Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2602 Mar 06 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
The wiretap certainly is a new topic to investigate that isn't all the amusingly coincidental connections to Russia.

Edited, Mar 6th 2017 9:38am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2603 Mar 06 2017 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,816 posts
I had a little chuckle at Pelosi catching her self trying to rationalize various disparaging comment made about Kellyanne.

Pelosi wrote:
I think everybody was making crude comments, and I just... I just don't know. I wasn't at the dinner.


Half way through the thought she realizes she was making the "Locker Room Talk" defense. And the "Well, Trump grabbed pussies."

This whole "The other side is just as bad" thing is annoying.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2604 Mar 06 2017 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Meh, said congressman already apologized and was castigated by the Left days ago.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2605 Mar 07 2017 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
Ben Carson wrote:
It remembers everything you’ve ever seen. Everything you’ve ever heard. I could take the oldest person here, make a little hole right here on the side of the head,”(circling his left temple with a finger) and put some depth electrodes into their hippocampus and stimulate. And they would be able to recite back to you, verbatim, a book they read 60 years ago.
It's getting to feel like neurosurgery isn't nearly as complicated as we've been lead to believe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2606 Mar 07 2017 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,548 posts
I don't think it is really. Once you know where to dig it's just a matter of being sociopathic enough to not worry as you cut through the person's brain and having steady enough hands to not miss the mark. Knowledge isn't intelligence.

It's like tightrope walking, it's really not that hard if you're not worried about the consequences.
#2607 Mar 07 2017 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Seems like we're wasting Carson on HUD when he could be working in Intelligence, drilling holes in terrorists' skulls and extracting their secrets via electrodes. Or at least finding out what sort of books they read as a child.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2608 Mar 07 2017 at 2:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We have one section of The Government making claims and refusing to back them up and, in fact, saying that they won't release any evidence to support their claims. You have another section pointing out why the first section's claims are improbable and asking for intercession to show it didn't happen. Maybe your standards are far different than mine but I'm not having much trouble determining who seems more credible right now.


Technically the other section is asking for a blanket statement from the DoJ denying that there's anything to the claim, effectively demanding that they abandon even the possibility of a future investigation, you know... before doing any investigation. It's an "odd" request, at the very least. We can certainly speculate as to the veracity of Trump's claim (although as you've pointed out, it's not like this hasn't been reported on previously, and I don't recall any massive outcry or denial back then), but the response seems a bit overly harsh. Almost like someone would rather that no one actually look at the records of the FISA request(s).

Quote:
Although it's certainly possible that the FBI did in fact tap phones in Trump Tower but did not tap phones specifically belonging to or in order to listen in on Trump but rather on some other member of his campaign staff. Which would actually fit the previous stories and also meet the definition of truth when saying "We did not tap Trump's phones".


Er... If the taps were on property owned by Trump, then that's a very squirrely claim. I don't have the tweets in front of me right at the moment, but they seemed broadly enough stated that any tap directed at himself, any member of his campaign, or conducted on any property he owned or operated, leased, etc, could fit the statement made.

I'll also point out (since it's been like 10+ years since the last time we had a good FISA discussion), that one of the clearly stated restrictions on warrantless taps is tapping a foreign party but with the intention of capturing conversations with a targeted US person (the ol, "let's tap Lennon's family in case he calls them and says something that we can use to deport him" trick). I mention this because one of the linked articles talks about how it's ok to tap a foreign party, and if members of the Trump campaign "happened" to communicate with them, that would be ok. Yes, it is. But not if you're investigating the Trump campaign itself. There are elements to this that suggest that there was a prevailing narrative among the Democrats (which may or may not have affected actions by the Obama administration) to push the idea of collusion/connections between Trump and the Russians. Heck. This actually started back in the primaries, IIRC. This started well before talk of Russian hacking, leaked Podesta emails, etc. Those things were not the cause of the claims, but tied into the already existing narrative as they happened. Podesta's emails show up on Wikileaks and "it must have been the Russians!", right? I've been startled at how quickly that conclusion was made, to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Which leads us to the distinct possibility that there may have been efforts to find or create evidence in support of this narrative all along. Which somewhat automatically should make us suspicious of taps on foreign party's that members of the Trump campaign "might talk to". And the attempts to obtain FISA warrants could be seen as an extension of that narrative as well. Where's the point at which this becomes an abuse of power? I'm not sure there's a super clear answer, but given the very speculative nature of the claims being made in the first place, everything which flows from those claims kinda has to be looked at closely (more on that in part two below).

