Buttery Males!
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
955 points (99.4% liked)
politics
22503 readers
3649 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh Im sorry, I thought you all quit.
Good ad for Signal at least?
Trump is probably all confused because he thought it was end to end encrypted and now he can't understand how the guy got the messages.
He pulled the ol CC/BCC mistake.
Pro: People learn about Signal Con: People learn about Signal in the context of a leak
Sure. Outraged over an inadvertent leak, but totally fine arming a country committing genocide, trying to strong-arm the victim of relentless aggression into giving up 1/5th of it's territory, letting disease spread freely in the nation, detaining people without charges, kidnapping people off the streets and deporting then to violent foreign prisoners without due process, weakening our defense industry, alienating every ally and partner we have on the planet, threatening to annex countries, starting trade wars, taking away women's healthcare, threatening the most vulnerable members of society, etc etc etc. All that other stuff is fine, but sure, let's raise holy hell over an inadvertent leak.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) condemned it with the words "Nerf THIS!"
This is surprisingly a middle ground. I've been seeing people on the right just as pissed off about this. They have a point too in that there can be two truths here.
He could have leaked information and needs to be held accountable.
The claim that the information leaked as stated can be exaggerated.
Just be careful out there that they don't rope you into looking like idiots by being over dramatic.
If (isConservative(fuckwad) === true) then "totally okay" else "not okay at all, impeach, repeal, reject";
"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) offered more of a defensive response, arguing that the administration "has acknowledged it was a mistake."" THEY LITERALLY DIDN'T. You have one of the guys from the chats saying 'look how insightful this chat is we demonstrated impeccable leadership and no one was hurt (because the journalist was legit and didn't offer the info to America's enemies'
~~"Non-secure systems" uh. No. Systems that aren't in the US control is what you mean.~~
As @[email protected] pointed out, Signal is insecure as in the access to the message wasn't controlled. It's like stripping naked in front of an open window with the lights on in your house. Yeah, technically, you are inside your home where it's private. But if you aren't pulling the shades everyone gonna see it
Isn't that important given the nature of what was being discussed?
Yes. Access control is not in scope of Signal, I updated my comment to correct my statement.
I would however enjoy being a fly on the wall when someone has to explain what application or system scope is to Trump.
given that signal is what the us authorities encouraged citizens to use for privacy i assume that they do in fact have back door access to whatever they want
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Guy sold have kept quiet and just relayed everything straight to Yemen.
Heh. Same happened in Sweden some time back, but on a less serious issue, where a journalist was invited to a emergency meeting for the Liberal party over Signal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Beyond stupid, can you imagine how hard Putin is laughing at the 34 count felon right now?
It's amusing watching Free Republic go hmm, errr, Atlantic = North Korea, err, fuck this is bad.
Lawmakers from bOtH pArTiEs
Reminder that Don Bacon barely won NE-2, a purple district that went for Harris, and shouldn't be used as an example when citing Congressional Republican outrage, because they're not actually outraged.