Jeff Sessions and Obama Wire Tapping
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for interacting with Russia. Trump and his crew do it by repeating lies , deflect, divert, distract,bullying, and intimidating. If you watch CNN, you get one reality. If you watch Fox news, it is a totally different reality. Trump supporters will believe him without any evidence to support his claims. As Trump would say, "sad, very sad."
People, it looks like Putin thought he stood a better change with Trump than HRC. He didn't expect this to blow up in his face.
DJT figured, "What the heck! He likes me and I like me so we agree!" Why would they have to lie about meeting with the Russians. If they were meeting with many diplomats, just say so!
I'm trying to not watch news. It repeats over and over and adds a nugget or two each hour.
Many people are going to be embarrassed or humiliated by delaying the inevitable ... the truth.True, so far there is no evidence. However, what we have in Washington DC is unprecedented. You have a former President, staying in DC along with many of his surrogates. They are doing their best to undermine and detract a new president of achieving his campaign promise to the voters.
This whole Russia thing is a fishing expedition. Nothing illegal has happened with all the leaks and talks and meetings... Why is this a big news story covered wall to wall?
As a conservative and a non-Trump supporter, I see the bias and the corruption of the media and it is not going to end well for all. If nothing gets done in the next 100 days, who do you think will be blamed?
The stock market is a forward leading indicator. It is anticipating some good results on all fronts, jobs, tax reduction, borders, and healthcare reform. If non of those things happen by Congress, the Democrat obstructionist will be blamed for the most part. That is my honest opinion and you can take it or leave it.
Your party has mis read the last election and it is going on with TDS and it is not pretty. Americans in general, do not like a whiner and a sore loser.Jack: Is all of this your opinion or do you have sources for your information? What is TDS? I agree the dems did misread the election. But that does not mean they misread everything. Is there any proof that Obama is staying in DC to undermine Trump. I know Steve Bannon is the one who said that Obama wire tapped Trump, but there is no evidence.
Nothing illegal has happened because they refuse to do an investigation. The republicans are quick and thorough to investigate democrats but not the other way around. Trump has created the notion of bias in the media MSM. I watch both CNN and fox news and they are too separate realities that people are living in. You think MSM is biased and corrupt and I think fox news is. Breitbart and Alt right are fake news.
Right now Trump is creating a smoke screen so that he and all his cohorts can not be investigated for collusion with the Russians. Why is it that democrats are guilty until proven innocent and republicans are innocent until proven guilty? There is no proof Obama has done anything illegal, but yet Trump wants an investigation that will probably go on for years. Just like his investigation of illegal voting. He makes accusations and then others have to prove him right or wrong. It was the same thing with the birther movement. Don't you think this eats up time, energy, and tax payers money? Republicans are great at investigating the other side, but they are terrible at making legislation. How many laws did they pass under Obama? But how many investigations did they have and how long did they last? How much did they cost tax payers? And what was the results? Trump got elected.
If things go wrong, the republicans will have no one to blame but themselves because they control both house of congress and the executive branch.There's not a single shred of evidence that President Obama has done anything to underminde President Trump. As a matter of fact, and according to President Trump, he was very helpful in the transition. On the other hand, evidence is piling up that Trump's administration has done all kinds of illegal things. What's the last administration where one of the top officials had to resign because of possible treason?
Either provide sources for your accusations or you are just another conspiracy theorist with 0 credibility.Ok, by your assessment of the situation, where are the intelligence leaks coming from?
Use your logic and tell us who is doing the leaking and why?
Also, where is the treason you speak of? If laws were broken, let the charges fly...
You are blinded by your own bias. There were many treasonous acts by the Obama admin. over the last 8 years and not a peep from Dem. or the GOP.
By any legal assessment, Obama should have been impeached yet, Congress did nothing.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas … -offenses/
People, POTUS should be required to have an MRI on his head. Something is terribly wrong with him. I am more concerned with the people that enable him on a daily basis. Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer have become fodder for all kinds of jokes. They had good reputations before this.
Sara Huckabee and Mike Huckabee, professing Christians, are accountable to God for their support of Trump's lies. I don't understanding the undying, eternal devotion to DJT by educated, intelligent people that are close to him. Those closest to him are able to watch his behavior and see him speak. They KNOW something is wrong.
Maybe he just needs a laxative? Or maybe he is getting dementia? or something? It should be checked out.You should truly learn to gage reality in main [left ]stream news media's by watching more than the likes of MSNBC and NPR , If I watch for instance , CNN alone , I would be emoting my way through politics as if Ivanka's clothing fads were the reason that Trump won the election , Or someone like Brian William comes to tears about Russian hacking scams .
I can't understand anyone willing believing the outlandish claims POTUS is making. This one about the wiretapping may be one that he will regret. The claims of wiretapping are POTUS words ... not a twist by anyone. His tweets are admissable in court so he should really be careful.
There is one area that Republicans hate most of all...Dem state Justice Depts that operate separately from the federal Justice Dept. So, NY's AG and Justice Dept. are investigating several Trump related people, one of whom is tied to the same bank that lent Trump billions he still owes.
It makes me laugh when the same hick states that have used their "states' rights" to avoid federal regulations and laws are now incensed that Dem states are using THEIR states' rights to resist the attempts by southern and midwestern hick politicians to try and FORCE us back into the Great Depression era.
If Trump is doing so wonderfully, why has Wall Street been down 50 points for the last week? If Trump's policies are making American GRATE again, why does he load up his cabinet with family members all of whom refuse to produce tax returns AND divest themselves of their businesses?
Jared Kushner's father was a real estate crook who went to jail. Ivanka has all of her crappy shoes, clothes and jewelry made in China and now she is in on China's meeting with her Daddy Dearest? Trump's choice for AG is under investigation and his choice for National Security Flynn had to resign.
When all a president can do is play golf down at his "Florida White House," make business deals and produce one tweet storm after another accusing anyone he decides is on his "hit" list, when exactly does he plan to do what he promised his supporters? Create jobs and reduce middle and lower class taxes?
All he's done so far is sign off on legislation that will directly make him richer. How is handing out another tax cut to billionaires like himself not benefitting him personally? How is his refusal to divest himself from business and then hand corporations huge tax cuts not going to make Trump Organization increase their profits?What amazes me is the 180 you get when watching Fox as opposed to other networks. This morning a group of ladies on Fox was celebrating POTUS' vindication on the wiretapping/unmasking? by Rice? It seems she was doing her National Security job.
It is disheartening to see the great divide which is growing these days. Friendships are being broken based on whatever position one believes.
We do this as Assad gasses those poor people. POTUS said let the people decide? They have been trying to do just that.
Your thread , just like the rest of the left-stream media fantasy of Russian hacking is awarded the annual Clark Kent Journalism award !
We are all so lucky to have this present day totally honorable left-stream media to first create the fallacy of a crime , direct the blame towards the right of course and then present the best cure .
Impeach Trump Now - He simply HAS to be a Russian spy !Except it's not the media creating this thought. It's the entire intelligence community that's confirming that Russia interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
We call that a fact. Good luck trying to dispute it.Fact? Isn't and will never be a category of communicating the left will ever use
I have no idea why is it there is a middle aged generation out there who act like three year old brats. You give them proof, facts and truth and they contradict till the cows come home.
Such is the ideas that the CIA, FBI and NSA who have proof of Russian meddling into both the primary election where they used a smear campaign when the GOP primary came down to Rubio and Trump to get rid of Rubio.
FACT: Under oath, a former FBI agent, Clinton Watts, testified to the Senate Committee investigating this Russian hacking that the Russian hackers basically sabotaged Rubio's campaign. The look on Rubio's face when Mr. Watts stated this was priceless.
I heard it and I saw it. But now you have right wingers who will tell you, "NO, that isn't what you heard and saw."
What is wrong with these middle aged creeps? Do they have a problem accepting reality because they much prefer living in some alien dimension where their stream of consciousness is lodged in self-importance?
Suggestion: Lay off the selfies. That constant need to "pose" makes you a poseur with little factual substance."I have no idea why is it there is a middle aged generation out there who act like three year old brats."
On this we can finally agree: it is astounding the number of people that will cry to the world that their candidate won an election that did not exist and should therefore be the President of the United States. Fascinating in adults but common on three year old kids that live in a pretend world.So far there is no proof , as in the one true reality , not liberal media reality , not susan rice reality , not obama's reality a major part of the left has to get there head out of the Saul Alinsky manual of ivy league goriilla warfare , You would do very well to listen to a middle aged opinion of how definatly immature thee whole milk toast generation actually is .
But the left never will.
Oh he will dispute it. He now has a Thug in Chief who when he is caught in an outright Tweet Storm lie, TIC backpeddles and takes aim at anyone but himself.
Most of us know this is nothing more than a 3 year old in a very expensive formerly "Made in Mexico" label suit. When you duke it out with Vincente Fox, Angela Merkle and the Prince of Wales, you generally make more enemies. That's all these right wingers have and they have NO idea of the blowback that's coming.
Do they even consider for one moment that if it is proven they have in any way contributed to the Russian hateGATE campaign, Americans will rip them a new one in public streets? That's what you do to traitors who violate Article III, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution, "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy." That's known as TREASON under the Constitution.
Meanwhile, back at the wiretapping ranch, POTUS is left standing to continue the lie. Poor Sean Spicer, I believe, is pissed because he has to justify the lie.
If anyone wants a personal opinion:
It is depressing to see the US hamstrung by a president who commands less and less respect. Every time the guy opens his mouth he loses allies. Most telling headline of the week:
"Congress showing signs of being tired of Trump's nonsense"
The entire Western liberal project is coming apart. That means democratic values are all seeming less and less attractive to anyone who does not already have them in their bloodstream.
Russia and China are being handed the world on a plate.
People, I don't know. The subject is wiretapping. That lie got busted wide open yesterday and nobody is talking about it.
Plus the POTUS and campaign staff are being investigated for crimes.
Wow!The reality of being an adult with a rational mind is that if you have evidence, you show it or hand it over. Trump has NO evidence. All he has are constant distractions to avoid any further investigations. He has used just about every trick in the book to sabotage investigations of his linkage to Russia. He obviously thinks those of us in the NY/NJ Metro area have no recollection of his bragging on YouTube about having "many" businesses in Russia in an October 17, 2013, appearance on the David Letterman show.
He must also think we have all forgotten how his son appeared in front of Russian Investors in Moscow in 2008.
The more Trump fights being investigated, the guiltier he appears. What is he hiding?
Since he is aided and abetted by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House in sabotaging all investigations, therefore, it is highly possible that dozens of Republicans are as complicit in the Russian hacking into the election.
I don't buy the malarkey that it had "no influence on the election." Who but Trump was running against Hillary in the final months of the campaign? Who else COULD it influence?
The greater question at this point is not so much that Trump is linked to Russia. That one is easiest to prove. What has to be proven now is just how the Republican Party sought to sabotage Hillary's campaign. If they used a single bit of Russian propaganda lies to smear her, they are as guilty as Trump. If that 11 hour McCarthy style interrogation of Hillary over Benghazi isn't proof of Republican sabotage, the fact that Republican Benghazi Chair, Trey Gowdy, edited Hillary's emails. Were these edited emails from Russian hackers? Until we hold the Republican Party's feet to the fire, we can't know what exactly their role in the 2016 election sabotage attempts were.Ewent: An excellent reply. He will never apologize to Obama and that speaks volumes about his character.
So far, "No evidence of Russian influence "- The FBI . And the investigation into Obama monitoring Trump - post election-prior to inauguration is already producing evidence and being investigated .
These would never have been issues at all if Obama's socialistically ideology and biased influence hadn't infiltrated every office of the DOJ , the FBI , CIA ,IRS , ............Your government offices neutrality and integrity is totally compromised by Obama's administration and that doesn't even phase you ?ahorseback: Sure just blame everything on Obama and the bleeding heart liberals. That's very easy to do because they are not in a position to defend themselves. So like you say, get it line and bring it on.
Your vote allowed Obama a fee pass to dismantle every Government Intelligence agency and the DOJ . to departments of liberal activism , You thus allowed your leader to absolutely destroy all American's confidence in these offices , Now , you are using these offices as political tools to promote one ideology . I actually don't care about blaming Obama - but I blame the people who elected him and now lie about a fairly useless and destructive Presidential legacy .
You voted for him I didn't.Read the banner headline: Donald Trump screws up big time in the health care debate, and this is just the beginning.
You voted for him, I didn't.ahorseback: So now you are blaming me for what you perceive as Obama failures? Talk about dismantling agencies, Trump has appointed people that hate the agencies they are in charge of, just so they can dismantle them. I think you are confused of the facts. What is it that you think we are lying about?
Obama is proving out to have been the very anti- American destructive " leader" that you and even he were so proud of stating and proving from the beginning . Your FBI , DOJ, and federal courts have been infiltrated by his activist minions bent on crushing our traditional form of government . Congratulations BUT its not over yet , the "Watergate "bugging of the Trump Tower is going to stain his legacy in immeasurable ways , Those investigations are just beginning . When his legacy is impeached - so then is the lefts and those who profess its glory . . Good luck gaining back the house or congress or the white house then ,..... I hear your Hilary has one more run in her , be proud !
Mention the name "Obama" and the Corn Pones and Mutton Chops Stars and Bars Confederates go berserk. The name "Obama" seems to stick a fork in their behinds because as we all know, most low to middle class southern and midwesterners come from ancesters who were Brit indentured slaves. I guess when you are a toffee nosed white whose great great grandpappies were shipped to the colonies because you couldn't pay your bills, you would adore Trump, a Grifter, who uses other people like Kleenex disposable tissue and then when they fall for his ACT, end up getting stiffed. Ask the NY Banks why the Trump name is toxic. For that matter, ask any of his hotel and casino contractors and employees why they want to do a Jimmy Hoffa on Trump.
Sorry, but Trump's reputation precedes him in the Metro Area. We could ignore his 70s Coke Nose days, his 80s disco clubbing and trying to get in with the Knickerbocker blue noses who whispered, "NOCD" (Not Our Class Dahling) whenever he passed. But now, after his 90s wild spending spree, buying a QE II sized yacht, Mar-a-Lago and having the ego jolt of Ivana and Marla fighting over him like two golddigging cats while he was still married to Ivana and busy impregnating Marla, he has lost all bank credit in the US.
This explains why only an exchange bank like Deutschebank in NY deals with his money laundering. The reality is that a presidential candidate who has had a U.S. Treasury fine for $25 million for money laundering in the Tah Mahal casino, should NEVER have been allowed to run at all.
If the right wingers and Republicans had this on Obama, they'd have been howling like Banshees.WOW! I doubt that I have ever read a more racist commentary in my entire life!
Like many liberals, you see those on the right thru one dimension and your dimension is wholly skewed, no doubt, by the media you aspire to as being all truthful. Get out of your bubble and recognize that quite a large number of Conservatives do not fit your pathetic analogy of them.I also would love it if we could actually see all there is to see about Obama's "days" before entering politics. There are enough rumors which have circulated about him and his antics to raise millions of eyebrows, but since he's had all of his records sealed, alas, we may never know of what many suspect to be a truly sordid past.
Sallie: Conspiracy theorist abound when they don't have enough information to fulfill their agenda. They just need to fill the unknown with something that makes sense to them. I suspect you still believe Obama was born in Kenya and his real name is Barry Soroeto...Trump still has you people drinking his Kool Aid.
The real conspiracy is unfolding right in front of you and that is the ongoing FBI and NSA investigation about Trump and his people ties to Russia to influence the election. We shall see.
ahorseback; You opinion and real fake news.
Perhaps your biggest mistake is in ever watching CNN
Because the great CNN , once the voice of truth and accuracy in media , is just as much a whore of the new media as is the other ninety percent of the "Alinsky Press ", That's why .
So ninety per cent of the world is against you? Sounds uncomfortable.
It is actually a good sign when 45% of the people are supporting us and 90% of the press and Hollywood and the academia are on the wrong side. It is shaking out to be a conflict between the elites and the comon folks. Will see what happens next...
Jack: You mean the "elites" are Trump and all his billionaire friends in his cabinet positions that are in charge of this country? I have news for you the "common folks which include both conservatives and liberals are not the elites. I hate that term. It helps divide the country into false categories. I'm a liberal, but I'm no more elite than you are.
Well..judging from a comment on this thread from someone called "ewent" I would say that many liberals DO consider themselves the elites.
And there is a good reason we are divided. Calling Trump voters or people who support right wing ideologies "Corn Pones and Mutton Chops Stars" doesnt exactly bode well for bipartisanship.A divided nation is good as long as we are respectful of each side's opinions. The debate in Congress should focus on policies and problem solving. Politics always seems to get in the way of things.
It does not help when we have a distorted media that is tipping the scale.
Ultimately, we all get the government we deserve. It was true with Obama and it will be true with Trump.
That is our democratic system. It was never suppose to be easy or perfect. It is the civilized way to run a nation divided. Otherwise, we will have another civil war on our hands.Sallie: So you get one person who is defining Trump supporters in a sarcastic way and you think all liberals deserve to be called elitist. And I shouldn't watch CNN because it is fake news? Truth be told, the real elitist are Trump and his billionaire friends and cabinet members. The real fake news is Fox and it's cohorts.
Since Trump has been president, he has been snookered by fake news from Fox and Breitbart several times. One of them caused an international incident with the British Intelligence community and resulted in the contributor being fired from Fox. That's real news and facts for the world to see and hear. in addition, Obama wiring tapping Trump was caused from Breitbart and Steve Bannon giving Trump fake news and Trump running with it without vetting it. There was no evidence of wiring tapping as reported by the NSA, CIA, and FBI investigations."one person defining Trump in a sarcastic way"??
Do you live under a rock?
You are truly not worth debating with. You did exactly what all liberals do and what I expected when you called FOX fake news. I already mentioned that at the very least, they report from both sides. But being as partisan as you appear to be, it fell on deaf ears.
Have a lovely day in your progressive bubble.Sallie: Your claim that CNN doesn't even come close to being as bipartisan as Fox news. I guess you haven't watched it since Trump has been president. He has a surrogates on every panel making excuses, defending Trump and spin for his miss-steps. You have a nice day as well in your conservative bubble.
You are correct , Liberals do live under a rock , They have one agenda , to attain and acquire every item on their agenda , beg ,borrow , steal or lie to get them . Bernie Sanders IS the best spokesman for the agenda of the left in America , he is about to introduce a bill calling for Free Medicaid for all ! Of course the most often repeated word that Sen, Sanders have ever used is the word " free ".
Make no mistake , the left wants a free ride , why ? Look at every item on the "Christmas wish list ". Health -care , free tuition - higher education , unlimited welfare , guaranteed minimum paychecks , the mainstays watch for more developing constantly ..................Back in the day when Sen , Sanders was a young mayoral candidate he was known to actually steal electricity from the basement of the landlords appt. building , Why pay for your own !
Get the liberal picture yet ?ahorseback: I don't live under a rock anymore than you do. I don't beg borrow or steal to get items on my agenda. Isn't "free " good or would you rather pay for it? The reality is you are going to be taxed one way or another. Trump wants to increase military spending by 54 billion. Where do you think that money is gong to come from? Look at all the wondrous things he wants to do. Where is the money going to come from? I suppose you think that having massive student loans is great for people graduating from college. You don't think that affects our economy? If Trump gets his 54 billion, he is going to employ a lot of people in defense contract work. That is just another form of a subside by the government and makes money flow to the top for the defense contractors and out to the Cayman Islands and unnumbered Swiss bank accounts. It will not trickle down like Reagan expected it to.