Quote:
Really, there's not a result that helps Trump much here unless you believe that Obama actually personally decided to tap Trump but went around the FBI and FISA court to do it. Otherwise, we either have Trump ranting like a lunatic about nothing or else that the FISA court found credible reason to intercept his calls in the name of national security.


I suspect there's another motivation for it. More on that below.

Quote:
Obviously, a fair percentage of the population (and around 99.95% Trump supporters) will believe the Obama story anyway so I guess that's the pay-off for making the claims.


Yeah. It's not like this would be the first time that Obama used the intelligence services for political reasons. That was, if you recall, the primary reason folks were so upset with Benghazi and the Rice statements, and the magical insertion of supporting statements into the intelligence that no one can seem to corroborate, no one on the ground ever put in there, and just "happened" to support the political narrative that Obama wanted to help deflect away from a foreign policy disaster in the middle of an election year. It's just not hard to imagine that the same guy who did that would *not* use whatever powers he had as president to help his party win re-election and thus protect his own legacy. I'm sure he could justify it in the same "ends justify the means" way that Liberals seem to be so comfortable with. I mean, his policies are so important, so valuable, and will help so many people, that it would be nearly criminal to not do everything he could to make Trump lose.


Allegory wrote:
Seems like a deliberate Gish Gallop by. If he can generate difficult to debunk controversies of low enough severity faster than than they can be thoroughly investigated to the satisfaction of supportive onlookers, I think he wins. Trump still hasn't released his tax return, but I don't know anybody who cares at this point.

It feeds his narrative about the media being against him, and normalizes a constant onslaught of criticism to where truly meaningful concerns are mixed in a sea of minor objections. Critics will find it difficult to rally around any singular issues, and instead havea slew of spoilers where they all take up separate items they believe to be the nail in the coffin.



Yeah. A good helping of this as well. My nearly immediate take on this was based on the nearly instantaneous and reflexive media backlash to Trump's tweets. I watched the interview with the ABC journalist and some communications person from the White House, and the journalist was practically yelling "If, If, IF!!!", to make the point that the allegations were only relevant if they were actually true. My instant thought was "yeah, and IF the Russians leaked the data to Wikileaks, and IF their intent was to influence the election, and IF Trump or his people had any involvement in it, then you'd have a story too". i saw the contrast to how willing and nearly gleefully the media jumped on one story, while having the opposite reaction to the other.

There's the same amount of evidence for one as there is for the other, right? They're both essentially speculation. We've got the Manchurian Candidate speculation versus the Watergate President speculation. Both are juicy. Both would represent serious problems if true. But neither one has any more evidence for it than the other. And my suspicion is that Trump, once again, is setting up the media for that exact comparison. Why jump on one story, but not the other? It's not about one having more facts to support it. It's entirely about which story the majority of those in the media wants to be true. That's just pure bias on their part.

And for me, that was the immediate take I got on it. He was creating a very very obvious contrast, right in full view of "the people". It doesn't matter which is true or not, and frankly, we'll almost certainly never know for sure (as these things tend to go). But the value down the road for him to have yet another example of massive mainstream media bias? That''s more valuable than any harm he takes in the short term.

So yeah. As you said. It feeds the narrative about the media being against him. And once again, the media more or less jumped right into it.

