earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

In a statement posted to Medium on Saturday morning, the general counsel for Hillary for America announced the campaign would get behind recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan should Green Party candidate Jill Stein make good on her promise to look into voting totals in those states

According to attorney Marc Erik Elias, the campaign has been reviewing their options since the loss to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, including allegations of tampering.

“It should go without saying that we take these concerns extremely seriously. We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton, and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted,” he wrote. “Since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.”

Outlining the steps they taken, Elias wrote that, while they have not uncovered “actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology,” the success of Green Party candidate Jill Stein to successfully launch a recount in Wisconsin has made them reconsider joining in.

“Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well,” Elias wrote. “We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”

Elias added: “We believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/clinton-to-follow-steins-lead-and-back-recounts-in-michigan-and-pennsylvania-campaign-attorney/

i don't expect anything to come out of this but the election was influenced by outside sources so might as well make 100% sure the results were legit.

This "recount" seems very one sided. How about a recount in New Hampshire that Hillary won by 2,732 votes?
Why ask for recounts that probably can't be completed in time? Do you know that the Electors can't vote if they aren't completed in time?
(MI took 2 weeks to count the votes, they probably can't make the Dec 13th deadline.)

Did you read Jill Stein's fine print about extra money going back to the green party?
In Hillary's words, she is a direct threat to our Democracy, lol:

They're doing one state at a time, obviously starting with ones which could tip the electoral college in a meaningful direction. You wouldn't start with a state that would only give Trump a larger EC lead!?!? And you did seem to want Hillary to ask for a recount, right?
I assume/hope if anything meaningful comes out of the Wisconsin recount, they'll do every close state. Since the recount was announced, 3 WI counties have already fessed up to giving Trump thousands of extra votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028306275
There are millions of people concerned about our election's legitimacy and I think this recount is important. Hopefully it will either reveal that there was fraud or will give Americans more faith in our system again (faith that will be needed if/when Trump becomes President)

If it is to be fair, then why start with States that help Hillary? Why not go for closer votes as I said. Should go both ways.
When I spoke of Hillary asking for a recount, I was saying EVERYWHERE, not 3 States that help her. Shocker?

The problem is the deadline. IF they get their recounts done by then, or there abouts, that gives the crooks more time to try to fix things. I doubt they can, but nothing can begin with recounts to help Trump as the deadline will have passed. This seems more calculated than about fairness.

And Jill Stein said Hillary as president would mean WWIII with Russia and now she wants to check for fairness? Something wrong with that picture.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

In a statement posted to Medium on Saturday morning, the general counsel for Hillary for America announced the campaign would get behind recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan should Green Party candidate Jill Stein make good on her promise to look into voting totals in those states

According to attorney Marc Erik Elias, the campaign has been reviewing their options since the loss to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, including allegations of tampering.

“It should go without saying that we take these concerns extremely seriously. We certainly understand the heartbreak felt by so many who worked so hard to elect Hillary Clinton, and it is a fundamental principle of our democracy to ensure that every vote is properly counted,” he wrote. “Since the day after the election we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result. These have included analysts both from within the campaign and outside, with backgrounds in politics, technology and academia.”

Outlining the steps they taken, Elias wrote that, while they have not uncovered “actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology,” the success of Green Party candidate Jill Stein to successfully launch a recount in Wisconsin has made them reconsider joining in.

“Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well,” Elias wrote. “We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.”

Elias added: “We believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/clinton-to-follow-steins-lead-and-back-recounts-in-michigan-and-pennsylvania-campaign-attorney/

i don't expect anything to come out of this but the election was influenced by outside sources so might as well make 100% sure the results were legit.

This "recount" seems very one sided. How about a recount in New Hampshire that Hillary won by 2,732 votes?
Why ask for recounts that probably can't be completed in time? Do you know that the Electors can't vote if they aren't completed in time?
(MI took 2 weeks to count the votes, they probably can't make the Dec 13th deadline.)

Did you read Jill Stein's fine print about extra money going back to the green party?
In Hillary's words, she is a direct threat to our Democracy, lol:

They're doing one state at a time, obviously starting with ones which could tip the electoral college in a meaningful direction. You wouldn't start with a state that would only give Trump a larger EC lead!?!? And you did seem to want Hillary to ask for a recount, right?
I assume/hope if anything meaningful comes out of the Wisconsin recount, they'll do every close state. Since the recount was announced, 3 WI counties have already fessed up to giving Trump thousands of extra votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028306275
There are millions of people concerned about our election's legitimacy and I think this recount is important. Hopefully it will either reveal that there was fraud or will give Americans more faith in our system again (faith that will be needed if/when Trump becomes President)

If it is to be fair, then why start with States that help Hillary? Why not go for closer votes as I said. Should go both ways.
When I spoke of Hillary asking for a recount, I was saying EVERYWHERE, not 3 States that help her. Shocker?

The problem is the deadline. IF they get their recounts done by then, or there abouts, that gives the crooks more time to try to fix things. I doubt they can, but nothing can begin with recounts to help Trump as the deadline will have passed. This seems more calculated than about fairness.

And Jill Stein said Hillary as president would mean WWIII with Russia and now she wants to check for fairness? Something wrong with that picture.