You can't accept that part of the responsibility for our current situation belongs to the conservatives. No you would rather blame the liberals who you think are the elitist living under a rock...give me break. You and your fellow conservatives use the term "liberal" in a pejorative derogatory sense. Conservatives are good at one thing: Organizing and attacking. They are not worth a damn as law makers and legislators. In the last eight years, all they did was block all of Obama's agenda. How many laws did they pass? Now that they have both houses of congress, they still can't pass laws.Mike,
It's impossible to get through to these people, especially when they start chopping your posts and responding line by line to prove how superior their knowledge is to yours. I learned that once by giving up on a friendship with someone who I knew for years. She always did that, except her silly retorts were in different colors. She emailed me the morning Obama was first elected, and said she and her BF were upset to have a black POTUS. And to lecture me about the virtues of clean coal (she had recently moved to PA).
If Obama WANTED to wiretap Trump, he couldn't, an intelligence agency has to do it. And several have. I'm just going to sit back and laugh. Trump collaborated with Russia for years and so did most of his cronies. He does something "unprecedented" everyday. His daughter and son in law have no business being in the WH, they have little to add, but he gets past nepotism laws by not giving them position titles. He reads the National Enquirer and watches Fox opinion shows for news, when we have the best intelligence people. The list is so long...I can't say he's dumb, but there is a thin line between genius and insanity.
Is he tweeting and talking on a secure phone line? Is this being investigated? Hillary spoke on an insecure phone line.
I guess he's not so good at the Art of the Deal if he gave up without any input at all, except threats to those who didn't support that ridiculous "Health Care Act."
Anyway, GTG, I'm alone in the house and I think my microwave is spying on me. It can see the computer screen from a certain angle.Hey jean, I found a solution to that microwave surveillance problem, just line the inside of your microwave door with tin foil and you won't have any worries about it spying on you.
ps. I also taped some foil over the LED readout panel just to be sure.
GAI can't tell if you are being condescending or funny. I suspect the first. I was talking to Mike.
Sorry Jean, it was the latter. I thought I saw a humorous way to re-engage you, but apparently I was mistaken.
To be clear: It was intended as a joke. Not a condescending poke at your reference to KellyAnn Conway's remarks.
It is unfortunate that this explanation was needed, but your response is telling. And you may take that remark as you believe it to be intended also. But I will hint that it is not intended as condenscending.
GAOK, I take you at your word. I came away from that forum the other night feeling attacked. I consider myself to be an intelligent, well read and well written person, and just because I see a lot of bad things going on in Trump's Presidency and you don't, we are all entitled to our opinions. You and you know who said some very insulting and condescending things. So that's how I interpret you both now. Words can be very hurtful.
It's not necessary to correct someone line by line if you disagree with them. That was mostly him, and it is a condescending thing to do, although he may not realize it. I don't believe what I say is "wildly inaccurate" anymore than some of what else was said in Trump's defense.
It's really my cell phone that's out to get me.Jean, I am glad you will accept my explanation. But, I strongly disagree with the validity of your explanation of why you feel the way you do.
I reread my comments to you, and could not find anything that could be considered insulting - unless you consider any disagreement with your opinions to be insulting.
At the least, we have cleared the air of any intent on my part to be condescending. That's a start.
GAGA,
I don't find just any disagreements with my opinions insulting.I am an opinionated person. But I still believe that forum got out of line, and several others on it also felt that way and openly discussed reporting him, and you kept backing him up. Sometimes things sound worse in writing than when spoken. I believe that you are sincere. I didn't want to revisit this and have avoided the forums, I've gotten behind in my other writing due to other issues.
But you still want to argue with me about the validity of my explanation of why I feel the way I do. Are you Dr. Spock? Quite simply, being ganged up on by both of you, my feelings were hurt.
I appreciate your explanation.I really only came on here because I haven't "talked" to Mike for a long time.
Best Wishes,
JeanHello everybody: This is the second time I'm having to quote this. Here is the introduction that I wrote for this forum.
"Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for interacting with Russia. Trump and his crew do it by repeating lies , deflect, divert, distract,bullying, and intimidating. If you watch CNN, you get one reality. If you watch Fox news, it is a totally different reality. Trump supporters will believe him without any evidence to support his claims. As Trump would say, "sad, very sad."
It has been proven beyond a doubt by the CIA, NSA, FBI and the House Intelligence committee that they could find no evidence to support Trump's claim about Obama wiretapping him. Therefore it could only be a cover up to take the focus off of Trump and Sessions as I stated in the introduction.
But there is an ongoing investigation by the FBI and the House Intelligence committee of possible connections to Trump and his people with Russian operatives and Putin himself to influence the outcome of the election.
It is easy to go off on a tangent. I know I'm guilty of it when we are so passionate about our values and belief systems when in comes to conservatives and liberals. But let's try to stay on track and be mindful of not insulting others when it comes to supporting our points.
Hi Jean, thanks for talking to me. It's good to hear from you.I agree that Trump and his friends are doing anything to deflect the truth of the relations they had with the Russians. They need an independent council who doesn't let this drag on for years.
Now the news is reporting that Trump's son Eric is informing him about the company biz on a quarterly basis (although it hasn't been a quarter yet). So many laws have already been broken, and they are so bold in thinking the American people believe this nonsense. It's also scary how Trump is alienating world leaders that are our Allies. Did you see the Press Conference with Angela Merkel? She didn't look at Trump, smile, shake his hand, just acted like she wanted to get out of the room as fast as possible.
Besides Sessions, there are problems of the same nature with Flynn and Manafort. Putin hated Hillary so much he would have done anything to help Trump. Now Trump is his pawn. Trump is smart, and maybe can turn that around. But he didn't know anything about running a country and wouldn't listen to briefings. The intelligence community is fed up with him and his childish behavior.. And although he has access to the best info in the world, he gets his news from Fox (all opinion based shows) and the National Enquirer. What a mess!"It has been proven beyond a doubt by the CIA, NSA, FBI and the House Intelligence committee that they could find no evidence to support Trump's claim about Obama wiretapping him."
True. It has also been proven beyond a doubt that Trump and/or his people were "surveiled". Via phone. Now, you can discount this, ignore it or even pretend it didn't happen at all, but it is just a little too close to "wiretapping" for most of us to write off as not counting. It isn't quite the same as being "wiretapped" but there really isn't a lot of difference - certainly not enough to completely discount the wiretapping claim. That most definitely has it's roots firmly in the facts even if distorted or exaggerated a small amount.
The fact that Flynn got unmasked might be the issue. The fact that he was caught in surveillance could be a deeper issue here. Who was he meeting with that was being watched and why? Everyone who supports Trump thinks that it was his people that were being wiretapped, but it's just as likely that foreign spies were the targets and Trump's people got caught meeting with them.
Valiant, now that sounds like a reasonable assessment to me.
That's an important issue. Once surveillance began, anyone talking to foreign spies will be investigated and caught in this until the truth comes out.
And considering there was a notorious Russian gangster (Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov) living three floors under Trump in Trump Tower within hte past five years, it's not hard to think the place was wiretapped.
Bringing up the fact that he did live there, how in the Hell does a Russian gangster be allowed to live so close to Trump unless they are in cahoots.
Because CNN is a shill for the DNC and the entire liberal viewpoint.
They do not report news fairly, nor accurately. And before you counter with a slam on FOX News, I will tell you that I have watched both cable networks and it is true that FOX does lean right. However they also employ many left wing pundits and analysts who do a good job of presenting the story from the left angle.
CNN does nothing even close to that.
From sunup to sundown, CNN is a hit job on Trump and the entire GOP as well as anyone on the right.
Anyone who thinks they are getting their news correctly and with no bias from CNN is woefully mistaken.
"There's no denying that Trump's presidency is in many ways a seismic event. And there's no denying the sometimes cataclysmic effect of earthquakes: They can topple tall buildings, generate deadly tsunamis, and destroy bridges and highways. Swamps, on the other hand, are relatively unaffected." The Weekly Standard - Chris Deaton (Conservative columnist)
Is it real or "fake" news that Nunes has recused himself from the Russia investigation? .... after meeting with Paul Ryan last night.
Good Luck With Trey Gowdy .replacing him ..............................
The "chips will fall " onto the heads of these leftist socialist morons who all but dissolved any credibility in the institutions of the american justice system all across america . That's a fact , Rice , Lynch , Obama , Clinton , that's right , let the chips of a failed administration crumble !
Here's a tweet by Trump:
“We pay for Obama’s travel so he can fundraise millions so Democrats can run on lies. Then we pay for his golf.” A year later, as a presidential candidate, Trump declared that if he were in office, he’d dispense with breaks. “I’d want to stay in the White House and work my ass off,” he told voters.
This is from October 2014.
Here's a fact: so far during his presidency, he's spent 31% of his time at Mar-a-Lago. People who are wealthy enough get direct access to him and some of his cabinet. Those trips are costing the taxpayers $3 million per trip. It's also costing local government a ton.Jack: You are going to have to learn to read the "About" link in your news sources. This site just collects blogs. Here is what their About page says.
"Western Journalism is a news company that drives positive cultural change by equipping and informing people with truth. It hosts WesternJournalism.com, a news website and blogging platform built for conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters. The platform hosts hundreds of bloggers, and our content is widely distributed using social media. New blogs are able to be successfully launched using the platform because of the large audience actively served.
WesternJournalism.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast)."That may be so but Obama did do many unConstitutional acts while President, including the IRS, the wiretapping of foreign leaders, the influence of Israeli elections, and executive action to change immigration laws...all were ignored by Congress. Why is that? If Trump had dine any of those, they would be calling for his impeachment...
Your perceived reality is different from many others.
To many, Trump is the sane one trying to fix Washington DC and the biased media and the broken immigration and intelligence community. There is something wrong with our government and the press when they focus on fake stories and detract from the real problems... I don't think the Russian hacking is a real story or scandal... The real story is these leaks coming from the intelligence community who ever is leaking is undermining our government. It is treason and when found should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.So if it turns out Trump and his administration colluded with the Russians the real story is that it got leaked?
I do agree that our perceived realities are different though.
In mine, for instance, climate change is a real thing because science says it is. In my reality, evolution is the most valid explanation for how humans developed on earth because science says so. Those are just a few examples.So what did the Russian and Trump team colluded on?
Did any intelligence legal or otherwise uncover any smoking gun?
If not, what is the crime? Or Is this a fishing expedition?
.
As far as other views. You are correct we differ on it as well.
I am a climate change skeptic.
I have studied this issue for over 20 years and found the claims too extreme and little scientific basis.
I also have issues with the theory of evolution as it is taught.
The science and engineering background I have studied, does not fit with how humans are evolved.
There has no prove of a missing link from one species to another.
I can go into details about various biological systems that defy the statistical odds.
The chance of a human eye developing by natural selection is close to nil.Here is my hub on climate change debate - with doc_snow another hubber,
http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-TheyNot interested in reading because you are not a climate scientist and are wrong. Perhaps you'd like to give me some advice on flying a plane or brain surgery too?
Little scientific basis? That's a guffaw statement if ever I've heard one. What else are you a skeptic about? Gravity?Guess who else is not a scientist? Al Gore, who produced a documentary and won the Nobel prize...
His dire projections of climate change has been discredited.
He claim the science is settled...is it really?
He claim Florida and Mahattan would be under water, not even close.
He claim we will have more frequent and more extreme hurricanes...we didn't for 10 years and counting...
Do the homework before speaking about something you are just parroting.Don't forget Gore also flew about a zillion jet miles , creating nothing but more global warming .
Say Horseback. Is your state dependent on coal to heat and cool your home? Oil? Natural gas? Then, pray tell us all how do they plan to sustain the unsustainable? As to preventing Clean Energy, the hick states are proving just how backward they really are.
Those of us in the Northeast now have 1/3 of all energy in solar. Since the northeast is heavily overbuilt with residences and commercial buildings, we don't have the wide open spaces for wind power. Nor, do we want any offshore drilling or wind turbines due to the heavy damage it would cause to tourism and commercial shipping.
Climate change deniers hate the idea they will lose jobs that should have been gone 40 years ago. Solar is cheaper, works even in states like mine where winters are 5 months long and our ability to contain air, water and soil pollution costs us much less.
But do go ahead and wallow in pollution from your Fossil Fuels. Better yet, there re 150 gas burnoff flames over Galveston TX. Plop yourself 1 mile above it and tell me if your keester doesn't end up like bacon. What a laugh. TX complains about electric storms they create from heating up the atmosphere with 150 burn off flames. rofl.No, solar is not cheaper. My utility is forced to buy from alternative sources and it drives the cost I pay up, not down. And there is the wee matter of depending on power plants out of your area for those long, dark days when the sun doesn't shine but you still demand your power - someone has to build and operate those plants even if you take the NIMBY approach (Not In My Back Yard!) and force them into the back yards of those stupid hicks.
Yes solar IS cheaper. I dare you to Google the name Michael Strizky of Hopewell NJ, a former NASA engineer who has been totally off the grid for nearly 20 years. I dare you to tell the tens of thousands of homeowners in NJ who converted to solar that solar is more expensive.
Stupidity is living in a state where there is plenty of warmth and sunshine and then paying Big Oil prices determined by OPEC and keeping Americans on Saudi oil. Solar is cheaper because it doesn't require electricity. The newest solar powered panels are ingenious grids that store enough sunlight even when there is minimal sun in northeast winters.
I know this because my neighbor has had a solar home since 1974. He recently upgraded the panels because the newer ones are built to resemble asphalt shingles and also are technologically more advanced. He would tell you to your face that only a fool stays on fossil fuels that rise in price when Republicans take office. As prices on gasoline and oil mysteriously have since Trump the Pretender to the Presidency took office.
You'd rather put up a wall of filthy polluting lung disease causing smoke and make a statement you can't prove.
NJ now has hundreds of solar energy companies. ooooooh doesn't that make you just want to fall over and croak? Google Trinity Solar. It's No. 1 in NJ solar energy companies. Now you have the name of a solar company. I dare you to contact them about the cost of solar. You won't do that because then you'd be forced to admit you are wrong.
Unlike your greasy, oily, filthy pipelines that now number 1.6 million miles here in the US, solar doesn't leak into groundwater, putting lives at risk with petrochemical carcinogens. It doesn't cause cancer or lung diseases in children or the vulnerable elderly. It doesn't cause explosions, fires or require burn off flames as in Galveston where 150 of those gas burn off flames heat up the atmosphere and are the cause of TX having such lousy weather.
Your oil boys can't even keep the stupid pipelines from leaking. Already that North Dakota pipeline has leaked over 32,000 gallons of oil into the nearby rivers and streams. Do you need a reminder of the worst oil disaster that killed 11 riggers in the Horizon Deepwater oil rig in the Gulf? Or the massive spill further north near Newfoundland few heard about?
When you can guarantee that not one single pipeline will EVER leak oil into our water, air and soil, do it or stop posting your greasy lies."I dare you to tell the tens of thousands of homeowners in NJ who converted to solar that solar is more expensive. "
OK - it is more expensive. There. It is said, although "more expensive" does have to be tempered with local costs - my electricity in the NW is quite cheap, ranging from $.07 to $.12 per KWH depending on time of day and year.
"Solar is cheaper because it doesn't require electricity."
Apparently you don't understand what the term "solar" means; in the context here it refers to a method of generating electricity. And no, there is not solar panel in the world that "stores sunlight for dark days".
"Now you have the name of a solar company. I dare you to contact them about the cost of solar."
Sorry, but I've already had a solar company visit my home and give an estimate for roof panels. They wouldn't even really discuss it because of the high cost of solar. Just said they couldn't compete with the local power company and wasn't economical viable - the payback period was longer than the lifespan of the cells. How about you - have you gotten an estimate for your own home, or are just spouting advertising lies?
The only "greasy lie" being told here is that solar is cheaper than generator plants running on nuclear, oil, coal gas or hydro sources. It isn't.If solar isn't cheaper, you in the northwest must be math challenged. Time for you bullies of the Big Oil love affair to grow up. First of all, I know more about solar than you ever will. I worked for nearly 25 years with engineers, one a PhD from MIT who was the CheE VP and also an MSME as their accounting manager and tech writer.
Why is it you bullies cannot learn when to keep your mouths shut? Here in NJ, you can buy, lease, lease to purchase or get your panels for free with a monthly bill that is 70% lower than your electricity or big oil bill. As I posted and you seem insistent to contradict, Jersey Central Power & Light has already converted many of their street lights to solar. You can see the solar panels attached to the light poles any day you feel you can leave your hick state.Of course you can get your panels for "free". Except there isn't a company around giving they away for free; what you really mean is you can force someone else to pay for them. Which means that the cost of panels is far more than you would have people believe. If you were indeed a tech writer, you should be smart enough to know that the cost of something with a subsidy attached isn't what that "something" actually cost.
Tell you what: find a solar company with an advertisement of solar panels, giving total cost, installed (including any subsidies), warranty period (life expectancy) and average KWH produced over the last year in your area. If it's more than 10 cents per KWH you lose.
Want to bet that those much touted light poles also have grid power available? They do it here, too, but make sure there is a backup for cloudy days - to depend solely on batteries (not "stored sunlight") will cost a lot of lives.
Let me tell you this ; I too live in the northeast - and we DO NOT have even 1/4 th of our energy from solar , who are you trying to kid !
Something I "do wallow in " is wind towers in the northeast kingdom of Vermont , where three sets of the wind towers ,that probably feed your browned out electrical grid needs , exists , spinning daily , and work away within viewing distance a couple of miles from my house . And NOW a couple of miles from me are large solar farms that are constructed by the same tax dollar subsidization ! I notice that these projects are being located heavily in the rural areas where there are no existing Zoning laws to stop them . That is the latest development in rural New England where the smaller , poorer towns don't have the money or the leadership oR the zoning to control them .
Green energy is great - Or at least it would or will be if it is effective during peak ours , wasn't paid for by my tax dollars and subsidization , didn't obstruct my view , was cost effective and self supporting and isn't destroying the views of our rural areas !
Wallow in that .NJ is now No. 3 in the top states that produces solar energy. I know what state you live in and that's the fault of your Republican moron governor who wants you to chop wood when the coal mines closed down, right?
Sorry but you are the one who is trying to kid everyone. Come to NJ and when you go along the once badly polluted Brown Fields off State Highway No. 1 what do you see? Acres of solar farms. You don't have a clue what a solar farm is because you'd rather take other people's properties by eminent domain so you can Drill Baby Drill.
Anywhere you go in NY City or NJ, you see solar panels. Take the sleep out of your eyes Rip Van Winkle. Solar is here and it is here to stay. When Jersey Central Power & Light puts solar panels on the light poles that "USED TO" be powered by electricity to save money, only a real dope would want to keep drilling for that last drop of oil or natural gas.
Uh science is junque. Sorry but right now the Alaskan fishing industry is in the tank. Why? The crab fishermen who own that $200 billion industry are now down to 50,000 crab quotas because Alaska has had the Bering Sea temperatures so warm that the King Crab, Opies and Bairdi crabs have disappeared.
The only reason the hicks do not want to admit that Global Warming is a problem is because they are the ones most at fault. The only jobs they can get are in fossil fuel industries that keep increasing atmospheric temperatures or, as any farmer would tell you, yo yo climates that go from hot to frigid in a single day in the wrong months of the year.
These are the hicks who can't stand to have to get an education they can actually use for 2017 jobs and jobs of the future. What they want is to lay back and keep a job that existed in the 1900s so they don't ever have to worry about job security. Boooo hooo. Why should the rest of us be bogged down in their pollution that costs our states higher taxes to keep their dirty fossil fuel from polluting air, soil and water so our kids can have good health?
Selfish hicks don't care. They live as if the Great Depression never ended. What's worse is they live in their own little cocoons and then expect the rest of the country to pander to their gross lack of education and laziness.
Somebody recorded phone calls and released the transcripts. They recorded Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Now, where did that come from? Who ordered it? That is a question that needs to be answered. Who let the CIA be hacked? Who gave all that info to wikileaks? So much hacking happened under Obama, it's not even funny anymore.