Edited, Mar 7th 2017 12:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2609 Mar 07 2017 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
One bit of follow on. One of the things I think I observed in the election (back in the primaries in fact), was that Trump was not running like a conservative (or even a Republican). He may be pushing Republican platform issues, but he's actually using many of the same methodologies that the Left has been using for decades. I was unhappy about that when I first noticed it during the primaries. I was unhappy about that during the general election, and yes, I'm still unhappy about it when he does it now. I'm maybe a bit old school when I expect my politicians to be upright and straightforward with their statements and actions. I'm uncomfortable with them playing media manipulation games, and tactics like the one mentioned above of flooding the public with a ton of minor things, so as to exhaust them and make them forget about "real issues".

I guess it's a bit ironic, because I see them instantly as such, probably because I've been attuned to seeing them when used by Democrats, while it seems like most Liberals don't know what's going on. He's using the Left's tactics against them. Obama did the same thing btw. He'd drag out investigations, and in the meantime make sure to put a half dozen new dramatic stories in front of the public, so that when anything "new" came up, it was "old news", and "why are we even looking at that anymore?". Wild speculations, that don't matter if they are true, because the speculation itself gains you something, and creates more uncertainty and doubt, is another common tactic.

Again, I'm not really happy about this. But I think it's worth noting. What most of you are feeling right now? This kind of exasperation at absurd claims, crazy statements, obvious distractions, etc? That's what we on the Right have been dealing with for a long long time. It actually sucks that my "side" has started using the same ugly tactics. I'd much rather that we lifted ourselves up and had actual rational discourse in our public offices. But maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking. Who knows. Maybe if enough Liberals see this being used against them, and realize how cheap and crappy it is, they'll start seeing it when their own side does it as well, and maybe that'll eventually push for a change. Until then though? You might want to get used to it. Because I don't think Trump is likely to stop.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2610 Mar 07 2017 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I previously wrote:
Obviously, a fair percentage of the population (and around 99.95% Trump supporters) will believe the Obama story anyway so I guess that's the pay-off for making the claims.

Yeah, that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2611 Mar 07 2017 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
***
3,043 posts
IMHO, 45 tweets and makes outrageous statements, to distract from what he and Congress are doing.

No surprise that the latest tweets come as he signs new travel ban from 6 countries and Congress is rolling out new healthcare legislation.

I know if it wasn't for a couple friends, who keep me inform online with links to news coverage of Both 45 and congress, I would face spending all day checking several news sources for what 45 and the GOP don't want me to focus on.

Still I have congress.gov on my list of homepage links. I don't check out the whitehouse.gov, since it's been watered down to no longer actually covering any issue I care about.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2612 Mar 09 2017 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
Spicer is either going insane, or someone told him that stunt 45 pulled with the stack of blank papers and manila folders was an effective idea and tried it himself. "THIS IS GOVERNMENT! THIS IS NOT! THIS IS GOVERNMENT! THIS IS NOT!"

Also amusing that the people that insisted that Obamacare was "shoved down" our throats are pushing their own plan into our gag reflexes that literally no one approves of.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2613 Mar 09 2017 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's funny how conservatives sit silent as the bill was kept under guard in a single room where no one could see it and is now being pushed without being scored by the CBO, etc.

Gee, it's almost as though the complaints about the ACA were never really about the process at all. I wonder if all those complainers were intentionally lying at the time or if they were just useful idiots for the GOP, repeating the party line about what a travesty this is. Maybe we'll get some milquetoast "I'm ever so sad the Republicans are doing this now but it's really all the Democrats' fault" because Party of Personal Responsibility and all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2614 Mar 09 2017 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's funny how conservatives sit silent as the bill was kept under guard in a single room where no one could see it and is now being pushed without being scored by the CBO, etc.


There sitting so silently that the current media theme is how divided the GOP is over the issue? Hmm... I think you got that one wrong.

Quote:
Gee, it's almost as though the complaints about the ACA were never really about the process at all. I wonder if all those complainers were intentionally lying at the time or if they were just useful idiots for the GOP, repeating the party line about what a travesty this is. Maybe we'll get some milquetoast "I'm ever so sad the Republicans are doing this now but it's really all the Democrats' fault" because Party of Personal Responsibility and all.