There are at least two reasons to start with states that Trump won:
1) As I stated above, obviously you'd start with ones that could meaningfully change the election outcome.
2) If these experts (article below) are right that the electronic voting machines may have been altered to help Trump in key swing states, then auditing the records in NH would only show a bigger Clinton win. So that wouldn't even change the EC.
I make every effort to present a balanced view. So here are two relevant sources:
A - a group of experts saying the electronic voting machines may have been altered to help Trump http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html
B - a 538 article saying this is unlikely
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/
There's only one way to find out. Now, I would much rather have the paper trail audited in every state possible. Sadly (suspiciously?) some states like PA use electronic voting machines that don't have a paper record and cannot be checked for accuracy.

Starting with States that would change the election seems to be starting at the center of the fire. To keep things fair, we really need to look at any States, particularly those with low margins of victory AND those with suspicious data sets or the like. To just go to the States that change the election seem like bias.

I would be very curious to know who these scientists are and if they have any affiliation with Democrats. This has been a decisively divided election time, and I wouldn't be shocked to see that here as well.

Thanks for the links, I can appreciate what others say, but also don't want to be confined by it as something again, seems off here.

Yeah, I am aware of PA, that is EXTREMELY scary when it comes to a recount.

Lastly, back to the no-fly zone, I can't find it anywhere on Main Stream Media. I hope it is false but all that I can gather shows is is true and was passed.
Why wouldn't MSM not cover this (if true)? I mean this is the root of all my and others fears regarding Syria being the place where WWIII can start, due to a no fly zone, re Russia.

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

I suspected this might be the bill he was referring to and was playing a bit coy. EMS, is this what you were referring to?

When it comes to Congress, we really don't have to rely on the media — mainstream or alternative — when we can read the text of the bills ourselves.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

I suspected this might be the bill he was referring to and was playing a bit coy. EMS, is this what you were referring to?

When it comes to Congress, we really don't have to rely on the media — mainstream or alternative — when we can read the text of the bills ourselves.

Yeah, as stated in the reply to Martin above, that is what I was talking about.

I come across a news story on one of Reddit, Voat.co or Gab (last two = basically a Reddit and Twitter surrogate, minus the heavy hand.)

I really never go searching through Bills, but nice to know they can be easily pulled. The worry still stands, they started the ball in motion. But it makes no sense if the did it in November and Trump is in, in January? Or am I missing something.

delusional pathological liar.

what
a
loser

2+ mil fraud votes? lol.

congrats white folks - this is who represents you.

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:Good Russian saying goes:
"No point to swing the fists after fight is over".
Hillary is history and Trump is reality.
And the world is spinning same as it was.
In a couple of years we all will find out that the the rock gave birth to the mouse.
All of us including the most famous and most powerful are driven by Karma and the unstoppable flow of Human civilization.
But yet most of us think we are in charge and we are moving the world forward.
Hello!!! Wake up!!! The Earth is circling the Sun not all the way around as we thought for thousands of years.
The only change some of us can do is to take care our own life and the lives of our family.
This is the only thing that matters and the only think worth fighting for.
And obviously The Knicks... The rest is baloney...

You take the first prize for saying the dumbest shyte on this forum consistently. BAR NONE!

^^^^ YUP.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

DrAlphaeus wrote:EMS, this is what you said a page ago:

Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

So there are a number of assertions on your part, introduced by a question that seemed rhetorical, since your following statements assume that this is true.

"[T]he House passed a no-fly zone" — they didn't, they passed the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016" with this goal:

It is the policy of the United States that all diplomatic and coercive economic means should be utilized to compel the government of Bashir al-Assad to immediately halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people and actively work towards transition to a democratic government in Syria, existing in peace and security with its neighbors.

"Of course MSM is not talking about this" — do they normally talk about bills that have passed the House yet have to still go through the Senate? The only news I can find via Google that references this bill are an article from The Nation and some American Jewish publications. Incidentally, The Nation as a consistent "dove" voice from the left shares your fears:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-dangerous-and-shortsighted-push-to-contain-iran/
The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone over Syria. It requires the administration to “submit to the appropriate congressional committee” a report that “assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria.”

If this bill passes both houses, it will need to be signed by the sitting President. Perhaps they are trying to sneak it in the lame duck so Obama signs it but Trump has to implement it. I don't know and I won't speculate further. It was first proposed in July when it wasn't clear who would be the 45th president anyway. Turkey our NATO ally last week asked the US to reconsider implementing a no-fly zone. But the Act is in part a request for information and recommendation from the Executive on the effectiveness of a Syrian no-fly zone, not immediate implementation.

In a post on this page, you wrote:

I hope it is false but all that I can gather shows is is true and was passed.
Why wouldn't MSM not cover this (if true)

So here you express some doubts, but don't offer your sources for us to vet. Well, luckily your hopes turn out to be true (in that all you gathered was false). So this wasn't some MSM blackout, it's just not very notable at the stage of the bill for them. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. But now you can contact Senators or join efforts to stop passage in the Senate.

So I wonder what the headlines and text of the articles you were referring to said exactly? Was your assumption the House passed a Syrian no-fly based on misleading reporting on their part or bad reading on yours?

Doc, I was asking a question. Sometimes with just text a question can be taken at face value, rhetorically, etc. You can read into it as much as you want, but I had no bad intentions. I hoped it to be false. Since it was all alt news that I found, I wouldn'T post it, and came here to see if anyone knew more. (At the time I didn't know it was a Bill.)

Go on Google, do a search for this ("no fly zone passed") and you will see basically what I saw, none of it being MSM.

But as I said to Martin, this is just weird. Really, this is how they start wars. They've already had a General tell them we can't control the air space without going to war with Russia. This isn't rocket science. It is obvious to anyone. But here we are taking apart my post and missing the point. Do we really need a study to verify this? LOL, think about that.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.