Given all of the Obama-fication of ALL the branches of the federal government , the compromising of ethics , integrity , honor of the FBI ,CIA , IRS , DOJ , EPA ? you mean ? ..... Gee , ...........I too wonder where all the leaks originated , Not !
How about this ? Obama ordered and- or allowed the total compromising of ethics in government !
The IRS investigated his conservative opponents , The DOJ, compromised from within its top leadership alone for the benefit of Hillary , turned a blind eye to partisan distemper and discourse within the once esteemed and ethical branches of the federal government ; And the world wonders why Russia , for one , knows more about our government operations and divide than THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO ?
I don't care that the Russians hacked us , our enemies can be so dealt with , But when our leaders compromise the integrity of the federal branches of government , Its treasonous .
This is what happens when a "leader "becomes a MessiahAlternative facts. Trump has had more ethical problems in one month than Obama had in 8 years. Trump has played more golf in one month than Obama played in one year. The above is what happens when you watch and listen to too much fact-free news.
"Alternative facts. Trump has had more ethical problems in one month than Obama had in 8 years. "
Only if you assume that the ethical problems of not doing his sworn duty wasn't a problem to Obama. Perhaps it wasn't.Wilderness: I wish Trump would take the time to fulfill his promises instead of placing unrealistic goals on those who are trying to meet his expectations. A case in point is health care. Anybody can repeal it, but replacing it is something else that should take time and deliberate thought, not just getting it done just for the sake of meeting Trump's schedule. That is nothing but political showmanship to prove to his base and others that it can be done.
I wish they would stop talking about why it should be repealed. I think we all understand that is is getting expensive, people couldn't keep their doctors, people are paying the penalty.
NOW, they are in a position to fix the problem. Fix it already!Agreed. They have a second chance of getting this right. It should have been done 7 years ago. Both parties should put aside their politics and do it for the American people. Only a bi-partisan solution will last in the long run. The Congressmen should just do their job as dictated by our Constitution. They are paid to write the bills.
On this I can certainly agree. Not that they WILL accomplish anything with the endless partisanship, but certainly that it is their job, what they are paid to do, and what they SHOULD do.
Read today where during the committee work on the health plan that an effort was made by Dem's to insert a requirement for Trump to provide tax filings. Now that's really helpful in a health care plan!
"They <Democrats> tried unsuccessfully to insert language pressuring President Donald Trump to release his income tax returns, and failed to prevent Republicans from restoring insurance companies' tax deductions for executive salaries above $500,000 — a break Obama's law killed."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 … -bill.html
"I wish Trump would take the time to fulfill his promises instead of placing unrealistic..."
You mean like building the wall that is getting bids? Like the crafting of an ACA replacement? So far it looks to me like he is fulfilling his promises. Of course you can claim that there IS no replacement for ACA, but then you must decide what is being discussed by Congress right now...Here's Trump's promise on healthcare:
"Everybody's got to be covered," he said on "60 Minutes" in September 2015. "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."Then I am absolutely, positively sure that he will fail, for there WILL be a homeless person somewhere in the wilds of Alaska that does not get insurance.
You may now start the hate up again, claiming he lied, for he certainly promised what is impossible to deliver.
However, I'm not sure what that has to do with his efforts to fulfill his promises? Do you bring it up because you agree that there will be at least one homeless person that has no insurance, so it makes a liar out of Trump in that he will never fulfill his promise?I'm realistic about health care. It's not about people without coverage. It's about having the access to it.
We're in a post-lying era now anyway. There's not really much point to elaborating on Trump's lies. We should probably try to focus on the few things he says that are true.While I can understand and agree with this, it's been true for decades. Anyone needing care need only walk into an ER in any non-profit hospital, and the large majority of hospitals are just that.
So maybe it's about having affordable health care as opposed to insurance that pays almost nothing. And "affordable" without requiring bankruptcy to boot.This idea that anyone needing care need only walk into an emergency room has long been a right-wing talking point and a highly misleading one. You must understand the economic falsehood embedded in that argument, yes?
First, providing emergency care to all those without insurance is far more expensive than providing the insurance and finding ways for people to get preventative care. Since the people getting the ER treatment can't pay for that treatment, the costs get spread around to those who can, creating an extremely inefficient system of socialized medicine.
Second, somebody suffering from stage 4 cancer (as a friend of mine is right now) cannot just walk into an emergency room and get chemo treatment.
The reason I posted Trump's promise is that Obama's promise about "keeping your doctor", which turned out not to be true, was widely derided (as it should have been).
Do we hold Trump to the same standard?Personally I think the two are very different. Trumps statement is so obviously not only unlikely but patently impossible that I'm willing to give him a break: that "every" actually means "a huge majority".
Obama's statement on the other hand, was plainly false. It could have been done without too much effort (but with considerable expense) and he didn't do it.Yet, it's exactly what Trump promised. Let's just cut him a break on the meaning and assume he meant generally. So, his plan will be better and more people will be covered and it will be less expensive for them.
I actually don't think he's going to accomplish that - I think I will be losing my health insurance without any change in care costs.
But time will tell, won't it?
Oh ,Thank you for that - I just turned on my channel of Left-stream News Media . What did I ever do without THAT ?
The thing about you claiming that this is all made up is laughable as people are giving you direct quotes that Donald Trump has said.
Today's example was the icing on the cake. He claimed all during the campaign the the labor bureau stats on jobs were all false. When they came out today with the same kinds of numbers they've been reporting, suddenly they are totally true.
The man skews the truth more than any human on the face of the planet and his idiot followers give him a pass on it. Wake up.
I saw this happen
We know this did NOT happen. It would be all over the news. We have to check multiple sources. One can do wonders with Photoshop.Thank you GA! It looks like the attachment is at the elbow. Oops! Wrong pic. The one with finger in Trump's face is the one attached at the elbow.
The hand in front of Obama's face is not his.
As far as other views. You are correct we differ on it as well.
I am a climate change skeptic.
I have studied this issue for over 20 years and found the claims too extreme and little scientific basis.
I also have issues with the theory of evolution as it is taught.
The science and engineering background I have studied, does not fit with how humans are evolved.
Putting tools that are perfect for forgery into the hands of billions has its drawbacks, lol.
On the plus side, I note that Obama left office with a 60 percent approval rating. So, not everyone is fooled by the barrage of propaganda, lies, photoshopping and sloganeering.Oh yes, the digital world. It can make good things look bad and bad things look good. It's all just a bunch of ones and zeros. How they can be interpreted depends on your values and belief systems. They can even make you super rich or super poor.
There you Go , A 60 % approval rating for Obama , true but simply a popularity poll.
and A perfect lie - Leadership isn't a popularity contest ,as liberals SHOULD know and apparently never will !ahorseback: In your world Obama was only good for blaming everything that the republican congress did that is wrong on him. Even Trump blames him for creating a shadow government and wiretapping. Trump even takes credit for last months creation of 235,000 new jobs, even though he has only been in office for a month. What is sad is that you and others actually believe it.
Not making much sense there Diane , Try again ?
Microwave Oven Spying? Kellyanne Conway Explains Comment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/p … .html?_r=0
Keep up!
Actually , Obama was good for nothing at all except for a blatant and complete realization that yes ! The sixties plan of perpetual liberalist divisiveness was permanent in our political system , welcome to the club ! Other than that , as you even know , Obama will go down in history as a Carter-esque political midget .
ahorseback: I believe that you actually believe what you are saying...so sad. Please explain to me why his approval rating was at 65% when he left office. Only you people who live in an alternate reality think otherwise.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/p … ngs-233725Because he enacted the single biggest give away program in the history of the world, and there are lots and lots of people very happy to live of someone else's dime? And likely even more people that view federal expenditures as "free" - that there is no related tax or debt rise connected to federal dollars.
Wilderness, I get it. Federally subsidized health insurance is a give-a-way.
Except that a country that doesn't do something to help millions and millions of people stay healthy is going to be in a lot of trouble. Doesn't it make more sense to figure out a way to spend less money by getting those people more preventative care to keep them out of hospitals and lower the premiums of other people who are paying for insurance and subsidizing those others' visits to the emergency room?
While I'm thinking about it, shouldn't we do away with forcing people to buy auto insurance too?
Rather than deny health insurance to the poor, I might advocate for penalizing people with higher premiums who have habits that lead to more medical care, like smoking, overeating, not exercising - or incentivize (other than the probability of living longer) those with good habits with lower premiums.Unfortunately, all the "excepts" in the world don't change the fact of what I said; millions of people are quite happy to live off someone else's dime, and that makes them very happy with the giveaway.
But I really am at a loss to understand the comparison between health insurance, useful ONLY for protecting the insured and required auto insurance which ONLY protects anyone the insured injures. Can you explain that a little more?
I think you'd have a really tough time penalizing those that overeat (most of the nation) or don't exercise (most white collar workers). Somehow I just don't see that one being accepted.You're giving medical care away either way. You either giving it away in the form of preventative care or you're giving it away in the form of emergency room visits. Which do you prefer? Or are you advocating that hospitals turn away people who don't have insurance?
*shrug* Perhaps they should, or at least demand payment regardless of what it does to the person.
But whatever choice might be made, we as a society (at least the majority of it) has decided we need to give health care to everyone. Given that, it seems only reasonable to do it the cheapest way possible, and that does NOT include padding the bottom line of insurance companies.
Might consider a 24 hour clinic next door to the ER, too, with a triage nurse the first thing an ER patient sees. That'll end the tremendous costs associated with minor injuries/illnesses going through the ER.I LOVE urgent care. I hate emergency rooms. I don't know if they take people in urgent care that don't have insurance.
This is the saddest thing about the new technology. It has allowed nationalistic leaders to win elections around the world. Their winning has been accorded in large part by journals like www.economist.com to the creation of echo chambers using social media.
As large parts of the population restrict their media consumption. The debate which is the characteristic of journalism is shut out. As more viewers read fewer and limited media outlets, their familiarity to argument- which is the foundation of democracy is buried.
The social media -opinion makers question the traditional opinion makers and their tactics. The population enters into a cynical spiral
Hence, we have more unpredictable elections and vitriol around traditional mediaAll the reason to disconnect from social media, and all IoT, these connections will lead to 1984 and we have no one to blame but ourselves. There is no reason for any home devices to be connnected to the web, the most easy to hack...
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0There is no arguing that those who most use the system most ,That the "Giving it Away " of health care is actually the point . Why should it come for free without monetary compensation . For years , for decades , I have paid for insurance that I never used enough , never meet or have met the deductibles , never get to do anything but pay cash for myself .
While I watched as the people with multiple kids go to the ERs to have said kids noses wiped for free or at my subsidization , most of them being "On the system "
And now , They want ALL it for "free ."
But I continue with trying to fill unrealistic "deductibles" AND paying for theirs too ?ahorseback: That's the way all insurance works. Your car insurance, house insurance, group insurance all are based on somebody paying for others use of it. The insurance companies bet that your are never going to use it, while your are betting you will use it. Although, it does become handy if you do have to use it, for catastrophic failure. And along the way, the insurance companies make mega bucks. You can thank the money changers for figuring out this risk/reward scheme. But it is a reality of living in society. If you don't like it, just drop off the grid.
By the way everybody, this forum is about Jeff Sessions and Obama wiretapping.Today should be the day!!!! Comey is supposed to say "something???" to Lindsay Graham about whom is under investigation ... if anyone.
Your description of how insurance works is incredibly skewed from reality, and has almost no connection to the real world.
Insurance premiums are based on the average cost expected, from a statistical analysis of a large group of similar people/situations. A profit margin is added and the figure becomes what you will pay. The insurance company "bet" is no more a "bet" than the profit margin expected from running a craps table or a slot machine for thousands of players. The house WILL win (show a profit) if the game continues long enough.
The total amount of premiums collected is used to pay the costs of the car accidents/home fires/health care. Should one person have a larger than normal loss it will be covered from the pool of money collected because another had no loss. But to say it is based on someone else paying for your costs is disingenuous, for it is your money, statistically, that pays for your costs.
But not socialized medical insurance. In that case it really IS someone else paying for your costs (or you paying for someone else's costs) as there is no attempt to assign premiums based on history or statistics. Only on ability to pay, which means the system is set up so that some will pay for others needs.Wilderness: It's what I said only my description is simplified compared to your detailed description.
By the way, getting back to the topic of this forum, the House Intelligence Committee ordered by Trump to investigate the Obama wiretapping found no evidence of wiretapping or a FISA warrant being issued. Senator Lindsey Graham has ordered Comey of the FBI to state his findings by Monday 3/20. If Comey doesn't come through, Graham will subpoena the DOJ to release the information.
It looks like this whole fiasco cover-up of Jeff Sessions being investigated is backfiring on Trump and Company including Mark Levin for broadcasting an article that had nothing to do with Obama and wiretapping; Steve Bannon for using it for evidence; Trump for tweeting it four times: Kellyann Conway for saying Obama could have used a microwave oven or smart TV for surveillance.
I hope this is a lesson to Trump and Company that now he is President of the United states, he can't make false accusations as a diversion to cover up misdeeds. It works while in campaign mode, but not as the leader of the free world. These are serious allegations with consequences. Let's see how they distract, divert, deflect, and spin the facts to get out of this one."It's what I said only my description is simplified compared to your detailed description. "
Except that your "description" implies that all insurance, whether auto, home, health or Obamacare, is centered around someone else paying for your bills. It isn't - only Obamacare with it's subsidies and requirements for purchase, coupled with ignoring statistical risks, takes that approach.Trump is reopening the can of poop! More information coming out in two weeks!
ahorseback, do you understand that those who go to emergency rooms for care are often doing so for free and that the proposed GOP Obamacare alternative will just increase that number thereby increasing expenses?
The idea behind "free" health care is that those of us who pay will see reductions in our costs because preventative care helps reduce costs.No visit to a healthcare facility is "free " , preventative medicine is one thing , but the rest is paid for by the masses who pay their premiums , the abuses from both over users and the corruption in the industry itself need regulating !
There is nothing that is for "free" .Open your eyes to what your "Christmas wish list "entitlements cost others !.Exactly, so that question then becomes: is it more economical to offer people who can't afford health insurance "free" health insurance or wait until they go to the emergency room? Or, I guess, should people be turned away at the emergency rooms and left to die or suffer?
If we provide health insurance for those who can't afford it, then we decrease their number of sick days. We make it more likely they will be productive members in the work force thereby earning money and spending money and contributing to the economy. Those who we let get sick - or who get sick as the result of not being able to afford health insurance - make others sick. They miss more days of work. They earn less and spend less.
Either way, those of us who can afford health insurance are paying for those who can't.It is called insurance if all parties pay up front and when some get sick, they collect the benefit.
What we have with Obamacare is not insurance but welfare disguised as insurance. When 80% of new insured can't pay the premiums, they are subsidized by the government. The taxpayers end up footing the bill, definition of welfare.
I don't remember the term for it , But hospitals and their business centers have a term for how they "write off " the costs of providing care for the uninsured , I have even had a friend who's family use[d] that term often and without ever being billed .
My problem with the system is this , For years I worked often using insurance companies , as a self employed building contractor I got used to customers and their insurers calling me with claims of their customers needs , ie. a tree through their roof , etc. in doing so I was to learn that insurers paid premium prices for my business administration costs , labor cost figures , material mark -ups etc..... and I got used to , as many people do , over charging them . I also saw this practice expanded upon in being a supervisor for large const. companies .
This practice is the same in all forms of service companies , Its the same in auto body shops , auto glass companies , as it is in hospitals and doctors offices , IT IS D B.A.U. practice , doing- business -as- usual . How does anyone think that an aspirin costs $ 80.00 in the hospital , a change of injury bandages $ 300.00 or a diaper for incontinence $ 240 .00 , what do you suppose a diaper for a premi baby costs to change in pre-natal care .................Next time you get a hospital bill - Have them itemize it !
How will providing "free health care " be billed , be charged or be paid for with these examples happening in the health care industry , are any of you willing to pay your share of these examples?
Government - Is where $400.00 dollar toilet seats and $600.00 hammers come from !That is quite possibly the least aggressive thing I've ever seen you post. I don't disagree with any of it. So, see, liberals and conservatives can agree on something.
The conservative solution seems to be to let people die in the street. The "emergency room" solution isn't a solution, but a continuation of the problem. Providing "free" health insurance has the potential and probability to lower our costs (yours and mine), by lowering the cost of overall health expenditures by keeping people healthy rather than waiting for them to get chronic conditions that are dealt with in emergency rooms.Your "Dying in the streets " term , is a joke ., there is one good reason NOT to even try to debate you , Your assumption that conservatives want patients dying in the streets is a statement of mindless accusation , England has free healthcare - do you suppose people don't die in the streets there ? Do you suppose there is no drug addiction there because preventative care is free and included ? Do you think that veterans don't die without care -there because care is free ?
Want to seriously debate why I should pay for your free care because I work and you may not ? Get serious and stop with the" Dying in the streets " mindless arguments .
Obama care has been" breaking the banks " for two years now , underwriters are running away all over the country , My question is who pays and how ?Pretty simple question .It's called hyperbole. You don't seem capable of answering the basic question here: is it less expensive to provide people with preventative health options or to wait until they need to go to the emergency room?
That has already been proven out within a growing and overfed ,overly subsidized , system and doesn't need my answer , Why , ? Because look around you ! Has all of the drug , alcohol education prevention worked , what about opioids and those addictions , what about rape on campus' , or wearing seat belts , no using cell phones and texting while driving ?
Any of that worked ? ................................ No ? I didn't think so .
Your question is a loaded one , emergency rooms are for emergencies , education is for the inform able ,......next question ?
I would disagree with hospitals "over" charging insurance companies for the most part. In reality, insurance companies usually require a patient to use the doctors/hospitals that the company has already negotiated with, and will provide lower not higher bills because of that negotiation. At least every plan I've had for the last couple of decades has been that way.
Wrong ,.......... Clinics especially are famous for the "passing around " of patients , My wife worked at a clinic that had ,by regulation , a General Practitioner , next to that the Chiropractors office and his wife was an acupuncturist , the patients come in the door to see the Doc , he then "prescribes " chiropractic AND acupuncture to most patients ...............see the rip off pattern .
Of course its all an insurance bill - Why ? because it was "prescribed " by the resident Doc. !
Doctors offices are some of the worst abusers - Have you seen the recent Medicaid Fraud charges in the state of California in recent news ?Now that I can see happening, and quite often. But that's just fraud, not a doctor charging insurance patients more (although when I had eye surgery I got a hefty discount for paying cash - the assumption is that insurance would have paid more)
Friend of mine couldn't afford his insurance co-Pay for a MRI imaging of his head ,........ the doctor wouldn't prescribe it for his treatment , long story .....Yet he knew something was up in his head , he starts calling different hospitals to get cash quote for the MRI service ..........he settles on paying
$ 1,200 dollars cash ,
What does the hospital charge your insurance co . $ 5- -8,000 dollars +
Anybody see a problem with conservative fighting the tax subsidization of a Blue Cross / Obama Care health care system ? ..........If you don't , I have no answers for you !
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Wire Tapping , If it happened , it happened because of the Wussification of the a wekl and liberally flooded , influenced Obama DOJ system trying to preserve an Obama agenda .
If wire tapping didn't happen , It is because Trump is playing the same kinds of liberally oriented political games , because that is his true calling ........a performer performing phony outrage !
Where's Ronald Reagan when we need him ! Hopefully, he won't demand an investigation at taxpayer's expense. We're already paying for seven investigations of Benghazi (when people actually died) when one was enough. One was enough in Beruit when 240 Marines died because of a president's failed policies.
That's correct Kathleen , enough internally , divisive diplomacy perpetrated against the American public by the American government .
Here is what I stated in the introduction to this forum:
"Isn't it interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for interacting with Russia. Trump and his crew do it by repeating lies , deflect, divert, distract,bullying, and intimidating. If you watch CNN, you get one reality. If you watch Fox news, it is a totally different reality. Trump supporters will believe him without any evidence to support his claims. As Trump would say, "sad, very sad."