No. It's more like the process doesn't matter in terms of media criticism of the GOP. If they don't express disagreement, then they are silently accepting what happens in committee, and they're doing the same thing they bashed Democrats for doing. And if they do express disagreement, they are "splintering", "divided", "failing to agree", and a half dozen other emotion laden declarations. Which is ok? Seems like it doesn't matter what they do. You're "side" will find a reason to criticize. Which, you know, more or less makes the criticism meaningless.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2615 Mar 09 2017 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It's funny how conservatives sit silent as the bill was kept under guard in a single room where no one could see it and is now being pushed without being scored by the CBO, etc.


There sitting so silently that the current media theme is how divided the GOP is over the issue? Hmm... I think you got that one wrong.

"News from nowhere", etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2616 Mar 09 2017 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
gbaji wrote:
"failing to agree", and a half dozen other emotion laden declarations


How is "failing to agree" emotion laden? Is it more, or less emotion laden then "disagreeing"? Actually curious.

Also, slow down, and proof your posts. You're making some spelling/grammar errors.

It's okay, we'll wait, it's not like we are going anywhere.

gbaji wrote:
There They're sitting so silently


gbaji wrote:
You're Your "side" will find a reason to criticize
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2617 Mar 09 2017 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Oh. I meant to bring this up a bit ago, on the subject of the whole Obama wiretapping the Trump campaign. I found the response from an Obama spokesperson very very squirelly:

Quote:
Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."

He added, "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."


So not an actual denial of a wiretap, just playing a bit of word game with whether the order to do so came from within the White House, or the DoJ. I'm reasonably certain that Trump wasn't alleging that Obama personally put a wiretap on him, so that's a pretty silly distinction to make.

Don't really have anything other than that. I just found the wording to be interesting is all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2618 Mar 09 2017 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,205 posts
Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.

If it came from the DoJ, through channels, then it's perfectly legit, since they'd have to have, you know, probable cause and stuff.

And I am reasonably certain that Trump was in fact, and in words, accusing Obama personally. Since, you know, he called him out by name and compared the allegation to Watergate, wherein Nixon actually did order wiretaps personally.

But I'm sure I'm just being silly since perfectly objective people have insisted that we shouldn't listen to what the President SAYS, but what he MEANS. Cause we can discern what he means, only apparently not from what he says.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2619 Mar 10 2017 at 12:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that Trump wasn't alleging that Obama personally put a wiretap on him

That is exactly what he was saying. Maybe instead of being "reasonably certain" about stuff, you should read a news story that's not "I know this is from Breitbart, but..." for once.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2620 Mar 10 2017 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe instead of being "reasonably certain" about stuff, you should read a news story that's not "I know this is from Breitbart, but..." for once.
If it's evidence enough for 45 ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2621 Mar 13 2017 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kellyanne Conway says that the CIA can turn your microwave into a camera so be sure not to plan any terror attacks from your kitchen, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2622 Mar 13 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
I thought Bruce gave control of that technology to Lucias Fox, and it was destroyed?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2623 Mar 13 2017 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,561 posts
Damn, Operation Hot Pockets has been compromised.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2624 Mar 13 2017 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
Secret Republican plan to kill off higher education by starving the students.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2625 Mar 13 2017 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Samira wrote:
Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.


Sure. That's not the point though. It's about responsibility and accountability. It's not like Obama would have to go through official channels to make it clear that he wanted the source of leaks (like say that Podesta emails), looked into, or that he wanted to see if there was something to rumors of connections between Trump and Putin. The reality is that, whether done legally or not, the whole thing looks suspicious.

Quote:
If it came from the DoJ, through channels, then it's perfectly legit, since they'd have to have, you know, probable cause and stuff.


What channels though? The only reason one would be looking at the Trump campaign would be in response to rumors and speculations, all of which came about in the context of the current political campaign. You really can't step away from the political aspect of this. And it's hard to imagine that the DoJ, working for Obama, would not perhaps accept a lower bar for "sufficient evidence to proceed" when the target is Trump, versus say, if the target were Clinton.

