23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
23 points (89.7% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2030 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Who gives a fuck?
Schumer, Rounds, Gillibrand, Rubio, Moskowitz, Burchett, Gallagher, and the list of bipartisan elected officials goes on.
Sorry, I meant 'why should we give a fuck?' Every release about UFOs is 'we can explain a lot of sightings, but there are some we can't.' Big fucking deal.
Because our government should be open and transparent about things wherever possible. Governments should be able to keep some secrets for true National Security reasons, but others should be able to be seen by the public
They've been open and transparent. And they say the same things every single time.
UFO conspiracists demanding transparency remind me of crypto people demanding regulatory clarity: They've gotten it but they don't like the answers so they pretend they haven't.
Exactly. They want congress to tell them there are aliens when congress can't do that because they don't have the evidence of aliens.
If you have the time to watch the press conference, Moskowitz, a dem, had some insightful thoughts on why he thinks they aren't actually being transparent. But either way, as Rubio stated, either this is true or we have a lot of crazy people at the highest levels of government saying it is. Either way it's a question that begs for an answer. Schumer's amendment should help us all get to the bottom of it and stop the speculation.
The point is that many don't believe they have been open and transparent, including people in government and military. Why do you think they have, just because they say they have? If they have been open and honest, then they shouldn't mind these amendments being passed.
I'd suggest checking out the subcommittee hearing on this from July:
https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?si=FE16gX760e0w7Ydg