Everybody has missed what the motivation was and still is for Trump's accusations. It was to take the heat off of Sessions and Trump about collusion with the Russians...and it is working.
This all started when Louis Mensch wrote an article about Obama wiretapping. She was a former member of the British Parliament and as a contributor to Heat Street, she wrote an article about a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Mark Levin an ultra right, shock jock radio host and a professed hater of Obama broadcasted the article to his audience. Steve Bannon, Trump' Chief Adviser passed the article on to Trump. Trump then sent out his four tweets accusing Obama of Wiretapping his phones.
This took the heat off of Jeff Sessions. Obama then ordered a house intelligence committee investigation to further distract everybody, knowing full well they could not have access to the FISA warrants. Senator Lindsey Graham then asked the DOJ to investigate the veracity of Trump's accusations. So far everybody on the house intelligence committee says there is no credible evidence. Monday, James Comey, the head of the FBI will make a statement as far as the DOJ's findings. Trump has not apologized and said in two weeks he will have the evidence.
Here is the link to the article that started this whole fiasco:
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi- … to-russia/I read it! This gives me some background.
Thanks peeps!Hi there peoplepower73,
I have a thought, (I know I should just let it go on its merry way, but...), addressing your perspective that seems to amount to an instance of 'the tail wagging the dog', relative to the reason(s) Pres. Trump made his "wiretapping" accusations. Could it be the genius of understanding today's sound-bite, meme, attention span?
Now wait... don't misinterpret this as a Trump-supportive perspective, (I wish), but considering his, (Pres. Trump's), life and career experiences, is it too bizarre to consider that he is at the top of his game, doing what he is doing?
I don't think that there can be any doubt that he has changed the previously-accepted political landscape, but I wonder if he is really as unknowing as some of his actions seem to imply?
Human nature is what it is. No matter how we wish it to be otherwise. Peel away a layer or two of security - and you will soon see folks trashing their formerly beloved elderly neighbor to get that last bag of flour. Could Pres. Trump be missing the big picture - why decorum is important, or could he be the messenger telling us our decorum values are misplaced?
Presently, I am inclined to believe you have a valid point in your "distraction and deflection" perspective, but, but ... I certainly hope you are wrong. I strongly believe that a Isolationist and Nationalistic public and governmental perspective is as dangerous, now, as any hazard we could face as a nation.
GAGA: I hope I'm wrong as well. But If you watch and listen closely, you will see that this is a pattern of behavior that is becoming more predictable with each move he makes. If he makes accusations with no validity, he will ask for opened ended investigations. in other words, the burden of proof is not on him, but on the accused. For example, the birther movement. He made the accusation, Obama had to prove his birth certificate, but there are many out there who still believe he was born in Africa. He claims he won the popular vote, because the balance was won by fraudulent voters. He ordered an investigation that will go on until it can be proven otherwise. His supporters will continue to believe he was right. The pattern with the wiretapping will have supporters, even though the chances are very good that he was lying.
If he feels he has been insulted, he will counter-punch with 10 times the force of his opponent. If he is accused, he will deflect, divert, and distract with some made up scenario to change the course of the accusation. He never apologizes for his wrong doings and thinks Fox news is real news and mainstream media is fake news. Although he got into trouble when he quoted Fox news' Napolitano stating that Obama ordered the British GCHQ to surveille Trump. It created an international incident. with the British and a loss of credibility.Peoplepower , It's a funny thing To watch........... An ideology that discarded truth ,integrity and accuracy of ALL the media outlets , threw away the handbook of the election process and created a media atmosphere that rivals every thing that could come out of the outrageously dishonest Russian media of the past !
And NOW demand truth ,integrity and accuracy out of the Trump administration , AND actually think they know what truth IS !
Maybe you should take Hilary's latest advice , "Come out of the woods "Trump definitely told the truth when he said he gets his news from the shows. I thought he was kidding.
ahorseback: I'm sorry, I'm just a dumb a** liberal who has never been in the woods. I see things for what they really are. Trump stepped on his own crank this time by quoting Fox news as real news and created an international incident. Since he aligned himself with the republican party, he has paid allegiance to Fox news and decreed that "mainstream media" is fake news and the enemy of the people.
Fox news is not only on TV, but also on the radio serving as the mouthpiece and propaganda apparatus for the right wing of the republican party. Breibart and Alt Right are the internet components of the ultra right wing.
While Mainstream media is only on TV. Most of Trumps "forgotten ones" may not even be able to afford TV, but they can certainly listen to Fox news on the radio and therefore it creates their reality. Which I'm sorry to say is going to disappoint them when their coal miner jobs and steel mill jobs are not coming back as Trump always promises in his never ending, continuous campaign rallies, fraught with lies and false equivalences...Maybe you should listen to your own advice and you should come out of the woods.
Hello again peoplepower73, your response seems to support my thought that he could be playing "at the top of his game."
I am not sure I can agree with a few of your closing points. I am not convinced he thinks Fox News "is real news," as in the only one that is. I think his support of that perception is because it benefits him.
And I am still of the mind that Pres. Trump could still turn out to be just the medicine we need to jolt us out of the political rut our previous run of politicians put us in.
GAHonestly, I certainly hope you're right because everything right now points to him being a world-class imbecile, a horrible leader, a supporter of white supremacy, as well as a horrible person.
Holy Cow, Crankalicious! Don't be shy. Tell us how you really feel.
But... Can you consider this possibility? (Remember, as Spock said; "There are always possibilities)
Could candidate Trump's persona, (we can debate whether it is the same as his presidential persona), have been the only one that could have energized previously non-participating voters to come out and vote to change our past 'politics as usual' voting patterns. As in, could his crudeness been the only way to break the mold? A mold which I have heard many of us, Left and Right, proclaim to be defective.
Now, putting decorum and decency perspectives aside, what do you think justifies your accusations of a White Supremacist attitude? Let me forewarn you that repeating accusations against Bannon won't cut it. For all his, (Bannon), 'Ultra-Conservative' views, I think a look at his pre-Trump history will deny you the foundation for that accusation.
GAI'll take this one. The very nature of his immigrant ban is one. He's basing it off of a religion instead of off of people with ties to terrorism. Simply replace the word Muslim with Jew and you can understand how people can equate the man to Hitler.
Restrict those with ties to terrorism and everyone would be fine with some extra vetting. But the man is making an assumption that all who follow Islam are terrorists. And the way he's saying it is causing some of his uneducated, violent followers to do real harm to minorities (Kansas, Seattle, Oregon).Hello Valeant, I don't think we have spoken before, so I will tread lightly, but your inclusion of "Hitler" in your comment does a lot to damage the credibility of your perspective - at least to me. And I will just leave that point of your comment in your hands.
Moving on, I completely disagree. To many, many Americans, (at least I think many, many, and candidate Trump's election seems to validate my perception), Pres. Trump's efforts to ban Muslims, (I won't insult your intelligence by trying to describe it otherwise), from those six nations ring true to the voters that elected him.
Whether you think it valid or not, many folks group Muslims in general with the Islamic Extremist Muslims that are committing those very public terrorist atrocities. I am not one of them, but I do recognize the angst that shapes them.
Since you were so ready to "take this one," just how would you recommend vetting for ties to terrorism?
GAHey GA, I do like the tone of your conversation. There's no attacking, more a devil's advocate approach. It's refreshing.
Grouping all Muslims in with those that commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of discrimination. Because you argue for Trump, I don't assume that you have a fiery cross burning out on the yard. It would be great of our President could also differentiate between peaceful and violent people. A rational human being should be able to do that, but instead he's telling his followers that anyone who is Muslim may be a terrorist. That's pretty discriminatory.
It's not exactly racism, so much as religious persecution. There's one ginormous figure in history that also discriminated based on religion, so many rational people do compare him to that guy.
As for vetting for terrorism, we have intelligence services such as the CIA for a reason. We also have something in our justice system called innocent until proven guilty. There needs to be a balance between those things.
Most terror attacks these days are coming from homegrown terrorists that are converted. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, Fort Hood. Want to solve the problem? Find ways to stop those threats not some discriminatory ban that alienates an entire religion of 2 Billion people."Grouping all Muslims in with those that commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of discrimination."
While this is being jumped on by many, I just don't find it realistic. If we point out that inner city Chicago has a strong violence problem, are we "discriminating" against blacks because it also has a high percentage of blacks living there? We didn't say that blacks in other parts of the country are violent...
If we build a wall across our southern border are we discriminating against Hispanics because it is primarily Hispanics that live south of the wall? Or are we discriminating against Christians because the population south of that border is largely Christian?
What seems to be left out of the equation is the incidence of terrorism, the "openness" of terrorists and the population of terrorists, in the countries banned. That those countries are predominately Muslim, and it is thus predominately Muslims banned (although not entirely), is unfortunate, but does not make the ban one against a specific religion - if it were the religion would have to be indicated in the ban and all the other predominately Muslim countries would have to be included. It does make it easy to make the claim it is religious persecution, but only if most of the story is ignored and carefully left out of any discussion.
"As for vetting for terrorism, we have intelligence services such as the CIA for a reason."
I'm certainly no expert on vetting, but I have yet to see anyone saying that any vetting process we have is effective from those countries. Instead, it seems the common opinion that any vetting we do is not effective; that it requires help from the government, help that is not forthcoming.
As far as homegrown terrorists, that is certainly true. But while I'm not positive, it also seems true that most of those people have had contact with others that have come from that part of the world, either by visiting there themselves or by contacting people that came from there. Once more pointing to the area being a problem.
Plus, of course, the US citizens committing terrorist acts aren't being vetted. Insinuating that we don't need to properly vet entrants to the country because our vetting programs are successfully keeping them out, to the point that most terrorism is now homegrown, doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, it would seem that it is an indication that we need to keep doing what we already are, while adding additional work to eliminate such homegrown threats.Hey bud, I hope you don't mind if I grab the "vetting" part of your comment to address the issue from what I think is a relatively common-sense description.
First, my impression is that many folks view the video images of refugees flooding across borders, as the same flood that is massing to board ships for the U.S., with only an Ellis Island-type vetting process as they board the ship. Or at most, as a vetting process that involves checking data bases for terrorist connections - when we all know that most of these third-world countries don't even have such data bases. Hence the obvious doubt that any current vetting process is adequate.
If that perception is wrong, then what follows will not address their concerns at all.
After a bit of looking around, here is my perception of what the vetting process, now in place, (pre-Trump), is really like.
To start, the immigration process is nothing like a mass of people flooding to board ships, (or airplanes), as soon as they cross into a safe territory. It is typically an eighteen month to two year process. In reality, those among those flooding masses that do get immigration permission, have waited two years for that process.
Now consider; If that is true, then our real concern would be agents planted in the masses to become sleeper agents, not suicide-vest wearing terrorists just waiting to plunge into an American city to push the button. Which I think is the perception of many folks declaring the vetting process to be inadequate.
Further, the vetting process itself. It is my understanding that NGO folks, using trusted local sources, start the vetting by first looking at an individual's, (let's call him Ahmed), local picture. As in a seeker from one small town, (Ahmed), would first be asked about from trusted sources familiar with that small town.
If there are no negatives, then Ahmed would be passed on to a more territorial-informed trusted local source. If that trusted source finds no problems with the small-town local trusted source's recommendation, then Ahmed would be placed on a list for "official" inquiry. Which means a search of local and regional government and law enforcement data sources, (which, even if they exist, are usually less than adequate for identifying any but the most notorious of criminals).
Now this is not an internet keystroke type response. To get to just this point probably takes Ahmed about 6 months.
So far Ahmed has passed the test. Now, Ahmed's name and immigration application are submitted to the official U.S. Embassy or Consulate for official permission to immigrate. This is when the typically understood data base inquiries come into play. The official Embassy queries all relative U.S. data bases, and all relevant international data bases that might be applicable. This is another four to six month process.
So far so good. Ahmed has passed all the inquires - no red Flags. Now Ahmed begins a series of face-to-face interviews with the U.S. representatives, familiar with the region, and its various sub-territories, that will ultimately determine whether his application is submitted for inclusion on the list of "official" immigration applications. This process includes interviews with more than one U.S. representative, and is typically another four-to six month process.
At this point Ahmed has waited approximately sixteen months. Has passed review by knowledgeable local and regional local trusted sources, has passed review by the locally-familiar NGO representatives, and has passed face-to-face interviews with skeptical official U.S. personnel.
Ahmed gets approval to get on the official immigration application list. From here, depending on the recommendations of his long trail of processors and interviewers as to the immediacy of his need, Ahmed could get his immigration visa in as little as two weeksa, or as long as another twelve months.
I may have overly generalized a few of the processes, but that is at least a representative picture of our current vetting process.
I think this must beg the question; Is this the route a terrorist organization would take in most instances, when it would be so much easier to slip aboard a steamer and be smuggled across a border, or use fake documents to board a plane and sneak in?
Since I believe my search for this information is valid, and since I don't think most terrorist organizations would go through all that when there are much easier and quicker routes, I think all this ballyhoo about vetting immigrants is a smokescreen for the real need. And that would be to take some public action, almost any public action, to assure a nervous public that their government is taking steps to keep them safe.
And that is why I do support Pres. Trump's actions to initiate a Travel ban. Our citizens need some type of reassurance. And that action has nothing to do with religious persecution, (that's for you Valeant), and everything to do with our own sense of security.
Whew! looks like Will was right. I am long-winded. But I sure hope he is wrong about the patronizing part.
GAWhile I agree that is a reasonable expectation of vetting, I'm not nearly as sure it applies to refugees fleeing a country. Kind of hard to go through months and months while walking down the road to get out of a town being bombed.
But even if it were, the first few steps - getting information from town and local government - are an immediate failure. That is, I believe, what the biggest problem with the vetting is - there IS no local information.
Terrorists won't do all that - yet there are most assuredly terrorists in this country that have been here for years doing nothing more than perhaps a little verbal "help" in converting others. Consider that the pilots of 911 did not simply board a plane, enter the country, and fly a 737 into a tower. It took months and months to learn to fly those jets, and that was AFTER getting here and making arrangements to go to school. To think that ISIS, Al Qaeda and others aren't willing to take the long view in some of their plans doesn't make sense.Hi Wilderness, those were good points. The line to a "local reference" could be a long one from a point of origin to an intermediate camp where any vetting would start.
In the explanations I found, which I did find credible, the point was, (even if my poor illustration didn't serve it well), was that those moving masses seen in the news, are not indicative of the common view that might give the impression of similar masses waiting to board a vessel for the U.S. And just as important to my illustration, was the emphasis that this was the process for immigrating to the U.S. I don't know if the process is similar for those crossing into one European nation from another.
I also don't disagree that terrorist organizations are willing to take the "long view," and dedicate a couple years process to get someone in. I am just arguing against what I think is a popular misconception; The U.S. will allow x-number of immigrants, so just peel of x-number from those roiling masses and stick them on a boat to America.
GA
Thanks for the kind words Valeant, one of the reasons I take the approach I do is because I don't like to be wrong. And parroting partisan mantras, or participating in wishful Kumbaya thinking are almost always mistake ridden paths. So, if I am going to say something idiotic, I at least want it to be original.
For example; I do agree that "Grouping all Muslims in with those that commit atrocities is pretty much the definition of discrimination." But not in the negative sense you imply. I would look at this particular type of discrimination as a natural, and understandable human reaction. Not a discrimination born of hate or superiority-type origins, but one born of fear.
I would consider it as similar to profiling. OMG! Yes, I think some types of profiling are legitimate and necessary actions.
Regarding your thought relative to my supporting Trump, (either as candidate, or president), I must really be doing a poor job of explaining what I mean.
I do not support Donald Trump as a man. I do not support Trump as being the great man with the great plan to make everything beautiful again. I am embarrassed by the image of America that his persona projects - relative to my values of decency, to the rest of the world.
But... I do not think he is a dumb and unaware man. So I cannot disregard the possibility that the projection that many anti-Trump folks describe as the "Orange man-baby" is a purposeful projection. So until I know more, I am not jumping on either bandwagon.
I do very much support the symbolism that is Trump - anti-establishment. I do think that our nation needs to get out of the political rut we have been in for the last fifty or so years. I do think it took something as drastic as Trump to do that. I do think that the, (oh Gawd, I have to say it), Powers-that-be, were too entrenched and too powerful to be dislodged by anything less than a Trump.
I do support several of candidate Trump's declared intentions, but at this point, I am unsure that Pres. Trump's intentions remain as stated by candidate Trump. It is just too early for me to feel comfortable forming an opinion.
So, just to be clear - I am not a Trump supporter. I am not a carte blanch(sp?) supporter of his programs. But that still leaves me room to be a supporter of the concept and symbolism of Trump, and some of his programs.
Now, regarding the vetting for terrorists, I glanced ahead and noted an opportunity to address that with Wilderness, which would also fit the bill for addressing that part of your comment. I hope you take a look.
GABut... I do not think he is a dumb and unaware man. So I cannot disregard the possibility that the projection that many anti-Trump folks describe as the "Orange man-baby" is a purposeful projection. So until I know more, I am not jumping on either bandwagon.
--------
GA, I know that you have accused me of Trump bashing. What make you think that his actions are that of a thoughtful and reflective man? In 60 days he has proven Rash and impulsive, having poor judgement, not even smart enough to get counsel and advice before charging forth.
Who would accuse President Obama of a felony without being smart enough to provide some cover to delay the revelation of the truth, if he had some ulterior motive for these brazen statements.Who would do this? Is he trying to be clever, because if that is it, it falls flat.
Whatever BIG change or shake up you are looking for, Trump is not your standard bearer.Come on Cred, you just haven't been listening!
Stop trying to defend your perspective. I haven't declared you are wrong. I have just declared there is no surety you are right.
Think of it this way: (sorry, but this will be a bit repetitive of my recent response to crankalicious)
Consider one of those cop shows where a detective says this case is just too pat, too easy, something isn't right here. We're missing something. And in the end, that detective was right, it was a frame-up.
As I noted to Crankalicious, Trump has a 30 or 40 year successful business career. So you won't convince me he is an idiot or moron. He may be crude, rude, and unrefined, (might be hard for me to refute that), but he is not dumb.
So, even if he is a pawn, (my jury is still out on that one), I think he would at least be a smart pawn. And if that is true, when would he have been chosen to be one, by whoever chose him? 5 years ago? 10? Could he have been as successful as he has for 10 - 30 years, and not realize someone was trying to use him now?
As you can see I don't think he is someone's pawn. Maybe a willing collaborator, but certainly not a pawn. At least as I see it.
And the part about me considering him reflective and thoughtful... Ha! You Americans, you so funny!
Now, that 60 day thing, rash and impulsive? Hmm... Could it be possible that his "Obama wiretapped me" accusation rescued Sessions, after the debacle of Flynn? If it was a purposeful deflection, then one appropriate adjective might be brilliant, or at least very smart and savvy. But I have to stop there. I can't find any footing to rebut that "rash" thought.
As for Trump being my standard bearer for "big change," he is already half-way there. He has upset the 'business as usual political establishment" - big time. Now, if he can just hang on long enough to get a couple pieces of legislation through - good or bad legislation, (the bad can be corrected later), then an important message will have been delivered, and the 2018 and 2020 political scene just might be a bit more responsive to our nations needs.
Or not, maybe our problem is a Hydra, and a few more heads need to be confronted.
Anyway, back to where I started - pay attention. Just because I am not willing to agree with you does not mean I am saying you are wrong.
Peace, love, and see ya at the campfire. It's been one of those nights. ;-)
GACome on Cred, you just haven't been listening!
Stop trying to defend your perspective. I haven't declared you are wrong. I have just declared there is no surety you are right.
Think of it this way: (sorry, but this will be a bit repetitive of my recent response to
----------------
Consider one of those cop shows where a detective says this case is just too pat, too easy, something isn't right here. We're missing something. And in the end, that detective was right, it was a frame-up.