Remember the IRS delaying conservative group's tax filing applications? I'm sure Obama didn't have to directly tell anyone to do that either. But it's very suspicious when it does, since it makes it obvious that otherwise "legitimate" actions just so happen to have beneficial political effects for the party in power in the White House.

Quote:
And I am reasonably certain that Trump was in fact, and in words, accusing Obama personally. Since, you know, he called him out by name and compared the allegation to Watergate, wherein Nixon actually did order wiretaps personally.


Huh? Nixon didn't order any wiretaps (well, not specific to Watergate anyway). The taps were in his own office, because he recorded everything said there for his own records. The issue with taps was that there were missing records when the investigation demanded them, and that looked, not illegal, but suspicious.

The speculation wasn't about Nixon wiretapping, but that he had intelligence operatives break into the DNC headquarters and steal documents during his re-election campaign. It was never proven that he personally ordered this (it was almost certainly done by a subordinate in his administration and/or campaign), but what got him was that he attempted to cover up the whole thing (hence the issue of the missing tapes).

The comparison is that if surrogate of Obama, even operating independently (but on his behalf), decided to "help along" taps of the Trump campaign, it would be similar in effect to what happened under Nixon during Watergate. An attempt to spy on the other party during an election year and using the resources of the federal government to do it. Except as far as we know, the actions taken during Watergate were all done "off the books", so to speak. Someone in his campaign knew some guys who did work for <insert covert intelligence agency here>, and hired them out of a campaign fund to break into the DNC and gather dirt. All totally illegal. If what is being speculated about the taps in this case is true, it may be even worse, since this would be misusing actual official federal intelligence gathering tools to target a political enemy. At least back in 1972, Nixon's people had to go outside the official government processes to do this. Apparently, our system has evolved to the point where they can get such things done through what appears to be "legal" and "legitimate" channels.

Again, this is also pure speculation, since we don't know for sure if taps were requested, or allowed, and if so how broad they were, or who specifically was targeted. But the mere act of attempting to do so is very suspicious and rife with claims of using our intelligence services for political purposes. If they actually did put taps in place? That actually is as bad as what happened during Watergate (or arguably worse, as mentioned above).

It was *also* illegal for the White House to order operatives to steal documents from the DNC back then. Any such order clearly was done secretly,right? The idea that someone at the DoJ would go so far as to seek wiretaps of Trump's campaign without some kind of quiet nudge or wink or nod from Obama and/or his staff seems very unlikely. They usually go as far out of their way to avoid even the appearance of such things. No one's saying that Obama wrote an official executive order demanding this. But a quiet request behind the scenes? You and I would never have any way to know about this. Just was we'd never have known about it with Nixon (and still don't), except that he used to record everything in his office. I suspect Obama doesn't do that, right? So we can't know if he did or didn't, and we can't know if there was a "gap" in a recording, because now there aren't recordings for us to use in any form of investigation.

Quote:
But I'm sure I'm just being silly since perfectly objective people have insisted that we shouldn't listen to what the President SAYS, but what he MEANS. Cause we can discern what he means, only apparently not from what he says.


No. I'm sure what he meant was exactly what I, and frankly most conservatives, got from his statement. That Obama wanted Trump to be tapped, and magically, his administration found a way to do it. Again, no one's saying that he ordered it officially, because he can't do so legally. Um... But that doesn't stop it from being done unofficially (well, the request anyway). Again, the big issue is that the odds of such a tap having been done for any reason other than political seems incredibly tiny. Which leaves us to this having been done on behalf of Obama, at the very least, if not as a result of his request.


Obama's administration has had too many of these "convenient" actions taken by "someone else" in the administration, and "the White House had nothing to do with it" as the excuse, for the suspicion not to be there. I'll point out the whole Susan Rice thing. In that case, we also had the excuse that they were just reacting to the intelligence, and not generating it. But how lucky for them that the intelligence happened to help their political narrative in an election year. And how lucky that said false intelligence just magically inserted itself somewhere between the field operative reports and the white house intelligence briefing.

