day can.

Republic just means a piece of paper limits the powers of the state, contrasted with an absolute monarchy where the word of the monarch is absolute.

That is all a republic means, it just happens that in the US there is a seperate State and Federal government. In the Republic of Ireland, there is one national government - and that is no surprise since we only have a population of ~4.6 million. But we have a constitution, a single document which makes us a republic.

The US is a sovereign nation, the federal government is sovereign, because the states are not allowed to leave or nullify federal laws (though state/local legislation on marijuana seems to demonstrate the limits of this sovereignty).

@"Today Donald Trump said "No politician in history... has been treated more unfairly" than he has."

I can't but help think of this Game of Thrones quote: https://pics.onsizzle.com/president-and-youre-not-any-man-who-must-say-i-17748614.png

(and i say 'aside' because it is all frakking semantics, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself a democracy or a republic one frakking bit.)

You guys do realize that this "classified information" is information on a terrorist group, right? We need to cooperate fully with Russia to fight terrorism. There would have been no outrage if Obama shared this information with, say, France, but somehow Russia isn't worthy of knowing crucial information to fight terrorism.

@leon, the problem is the information was known to have come from Mossad about a specific city in Syria. That means that Russia could tip off its local allies, Assad and Iran, to capture the agent. So if you're the kind of guy who got upset with Hillary about Benghazi (putting lives at risk), then this should upset you.

Worse yet is the damage that is does to our relationships with our allies who will now restrict information that they pass along to America with the understanding that it not be released to a 3rd party without permission.

Yeah, I always enjoy the red herring of "Obama did it" or "you wouldn't care if Hillary did it". Sometimes, a mistake is just a mistake and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I was actually emphasizing the France part, not the Obama part. Russia is not our foe, and if they take our our agent, it risks war against us. No ally has expressed any such concern. All I have heard is the media repeatedly telling our allies what they SHOULD think. I would say that makes them more guilty of any action our allies do take.

Part of the concern was US intelligence had limit disclosure of that specific information and hadn't given it to close US allies. This isn't the first time a Republican administration had released classified information that could endanger sources. It's going to make other countries reconsider sharing information.

Jamiet99uk, please do not underestimate the sensitivity of Turniphead TrumpGod's overinflated ego. Here's a Daffy Donald TrumpGod joke. Daffy Donald visits Australia and chokes on a bit of humble pie & dies. So sad. Anyway there's a problem finding a coffin big enough to fit the corpse that will still fit in the airfreight container. Until the morgue attendants realise all that is required to solve this problem is to simply puncture the corpse with a gimlet, & let out all the hot air, roll up the remainder, pop it in a cardboard shoebox and call the bicycle couriers to deliver it to the Airport.

Leon1122, Netherlands intelligence agencies have raised concerns. NL government has.

"No ally has expressed any such concern."

Not in public. Behind the scenes I bet the Israeli's are livid and other close allies will be expressing concern.

The Israeli prime minister is a great supporter of Trump and much prefers him to any Democrat.

So what? It is possible to want Trump as president and object to specific actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/all-the-kings-men/526980/

Interesting article. Thanks.

Diplomat61 is, I think correct. It's almost self evident. No US allies will publicly vent their concerns in specific detail. But you can bet that they will have their own internal discussions. How much filters back to the US we will not be told about. And there will be different ways those messages are delivered. But it would be most Pollyanna like to think that simply because criticism isn't out in the public arena then there is no criticism. And most Pollyanna like to think that this will have absolutely no effect on other Nation States and their security services willingness to share intelligence and their decision making processes about sharing intelligence with the US. As Trump is seen as increasingly unreliable, greater caution will be exercised by allies.

Maybe Trump's intelligence services will be more careful with what they share woth him in future...

Good lord, this man is such a cretin.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334089-trump-nixes-stop-at-israeli-fort-over-helicopter-report