-------------------
Ok, GA, but I think that it is more like a 'Get Smart' moment, he is as dumb as he looks and behaves. Don't need to call out Sherlock Holmes on this one.
-----------------
As I noted to Crankalicious, Trump has a 30 or 40 year successful business career. So you won't convince me he is an idiot or moron. He may be crude, rude, and unrefined, (might be hard for me to refute that), but he is not dumb.
--------------------
I won't refute that but he has had a lot of advantages going in. But being crude, rude and unrefined in his current position these days is being dumb. Jed Clampett in the Oval Office? I don't know.
---------------
So, even if he is a pawn, (my jury is still out on that one), I think he would at least be a smart pawn. And if that is true, when would he have been chosen to be one, by whoever chose him? 5 years ago? 10? Could he have been as successful as he has for 10 - 30 years, and not realize someone was trying to use him now?
----------
He is a political neophyte,yes he has the impulse to be the 'tough guy' for public consumption. I don't see his really being the populist alternative, more just a different color from the bag of GOP M&Ms. I would not even go so far as to say a different flavor. His policies and edicts point clearly in the direction of just another GOP apparatchik. He will be far more GOP than independent, making him part of very swamp that he claims he wants to drain. Being a willing collaborator is almost as bad.
----------------
As you can see I don't think he is someone's pawn. Maybe a willing collaborator, but certainly not a pawn. At least as I see it.
And the part about me considering him reflective and thoughtful... Ha! You Americans, you so funny!
Now, that 60 day thing, rash and impulsive? Hmm... Could it be possible that his "Obama wiretapped me" accusation rescued Sessions, after the debacle of Flynn? If it was a purposeful deflection, then one appropriate adjective might be brilliant, or at least very smart and savvy. But I have to stop there. I can't find any footing to rebut that "rash" thought.
-----
But that does reflect a great deal on the man's character does it not? He can drag Obama and the British through the mud in the interests of some sort of diversion for his own benefit? It will be a deflection that will amount to Trump getting the pie in his own puss as the outcome.
------------
As for Trump being my standard bearer for "big change," he is already half-way there. He has upset the 'business as usual political establishment" - big time. Now, if he can just hang on long enough to get a couple pieces of legislation through - good or bad legislation, (the bad can be corrected later), then an important message will have been delivered, and the 2018 and 2020 political scene just might be a bit more responsive to our nations needs.
------------------
I don't know how you can remain so optimistic that this guy is the soothing balm for all that is wrong with American politics? His effect has ALL been negative. What is the correlation between a Trump Presidency and a more responsive political establishment in the coming years? What is that you think that we need that Trump will help deliver on?
-----------------
To each is own, GA, but you are in for a big let down. I guess I am just going have to wait for it all to become clear. But just remember, you heard it here first.Ha! A "Get Smart moment." I like that Cred.
But just like my answer to your "reflective and thoughtful" query - "I ain't getting into a fight with an empty gun." on this one either.
GA
He's not including the Middle Eastern countries that bless his pocketbook. He has to have villains but he also wants to continue to make money.
Ha! You see! It came sooner than you thought.
Your posted sentiment is nothing more than an anti-Trump talking point. How about some originality. You could have at least offered up Saudi Arabia as a specific example of his 'pocket book' reasoning.
The six nations included in the ban can arguably be described as the worst of the worst. What would your position be if the ban had included every predominately-Muslim nation in the world? Would that have been OK with you?
As one of my favorite, previous talk-show hosts, (Neil Bortz), liked to say; "I am an equal-opportunaty offender." BS is BS no matter which part of the spectrum it comes from.
GANever heard of Neil Bortz. Is he long-winded and patronizing?
Ha! Nice jab Will, but you missed.
However, I will answer as if it were a sincere inquiry.
He is no longer on the air. When he was, he was a man that suited my perspective.He had moderate conservative ideologies. Party or partisanship held no sway with him. Although he did think the Liberals were more of an idiot than their Conservative counterparts.
He was a Purple. He could endorse a good Progressive idea, if it were right. And he had no hesitancy to call out far-right idiots when they deserved it.
I like to think that sometimes I might be a bit of a conduit for some of his perspectives. On the other hand, he was an anti-gluten evangelist, so maybe he was a bit of a nut, and that might be my real affinity with him.
ps. I hope, as a sincere personal request, you will be more forthright if it seems I might be included in that "patronizing and long-winded" characterization. We all have opportunities for growth, and I am always appreciative of those that help me with mine.
GA
Mr. Anderson,
I must say that I admire the tone you take with everyone. I wish I could be like that all the time.
That said, is there really any argument I could make that would convince you that Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller are racists and/or hold white supremacist views? I would think the whole history of Breitbart would speak to that. Is there really any argument I could make that would convince you that Trump is a dangerous moron? I mean, he's made a lot of statements and I could list them all, but that doesn't seem to convince anyone of anything. His supporters just say he didn't really mean it and to not take him seriously.
I've made this point several times, but the GOP is the party that rejects basic science, so I find it hard to argue with anyone who wants to support the notion that climate change is a hoax when virtually every climate scientist on the planet says the opposite. Correct or not, I always find myself thinking that when I argue with a Trump supporter. If I can't convince or come to an agreement about basic science, what's the point of arguing politics?
And that said, it has dawned on me recently that most Trump supporters believe that Obama was a racist. While I think that's an absolute joke, I can see how they would come to that conclusion and how it can persuade them to overlook the people Trump has put in his administration.Aw geesh! What the hell is this, a lovefest? You folks sure have short memories. But thanks for the kind words Crankalicious. I do appreciate them.
Firstly, you don't need to try to convince me that Bannon is a racist. I don't know if he is or isn't. And I hope I haven't implied otherwise. But I have looked around enough to fail to discover any evidence that he is a White Supremacist. The fact that known White Supremacists support his views is not damning for me. After all, I have been seen as a Trump supporter for not openly condemning him, and I know I am not a Trump supporter. So the appearance of association doesn't carry much weight with me - in most cases.
As for Trump being a moron. Don't waste your time. You don't have a chance of convincing me of that. The man is a billionaire. He has a 30 or 40 year career of successful business endeavors, (yes, I know he has had a few failures along the way - but he has still manipulated his way through our capitalist and legal system to remain successful - not traits I would attribute to a moron), and even if he did start with the silver spoon and a few millions, (or tens of millions), from his dad, a moron would have gone through that in a couple years at most.
At the least, I would question why you so easily ignore those facts, and declare him a moron because you don't agree with his persona or ideologies, (by the way, can you be sure you really know his ideology? Could it be a huugghhh mistake to take his public political persona for the real thing?)
As for the rest of your response regarding the typical GOP views, and typical core Trump supporters, I can't argue with you there, because I hold somewhat similar views. Notice I said somewhat. I prefer fine-line strokes to a broad brush.
In case it isn't clear, I do enjoy our exchanges too. Reasonable conversations, (and the occasion chance to challenge a knucklehead), are the reasons I enjoy these forums.
GAIf you are a man who does his research and comes to his views based on evidence, how could you possibly conclude that climate change is a hoax? Not that you necessarily admitted that you believe climate change is a hoax, but that's what I implied from your response. I will respond to the rest at a later time.
Was this misdirected Crankalicious? Or did I have a martini-induced lapse somewhere that gave you the impression I think that Climate Change is a hoax?*
*(you see, Will, I can be brief - sometimes)
GA
Also, I would have to agree. "Moron" is hyperbole. I will clarify.
Mr. Anderson,
I apologize. I believe I misread your statement (sort of like misreading a double negative) regarding climate change in that you generally agree with the statement I made.
So, we're basically just chit-chatting about Trump's sanity. I believe you are correct when you say Donald Trump isn't a moron. Just because somebody isn't an intellectual doesn't make them a moron. And just because somebody isn't educated doesn't make him a moron either. In other words, there are different types of intelligence. Donald Trump would appear to have business intelligence, but not book or intellectual intelligence. I draw the latter conclusion based on his lack of reading knowledge and general lack of broad knowledge about things as expressed in his speeches and overall vocabulary. However, that by itself doesn't necessarily mean that he's a bad person.
That said, I guess I've always thought the President should be educated and worldly. I find neither of those things in President Trump. He seems insular and self-serving. I can't say I know a single likable or decent person who has those qualities. Of the many people I know, the ones I'd trust to run "things" are generous, smart, intellectual, honest with others and with themselves, and are introspective. Somebody who I'd want to run the country would surround himself or herself with people who express opposing views so that debate could take place.
Just some word salad for you, I guess.Oh my Gawd! A double negative? I hate doing that. Did I really do it? I can't even bring myself to go back and look for it. I wouldn't never do it on purpose.
And relative to this "moron" thought; your "word salad" about levels, degrees, and types of intelligence, (and my previous admonition), would have been completely unnecessary if you had just added, (originally), a preface; 'acting like'.
Then I would have agreed that it was a possibility. And we both could just sit back and see where things go.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Okay , Its now time for all of those who so hate Trump so much to line up ,.......
Get yourself a number and stand in line behind the great spokeswoman of the left .....Maxine Waters.... from California . Who was born in a small town with a little known disease, the debilitating infantile hatred of all things conservative .ahorseback: Sounds like somebody has sour grapes. It's O.K. Trump's supporters will overlook this as well, because they are more concerned about him bringing back jobs to the coal miners and steel workers. There are two realities: main stream media and Fox news and their ultra-right cohorts. While the hearings were taking place, MSM was showing the hearings and Fox news was showing Trump campaigning in Kentucky with the coal miners. Those people didn't even know or care that a hearing about Trump being a liar or an ongoing investigation into Russian collusion was taking place.
Trump won and at the same time he lost. He won, because he asked for the investigation into his alleged Obama wire tapping. The purpose of which was to create a smoke screen for Jeff Sessions and the Trump's peoples ties to Russian operatives. That worked.
However he lost because there was no evidence found by committee or the FBI. This essentially places him in the category of a liar. He also lost because the FBI is in an ongoing investigation into Russian hacking and Collusion with Trump and his people, including almost all of his cabinet members.
Many congressmen on both sides of the aisle want Trump to admit he was lying and apologize to Obama. But not to worry, he will never do either of those things because he was taught by his father and his trusted attorney to never say you are sorry or admit to any wrong doing. That shows a sign of weakness. And God forbid, Trump doesn't want people to see him as a weak insecure person who exaggerates, lies, diverts, and distracts to hide who he really is and feels about himself.This story is not going away anytime soon. There is much more than meets the eye. We have a failure of our intelligence agency at NSA, the CIA and the FBI. It is a problem in the making for some times. It took wikileaks to expose the illegal activities going on at the highest level of our government. There are political operatives working in these agencies that are doing the leaking. Sooner or later, they will be caught and prosecuted. Those that believe President Obama can do no wrong are going to be shocked. He has already done enough to be impeached and yet those in power on both aisle did not want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. This is what we get when power is unchecked. The Constitution has it right from the start. We cannot have a king for a President. The separation of power and checks and balances must work or else...
Yes and no. The problem Trump is dealing here was planted by Obama... The intelligence abuse of surveillance happened under Obama's watch. Whether he approved it or not, it was his people that did these acts... (illegal I may add). Now we are seeing what happens when the intelligence community becomes politicized. More chips will fall IMHO...
I understand why you have problems relating to people. You could be on Trump's staff.
As I made it clear, I am not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote this time around. I didn't think either candidate was worthy. However, I am seeing what is going on clearly. Our government is under assault. Whether I agree with Trump or not is irrelevant. As a conservative, I do agree with some of his policies. What we are discussing is how government works under normal conditions.
I don't have a problem relating to people. I speak my mind and let the chips fall.
What is going on in Washington now is unprecedented. Don't you agree?
Who is creating this? Who started it? Why?I absolutely agree that something is terribly wrong. We have elected a man with an ego and a mental problem. His campaign people were stupid enough to tickle toes with the Russians. They had a responsibility to avoid all appearances of evil.
The wiretap was necessary because of the activities of POTUS and campaign. "Find those emails Russians!"
Jack: You have the House Intelligence Committee which is made up of not only democrats but republicans, saying there is no evidence of wiretapping (surveillance). Then you have the FBI saying there was no evidence, and also the head of the NSA.. I think you are in denial. This is how people think when the conclusion does not meet their agenda. So now you want the investigations to go on until they can prove Obama and company was behind this made up contrived lie by Trump? This is typical of conservatives like Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz who still want to continue investigating Hillary. And you want to believe there is a conspiracy that is being run by Obama and his people to control the FBI, NSA, and non-partisan House Intelligence Committee.
To answer you question, Louis Mensch started this. She is a former member of the British Parliament. She was also a contributor to an ultra-right news outlet called Heat Street. At the bottom is the link to the article she wrote:
Mark Levin a shock jock right wing radio host read the article and broadcasted it as Trump being wire tapped by Obama. Steve Bannon heard about it and informed Trump about the article. At the same time Jeff Sessions was being confirmed as the A.G. and Trump and his people were being accused of illegal connections with the Russians, Trump tweeted four different times about Obama wire tapping him and also maligned Obama's character while he was doing it. It was nothing more than a cover up by Trump for distracting the media from the real issue.
Louis Mensch has been fired from Breitbart and Heat Street. Look all this stuff up, if you don't believe me. This may all backfire on Trump because he ordered the House Investigation, but not the FBI, or the NSA to testify. The house doesn't have access to FISA reports but the FBI does. Even the head of the NSA said there was no evidence and no FISA reports ordered. It is illegal to order a FISA investigation against U.S. citizens.
The article Louis Mensch wrote:
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi- … to-russia/Judge Napolitano may have also received walking papers from Fox.
Come on! They teach us how to think as they teach us to add and subtract!So how do explain these leaks...? They came from some where? Someone listened in? Someone captured the conversations? Someone broke our laws and leaked the content to journalists...
With all the things happening in the past with the IRS, the VA and with NSA... monitoring of James Rosen... and Netanyahu and Merkel...what else our government is not telling us???
GOP lawmaker: Trump communications may have been 'monitored' - AP
Trump supporters unwillingness to admit he lies says something about them. Saying a person is wrong about something doesn't mean you hate the person. If you 15 year old daughter runs off with her boyfriend, no problem! You don't hate her so running off with her boyfriend is perfectly fine.
Character counts!Peoplepower , I don't recall ever hearing Obama saying " I'm sorry" for reigniting open and direct racism , for doubling the National debt , for increasing the use of Drones all over the middle east , for infiltrating the DOJ, the FBI , the EPA , The IRS .the Dept. of Interior , the supreme courts with extreme activists , bias laden federal judges , for pulling the plug on the effectiveness of the Border Patrol , for opening declaring war on the constitution , etc.......
An apology good for one is good for the other .ahorseback: Those are all false equivalences right out of the Obama haters play book. You don't think Trump is going to double the national debt? He is starting out with Obama's 20 Trillion. It only goes up from there. How is he going to get all the things done that he wants to do without massively increasing the national debt? It's costing us 3 million per weekend just for Mar-a-Lago. Melina costs us 1 million per day to keep her and Baron in Trump tower. He wants 54 billion for defense spending with a large portion of it for several new aircraft carriers to fight ISIS. One well place torpedo can take out an aircraft carrier. Last time I look, ISIS didn't have a Navy.
Obama didn't have a staff that has done business with Putin and is still connected to Russia. Wait until the FBI investigation is done."Melina costs us 1 million per day to keep her and Baron in Trump tower."
You have GOT to be kidding! Even if they required 1,000 SS agents to live there (as opposed to what is need to go to school or other activities) it would still mean that the job pays $1,000 per day. No thinking person is going to believe that.
It's comments that this that make people just write off the Trumpophobes. Or that he wants "...several new aircraft carriers to fight ISIS." - the things DO have other uses, you know.Some use the excuse of "nobody can understand them" for not having Trump's tax returns made public. A plumber, physician or homemaker might not understand. There are many of us MBAs, CPAs, tax attorneys, tax preparation software users that understand all of the supporting schedules and how they flow to the 1040.
BTW, Nunes might need to be under investigation with the transition group.Can't see it, PP - already looked at that rag too many times this month.
Wilderness: Of course, I can understand that, if you have been led to believe the Washington Post is only fake news.
??? After you view 5 pages from them (I think it is 5) in a month they demand you get a subscription or the page is covered up. Nobody said anything about fake news. Key word was "can't", not "won't".
Most people that voted for him did not understand the significance of his business dealings and conflicts of interest.
Ivanka gets secret clearance (which are expensive) and office space (expensive) without a specific job.
Blurred lines still exist with group of hoteliers suing because Trump properties have an advantage. Foreign governments want to stay there and rent space because they expect "deals!"
People's ignorance will cost them in the long run. Unfortunately, we may all pay.
I like Gorsuch and hope he gets approved. I tweeted Tillerson. He's now following me. Good! I can advise him..
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
"...........there are many of us MBA's , CPA's., tax attorneys .........." Then there ought to be the same number of you who can even begin to understand and even inform us of the legal and intensely complicated tax structures that allow corporate entities these tax breaks that allow such grey area 's to exist ........But Its all legal isn't it Diane ?
And yet , you too Diane , jump right into the fray claiming something dirty must be going on . Is that not simply because he is your ideological foe ? Why don't you instead enlighten the rest of us to the incredibly complicated ways that corporations are raping our system . Including perhaps -How little we would need so many tax attorneys , CPA's MBA's with a fixed tax rate............as Trump has even discussed .My comment is regarding the releasing of DJT's taxes. Other presidents and candidates have shown them. Given all of the paranoia about wiretaps and aiding Russia, the tax returns could disspell the notion that DJT has financial ties.
I don't make statements about things I don't know. I don't know what's in his taxes. His campaign is now part of a criminal investigation. Manafort had clear ties and lied about them. When pieces start coming together, I am open to evidence.
Nunes was part of his transition but is now "chair" of a committee looking into wrong doing. He runs to tell him "information."
There may be no there there. He has to convince the DOJ.And presidential Tax returns have been "pre- election-exposed " to media since when , the eighties maybe ? Clinton , Bush ? You understand the complexities of taxation and its implications .......especially someone so corporately involved ..........? That in itself is NOT a sin , You should know that !
If you have business dealings with a country that is interfering in our election process, that is a problem. When the country is run by a notorious murder who kills his own people and invades countries, that is a problem.
A former Russian soldier, who moved to Ukraine, was just shot on the street as he and his wife walked down the street. He had been charged with corruption by Russia.
Well, this is my view. We all can read the same information and come up with our own conclusions. The point for the US is, "Is there treason, espionage, collusion, etc.
No passion in this. Just stating my view."If you have business dealings with a country that is interfering in our election process, that is a problem."
It's almost a given that nearly every first world country did what they could to interfere in our elections. They have their own interests to look out for, after all, and the actions of the US mean a good deal to them.
This means no one should have business dealings in most of the world, right?If the country is lead by a murderous person like Putin, we definitely need to be concerned.
Syria, yep! Iran, yep! I'm sure there are others. When we smell something fishy, we definitely should check it.About what? Should we be concerned that he will turn his murderous actions on the US, using the Russian army rather than single people?
But what does that have to do with thinking it is unusual and a problem that other countries try to have an affect on our elections?
There are soo many accusations from the left ,as often from the right , that simply are politically motivated . passion in Ideology itself isn't a reason for congressional hearings or investigations themselves.
Too many phony issues take away from legitimate ones.Every country in the world , as Hilary proved again and again with Clinton foundation $ , has an interest and influence on our elections .
Diane , Is that the same?The FBI and the NSA are investigating Russian connections with Trump and his people, not Hillary and the Clinton foundation. Even if their foundation tried to influence elections, which I don't believe they did, that doesn't make it right.
