POTUS 2016, part 3

[Reductor]

And in that reality, there are things that can be proven true.
And things which are false. If you can't prove it, it is not true. For instance, President Obama did not "tap" Trumps's phone, yet he insists it is true. This man is deranged. He insists on saying stuff that has no basis in reality.
What is "Fake News"?" It's stuff that has been made up, and is not real--cannot be proven--not stuff you don't like.

God Dam Trump pisses me off. Why? Because he is not connected to reality. He's a shameless liar. He has no idea what is real, and what is fake.

Trump does seem deranged. He might be an arsehole, too. Americans will have to keep a watch on him - but with a large segment belonging to the GOP and willingly going along with him, it'll be tough. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! Erm, sorry, channeling my inner Moody. (That's a Harry Potter joke - don't know if you read those.)

[binocular]

God Dam Trump pisses me off. Why? Because he is not connected to reality. He's a shameless liar. He has no idea what is real, and what is fake.

That's a naive way to see it. I think he is a good strategist. Some people just don't like the goals he wants to achieve. That doesn't mean that he can't tell the difference between fake and real.

[SDC]

A few posts from "Fake News" have been merged in starting with this post.

No, it absolutely has been disproven. Obama (or any President) cannot order a wire tap to be placed on anyone on a whim.

So where's the evidence that Obama ordered a wire tap on Trump Tower?

I hope my post doesn't cause us to digress into semantics, but, yes, you are absolutely correct: a president cannot order a wire tap on a whim. But that is no longer the question (most journalists are five days behind and hung up on a legal technicality) and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. What allegedly occurred is, that in their investigation into Russian hacking of the Presidential Race, the Obama White House twice applied to the court for surveillance which would have included the Trump campaign (twice because the focus in the initial application was too broad). Now why exactly they were inclined to do so remains to be seen so you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it --- perhaps there is so significant evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russian gov’t to sabotage the Clinton campaign. Remember the question is not whether or not the wire tapping actually occurred but why did they apply for it.

And I do not have time to get clarification, but many news outlets here are reporting, without providing a name of course, that a Breitbart piece about the findings of some “radio talk show host” are what started all of this. If they look into who this talk show host is they will find out that it is former White House Chief of Staff and Attorney General, Mark Levin (he is also a Constitutional lawyer). I recommend looking into his findings if you want a broader view on what that idiot Trump is yammering about.

[Mr Man]

No, it absolutely has been disproven. Obama (or any President) cannot order a wire tap to be placed on anyone on a whim.

So where's the evidence that Obama ordered a wire tap on Trump Tower?

I hope my post doesn't cause us to digress into semantics, but, yes, you are absolutely correct: a president cannot order a wire tap on a whim. But that is no longer the question (most journalists are five days behind and hung up on a legal technicality) and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. What allegedly occurred is, that in their investigation into Russian hacking of the Presidential Race, the Obama White House twice applied to the court for surveillance which would have included the Trump campaign (twice because the focus in the initial application was too broad). Now why exactly they were inclined to do so remains to be seen so you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it --- perhaps there is so significant evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russian gov’t to sabotage the Clinton campaign. Remember the question is not whether or not the wire tapping actually occurred but why did they apply for it.

And I do not have time to get clarification, but many news outlets here are reporting, without providing a name of course, that a Breitbart piece about the findings of some “radio talk show host” are what started all of this. If they look into who this talk show host is they will find out that it is former White House Chief of Staff and Attorney General, Mark Levin (he is also a Constitutional lawyer). I recommend looking into his findings if you want a broader view on what that idiot Trump is yammering about.

Hi SDC
I don't think Mark Levin was the Attorney General. His findings seem to be a few collated newspaper articles.

[Sam Vara]

If you can't prove it, it is not true.

Can you prove that statement?

[SDC]

Hi SDC
I don't think Mark Levin was the Attorney General. His findings seem to be a few collated newspaper articles.

Correct. He was chief of staff for the attorney general under Reagan. (I knew that didn't sound right).

Yes, that is most of it. I didn't say he proved anything. Question is did it happen and if it did, why.

[chownah]

.........
........ and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. ..........
............

Perhaps trump wants it to be tangled up...or maybe bannon does if he is orchestrating all this. The more tangled up it gets the greater the percentage of voters who give up on trying to ferret out the truth and the easier it is to feed them whatever "truth" you want.
chownah

[SDC]

.........
........ and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. ..........
............

Perhaps trump wants it to be tangled up...or maybe bannon does if he is orchestrating all this. The more tangled up it gets the greater the percentage of voters who give up on trying to ferret out the truth and the easier it is to feed them whatever "truth" you want.
chownah

I’m inclined to agree. My summation – if it comes to light that these taps were indeed applied for (and/or the request granted) – is that there was some serious meddling on behalf of the Trump campaign to work with Russia to sabotage Clinton. Their only defense at this point might be to expose it first and confuse the hell out of the situation (good point). The Obama crew did not seem to be so reckless as to make these requests and gather intelligence simply to plant a landmine as a failsafe just in case Hillary failed to win (which seems to be the assertion on behalf of conservatives). But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

[Dhammanando]

But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

Indeed.

https://youtu.be/rAdUuGsi30g?t=5

[chownah]

.........
......But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

INdeed, this is one example of why I have repeatedly posted that politics in america is a stupid game for mostly stupid people....it certainly is fascinating and perplexing that people would be so naive (stupid) that they have unquestioning trust.
chownah

[Mr Man]

But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring.

[SDC]

But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring.

Yeah, I clearly did so when I twice suggested the Trump team likely conspired with the Russians to interfere Clinton’s campaign. Thanks for pointing it out.

Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president, and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won. But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident. This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem. This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems. The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.

[Mr Man]

But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring.

Yeah, I clearly did so when I twice suggested the Trump team likely conspired with the Russians to interfere Clinton’s campaign. Thanks for pointing it out.

No problem.

[Buddha Vacana]

Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president, and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won. But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident. This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem. This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems. The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.

[Mr Man]

Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president,

Has someone said that?

and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won.

Who has been "fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won"?

But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident.

Do you have examples of the selective attitudes? Do you mean on this forum?

This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem.

I don't think this is true. My UK political affiliation does not transpose to the US. Do you have examples of this?

This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems.

America has got pants down right now and the right now problem is rather a big one (a dysfunctional govt.). Has anyone noticed?

The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.

If they have done wrong.

---

PS I wanted to put a "friendly dialogue smiley" here but could not find the appropriate one.