So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for immediately assuming that Obama had to have had something to do with such a thing (again, if it happened). He surrounded himself with people who did a great job at protecting him from the backlash of any action that went poorly, but after several such firewalls being hit, it starts to become obvious that he had structured his administration for just that purpose. Nothing that went wrong was ever Obama's fault. It was always someone else's decision, or intelligence he didn't control, or whatever. Always. So when I see a spokesperson say something like that? My BS detector goes off. Hard.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2626 Mar 13 2017 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.


Sure. That's not the point though.


That is literally the WHOLE point, actually.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2627 Mar 13 2017 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.


Sure. That's not the point though.


That is literally the WHOLE point, actually.


No. I'd say that's literally the whole straw man. I get that many people want to ignore the underlying issue with our government using its intelligence apparatus to spy on the presidential campaign of the party in opposition to the one currently holding the White House in the middle of the election by dismissing it because "Obama didn't directly order it" because "the White House doesn't order wiretaps", but that's really really really missing the larger picture here.


People seem to be dismissing the possibility of something on the grounds that "it would be illegal". Ok. Wasn't it also illegal for someone to leak the NSA wiretap transcripts of whatshisname's conversation with the Russian ambassador? I don't recall a single poster (other than me maybe) even raising this issue, much less expressing any sort of outrage about it. The act of having surrogates do stuff like this on behalf of a highly placed politician is pretty standard. But you'd be pretty darn naive if you didn't think that it's something that Obama wanted to have happen, and someone made it happen. Um... And in the case of the leak mentioned above, we know that Obama did directly take actions which increased the odds of such a leak occurring, right before leaving office. It's almost like he was directly telling folks "Look through as much stuff as possible for anything that can be used to damage the Trump administration". Did he have to personally say this? No. That doesn't remove him from being ultimately responsible though.

Same deal here. It's his administration. The DoJ is part of his administration. He appointed many of those working in the top positions there. He's responsible for the actions they take. What happened to the idea that "the buck stops here". Well, in the Obama administration, it stoped at "the best intelligence we had at the time". Quite consistently. It's a weak excuse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2628 Mar 13 2017 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.


Sure. That's not the point though.


That is literally the WHOLE point, actually.


No. I'd say that's literally the whole straw man


Screenshot
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2629 Mar 13 2017 at 8:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Uh huh. And? You don't actually think that Trump is claiming that Obama personally installed the taps, or listened to them, or whatever, right? But you could literally interpret it that way. You know. If you wanted to.

Some of us immediately understood that he's talking about the Obama administration doing this, and placing blame/responsibility on Obama. Since he's kinda in charge of what happens under his watch. Heck. As I pointed out earlier, the reference to Nixon/Watergate should give you a hint. There was never any evidence that Nixon himself ordered the break in to the Watergate hotel. He was held responsible for it because people working for him did it, and further because he at least gave the strong appearance of acting to cover up for them after the fact.

You'll also note, if we're actually reading the literal words, he didn't say that a good lawyer could sue Obama. Just "make a great case". Presumably the same sort of civil rights case that such things would be, right? Cause we're just looking at the words themselves, and not going out of our way to misinterpret them, right?

I guess what's jumping out at me is the willingness in this one case to be absolutely pedantic with the language, in ways you'd never care about otherwise. I'm reasonably certain that many people on the Left spoke about "Bush's illegal wiretapping programs", back when the whole NSA thing was a big story. Oddly, I don't recall a single poster on this forum making a point about how that's incorrect because the White House doesn't order wiretaps, but rather it's the relevant intelligence or legal organization that does, independently.