The bigger problem here is the ruling on Citizens United and super PACS that can take in massive amounts of money from all over the world without any disclosure of funds. You guys have missed the elephant in the room that really influences elections and it's all done legally, thanks to Justice Scalia's ruling that corporations have personhood. Try to sue one and see how far you get.The Clinton Foundation, if you bother to check, is regularly audited by the IRS. Since it is a charitable organization that helps thousands of women and children around the world, how does that compare to Donald Trump Jr. speaking for pay to a crowd of Russian investors?
How does that compare to Trump lying about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower? How does it compare to Trump's link to Russia through Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Cory Lewandowski?For one , How little you have learned about the political offices , favors and influences bought and sold by the Clintons ! Two , Donald Trump Jr.is a corporate head who can do anything he wants for money , he's not in office , unlike Bill-Hilary who was , and three , the Clinton foundation gave as little as ten percent of their holdings to charity programs , some say . four , The Obama monitoring Trump issue is just beginning and doesn't look good for Obama or his people ! And so is the whole "Russian connection investigation just beginning , believe what you want !
Wrong. My former employer was an ombudswoman to the SBA, had very close ties to many Republicans since she was a Republican and you need to stop "assuming" you know my political literacy.
I know more politicians than you ever will. One of my former employers left a Fortune 50 company to become a Senator. And you? You know your local corn pone and mutton chop politician?
Jeff Sessions apparently thought all he had to do was use that Good Ole Good Ole Good Ole Boy southern gentleman charm and we up north would just fall over adoring his quaint lil ole drawl and swagger. Try again. We weren't fooled by the 3 times married Georgia Peach Gingrich. What would make you think any hick politician could fool any of us?
Your boy Trump is going down. He never should have been allowed to run. He had U.S. Treasury fine for money laundering in 2013. Who but the billionaires' boys club puts a mobster like Trump out there for president?
But you what? Since I've am more experienced than you ever will be about corporate CEO dogma, I can tell you where you and your right wing screwed up most: By allowing a thug like Trump to rise to the White House, he has now shined a huge Klieg light on the sneaky, high handed and underhanded goings on in corporations. Bet you anything those Billionaire CEOs who have been gaming the system for decades are none too happy about that.
@ ahorseback You should really know things before you spout off. The individual mandate was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Comical.
Also, by the way, there is no evil intent on any sides. The only evil I see is ISIS and terrorists. Let's agree that disagreement on policy is based on philosophy and not "evil" intent.The disagreement is on the path to the goal and hopefully we all share in the same goals. How we best get there is the debate.
You better believe it is!
Trump, et al, is playing his supporters, his detractors, and the mainstream lib and conservative media like a cheap whore (pardon my French!) with his rhetorical slight-of-hand and prestadigitation. This guy is the worst of Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Phineus T. Barnham, combined!
Trumpy is havin' a great old time messing with people while getting away with all his nefarious dealings with Putin and the Russians.
Sickening!John Podesta got 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin financed company in 2014....when he worked in the White House. Now who has influence and where?
Hahaha...an inconvenient fact the Dems and liberals in general choose to ignore.
But Sallie, what does that have to do with the accusations against Pres. Trump and his associates?
Remember now, I am sure that someone, (like my mom did for me), in your childhood, told you that two wrongs don't make a right. ;-)
GASurely you're aware of just how loathsome hypocrites are?
Well then, surely you don't want to go back to pre-Trump times, when the Far-Right was saying the exact things they are now calling out the post-Trump liberals for. That bit of hypocrisy might be enough to scoot you right past loathsome into a spasm of actual physical illness.
GAGA: Please stay on topic. I caught myself wanting to reply to your snide remarks but then I stopped, because I think this investigation is very important. We are the jurors and must weigh the evidence and the facts, not digress into our own agenda against each others values and beliefs.
For once I agree. It is imperative we find out just who is wiretapping foreigners (I assume that's what it was), recording the new president...and making the information public. Those almost automatic taps are supposed to be either carried to the proper authorities if there is a security problem or discarded and forgotten. Not taken to the White House, congress or anywhere else.
" Jurors " , aside from those here , are handed a set of facts , evidence ,direct testimony , Judge's instructions specific to reality , no speculation .
Now that the house intelligence committee has split its "leadership , the senate will stick its nose in , and then between the FBI and the media , its going to be a cluster.........I'm hearing in the news a two year investigation including all Russian infringements .
No conclusions till then ?Peoplepower73, I am intending this as politely as I can ...
My choice to participate, or respond, is not yours to make. My sense of courtesy will determine my efforts to adhere to an OP's desired criteria. These are discussion forums. Discussions will always have tangents. There is a difference between hijacking a thread and pursuing a tangent of the discussion.
If it is your desire to moderate a panel of jurors, then this might not be the right place.
GA
Wilderness: I think those investigators took into account the generic sense of wiretapping since Trump even defined it as wiretapping with quotes in three of his tweets, meaning surveillance. First off a FISA warrant has to be ordered in order to perform surveillance. Secondly FISA warrants can only be issued against foreign entities, not U.S. civilians. The investigations showed no such warrant was ever ordered...nice try though.
Now we have Nunes, the head of the House Intelligence committee finding information relevant to the investigation and giving it to Trump without sharing it with his committee first. When asked about his source, he said it was on the White House grounds. He is now complicit in this investigation. However he refuses to disclose the information and further refuses to recuse himself from the investigation...The plot thickens.Meaning that you wish to ignore that Trump's phone conversations were recorded by our government. Which is what I said - that's fine for those that are willing to ignore the bigger picture, but an awful lot of people are going to take it as a "wiretap", which it was.
Wilderness: So you are ignoring the fact there was no evidence of surveillance ordered against Trump by Obama, based on Trump's tweets? You are also ignoring that this was a smoke screen perpetrated by Trump to take the focus off of him and Sessions.
This ongoing investigation is much bigger than that. It involves two Russian banks in New York that were run by Putin's former KGB members who Trump and members of his transition team had interaction with them during the election, including his son-in-law, Jarred Kushner who met with them during the election.
These are two of the Russian banks that Obama had sanctioned against Putin who Trump's people had dealings with them. This is what the ongoing investigation is looking into. This is why Nunes is not coming clean. He may have incriminating evidence that he won't release after meeting with Trump instead of sharing it with his people There may have to be independent investigators called into this and people getting subpoenaed in order to get to the truth. Trump will do everything in his power to make this go away. Stay tuned and watch how this story unfolds.Peoplepower73: so you are still ignoring that his phone conversations were recorded by govt. agencies (it's called "wiretapping")? All while pretending that you have secret information from Trump that he intended it as a smokescreen?
Or are you just pretending it didn't happen so doesn't need to be considered as a "wiretap"?Mike,
These so called conservatives will argue that wiretapping is different than surveillance until the death, even though it's just semantics. Even though Obama can't order this, it has to come from an intelligence agency. It was decided over a week ago that Obama was cleared of ordering this "wiretap" but they can't even meet you halfway or be civil. They have to be RIGHT, even when the info they are spouting is outdated (it probably is still being ranted about on talk radio or an opinion show on Fox). Of course, they are the only ones who can be "fair."
They can't see that all Trump has done so far is look like a fool, bring his family, who also know nothing about government into the West Wing, tried to kick millions off of health care of any sort, although they complained and could have used the 7 years they blocked Obama from doing anything to make a new plan. It's the old plan, don't get sick, and if you do, die fast. The world is watching in horror. Most of the executive orders Trump signed will never become a reality. He's completely out of his realm of experience here.
Now they have the nerve to say "liberals" in that snarky tone are blocking Trump. Good. I guess they don't like it either. If everyone could grow up, they might be able to actually get something done. Now today Trump is lying about the virtues of clean coal again as he tries to abolish the EPA. If he isn't stopped by his treasonous acts fast, we'll have a scorched earth left. Much of the coal industry is automated anyway, and young people shouldn't be tricked into thinking it's the same job they are proud their fathers and grandfathers got black lung from. They need to be trained in new clean energy technologies. Or Trump should be urging new companies to those coal states so there are jobs. Most of the jobs that came back or didn't leave made the decision before Trump was elected.Hello again Jean, since I am probably included in that group of "conservatives," I just had to jump in.
Regarding whether "wiretapping" - as Pres. Trump tweeted it, (which is the side most conservative Trump supporters take, and relying on recall, (I did not go back and check past postings), it's my perception that those conservatives included surveillance as to be implied in the wiretapping description from the very beginning.
However, if your intended point was that many conservative Trump supporters just won't give-up on the claim that, whatever the surveillance method, it was done on Pres. Obama's, (or his administration), orders - then you might be right about that.
GAGA,
Well, a rose by any other name is still a rose. It's just a choice in words, same meaning. And yes, those who disliked Obama will never change their minds.
I guess we have to get all the facts about the wiretapping/surveillance first, and these legal things take long. But as I understand it, Obama or any President can't issue a FISA warrant, so he didn't initiate it. I really can't see him doing that, but I was one of his supporters. There do seem to be a lot of people surrounding Trump from Russia or who worked with Russia, but then Trump has real estate all over the world. It should be interesting, and if it's so classified we may never know all of it anyway.
I would hope an impartial committee would form to figure this all out soon.Jean, I don't think Pres. Obama ordered, legally or otherwise, surveillance of Trump. On that point I accept the Intelligence agencies public statements. (even recognizing Nixon's Directory Gray's actions as proof that such public statements aren't beyond doubt)
But that is as far as I will go. Everything else could be just possibilities or speculation, or it could be various kernels of truth. I know it's an over-used analogy, but Watergate forces me to also accept that what you, (and me also in some specifics), are viewing as silly and obstinate refusal - could be a fashion of the truth. I am not leaning that way, but I am not completely discounting it either.
For instance; It does not seem impossible to me that some member of Pres. Obama's administration may have discovered the opportunity for this supposedly collateral surveillance data - and ran with the ball from there. Here's another historical analogy; 'Ollie North' and his Iran/Contra efforts. That is the type of possibility I am unwilling to deny. The fact that such "unmasked" data is now a news topic seems to support my doubt.
GAThere is more information everyday. I believe there is talk about it going to an impartial group in Congress, besides the FBI and whatever the other intelligence agencies know. We'll just have to wait and see.
Nunes never said his source was on the WH grounds. He said he met the source on the WH grounds. Big difference. And you liberals are all about words mattering.
Holy cow! After following this thread, I am forced to respond with a general response, because if I responded to individual comments I would be accused or picking-on, or bullying someone, or pasting a lavender label on someone else, or just plain calling BS on another. I would like to offer props to some, but that would seem too much like just another voice in the choir singing from the penthouse of their Ivory Tower. Oh well.
Anyway, for all this intelligent, in-depth speculation, and the 'if it quacks like a duck ...' speculations, how about a look at the facts that might be safely assumed:
It appears that it is true that Trump, and/or Trump associate's conversations were scooped up in some form of surveillance.
It appears that our intelligence agencies have no supporting evidence that Pres. Obama ordered any legal surveillance targeted to candidate Trump.
I qualified these two facts as safe to assume because at this point they don't seem to be in question - both sides have agreed they are 'facts' in one regard or another.
Yet, with this piddling bit of information, the anti-Trump commentors(sp?) have jumped to the conclusion that the worst assumptions must be the correct assumptions.
Well, if it does turn out to be the case you are making, you will deserve the self-congratulatory pats-on-the-back that you are already giving yourselves for your rational and superior deductive powers your comments have exhibited.
But, as it stands now, an objective observer, (that's me), can only shake their head at the arrogance of making such definitive assumptions on those two simple facts mentioned above. You folks have a lot more confidence in your choice of media ingestion than I do.
GAThank you, GA.
I will await the report coming from the documents received by Nunes and now being reviewed by the FBI. With all the calling for his head to be cut off and the rest of his body being hung in the town square, one would think that Nunes would have coughed up the contents of these documents. The mere fact that he hasnt should tell anyone with any modicum of sense that those documents contain highly classified material and possibly some very damaging material to the Obama Administration as well as the entire DNC.
Nunes is holding his powder for a reason and that reason isnt because hes scared of the wild threats from the Democrats.
It will be an interesting and for the DEMS, a very frightening turn of events, should those documents reveal what many believe is proof of nefarious behavior by the Obama WH.Maybe he's being blackmailed by an old Russian friend. Tonight reports are in that Manafort opened 10 bank accounts, deposited large sums of money, and then withdrew it. Red flags for money laundering went up, and the accounts were closed.
Obama had to behave in a way above reproach or it would have been even worse for him. All the hypocrites who believe in family values but were married three times must have hated that he never lived his life at such a low level, getting progressively younger wives. And the Obamas stayed in DC so their youngest daughter could finish school without interruption, much as Melania is doing with her son Barron. That's what good Moms do.
Even John McCain has gone as far as to say he thought it very unlikely that President Obama was spying on Trump. And that was over a week ago. Of course, whatever the Tea Partiers call themselves now, it appears they brainwashed Trump. A life long New Yorker does not hold beliefs like that.Hahaha....as though any solid Conservative would care what John McCain says.
Or, more likely, Nunes got fabricated documents from Steve Bannon since the White House won't release the logs of who signed Nunes into the White House that night, and Nunes won't reveal his source. Nunes who was part of Trump's transition team. Nunes who has cancelled interviews of key witnesses pertaining to the Trump-Russia investigation.
I mean, if we're throwing around conspiracy theories without any actual documentation, that is the one I'll go with. That Nunes got his information from Trump staff, then went to Trump to get his marching orders, and they sent him down for a press conference.The amazing ability of the liberal mind!
Amazing indeed, and yet possibly being proven true.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/30/1512 … hite-houseHahahaha...written oh so fairly (with absolutely no spin at all) by the very left leaning VOX.
Thanks. But Ive already heard what I need to hear about this story. It broke hours ago and I follow pretty closely.
Note your use of the word "possibly".
I'll stick with that.Article written by VOX, sources researched and discovered by the New York Times. And I say possibly because it's still early in the new revelation so there's always a chance for rebuttal.
But it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this was a possibility to how this all went down.Here you go, same story by your people, maybe that'll make it more believable for you::
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/ … -revealed/No need to post another story. I already told you that I heard the story hours ago. My point, which you obviously missed, was that VOX put their spin on the story. I've never been a fan of posting links because each side will always choose a publication sympathetic to their viewpoint.
No matter. Point taken. And a lot remains to be disclosed on this issue.Your point then was to change the topic to spin as opposed to staying on point about how the sources of Nunes' intel were Trump stooges. Something I thought could have, and likely, happended.
It's something other posters here have chastised you for. You go off on all kinds of tangents to muddle the argument. Reminds me of someone else I know, but he's a little more orange than you.My point, as stated, was that VOX is a left leaning site and as such reported the story from a leftist viewpoint. You are certainly free to draw your own conclusions as to what my point was..but I am comfortable that I know what my point was.
PS. Orange is such a lovely color...the color of sunset and warmth and happiness and psychologically..its the color of optimism and rejuvenation and an enthusiasm for life.
How nice!GA minimized my idea that we should stick to the facts and evidence just like jurors when deliberating. Here are the facts on Michael Flynn.
Fact: He resigned as head of NSA because he misinformed Mike Pence and Trump about conversation that he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Obama sanctions
Fact: He will testify if he is giving immunity.
Fact: He has applied to all the investigative entities in this scenario, but no one has given him an answer as of yet.
Fact: He is also the person who in the Trump rallies started the chant about Hillary to "Lock her up." He is also the one who said she should be put in front of a firing squad. Talk about hypocrisy.
Conjecture: He must have some kind of incriminating evidence or he wouldn't be asking for immunity.
Fact: Ollie North did the same thing in the Iran/Contra affair in order to disclose what actually happened, but he was given immunity.
Fact: Trump lied about Obama wiretapping him.
Conjecture: It was an attempt by Trump for a cover up, but it didn't work.In September, Mr Flynn said in a TV interview it was unacceptable that some of the Democratic candidate's aides had been granted immunity from prosecution.
"When you get given immunity that means you've probably committed a crime," he told NBC News.
At last summer's Republican party convention, Mr Flynn led chants of "lock her up" aimed at Hillary Clinton over her private email server.
He really deserves a trial.peoplepower73, I believe you misunderstood, or mistook the point of my response to your admonishment to stay on topic.
My point did not address focusing on the facts and evidence of a thread's topic, it was to the fact that these are discussion forums, and discussions will always have tangents, some relative, and some not.
Your comment, here, might be a fair example of my point to consider.
Your topic headline was:
"Jeff Sessions and Obama Wiretapping"
Your OP promoted the idea that Pres. Trump's "Wiretapping" charge was just a diversion for the Jeff Sessions issue.
How are any of the above points, about Flynn, relevant facts or evidence that should draw a juror's attention, if they are to only focus on the principles and events involved in the diversion and cover-up charges you offered as the topic of your OP?
You posted a seriously considered response that seems to fit the description of a tangent to the original discussion - as I see it.
So, did you just fail to follow your own admonishments to others; Stay on topic, focus, consider only pertinent facts and evidence? Or are your Flynn points a relative tangent to your topic?
Now understand that I don't mean this snidely, but I did go back and re-read your OP to be sure I didn't respond recklessly to your above comment. I would ask that you do the same before offering a defense of the validity of your Flynn facts to the point of your OP.
GA
Sallie: Where did you get the information that Nunes turned over information that he gave to Trump to the FBI for review? The last I heard, he is not disclosing that information to anyone or agency and continues to not recuse himself from the investigation. In addition, he has postponed indefinitely any further investigation by the House Intelligence committee into this matter. This is right out of Trump's playbook of how to make things go away.
What this is "RIght out of " ---- is the Obama White House play book , Nunes went to the white house to view a classified executive order -- from its source-- , a place where such an Executive Order shouldn't come from to begin with BUT should have been delivered to . Obama ordered this ?
And That is what demobrats are truly fearing - Is that the source of the order CAME from Obama . why is that such a surprise , Can you spell Obamagate ?To be specific:
"In an interview Monday, Nunes told Lake that he ended up meeting his source on the White House grounds because it was the most convenient secure location with a computer connected to the system that included the reports, which are only distributed within the executive branch. "We don't have networked access to these kinds of reports in Congress," Nunes said. He added that his source was not a White House staffer and was an intelligence official. "
I am amused by the daily circus of left wingers and media concerning how and why and not what.
In typical liberal/Dem fashion, they are crapping their pants over how Nunes obtained the documents, who gave them to him, where they gave them to him...but for a party who is OH SO CONCERNED with illegal surveillance, there seems to be absolutely no concern for what those documents contain.
Hmmm.
Methinks they protest too much perhaps because they fear the what.Sallie: Liberals have the same concern as conservatives about what those documents contain...no one is "crapping their pants."
I just read the article on Bloomberg News about what Lake said: Here is the bottom line of that article as to what Lake said:
"Before getting too excited about oversharing intelligence, however, let's remember that Nunes is the only member of his committee to actually read these documents. It's possible that other people could have a different interpretation of what they mean or their pertinence to foreign intelligence collection, the legal standard that must be met to unmask the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected by the intelligence community.
The good news is that we will soon get a second and third opinion. Nunes told me that he expects that his committee's members, including Democrats, will be able to read these documents themselves at secure locations outside of Congress as soon as this week.
If it turns out that intelligence about the Trump transition was included in dozens of reports that were sent to the White House, then the House Intelligence Committee really has two investigations. The first is of course a probe into how the Russian state meddled in the election and whether it did so with the aid of Trump's associates or campaign. The second is about whether the Obama White House inappropriately spied on Trump and his advisers during the transition to power."
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Eli Lake at elake1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.netLots of liberals and Dems crapping their pants. LOL...but nothing new there. They've been doing that since November 8th when the chosen one suddenly wasnt chosen
ahorseback: What are the sources for your statements? Let's keep name calling and slander out of this forum. All that does is infuriate others and we all go off on a tangent.
People power? Or bullying? As Shakespeare once wrote:
"To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
that Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
must give us pause.
