this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
55 points (80.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
4441 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) aimed to establish a process with the ostensible goal of revealing the existence of “non-human intelligence” to the public. But the legislation, which is co-sponsored by three Republican and two Democratic senators, is now in jeopardy.

In comments yesterday on the Senate floor, Schumer stated that “House Republicans are also attempting to kill another commonsense, bipartisan measure passed by the Senate, which I was proud to cosponsor… to increase transparency around what the government does and does not know about unidentified aerial phenomena.”

According to reports, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, are leading efforts to prevent any meaningful version of this provision from being added to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

Members of Congress generally clamor for enhanced government oversight — a core function of the legislative branch — and transparency. So what could cause a small group of influential lawmakers to suddenly resist it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UndefinedIsNotAFunction@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'd love to read some more about this if you have some recommendations that I can go look for. I don't buy that it's all a ruse, but am open to it if the data points that way. So, recommended reading for that please!

Right now we have many senior government officials stating there are "things" that do not belong to us or our adversaries but are interfering with flight trainings on a routine basis, well respected intelligence and military officials under oath saying the same and more. I get it's still not "proven" but the movers and shakers are taking it seriously, so there's something to it - whether that's purely government corruption or "something else" remains to be seen.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Most people reading this will have no idea that these credible people are going all in on this or that there's a long history of such people coming forward. It's too bad, this is a fascinating topic. What I don't get is why anyone who thinks there is nothing there would care if this passes.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hi! Sorry for the delay.

So bear with me here. I first heard about it on the podcast of two prominent tabletop RPG developers. One is or was an academic, and they are both intelligence nerds who heavily research intelligence history and present. Is that a credible source? I think it's an informed opinion, but i'd understand some eyebrow-raising.

You can hear them talking about the recent round of UAP stuff in this episode from july, beggining at 54:45: https://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/index.php/episode-557-all-four-sided/

I believe the theory that UFOs were a cover story for new airplane design research that got weaponised during the cold war originates from skeptic Brian Dunning: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4528