Yet today? That's the entire counterargument. That it wasn't "Obama" doing the tapping, so it's just not an issue. Let's just ignore it then! Yay! Problem solved. Um... really? Kinda missing the forest for the trees there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2630 Mar 13 2017 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,561 posts
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for immediately assuming that Obama had to have had something to do with such a thing
What? You assumed something bad about a Democrat with zero evidence where the only source of said accusation was from someone who regularly makes outlandish claims and threats to get out of having to discuss real issues and who not too long ago you considered the least trustworthy and easily corruptible person in politics until he got into office? I don't know if my heart can take the shock from such an unprecedented and unforeseeable revelation. Say it ain't so.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2631 Mar 13 2017 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
Did you miss the part where he says that Obama was "a bad (or sick) guy".

That Trump pointing his finger squarely at Obama. Which, again, is literally the entire point. But nice pivots. You would make an excellent basketball player.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2632 Mar 14 2017 at 2:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,404 posts
Trump isn't actually stupid. He just wants us to think he is. He's actually clever. Fake news...

I've got nothing.

I don't know how you can keep it up, gbaji.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#2633 Mar 14 2017 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
Well, I was wrong, I admit it. Obama admitted that he wiretapped Trump. I guess I owe Gbaji an apology.

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2634 Mar 14 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Good news, since Gbaji insists that Trump didn't actually mean "Obama" "wiretapped" Trump", you don't owe him anything!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2635 Mar 14 2017 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
Good news for white people in general. Steve King says that the Blacks and Hispanics "will be fighting each other" before overtaking whites in population. Thank blue haired blond eyed Jesus that Italians were accepted into the white people's club during the last hundred years or I might be a smidgen concerned.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2636 Mar 14 2017 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
***
3,043 posts
I don't have to wonder about Bannon having his hand on writing this new EO, since he has already stated that he wants to dismantle the government.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2637 Mar 14 2017 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Good news for white people in general. Steve King says that the Blacks and Hispanics "will be fighting each other" before overtaking whites in population.

Jokes on him. Only thing more oversexed than a mighty Negro stallion is a hot-blooded Latina woman. Once they come in contact, we'll be up to our ear in brownish-black babies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2638 Mar 14 2017 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
ElneClare wrote:
I don't have to wonder about Bannon having his hand on writing this new EO, since he has already stated that he wants to dismantle the government.
Interesting play. I'd assume those newly-appointed directors knew this was coming. Don't expect the recommendations will be all that surprising.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2639 Mar 14 2017 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
There's probably nothing to be concerned about when a group of people who insist an ethnic minority is the cause of the majority's problems starts consolidating power.

Edited, Mar 14th 2017 2:21pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2640 Mar 14 2017 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Back on Jan 30th, Jophiel wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Re: TPP -- It looks as though Australia and some other TPP nations are courting China to fill the US's place in a agreement that was originally intended as a hedge against them so... yay! Great job! Smiley: laugh
And now the Pacific Alliance (Mexico, Colombia, Chile & Peru) is talking about strengthening their pact and working closer with the European Union.

Trump's policies have been great for trade so far -- provided you're not the United States.
Politico wrote:
VINA DEL MAR, Chile — Here’s what happens when the U.S. pulls out of a major trade deal: New Zealand seizes the opportunity to send more of its milk and cheese to China. Japanese consumers pay less for Australian beef than for American meat. Canadians talk about sending everything from farm products to banking services to Japan and India.

President Donald Trump dumped the 12-nation TPP right after he took office, saying it was a “horrible” deal and blaming it for sucking American jobs abroad. But now other countries are ready to rush into the vacuum the U.S. is leaving behind, negotiating tariff-cutting deals that could eliminate any competitive advantage for U.S. goods.

That phenomenon is on stark display this week in Chile, where more than a dozen Pacific Rim countries are meeting in a beachside hotel to talk about moving on in the post-TPP era. China, not one of the original signers of the TPP, is here looking to cut deals. So are Canada and Mexico. And while the U.S. would normally send a high-ranking trade official to this kind of gathering, the Trump administration, is just sending an envoy from the embassy in Santiago.

Competitors say they have no choice but to take the money U.S. businesses would have earned otherwise.