When American adults are bullied and told what we can and cannot think, say or do within the law of the land, how is that not an attempt at government takeover?
The far right believes they have more rights under the Constitution they seem determined to reinterpret for all of us. Funny thing that, Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution cannot be more plain: "Treason against the United States shall consist ONLY in levying War against them or in ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT."
Thus far, all the Trump Grifter gaggle has done is praise Putin, a known enemy of the US who ordered the hacking into DNC and RNC emails to gain voter data. Do we pretend this is all fine and dandy? And when the Republicans give aid and comfort to Russian hackers by their looking the other way in future elections? Then what?"When American adults are bullied and told what we can and cannot think, say or do within the law of the land, how is that not an attempt at government takeover?"
Oh....kinda like when Obamacare got rammed down our throats?Sallie: This is not about Obama care. This is about the ongoing investigation into possible connections between Russian operatives and Trump and his people and, yes even Obama and his people.
You see how this works. My first reaction was to defend Obama and your claim that Obama Care was rammed down your throat. But you see, if I would have done that, it would start us off on a never-ending tangent that has nothing to do with this investigation. It's a free country. It'a America, you can say whatever you want, but I'm not going to debate you about Obama care in this forum.Haha...I wouldn't either if I were a liberal
Ewent: I have been in many political forums that go off on tangents and result in name calling, mud slinging and downright bold opinions that have nothing to do with the original post. It has just occurred to me, that we are like jurors on a very important case and should only work with the facts and evidence that we have at hand, not what our opinions are that fit our agendas, especially in these investigations.
I watched Sean Spicer on CNN this morning giving his press briefing. Major Garrett asked him if he knew what the Nunes documents contained. Instead of saying he didn't know, he went off on tangent about how he shouldn't be concerned about what gate Nunes came in or what computer he was using or who was his informant. I can see how people think they know what the other sides is concerned about when they get sucked into the spin cycle.
Thanks for your Shakespearean quote.Most Democrats and liberals don't want to debate or even discuss Obama or Clinton for very good reasons. The stain of both will be felt by our country for a long time ...its convenient that you don't want to debate Obama or any mention of him (the ACA) when he is likely at the crux of much of what is in the intelligence reports given to Nunes.
Sallie: I would love to debate you on Clinton and Obama. I have written many hubs on the subject, but I'm not going to do it in this forum. It's easy for you to call it an excuse. But I call it sticking to the topic.
This is all very simple. Conservatives are hoping Obama is involved in hacking and surveillance of Trump and liberals are hoping Trump and his team are involved with the Russians to the point of collusion or even treason. One thing is certain. Obama did not do surveillance on Trump as Trump claimed in his four tweets. That's a fact as presented by the FBI, NSA, CIA, and the House Intelligence committee.No argument from me on the point we have all heard ad nauseum concerning the tweet. However that fact, IMHO does not preclude mounting suspicion that Obama did, in fact, find a way to surveillance Trump and members of his team and have them unmasked during transition. Additionally...Obama changed the way American Intel was shared releasing the constraint s Intel agencies formerly operated under why? And why mere days before leaving office?
Damn, and I thought I was good at conspiracy theories...
Well if youre a Dem/liberal you are good at conspiracy theories...Russia! Russia! Russia!
Yes, Russia is a conspiracy theory. Except there's mounting evidence it's not. And sure, maybe the overarching theory of collusion might be wrong, but that's why you have an independent investigation.
That said, you clearly don't appreciate the difference between liberal/conservative "conspiracy" theories.
Climate change is a conspiracy theory but Pizzagate is real?
Vaccination science is a conspiracy theory, but Michelle Obama is a man?
I could go on and on. As long as the GOP is the anti-science party, which is akin to the anti-truth party, they have no credibility except with people who don't believe in science.Of course you are making the assumption, since I am assuming your response was aimed toward me, that I believe in Pizzagate (I dont) and that I believe that Michelle Obama is a man (I dont). What I do think of MO is for another discussion, however.
Saying that the GOP is the anti-science party is such a tired, old ho hum defense many of you liberals use when discussing climate change. In fact, most of us DO believe in climate change. Where I live it usually happens 4 times a year. Anything other than that is left to the imagination of any number of books/articles/Dems/liberals etc. who believe what they've been told/read.
There are equally any number of scientists who say climate change is a hoax and do not take it seriously and we could counter each other all day and into the night with article after article and neither of us would change the other's mind....Much like the difference between you and I concerning the really tiresome attempt by the Democrats to keep trying to connect dots between Trump et al and Russia when there are likely no dots to connect.It's amazing you can fit so much ignorance into such a short amount of space.
"In fact, most of us DO believe in climate change. Where I live it usually happens 4 times a year." - yet another horribly uneducated person who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate thereby proving my point about being anti-science. Since you don't understand it, you don't believe in it. I can't imagine you understand vaccines either. Probably don't believe in those either.
"There are equally any number of scientists who say climate change is a hoax." - again, not correct. But go ahead and provide that data if you want.
And yes, the GOP is anti-science. Did you happen to see Scott Pruitt's latest? He rejected the scientific conclusion on insecticide so it can be used on farms. The scientific conclusion is that it harms children and farm workers. So more birth defects I guess in the name of big business.
Hello Sallie Mullinger,
I hadn't heard that Mr. Nunes turned over any documents to the FBI. I guess I missed it, because the last I heard was that this whole White House grounds controversy hung on the description that he did not have any physical documents. The stories I heard were that that was why he was on the grounds - to view the subject material in a secure "SCIF"(sp?) room.
Your thought about Mr. Nunes' reasoning may be sound, or not, but I am staying on the sidelines until there is something more than partisan speculation to consider.
Nice to see a new face in the forum.
GASMy apologies and I stand corrected. You are right. To date nothing has been given to the FBI...at least not that we know of and yes, these were electronic documents viewed by Nunes on secure grounds but also because the server on the WH grounds or Old Exec.bldg is cleared to view what many believe to be NSA docs. Something Nunes would not be able to have access to in his own office or anywhere in Congress.
Crankalicious:
Yawn...Your jab at me is typical of all liberals when they get their panties in a wad. I expect and have fielded it many times. My "ignorance" is matched by your rudeness and if I am ignorant I find that preferable to being a boor.
No worries about more birth defects. You liberals aspire to more abortions and especially babies diagnosed in utero with abnormalities. So stop worrying.I'm merely stating scientific facts and you're making stuff up based on complete ignorance. It's amazing you bother going to a doctor since doctors are scientists with edumacation and they know stuff you don't know, much like climate scientists. They both have Ph.Ds and all, ya know.
I think you're confused about rudeness too. If somebody insists that the moon is made of cheese, you eventually have to point out how stupid that is. It doesn't really make much sense to debate the matter with them. As far as climate science is concerned, you're basically arguing that the moon is made of cheese.
I'm just skipping over the debate part. Let's assume I have a Ph.D. in climate science. What would be the point of debating with you since you don't even know the difference between weather and climate?Maybe Bill Nye, the science guy, needs to pay yet another visit to Washington, DC.
'I think you're confused about rudeness too"
No. Its easy enough to recognize, especially in a liberal because so many of you are.
"What would be the point of debating with you"
None. So stop.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
You guys are all falling into the same trap , A whole lot of assumptions ! When the charges are made in the media - Many, many people on both sides automatically assume there just has to be a smoking gun . The new left in America , in conjunction and collusion with its bought and paid for mass media , is totally guilty of this tactic - Just -keep repeating until the wheels drop off the original accusation . Funny thing is, there's a new accusation about every week against Trump .
Lots and lots of wheels lying around .
Goos ole' Saul Alinsky ........!Sallie; I hate to do this to you. But I'm going to parse your statement.
"However that fact, IMHO does not preclude mounting suspicion that Obama did, in fact, find a way to surveillance Trump and members of his team and have them unmasked during transition."
How can it be a fact and your humble opinion at the same time? What mounting suspicion and from whom? How can it be mounting suspicion and a fact at the same time? So Obama found a way to surveill Trump; without going through channels according to you and then he unmasked Flynn and Manafort. They were already known quantities connected to Putin and the Russian banks during the transition. Why do you think they resigned?Do you have reading comprehension issues or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? "That fact" refers to the fact that we seem to have agreed that all intel agencies have said that there is no validity to Trump's tweet.
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
I wish you people would stop calling Trump a conservative , It's starting to anger a lot of people on the right .............:-]
GA: This is a very important topic that we are dealing with. It is evolving daily as new events and information are released. When I started this forum that was all that was known to me relative to Trump requesting the investigation about his Obama wire tapping claim.. In view of what has transpired, I still believe it is a smoke screen by Trump and his people.
If we go off topic by arguing about political ideology and insulting each other about our political views, this forum will lose track of the facts and evidence that is being released. Hence my suggestion that we look at this as jurors deliberating the facts and evidence as the investigations take place.
That's why I'm using the Fact, Conjecture format. I think this is too important to be hijacked into discussions that are not relative to the investigations. I can't change the title of this Forum as events evolve. Besides most open discussions in political forums have a way of turning ugly after a view days..and ultimately they become hijacked.
Mike"I can't change the title of this forum as events evolve ............."
That , is the problem with these daily inventions of non-issues -Peoplepower , when you find that its kind of hard to erase the big print , isn't it ? --- Once you realized that your political hero , Hilary , might be involved in the whole Russian Connection Invention and investigation --- , Did you have a shock moment , " Oh no , this might come back to bite me in the a$$?"Peoplepower, you're trying to argue with people who believe the earth is flat. How's that working out for you?
Oh, and Michael Flynn, who said that immunity proved that people had committed a crime, has offered to testify if he's given immunity. Huh.Granted Immunity worked for five people under the Obama - Clinton in the very same issue . Yet , nobody is testifying , ..................interesting when you have to wonder who really thinks the earth is flat ?
Call out liberal intellectualism and watch heads explode all across their flat earth .Remember when Flynn was out on the Trump Campaign trail? Remember what he said about Hillary and her aides asking for immunity? "They ask for immunity because they are guilty." Some men in this country never know when to keep their mouths shuts. Now, Flynn is doing the two faced thing he accused Hillary of. Asking for immunity.
The problem is that when Hillary's aides asked for immunity it was due to the sensitive nature of classified miltiary information on Benghazi. Then, we find out the Republican Party was already putting Hillary through an 11 hour McCarthy style interrogation thanks to the Roy Cohn Clone, Trey Gowdy when that was nothing more than another Mr. MAN cover up to take the spotlight off the Russian hacking into DNC emails. How do we know that the information both Chaffetz and Gowdy used didn't come courtesy of King Rat Ryan who with McConnell knew in August 2016 about the Russians DNC email hacking.
Now of course, you get some men in this country who want to call "conflict of interest," "business as usual" and "immunity" protection from a hostile anti Trump media environment.
Oh how much fun it is watching the right wing in this country burn their own bridges with their own words. So Flynn asks for immunity to protect himself but Hillary? Well, she asks for it because as a woman and as all women know, according to moron men, she is guilty. Really? When Trump and Bannon are working unpaid overtime trying to stop all future investigations?
From that we are supposed to infer that he is soooo innocent that he has to make sure NO investigations EVER out him?
ahorseback: Nice try, but I'm not biting. If Hillary is involved, the investigations should show that. If Trump and his people are involved, the investigations should show that as well, unless there is cover up by the House Intelligence Committee, The Senate Intelligence Committee, The FBI and the NSA. Your posts are precisely why we need to keep this forum on track.
It's going to be interesting to watch Dr. Evelyn Farkas under subpoena try to wiggle out of her original statement to Mika on the Morning Joe, as she is now doing. And what a blockbuster bit of news concerning the reports today concerning just what was happening even before Trump won the election to surveill him and his associates.
Get the popcorn ready!
http://therightscoop.com/watch-new-bloc … -coverage/
Oh and yes, I know..its a right wing entity and the report was broken by FOX. We can all let this play out though and sit back as the story unfolds. Which it will. If I were someone in the Obama Administration right now, I'd be uneasy.Farkas, who wasn't even in government at the time? She basically said the government needed to collect intelligence pertaining to Trump associates and their connection to Russia. Everyone in the intelligence community at the time had pretty already confirmed that the Russians were working to get him elected.
How is that even a story? Get the intelligence before they wipe it clean. Pretty much a non-story from someone not even in government at the time any supposed surveillance was going on.The unmasking is a major issue, especially to use it for political purposes. There is truth in that.
But Russian interference with our election is also a major issue that the GOP is trying to sweep away with the exception of the Senate Intel Committee.
The fake news stories and hacking of the DNC, followed by the leaking of their documents to aide a foreign government elect a preferred candidate needs to be investigated.
It's kind of comical actually that everyone was all for DNC documents becoming public, but not unmasking Trump associates meeting with surveillance targets of foreign governments. Both are truths - and I'm happy Hillary's deceit got punished. But people on the other side of the aisle need to be prepared to deal with Trump's campaign deceits as well.
Bimish...Obama has NEVER lied in public on any major issue that can result in a national security risk. First of all, Trump NEVER had ANY information that Obama wire tapped his Trump Tower. Trump specifically stated in his March Tweet that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
At some point, the right wing in this country is going to end up in the same position as Trump: facing court proceedings for being enemy agents of this country.
Your post only proves you make accusations with NO proof. THAT IS what Trump did to President Obama. No FISA court warrant was requested to wiretap Trump Tower. The FBI, CIA and NSA have all made a liar of you and Trump.
Obama didn't EVER have to lie. He is a Constitutional Law professor. Right wingers today cannot be trusted. We can't know if they are Russian bots as has been proven now by the Intel agencies or if these right wingers are paid Russian trolls.
I hope you saw the look on Ted Cruz's face when the Senate called Clinton Watts to the hearing and Watts told Cruz that the Russians hacked the Republican Primaries so Cruz would lose to Trump.
If the Russians worked so hard to take Hillary and Cruz down, Trump knew all about it and so did the Republican Party.
Next time you post, don't just make accusations about President Obama OR Hillary you can't prove."If the Russians worked so hard to take Hillary and Cruz down, Trump knew all about it and so did the Republican Party. "
Proof please? Or do you need to eat your own words: "Next time you post, don't just make accusations about <anybody> you can't prove".Yes, as much as I dislike President Trump, any accusations about what he did or didn't know are unfounded. That's why we need an independent investigation we can trust, so that if he's not guilty, the country can move on.
Why does Putin hate Hillary Clinton? Because in 2011 when he was running for re-election, she said something that Putin didn't like. This is an excerpt from Time Magazine:
"Later that same year, when Russia’s flawed parliamentary elections set off a season of street protests, Clinton spoke up in support of the demonstrations. "The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," Clinton said. "And that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them."
It was a fairly tame statement of support for the Russian opposition movement. But Putin took it as a personal affront against his leadership, as well as a sign that Clinton was intent on manipulating the Russian presidential elections that were then just a few months away."
Therefore, Putin had motive and intent to mess with Hillary's election to favor Trump. It's called revenge against the former Secretary of State.
Right now there are three separate investigations going on to probe whether Putin put his thumb on the scale to influence the outcome of Hillary's election and whether Trump and his people were complicit before and during the elections. The three separate investigations are being conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, The Senate Intelligence Committee, and the FBI. Wouldn't it be better to just have an independent congressional investigation?Does anyone else find this funny? Hillary, quite openly and brazenly, makes an attempt to affect Russian elections and it is not only OK but it is cheered for because, after all, America has all the answers and any nation that doesn't do it all the same way is obviously wrong and needs forced to do right.
And when Putin does the same thing the world is coming to an end. It is a constitutional crises and the country will collapse tomorrow because that evil man dared attempt to steer our election (for the umpteenth time, though we won't mention that) in the direction he wanted it to go.
Personally, I think all the hoorah is hilarious. Almost as much so as the hypocrisy is pathetic.Wilderness: Hillary speaking up in support of the demonstrations and Putin and his people hacking and leaking information is a false equivalence. So it sounds like you are supporting Putin and not our own people? The investigations are showing that Putin and his people were involved in influencing our election outcome. Here is what Hillary said:
"The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," Clinton said. "And that means they deserve free, fair, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them."
That is a pretty tame statement compared to what Putin is doing not only to our country, but in other countries as well. Whose side our you on anyway? Hillary haters hate her so much that they can't see the forest because of the trees and would rather end up supporting an enemy of this country than Hillary.Well, with nothing else to go on, I rather assume that demonstrators over an election were shut down in Russia and Clinton didn't like it - publicly saying that they should be able to vote themselves and that the free, "fair" and "transparent" elections desired in America must apply to Russia. Now, you can say that that isn't trying to affect the election, but we both know better.
So once more, how is it different than what Putin did (recognizing that we don't know what he did)? It isn't about hating Hillary - it's about the demand that other countries follow the rules we set up for ourselves and if they don't, why, we will do what we can to change their elections and be proud of it as we do so!There is a difference between a leader making a public statement and clandestine armies of netbots using pscyops techniques to manipulate a population.
There is evidence that this is what happened in the US election.
I doubt if anyone complains too much when Putin sneers at American democracy as a sham.
In a similar vein, this is an interesting take on Mercer and Bannon's contribution to election propaganda: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … gel-farage
The facts never really stood a chance.Hello Will, I followed your link, and was about half way through, (it is a long article), when I began having what younger folks might call an OMG! moment.
It has to do with a reference to Issac Asimov's sci-fi "The Foundation" series, and the reality of today. It deserves its own thread, and will probably interest no one, but your link prompted it, so I hope you take a look.
"Yesterday's Science Fiction Is Today's Political Reality"
GAWell done for trying. It is a long article but it is also an original insight, supported with plenty of evidence, of just how Trump won in the US and the UK voted for Brexit.
It is not easy to grasp the enormity of what Bannon and the Mercers are about. They really are trying to undermine the truth-seeking institutions that have evolved over the last few centuries: science, journalism, and scholarship of all kinds.
The objective is to gain political power. And they are doing pretty well.I hope you didn't misunderstand my "half-way though" remark. I did read the entire article, and I do agree it was a well-written and impressive piece. The half-way part referred to when the understanding of just what those two "analytical" companies seem to have achieved started to dawn on me.
As for the enormity of their effort - it was the grasp of that enormity that prompted my sci-fi thought.
An even more worrying "enormity" is the understanding that their, (the companies), achievements are not an end result. I think they are just mile-markers are a road that will probably take us to a very hazardous place.
GA
Outside of one being hidden and one not, what is the basic difference? Seems that both were used to influence the vote of the people, that the intent was to do just that, and that maybe it worked and maybe not.
Will: I read the entire article. Kellyanne Conway and her husband are also connected to Cambridge Analytical. It is scary that they can glean enough information from data mining and use it to change peoples minds. This is both brainwashing and propaganda at its finest. If Trump's words are chosen by a computer and it is not just him stuttering or happenstance that is even scarier.
The Mercers and Bannon have developed machine learning to target customized ads at individual voters. There is no concern with facts, policy or the reality of what it means to have one candidate or another in office. The focus is on raw emotion and pushing peoples buttons to influence (or suppress) their voting.
This is called manipulation.
Bannon boasts that he has use of super computers worth $1.3 billion dollars. No doubt they run Mercers clever algos developed at Cambridge Analytics.
That is power.
The Russian thing seems to be much more a case of targeting journalists and influential bloggers for vicious abuse (including death/rape, threats) of the kind that made them withdraw from the public space.
Many Hilary supporters were targeted by individuals who claimed to be from the MAGA camp. More effectively, others claimed to be from the Sanders camp. There is evidence these were Russian attacks.
http://shareblue.com/watching-the-heari … sian-bots/
We are only just beginning to understand how the US population could be persuaded to vote against their own interests in so spectacular a style, but the evidence will gradually emerge.
