4 ms·

Are you so nakedly partisan that you can’t accept a win at face value? Gabbard et al were targeted by Quiet Skies. It was mentioned many times during the camp

by efitz 1y ago

Are you so nakedly partisan that you can’t accept a win at face value? Gabbard et al were targeted by Quiet Skies. It was mentioned many times during the campaign and during the administration. I don’t think Noem is Machiavelli; the administration clearly signaled an intent to end this and it doesn’t surprise me that they did so and I think there were valid reasons given and I accept that anything politicians do may ALSO have a political goal in mind but doesn’t make their stated reasons insincere.

lesuorac 1y ago
Looking at partisan actors at face value is just going to lead you to a trap. Literally from the article: "News reports, presumably based on DHS statements, described Quiet Skies as a “Biden-era” program even though its largest expansion came in 2018 during the first Trump administration. And according to the TSA’s press release last week:". There's no way a program expanded during Trump1 just disappears in Trump2. Everything Trump2 is doing is just a continuation from Trump1.
lazyeye 1y ago
I find that naked partisanship is the rule rather than the exception on HN. Papered over with a bit of motivated "logic" but this is mostly just window-dressing.
blurbleblurble 1y ago
This is beyond partisan. In no way does this administration faithfully represent conservative constituents, nor the hostage GOP politicians that prop it up in their total duress. "Quiet skies" pales in comparison to what they're cooking up: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-common-beliefs https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo... And this: https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7imutpx4wxfzub554r/bafkreihbib2ynq5mgshqf5o2vnxm34otf2btabpo4e7n3ezyp67nb43ufi@jpeg https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7... https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7imutpx4wxfzub554r/bafkreig6ncchmdulzgzkl7j2lmws3tb35buk464wqjini3z6g6bldoyai4@jpeg https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7... And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXX8HPh6nQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXX8HPh6nQ It's a takeover: https://climate-reporting.org/undercover-in-project-2025/ https://climate-reporting.org/undercover-in-project-2025/
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Wouldn't cleaning up corrupt programs also look exactly like a "takeover"? Do you propose allowing the "quiet skies" program to continue, so that any president can weaponize it again? Like, if your argument has no practical reality attached to it, then we're really waiting our time here.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Wouldn't cleaning up corrupt programs also look exactly like a "takeover"? No? Policies like perestroika were fully state-driven and never framed themselves as a takeover, violent or otherwise. Glasnost was welcomed by the public after decades of obvious federal coverups. All you have to do is be transparent.
  - blurbleblurble 1y ago
    Assuming your comment is in good faith: I'm not a fan of political weaponization of travel blacklists whether they are called quiet skies or anything like that... please take a step back from the categorical logic and read what I wrote again.
    - phendrenad2 1y ago
      Ah, for once my comment is assumed to be in good faith. It's so great that you assumed it was in good faith and didn't make assuming it's bad faith a central dig at me. So nice.

by efitz 1y ago

lesuorac 1y ago

Looking at partisan actors at face value is just going to lead you to a trap. Literally from the article: "News reports, presumably based on DHS statements, described Quiet Skies as a “Biden-era” program even though its largest expansion came in 2018 during the first Trump administration. And according to the TSA’s press release last week:". There's no way a program expanded during Trump1 just disappears in Trump2. Everything Trump2 is doing is just a continuation from Trump1.

lazyeye 1y ago

I find that naked partisanship is the rule rather than the exception on HN. Papered over with a bit of motivated "logic" but this is mostly just window-dressing.

blurbleblurble 1y ago

This is beyond partisan. In no way does this administration faithfully represent conservative constituents, nor the hostage GOP politicians that prop it up in their total duress. "Quiet skies" pales in comparison to what they're cooking up: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-common-beliefs https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo... And this: https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7imutpx4wxfzub554r/bafkreihbib2ynq5mgshqf5o2vnxm34otf2btabpo4e7n3ezyp67nb43ufi@jpeg https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7... https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7imutpx4wxfzub554r/bafkreig6ncchmdulzgzkl7j2lmws3tb35buk464wqjini3z6g6bldoyai4@jpeg https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4q6ctl7... And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXX8HPh6nQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpXX8HPh6nQ It's a takeover: https://climate-reporting.org/undercover-in-project-2025/ https://climate-reporting.org/undercover-in-project-2025/

phendrenad2 1y ago
Wouldn't cleaning up corrupt programs also look exactly like a "takeover"? Do you propose allowing the "quiet skies" program to continue, so that any president can weaponize it again? Like, if your argument has no practical reality attached to it, then we're really waiting our time here.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > Wouldn't cleaning up corrupt programs also look exactly like a "takeover"? No? Policies like perestroika were fully state-driven and never framed themselves as a takeover, violent or otherwise. Glasnost was welcomed by the public after decades of obvious federal coverups. All you have to do is be transparent.
- blurbleblurble 1y ago
  Assuming your comment is in good faith: I'm not a fan of political weaponization of travel blacklists whether they are called quiet skies or anything like that... please take a step back from the categorical logic and read what I wrote again.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    Ah, for once my comment is assumed to be in good faith. It's so great that you assumed it was in good faith and didn't make assuming it's bad faith a central dig at me. So nice.