Goes on to talk about US agriculture potentially losing $4.4bil and how New Zealand is poising itself to be the major exporter of dairy in the Pacific region.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2641 Mar 14 2017 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
New Zealand is already the major exporter of Hobbitses, Greek Myths, and now dairy? Those batsards.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2642 Mar 14 2017 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
We don't want the cows around here anyway. Didn't you ever read The Far Side? It doesn't end well for the people. Let New Zealand play that dangerous game if they want. When things inevitably go wrong at least the cows will be contained to the island, presumably fighting with all the sheep.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2643 Mar 14 2017 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,205 posts
So New Zealand becomes Madagascow?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2644 Mar 14 2017 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for immediately assuming that Obama had to have had something to do with such a thing
What? You assumed something bad about a Democrat with zero evidence where the only source of said accusation was from someone who regularly makes outlandish claims and threats to get out of having to discuss real issues and who not too long ago you considered the least trustworthy and easily corruptible person in politics until he got into office? I don't know if my heart can take the shock from such an unprecedented and unforeseeable revelation. Say it ain't so.


Ask yourself this question:

If, back in 2008, it had been revealed that the FBI/CIA/NSA/whomever sought FISA warrants to engage in surveillance of the Obama campaign, perhaps because of rumors of his ties to foreign powers (cause, you know, he's got family in Kenya, grew up in Malaysia, or whatever other crazy thing was used as an excuse, but honestly the "why" doesn't matter here), would you have hesitated to accuse then president Bush of "spying on the Obama campaign"?

And even if you personally would not have, can you seriously sit there and claim that this wouldn't have been the outraged narrative pushed about in the public square, complete with cries for investigation?

You're kidding yourself if you think anything different would have happened. The "blame Bush" crowd was very active for his entire 8 years, for things far far less problematic.

Edited, Mar 14th 2017 1:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2645 Mar 14 2017 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
Samira wrote:
So New Zealand becomes Madagascow?
Or Baaaadagascar. Either way all those people fleeing Trump are in for a rude awakening.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2646 Mar 14 2017 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So Gbaji's excuse for defending Trump is literally that he assumes everyone else is as insane as he is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2648 Mar 14 2017 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So Gbaji's excuse for defending Trump is literally that he assumes everyone else is as insane as he is.


It's not "defending". It's more like "putting in perspective". Silly me for trying to apply the same rules to everyone equally.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2649 Mar 14 2017 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Your "perspective" is that everyone is as reactionary and partisan as you are. Interesting, I suppose, but probably not accurate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2650 Mar 15 2017 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ask yourself this question:
What's this? A misused hypothetical? My god man, think of my blood pressure. I cannot take this completely unprecedented behavior.
gbaji wrote:
And even if you personally would not have,
Weird that you recognize that I'd make fun of Obama if he had accused Bush of wiretapping without evidence, same as I'm making fun of 45 now, yet you can't recognize your own patterns.
gbaji wrote:
can you seriously sit there and claim that this wouldn't have been the outraged narrative pushed about in the public square, complete with cries for investigation?
We're not talking about "the public square," but specifically your personal reaction to the current situation. You know, the one that is actually happening, which you've actually commented on in a way that actually conforms to your regular pattern.
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding yourself if you think at least one of those answers isn't "yes".
One of those "yes"es is just a distraction from the topic. I distinctly remember one of yous going on a tangent about how that was an underhanded debate tactic. You're kidding yourself if you think that anyone believes you wouldn't be arguing Bush's innocence if Obama had accused him of wiretapping just because he's a Republican.
gbaji wrote:
Silly me for trying to apply the same rules to everyone equally.
So you admit that you're not actually applying the same rules to everyone equally?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2651 Mar 15 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Silly me for trying to apply the same rules to everyone equally.
So you admit that you're not actually applying the same rules to everyone equally?


Honestly, I don't think he's actually trying anything except our patience!.

ETA Stupid comma, where'd you come from?

Edited, Mar 15th 2017 7:35am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (73)