Wilderness: It is trying to affect the election, but her effect was minuscule, if at all . It was Putin's mind set that he was going to someday seek revenge from her statement. Watch this documentary about Putin. It is long, but very informative, and done very well.
https://youtu.be/052NHa39opkWilderness, Can you also explain why then, Clinton Watts, a former FBI agent, who testified last week at the Senate Investigation, confirmed that Russian hackers also hacked into the Republican primary to smear Marco Rubio? Remember, Watts was sworn in under oath.
The reality is that no one in the US can trust Trump supporters. When Watts testified that the site, "I love Bernie" was really one of Putin's fake news sites, the site had already amassed over 30,000 supporters. How do we know those were actually Americans?
Clinton Watts explained "how" the Russian hackers used datamining of voter information, not to spy on the election but to weaken them.
Explanation please.Explanation of what? Your personal conspiracy theories? Your irrational hatred of Trump and anyone that supports what he might (or might not) accomplish? What are you looking to have explained to you?
Boy, I want your crystal ball - the one that reads people's minds! Where did you get it?
Does it also tell you what the real effect of Putin's endeavors (and Clinton's) was, or is just guess work based on the need to convict Trump of something?Wilderness: I don't know what you are basing your comments on. Did you even watch the video? What crystal ball? How am I reading peoples minds?
"It was Putin's mind set that he was going to someday seek revenge from her statement." And the inference, of course, is that revenge is why he did whatever it is that he did.
Sorry, but a 45 minute video from CNN is not my idea of fun. Only watched a short portion, and didn't learn anything but that lots of people have lots of different opinions.I haven't drawn any conclusions or developed any conspiracy theories myself, but don't you find it alarming the degree to which the Trump administration is trying to sweep this all aside? If you have nothing to hide and want this to go away, don't you welcome an independent investigation? If you have evidence to exonerate you, don't you present it out in the open and not invite one of your stooges into a secret meeting to give it to him? (They had to know how that would look)
Hillary Clinton had her faults, but she went in front of the political firing squad and gave testimony. And the implications of Benghazi pale by comparison to the implications of collusion with Russia to change the outcome of our election."don't you find it alarming the degree to which the Trump administration is trying to sweep this all aside?"
Not particularly. I have said over and over that nothing Trump can do or say will stop the ridiculous charges from appearing, any more than it stopped the ridiculous claim about Obama's birth. The rabble have the bit in their teeth, don't care about truth or anything else except harming Trump. Given that, why bother?
Wilderness: Yes I'm sorry too. Because if you would have watched the whole thing, you wouldn't be making the comments you made. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Too bad, it would have given you insight as to what is really taking place. But I guess because it was produced by CNN and a person with a name like Fareed Zakaria, it turned you off (fake news and a foreign sounding name). It's not about fun, it's about education.
Are you saying that CNN is your crystal ball? That they are the reason you know Putin did whatever it was all out of revenge on Hillary? That he "threw" the vote to Trump, to get back at her? That CNN is the root of this whole theory?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
The real issue here. Is that the Russians and democrats have adopted each others hatred of the western worlds open and fair media , this factor alone is unprecedented
Seriously Peoplepower , ? The origional revolutionary author , community activist , 1960's organizer of all things liberal protest organizer An Entire generation of liberal activists spread their fingers from his teachings into universities , colleges , high schools right into the very halls of the forth estate ,
And you don't know him.? Or are you just testing me?ahorseback: So this is an excerpt from wikipedia about how not only the left wing, but the right wing used the teachings of Alinksky. You would do well to read the entire article in Wikipedia.
"According to Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt asserted that Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky's teachings.[31] Alinksy's influence on Obama has been heavily emphasized by some of his detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Historian Thomas Sugrue writes, "as with all conspiracy theories, the Alinsky-Obama link rests on a kernel of truth".[26] For three years in the mid 80s, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, which was influenced by Alinsky's work, and he wrote an essay that was collected in a book memorializing Alinsky.[26][32] Newt Gingrich repeatedly stated his opinion that Alinsky was a major influence on Obama during his 2012 presidential campaign, equating Alinsky with "European Socialism", although Alinsky was U.S.-born and was not a Socialist.[33] Gingrich's campaign itself used tactics described by Alinsky's writing.[34]
Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "[Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.[35]
In 1969, Alinsky was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award, an annual award given by the Diocese of Davenport to commemorate an encyclical by Pope John XXIII.[36]
Here is the link to Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Seriously , you ask me who Alinsky was and then lecture me about remaking him into being a patriot ? I actually read about him before there was an wiki-pedia , Unlike most modern day pre-packaged liberal revolutionaries like yourself , I know and knew then how to reject phony entitlement seeking revolutionary preaching's.
Hillary did her thesis on Alinsky... what else do we need to know?
Jack: This is from Wikipedia:
In 1969, while a political science major at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton chose to write her senior thesis on Alinsky's work, with Alinsky himself contributing his own time to help her.[27][28] Although Rodham defended Alinksy's intentions in her thesis, she was critical of his methods and dogmatism.[27][29] (Years later when she became First Lady, based upon a White House request, the school did not make the thesis publicly available.[30])
You probably don't believe it, because it doesn't fit your agenda. Here is the link, if you choose to read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_AlinskyI believe it. How does that disprove anything I said?
She is a radical more so than Bill Clinton. She wants things to happen thru government from within.
That was Alensky's tactic.
She almost had her way. If elected, she would implement these radical ideas, even more so than President Obama, the community organizer.
The difference is, she is more pragmatic than Obama. She has the backing of Wall Street and the Globalist like Soros.
ahorseback: I did not know who Alinksky was until you mentioned him. The last thing I did was google him on Wikipedia. Could it be that what you read was biased and just fit your agenda? I know that is hard for you to fathom. But more than likely that is the truth. Wikipedia is not sourced from one person, but is a collective effort that is sourced and vetted by many. O.K. You've done it again, you have us off on a tangent and in addition with name calling.
Getting back on track, the latest news this morning is that Nunes has stepped down and recused himself from the investigation. I'm sure you and other Trump supporters don't realize, but Trump now fits a pattern in this investigation. The closer the investigation gets to proving that he and his people had nefarious connections with the Russians, the more he accuses others, without any evidence to support his accusations. He has done it with Obama and wiretapping and now he is doing it with Susan Rice and unmasking others who he claims were involved. He is just like you and loves to send people and the media down a rabbit hole and off on a tangent as a protective smoke screen. Just like Trump, it must be hard for you to concentrate on one subject.
This is a question for the forum. Why doesn't Trump ask for an independent investigation instead of having three separate agencies investigating the same thing. Answer: Because all roads lead to Trump and his people...again, the biggest smoke screen of all of them. He knew the Obama wiretapping would take the focus off of him and Jeff Sessions. When is the last time you have heard of Sessions? That's where this forum started.This is interesting - that the investigation is "getting close" to proving nefarious connections with the Russians. Just what are you considering "close", though? That there is an investigation at all coupled with the unfounded assumption that those "nefarious connections" you know exist will now be found?
As usual , you can make up your own fantasy about what or why Trump does as he does , Nunes can step back from the Russian investigation all he wants , cowering to Obama's continuation of corruption in the DOJ is a fitting thing for those trying to bring down Trump --on both sides of the aisle -- and that IS whats happening , Something that political lightweights cannot seem to ever fathom is that until the filth and corruption of Obama's left wing , activist infiltrated DOJ is first uncovered and secondly dealt with entirely , this divisiveness will continue .
Remember back when Obama was elected and re-elected and those like you whined for months and months about working with the new administration and giving the new messiah then Pres. Obama a chance , funny now that that shoe is on the other foot all the left seems capable of doing is , burning holes in the cushions of the liberal love seat that you brought to the white house .
Trump will succeed , some things that will happen -- The DOJ will eventually get a much deserved house cleaning , when that happens ; you will not only have lost the house ,congress , the White House AND ANY chance of controlling the Supreme Courts for decades to come. but also your meaningless leverage with the media .Why ?, Your media is only as loyal as the next election .ahorseback: Boring! The same mantra over and over again...blame the other side for everything. And have the republicans control everything. Did it ever occur to you that is not a balance of power or a democracy? As they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And once again, you are off on a tangent and with name calling. You just can't help yourself, can you?
Wilderness: Have you ever heard of Blackwater?
http://wapo.st/2ouHGUz?tid=ss_twAre you really suggesting that "examining whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria" (purpose of the meeting, according to your link) is a "nefarious connection"? Anything to throw dirt, I'd say - something we're seeing a lot of lately. Desperate attempts, all failing miserably, to make the President seem evil.
Try to keep in mind that not every contact, even with the dreaded Russians, can be considered "nefarious". Or anything but an honest attempt to get along on this ball of dirt without a nuclear winter.Wilderness: Nefarious was not the correct word. I didn't realize it meant evil.However, he lies, is chaotic, is a hypocrite, and is constantly using hyperbole to sell his actions to his supporters. He accuses others of actions that he has no evidence for as a means of deception. He goes off on tangents using excessive verbal force to attack others who do not agree with him. You tell me what a great word I should use to describe his actions. And you know I can give you examples of everyone of those actions.
You might start your future comments with "I have no evidence, but in my unsupported opinion..."
That should cover most if not all, of your opinion based statements. As far as examples, I would think that if went back just a few weeks I could support saying the exact same things about your own posts. Certainly "He lies" (consider the nefarious statement), "is chaotic" and "Using hyperbole" will be simple. As will "He accuses others of actions that he has no evidence for" and "He goes off on tangents". You might want to consider before attacking by using the same tactics. Perhaps a cessation of the tremendous effort being taken to vilify Trump; leave the superlatives, adverbs and adjectives at home, using only terms describing the event rather than trying to describe how terrible Trump was when the event occurred.Wilderness: There is a difference in what you are calling my unsupported opinion and what you are in denial about as far as Trump goes. I don't need you to suggest to me how I should write my posts no more than you need me to tell you to take your blinders off and see Trump for who and what he really is. I find your comments very condescending. Who put you in charge as the teacher to grade my papers when you refuse to see the truth? Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. You act like you are an authority when you are not willing to see reality.
What you describe me as saying is exactly what Trump does. He uses superlatives, adverbs and adjectives in everything he says. Do you not listen to him when he speaks and tweets? Everything is fantastic, terrific, wonderful, huge, marvelous, bigley, beautiful and many more adjectives. But when he is attacking, he uses slander, name calling, and insults that are very hurtful. He is not aware or does not care about the consequences of his words. Do you think that is presidential?
Trump not having any evidence of Obama wiretapping is not my unsupported opinion. It is fact. Trump not having any evidence about Susan Rice unmasking operatives is not my opinion. It is fact. If he had evidence don't you think he would bring it forward? Trump stating that he doesn't know anybody on his team who has previous connections with Putin. That is a lie. Flynn, Tillerson, and Kushner to name a few all have had connections with Putin and his people. This is not my opinion. It is fact.Very very nice peoplepower , What a beautiful tribute to your valentine day -like love of anti-Trump rhetoric,
Because someones opinion doesn't match the sophomoric anti- Trump college rage thats so popular on campus ? Its called having an opinion , everyone gets one !"Who put you in charge as the teacher to grade my papers when you refuse to see the truth?"
You did - "You tell me what a great word I should use to describe his actions."
"Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself."
See above. If you don't want to see them don't ask for them.
"What you describe me as saying is exactly what Trump does"
That was rather the point; a perpetual complaint about how Trump talks and what he says, using the same tactics.
"Trump not having any evidence of Obama wiretapping is not my unsupported opinion."
I would certainly hope not! Not after phone conversations from his team were recorded and made public!The biggest problem Trump has is not accepting that leadership always means being scrutinized with a microscope. This he hates more than leaks among his own. The problem with Jeff Sessions has gotten worse.
Now, the Governor of Alabama who appointed Sessions was forced to resign for some pretty lurid sexual escapades. Sessions claimed he didn't know about it but the fact is Sessions HAD to know since this governor was a "crony." He knew because the rest of the Governor's aides and appointees all knew for more than 7 years and involved several state departments of the government.
If Republican men in the south and midwest are so corrupt they can't keep it in their pants and then try to silence women with their arcane laws, maybe they deserve to lose those all too cushy cushy long running House and Senate seats.
ahorseback: That's interesting. You don't believe in global warming being man made unless it's Al Gore flying around in his airplane. How about all the millions of aircraft that are in the air world wide at any given time? Those don't count, only Al Gores airplane. Welcome to conservative Logic 101.
You are missing the point Mike, the hypocracy of Al Gore is what we are complaining about.
Here is a man who profits from the carbon credits and tells us to not drive SUVs to reduce our carbon foot print and yet he himself live in a huge Mansion, bought a beach house, and flies around in private jets...
He is not living the green lifestyle is he?Hi jackclee, Isn't that the same as blaming the messenger for the message?
*Note that I did not get into the "hypocrite" thing.
GAJack: I think you need to read this. And by the way this forum is about the investigations, not Al Gore and global warming. Please try to keep us on track. Thank you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/busin … 3gore.html
Conservative logic and conservative , traditional science is also telling us that the hole in the ozone may very well be shrinking , I realize that may not play into your fairy tale science test tube kit however , Global warming is but a cyclic among patterns of many warming , cooling cycles , Drop the Al Gore comic book Peoplpower , there is actually a real world of science out there to read, I know that it's not as exciting as the "end of the world " alarmist kind imaginative liberals love , let's wait and see.
You are seriously confused. It's kind of sad.
The sad part is that environmental conscienceness could be taught without such confusion among the supposed "experts " , I am a heavy reader of mainstream news media , always have been , and there is nothing LESS believable than the confliction in fact , statistics and broad-brushed baseless accusations from mindless politically motivated science "experts "
My cat could articulate better science than you.
To quote one of my favorite movies with regard to your shrinking ozone hole comment: "I don't think it means what you think it means". Nevermind the thing about cyclical global warming.No but then , a guy like me didn't say I was a scientist nor a rude and lost forum troll like yourself .
Some advice ; go back to middle school and find some manors to go with that childish attitude.
What are you , like 12?I'm actually 11. Doesn't this prove my point? You're now admitting you don't know what you're talking about but you're insisting you're right, yet you're making a comparison that doesn't actually support the point you're trying to make. There's not actually any scientific debate about the fact that the ozone hole is healing. It's definitely healing. Now, why is it healing? Because of those pesky government regulations that phased out CFC gases. Somehow, I think, you were drawing a comparison between some kind of imagined liberal denial of this ozone healing and the (also imagined) incorrect assessment about global warming. So, your premise was entirely wrong while you then made a conclusion based on more incorrect information.
The global warming thing is actually pretty easy to understand because it's based on a simple, factual scientific principle along with data. The factual principle is that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to heat up. That's a scientific fact. The data that's used to conclude that there's global warming is the amount of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere. If that number goes up, then the earth gets hotter. It's actually quite simple.
Now, if you want to complain about the alarmists who are trying to predict what this means, go right ahead. There's a wide range of opinion, models; etc. about what will happen if the CO2 is not controlled. What is not in dispute is the basic scientific principle and the data.
Btw, a manor is a nice house. Manners is what I lack. So I will give you that, I should definitely shut up. I completely agree with that. It would free up my time.
Btw, there's no such thing as conservative science. However, if you think there is, could you define it for me? I love to learn stuff.Crankalicious, One thing you always need to keep in mind with the hick mentalities is that because they barely managed to graduate high school with barely passing grades, they walk planet earth thinking the fat in the brains is "muscle." It isn't. It's just plain old stupidity.
These are people who never know when to shut their ignorant mouths. They are the first to always judge others but if you dare to do that to them, they go mental in seconds. Why? Walk into any mental hospital for the criminally insane and you see clearly why the right wing mind is fundamentally defective.
They don't believe in facts or truth. Neither do the criminally insane. They believe they know better. So do the criminally insane.
They choose to live as backward as they can, because what they are really hiding is their ignorance and lack of education.
But, the problem in this country is that we cannot allow mentally unstable minds to direct the course of our futures. They push and we just push back harder. They push harder and we push back so hard they land on their butts.You might be right.
What I can't understand is that if ahorseback has a horse who is sick, he goes to a veternarian, right? Because that person has the expertise to fix the problem. But when it comes to climate science, he (and others who are deniers) goes to everyone but a climate science. Maybe next time he has a sick horse he should try taking it to his plumber. I'm sure it will work just as well.I think you will find that these "cowboys" haven't seen a saddle or a horse in their entire lives. rofl. These people are a joke. I laugh at their pretentious nonsense from those high heeled cowboy boots with spurs attached to the chaps that keep the dust off their "jeans" to those hideous phony cowboy hats.
Now really, if you are an intelligent person, how does dude-ing yourself up like Hopalong Cassidy help your credibility? See? Peel back that pretentious Wild West mentality and you see a phony. rofl.O.K. People, while I appreciate your debate on global warming, once again we are off topic and letting the name calling fly in each others face. Let me put you back on topic. This is from the Washington Post:
"The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials."
Stay tuned everybody. Let's see where this takes us. Here is the entire article if you want to read it.
http://wapo.st/2pr7kpE?tid=ss_twSorry for getting off the beaten path. In my view, an innocent man always encourages an investigation. This is not what Donald Trump does. The closer he gets to being found guilty, the more distractions in the extreme he concocts.
The reality comes down to Trump giving final approval on members of his campaign retinue. Now, he's saying he didn't really know Bannon. Another lie. He knew him since 2011. And, Trump is big into the kind of media that is always in the realm of the extreme right. He claims to watch Fox News, reads The National Enquirer and as Bannon is his associate, also is familiar with Breitbart.
If this country is only about reversing what's right and condoning what's wrong, sorry. I don't dance with the devil or sit at his table.Thanks People! I haven't been posting because it looks like everything under the sun, other than wiretapping, is being posted.
Congress and NSA have told Nunes there is "no there there" in the information he shared in a news briefing. Now Congress is asking that the information be declassified. Explanations and clarifications are dripping out daily. I see none of it here...other than what you just posted.
I don't read for days at a time.How very strange! Guess Trump was right after all, or least close enough given the state of information available. Do you think he'll get an apology from anyone for calling him an out and out liar?
I would want to know what is the basis for this. Let the FBI testify. We need to get to the bottom of this from the source. We don't need innuendoes and leaks... iIf there is a crime, charge someone with it?
The whole idea of leaking for political gains is wrong and unfair and against the law. Don't you agree?Naw - unless it can be used to implicate President Trump of some heinous crime (licking the wrong side of a lollipop, maybe?) it's of no interest.
Jack: I agree, but it is a work in progress by three investigative bodies, the FBI, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee. I don't know why they just don't hold one independent investigation, but let's be patient and wait and see.
Related Discussions
- 67
Follow the money
by Don W 7 years ago
I've tried to piece together a timeline of potentially related events related to the sale of a Russian oil company that shed some light on why allegations of collusion between Trump, his staff and Russian officials, have been taken seriously enough to be investigated. Some of the original sources...
- 76
The Obama Wiretapping Investigation
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
President Trump has stated that he found out former President Obama wiretapped him and has evidence to prove it. He has called for Congress to investigate.Question: Why would President Trump ask Congress to investigate when he already has the evidence to prove his claim?
- 33
Is It Likely That President Trump Has Obstructed Justice
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
Here are the FACTS as we know them:Jan 27, 2017: Trump has dinner with Comey and, according to Comey, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath' but Comey only promised Trump honesty. Trump says he didn't but thought it would have been a good idea.Jan 30, 2017: Trump fires Deputy Attorney General...
- 17
Trump Attorney: The President Is Not Under Investigation
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
“Let me be clear here. The president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction." said Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team. I'm not sure everyone in the US or in these forums realizes that President Trump is not under investigation and never has been...
- 75
Jeff Sessions Met With Russia: More Fake News
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
What do you think of the so-called revelation that Jeff Session met with the Russians and then lied to Congress about it?This is obviously more fake news from the left-wing media.
- 56
President Trump Calls for an Investigation of the "Fake" News Media
by Allen Donald 6 years ago
Is this something Congress should do?And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied...