US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 10

Bilge_Rat

03-07-17, 11:43 AM

interesting, someone pointed me to this report which appeared in the BBC in january.

BBC? that vaguely rings a bell, is that a reliable news source? :O:

1. although not spelled out, it seems the source for the story is most likely former CIA director John Brennan:

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

"I'm going to write a story that says…" I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

2. Ostensibly, the reason to obtain the wiretap was info about secret payments from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign:

Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

3. However that info seems to have been only the excuse they gave to obtain the warrant, since you will notice that supposed "tape" has never surfaced or even been discussed by any other news source.

The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge.They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day

4. that last paragraph is important, there were 3 FISA applications, one in june, one in july and one in october. It is also important to note the first two applications were rejected which would not have happened if the information was reliable. This does make it look like it was a "fishing expedition" just to find dirt on Trump.

5. now we get to the juicy part, according to at least one source, the target of the investigation was Trump:

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

6. now we get to the actual purpose of the investigation, smearing Trump just before the election to make sure Clinton wins. That was the reason Harry Reid was publicly pressing FBI director James Comey to announce that there was an investigation:

The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.
'Puppet'

In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.

"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

Oberon

03-07-17, 11:47 AM

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/16/20/3D4E8A9300000578-4232504-image-a-31_1487276260084.jpg

"BBC? Here's another beauty..."

Bilge_Rat

03-07-17, 11:52 AM

"BBC? Here's another beauty..."

so I take it the BBC is NOT a reliable news source...:O:

ikalugin

03-07-17, 11:57 AM

Wikileaks:
https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1488900783840.jpg

Oberon

03-07-17, 02:47 PM

so I take it the BBC is NOT a reliable news source...:O:

According to the White House, no. :haha:

Oberon

03-07-17, 02:50 PM

Wikileaks:
https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1488900783840.jpg

Doesn't work for me, which is ironic...but I'm going to guess that this is about Vault 7?
I'd be interested to see what would happen to Wikileaks if they tried something like this on the FSB... :haha: They'd probably all suddenly have 'heart attacks'.

ikalugin

03-07-17, 03:50 PM

Doesn't work for me, which is ironic...but I'm going to guess that this is about Vault 7?
I'd be interested to see what would happen to Wikileaks if they tried something like this on the FSB... :haha: They'd probably all suddenly have 'heart attacks'.
Yes, Vault-7.

DicheBach

03-07-17, 08:12 PM

Bizarre . . . I keep hearing people say that "Hillary's campaign received several million ($20?? maybe even $200?)" from Saudia Arabia.

If it would be "illegal" for Trump or any of his associates to receive funds from Russia, then surely it would also be illegal for the Clinton campaign to receive funds from Saudi Arabia!? Yet I never see this treated as a big deal that needs to be refuted, just a sort of off hand comment . . .

Half the **** you read is just plain false and half of the other half is only half right.

Oberon

03-07-17, 09:44 PM

Reece

03-07-17, 11:00 PM

Why would Donald bother with funds? He has enough of his own!!:yep:

Oberon

03-07-17, 11:14 PM

Why would Donald bother with funds? He has enough of his own!!:yep:

That's the thing that's always made me ponder about big businessmen, how much money they actually have, vis a vis how much money they claim to have, and how much is given to them because of their worth. :hmmm:
I'm reminded of a story I heard once of a man, probably back in the Victorian era, who was worth so much money that he was able to go to cafes and shops and get things without paying for them up front, because he had a good reputation and was known to be quite wealthy, and this was many years before the age of the credit card, but in a way it acted in a similar manner.

Gargamel

03-08-17, 01:53 AM

That's the thing that's always made me ponder about big businessmen, how much money they actually have, vis a vis how much money they claim to have, and how much is given to them because of their worth. :hmmm:

That's the problem here, we just don't know. He refuses to release tax statements describing all this. I really don't care what he's actually worth, as long as he hasn't broken any tax laws, which might be the case since the he filed for that loss and supposedly hasn't filed since, but that's not the point. The point is, as president, you need to have clarity and be unambiguous in your motives. By not releasing the requested forms, it appears he is hiding something. If there's nothing to hide, or even if there is, release them. Clear up the story, get over it and move on.

And now, about the new health care act. You know it has problems when Ann Coulter is attacking it.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11FBC/production/_95006637_coulter_624.gif

And then there's this gem from the BBC (which is my preferred news source, followed by the AP and Reuters):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39200733

"It seems like passing the recently unveiled Republican Obamacare replacement bill will be about as difficult as making a half-court basketball shot. From a moving car. While blindfolded."

With The president and Congress all controlled by the same party, they should be slamming legislation, good or bad, down the throats of the American people. But they're not.

The presidency is in shambles and a disgrace to the American public, and Congress is left trying to pick up the pieces. But the pieces are scattered so far that they can't keep up. This guy is making Romney look like a saint. I would have voted for Romney or McCain over Hillary if I had been given that option.

vienna

03-08-17, 03:03 AM

I think the key is not so much the funds from Russia, which is, like you say, dirty but not exactly unusual, but more the way that information was suddenly leaked which was highly advantageous to the Trump campaign. That's what gets me. If wikileaks wanted to even have an smidgeon of impartiality then they'd have gone for the Republican emails as well as the Democrat ones, but they didn't. There's little doubt that there is dirt there, but the people who did the digging against the Democrats are strangely reluctant to do the same for the Republicans, which makes you think...doesn't it?

The timing is also seriously suspect; for instance: Immediately after the release and airing of the infamous audio tape of Trump boasting to Billy Bush about his (Trump) ability to pull (and paw) women because of his (Trump) celebrity, there was a major Wiki Leaks release of emails damaging to the Clinton campaign; in fact, if you go back and check the Wiki Leaks release dates of damaging emails, they seem to curiously 'coincidentally' coincide with events that may have or did prove damaging to the Trump campaign... :hmmm:

Regarding Trump's charges the Obama White House wiretapped the Trump Tower, it has been pointed out there is a simple solution to find out the facts in this case: all Trump has to do is exercise his Presidential powers and authority and declassify any documents proving his charges; it's just that simple; there is even one of those things he is so fond of, an Executive Order, promulgated under fellow GOP POTUS GW Bush defining and describing the process for a POTUS to declassify virtually anything a POTUS would wish:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-03-28/pdf/03-7736.pdf

So, given the means to settle once and for all the existence of any FISA or other intelligence or law enforcement actions regarding the charges of Obama White House illegality is literally at the fingertips of Trump, why is it not one step has been taken to do so? Is it possible that, in fact, the alleged documents do not exist and the fear of Trump and his minions is they have dug a deep pit in the Bandini and are in severe danger of the Bandini walls failing in on them? The time has come: Trump has more than enough means and powers, so it's time for him to man up and either put up or shut up. Walk the walk...

<O>

vienna

03-08-17, 03:43 AM

Just now saw this on TV (wow, they do post really quickly to YouTube, don't they?) relevant to the wiretap charges from someone who probably knows more (lots more) than Trump about wiretapping and declassification:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buI8aO7nRDM

<O>

August

03-08-17, 08:02 AM

There's little doubt that there is dirt there, but the people who did the digging against the Democrats are strangely reluctant to do the same for the Republicans, which makes you think...doesn't it?

Makes me think you have a short memory or don't get the full news way over there. The Republicans were hacked too. It's just their stuff didn't contain the bombshells that John Podestas had in them like media collusion, campaign fixing and the like so there has been little mention of it. Besides it doesn't fit in with the Dems victim meme.

Bilge_Rat

03-08-17, 10:29 AM

He also forgets that Colin Powell's email account was hacked and the contents released. Powell had made unflattering comments about Trump in his email.

Bottom line on the Trump-Russia story is that everyone questioned, whether former CIA director Brennan, DEM senator Chris Coons, GOP senator Tom Cotton and Richard Burr, DEM congressman Adam Schiff, GOP congressman Nunes, all of which have received classified briefings say they have not seen any hard evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Leaks from FBI director Comey say the same thing. This is after close to a year of investigation.

Bilge_Rat

03-08-17, 11:27 AM

the plot thickens.

to recap, according to the BBC, the Obama administration made 3 requests for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Apparently, the first 2 applications were rejected by FISA judges.

It is rare for FISA applications to be rejected, but it is even rarer than I thought.

According to official statistics released by the U.S. government, out of 35,529 FISA applications between 1979 and 2013, only 12 were rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Co urt

it really makes it look like the first two warrant applications were just political "fishing expeditions" with no legal basis.

this wiretap story is really starting to look like Watergate.

August

03-08-17, 11:49 AM

this wiretap story is really starting to look like Watergate.

It sure does and i'm thinking that Loretta Lynch will be the one who is eventually forced to fall on her sword for this. No way is BHO going to take the rap for it.

DicheBach

03-08-17, 02:17 PM

There is no such information which, stored on a server to which a Russian hacker gained unauthorized access, would afford the holder of such information the capacity to turn losing a state's electoral votes into winning it.

There is nothing to be found here; it is not only an unethical smear job, it is a patently stupid one at that. Much like most of the critiques made by leftists and their media. I'm honestly shocked that people as intelligent as WWII strategy and tactics gamers would be so gullible as to trot to the tune of the leftist media on these sorts of matters . . . but then, we have been literally drowning in their rhetoric from almost every available source for decades, so I suppose it is inevitable that even the most skeptical objectivists would be somewhat vulnerable.

Me personally, up through about 9 months ago, I had very luke warm feelings about Trump and found him merely "unsettling." My hopes were on Rand Paul, the most professional, intelligent, rational, businesslike and meritorious of any of them as far as I can tell.

But he didn't get the nomination. I allowed myself to learn more about Trump and I was a bit surprised by what I realized: there seems to be a method to his madness. He's a showman yes, but he is a successful one and a deal maker on top of that. His estimated worth is in the $2 billion ballpark, and he has been in that slice of humanity for decades, and despite having suffered more than one very serious financial setback (I believe he or one or more of his corporate entities underwent bankruptcy at one point?).

Someone who can amass that much wealth, and hold on to it for decades is necessarily more smart than lucky. Maybe it isn't Obama, "I'm a Harvard elite who understands the world better than you schmucks, so shutup and let me tell you how it is gonna be . . ." But Trump does seem to have common sense and that is a big part of his appeal to the ~HALF the country who came out in favor of him. It is the main reason I've come around in favor of him too, and plan to vote for him in 2020 as long as he stays pretty much exactly on the course he is on . . . I didn't vote this last time, but that was just laziness really . . .

I suspect that similar social processes are in motion in Europe as the ones which led to this shocking 2016 Presidential election result. Many people are tired of "the elites" (meaning, established political parties, the lionshare of mass media outlets, the majority of intelligentsia and celebrity who opine on social topics, a significant fraction of legal activists and the overwhelming majority of NGO/activist culture[s]) hypocritical preaching. Many are also tired of corporations which enjoy the benefits of trading on a U.S. based exchange, and/or U.S. based headquarters, which nonetheless offshore large or even majority fractions of their operations and employment. Many are also tired of various special interests groups who enjoy double standards and unwarranted special privileges. The oppressive nature of "political correctness" up through November 2016 and the increasingly clear signs that social justice warriors like Obama, and the Democratic Party are absolutely delusional when it comes to issues of race, class, gender, and related identity topics and how they relate to equality and opportunity.

When I find the rare criticism of Trump which does not rely on one of the tired old cliche's that reflect the leftists' party-line as synthesized in something like the things just described, I find it tremendously refreshing and invigorating. No leader should be regarded as infallible and the whole point of democracy is that leadership is (as far as national security and sound justice allows) transparent. In today's climate of online discussion, we, the people of Earth stand to actually make a difference by engaging in rational discourse about our leaders and the patterns unfolding in our nations.

But 99% of anything about Trump fits into two neat categories: 1. Praise (some warranted, some defensive, some mindless, some pure trolling). 2. Hysterical, seething, apoplectic outrage.

In my opinion, "the left" and the media outlets that can be beneficially considered to be part of "the left" are completely off-the-rails as far as doing anything helpful or useful for themselves or anyone else. They are so incensed and self-righteously indignant when it comes to Trump, they are literally incapable of thinking, much less developing a cogent strategy for how to assail him and achieve their primary goal of reinstating the leftist elite establishment to its rightful role as supreme social engineer of America and all of Western civilization.

Here we have one of the most remarkable elections in American history. A wealthy, controversial non-politician who managed to win an election without sanctioning (and if he is to believed, without any outside financial assistance) by ANY of the existing powers in the U.S. Presidential election campaign scene: Neither of the two dominant parties, none of the major industries, and not media. To the extent Trump had support 18 months ago, it was from "fringe" elements within the society not from any of the "establishments."

Trump was such an outsider/underdog, that he was not even taken seriously by anyone until, apparently, it was too late for them to develop proper counters to his appeal.

How did he win? By promising to "fix" everything that a large fraction of Americans regard as being "broken" and which both of the established elite parties (as well as media and other well-ensconced groups such as unions, corporations, etc.) had helped to build and had a vested interest in maintaining. You'll note, Republicans are still smarting from the licking they took from Trump as well, and it is curious to me how quickly some commentators have slipped into talking and apparently thinking about Trump as if he is "just another Republican."

He has managed a "hostile takeover" of their party, and some might recognize that the future of their party will be made or broken based on how well they follow his lead, but that is not the same thing as him "being a Republican."

Rather than an audible pause of amazed puzzlement on the part of mass media and some serious introspection and chin-scratching to try to cotton what the hell just happened, what do we see? More of the very same lip-smacking, innuendo-churning, propagandist poop; in sum, "they" (the left and the media and the SJW movement as a whole) have redoubled the very habitus which one might reasonable hypothesize were THE CAUSES for their historical downfall last November.

Across the United States as a whole, and taking into consideration elected seats at all levels of governance, the Democratic party now enjoys proportionally less presence in American government than at any time since the 1920s.

I really don't think Trump or his proponents need to worry; the opposition are doing a great job of committing suicide all by themselves.

ikalugin

03-08-17, 04:00 PM

-long read-
It aint me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I

vienna

03-08-17, 07:09 PM

Did anyone else happen to note the Breitbart reports regarding the alleged wiretapping of Trump by the Obama White House attributes their 'facts' to anonymous, unnamed sources? You would think any really responsible journalist seeking to tell the truth would be willing to identify their sources; otherwise, this is probably all "fake news". Don't think so? Well, a person known for his 'wisdom' and 'honesty' actually came out and insisted only news reports specifying the sources are the only real news and no journalist and/or news outlet should be able to get away with anonymous sources; and, you know that person's views must be the truth because it was reported by Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/24/trump-we-are-fighting-fake-news-they-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-use-anonymous-sources-cnn-clinton-news-network/

Also, does anybody else think it seems oddly coincidental that when Trump dug himself an embarrassingly deep hole with his tweets about the alleged wiretapping and he desperately needed a diversion, suddenly Wiki Leaks releases a huge trove of hacked material? How very convenient, no?...

Altogether now: "deflect, deflect, deflect..."...

<O>

Oberon

03-08-17, 07:13 PM

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-09/30/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web13/sub-buzz-12411-1475240866-1.png?resize=625:334

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5cMUhpWUAArVey.jpg

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-09/30/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web07/sub-buzz-15343-1475241362-1.png?resize=625:335&no-auto

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-09/30/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web08/sub-buzz-9708-1475241431-1.png?resize=625:333&no-auto

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-09/30/9/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web04/sub-buzz-7078-1475241718-1.png?resize=625:335&no-auto

https://media.giphy.com/media/lMeTYJiZo9CAo/giphy.gif

Buddahaid

03-08-17, 07:32 PM

We'll see. Maybe the Democrats will have to clean up the mess isolationist Republicans leave after starting the next big war. Just like the last two big wars which started when the Republican party controlled congress and the presidency.

August

03-08-17, 08:08 PM

...

Nice try but you missed the operative phrase: "by the very dishonest media".

Mr Quatro

03-08-17, 08:37 PM

Also, does anybody else think it seems oddly coincidental that when Trump dug himself an embarrassingly deep hole with his tweets about the alleged wiretapping and he desperately needed a diversion, suddenly Wiki Leaks releases a huge trove of hacked material? How very convenient, no?...

Altogether now: "deflect, deflect, deflect..."...

<O>

Yes vienna, very odd, plus it worked, uh?

Now he has everyone running around wondering what happened ... and at the same time the Muslim (limited list of countries) ban get rolled out and the American Heath Care Act gets it's first view. Now his wild claim is old news, but still worth investigating along side the Russian connection to the election.

Does the name Cohen ring a bell they say that he learned how to mess with people's minds from him?

Will the real Trump please stand up and be a man or will he be ruined out of office (pun)?

One thought process I have yet to test the theory of ... What if Donald Trump POTUS, hears voices and that they told him POTUS Obama had him flagged as a potential enemy of the state?

He would need a physiological evaluation now wouldn't he? :yep:

Buddahaid

03-08-17, 08:54 PM

Ummm....

August

03-09-17, 08:06 AM

It sure does and i'm thinking that Loretta Lynch will be the one who is eventually forced to fall on her sword for this. No way is BHO going to take the rap for it.

Guess the idea is spreading.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/are_the_democrats_scrambling_for_a_fall_guy_on_the _wiretap_of_trump_campaign.html

It appears to me that a trap has just sprung on the Democrats, and they need a fall guy. And we just got a huge clue as to who might be in the spotlight to take one for the team when it comes to culpability for covertly listening in on the conversations of the opposition party's presidential candidate.
Clarice Feldman explained the mess the Democrats created for themselves – what I am calling a trap – with her customary wit and brilliance on Sunday in "Trump: A Master Tactician Serves Filet After the Russian Soufflé Collapses."

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-03/198086_5_.jpg

My explanation for their problems is that The Obama and Clinton Gangs were so sure of themselves and their media dominance that they went ahead and made charges of Russian "hacking" and "collusion" with the Trump campaign, based on surveillance of that campaign. President Trump let them work up their outrage until momentum in that direction left them no chance of reversal.

Then he made his historic, and much vilified as "unsupported," tweet about a wiretap at Trump Tower and changed the discussion.

Now the investigation will include the Watergate-like probability that conversations of Trump campaign officials were being listened to and the conversations leaked to the media. There is criminal liability to consider and the need to pin responsibility on someone. All skillful criminals (the ones who stay out of jail for the big crimes) understand the need for a fall guy.

This brings me to something truly extraordinary: an attorney general, just weeks out of office, posted a video calling for "marching," "blood," and "death."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQcZm9iTd8

The chief law enforcement officer of the United States calling for political violence!
Why would she do that, and why now?

Clarice Feldman suggested that the denials of any knowledge of wiretapping by James Comey and James Clapper leave lovely Loretta Lynch exposed. Somebody gave the nod. And met secretly with Bill Clinton in her private jet at Phoenix Airport.
So what does the barely-former AG do? She plays the race card.
It is still too early to have a lot of confidence in this reading of the murky waters of the Democrats’ internal power plays, but it does fit the pieces together pretty well.
Stay tuned.

Oberon

03-09-17, 09:20 AM

Nice try but you missed the operative phrase: "by the very dishonest media".

And?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Bilge_Rat

03-09-17, 10:00 AM

Did anyone else happen to note the Breitbart reports regarding the alleged wiretapping of Trump by the Obama White House attributes their 'facts' to anonymous, unnamed sources?

interesting, but your facts are wrong.

Breitbart did NOT rely on anonymous sources.

Breitbart relied on news report published in the NY Times and other "mainstream" media:

However, Levin cited several independent news sources in his Mar. 2 broadcast. Several of these, plus others, were also cited by Breitbart, including:

-Heat Street, “EXCLUSIVE: FBI Granted FISA Warrant Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia,” Nov. 7, 2016

-New York Times: “N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications,” Jan. 12, 2017 (via PJMedia)

-New York Times: “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates,” Jan. 19, 2017

-New York Times: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” Feb. 14, 2017

-New York Times: “Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking,” Mar. 1, 2017

-Washington Post: “Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose,” Mar. 1, 2017

In a subsequent report on Sunday morning, Breitbart News cited additional independent, mainstream sources, including:

-Guardian, “John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI,” Jan. 11, 2017

-BBC, “Trump ‘compromising’ claims: How and why did we get here?” Jan. 12, 2017

The “without evidence” talking point has been ubiquitous this weekend, repeated by mainstream media outlets and Democratic Party representatives alike, though the evidence has been in plain sight for weeks — and was duly cited.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/03/05/bloomberg-falsely-claims-breitbart-not-cite-independent-sources/

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who reported that the Obama administration was spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign.

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who are relying on anonymous sources.

You would think any really responsible journalist seeking to tell the truth would be willing to identify their sources; otherwise, this is probably all "fake news".

agreed. The NY Times is "fake news". :03:

Oberon

03-09-17, 11:08 AM

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources. (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/leftcenter/)
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated to NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by The New York Times Company. The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization (Wikipedia). NYT is well sourced an factual in reporting. The paper has a pretty strong left wing editorial bias.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy (https://storify.com/Gawker/breitbart-death-conspiracy-insta-theories) to racism (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/11/manifesto-60-percent-center-right-populist-nationalist-coalition/) (“Then you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard?”). Breitbart has been accused of publishing fake news (http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/) for the purpose of a political agenda.

:hmmm:

Bilge_Rat

03-09-17, 11:22 AM

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

:hmmm:

oh yeah, there is a reliable site:

Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure it’s not “fake news” before trusting it. And that’s a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.

One look at the “Media Bias Fact Check” website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.

Despite claiming in its tag line to be “The most comprehensive media bias resource,” the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a “strict methodology” for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his “ratings” typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/phony-security-site-media-bias-fact-check-is-just-one-guy-running-a-malicious-scam/26758/

Dowly

03-09-17, 11:23 AM

You know, you two could always just go and listen to the March 2 episode of the Mark Levin show to check, if he cites sources or not.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5667753-3-2-17-mark-levin-audio-rewind

Just a thought.

Bilge_Rat

03-09-17, 11:30 AM

more on "media bias fact check" and the other fake news hunter:

Exposing The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers

(...)

But just who are these self-appointed gatekeepers who claim to be the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not “fake news”?

WND found “fact-checker” sites run by:

A gamer.
A leftist, Trump-hating, feminist professor who specializes in “fat studies.”
A sex-and-fetish blogger.
A health-industry worker.
Organizations with billionaire Democratic Party activists and donors.
And another guy who went to extreme lengths to conceal his identity.

But most of the self-appointed “fact-checker” sites had one thing in common: President Trump – and the news sites that dare to give him a fair shake – are overwhelmingly their favorite targets.

The websites often show an obvious bias against conservative-leaning outlets. And many fail to include clear explanations of the criteria they use for determining whether a news site is legitimate. Other “experts” offer little or no biographical information establishing their qualifications for making judgments about journalism quality.

WND has compiled the following list of the Top 9 “fakest ‘fake-news’ checkers.”

(...)

2. Media Bias Fact Check

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers

Oberon

03-09-17, 11:42 AM

oh yeah, there is a reliable site:

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/phony-security-site-media-bias-fact-check-is-just-one-guy-running-a-malicious-scam/26758/

Knew you'd get that one, so if we're to believe dailynewsbin then

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fbis-james-comey-admits-cia-is-right-russia-rigged-election-for-donald-trump/26760/

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/garth-brooks-bails-on-donald-trumps-inauguration/26741/

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/donald-trump-violated-federal-law-by-threatening-electoral-college-members/26730/

As for Zerohedge, I like that they don't bother to give us any alternatives.

ikalugin

03-09-17, 12:48 PM

Vault-7 has been dropped. Any comments?

vienna

03-09-17, 12:58 PM

interesting, but your facts are wrong.

Breitbart did NOT rely on anonymous sources.

Breitbart relied on news report published in the NY Times and other "mainstream" media:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/03/05/bloomberg-falsely-claims-breitbart-not-cite-independent-sources/

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who reported that the Obama administration was spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign.

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who are relying on anonymous sources.

agreed. The NY Times is "fake news". :03:

Hmm...

Let's see: Breitbart uses the New York Times, etc., as a news source and you appear to be saying the Times is not an anonymous source; yet, the Times' articles themselves do not specifically name their sources. By Trump's, Breitbart's and your metrics, any new source that does not specifically specify the source of their reportage is thereby 'fake news', so what we have here is Breitbart using 'fake news' as a source to prop up the credibility of their own reportage; if Breitbart's source is 'fake', what does that make Breitbart's own reports? If you repeat a lie while saying you, yourself are truthful, does that make the lie, itself, true? You can't have it both ways: either the source itself is false and your repeating of or reference to the source is innately false, or by using a source to verify or justify your stance, you are admitting the source is factual. Trump left no wriggle room when he declared reportage based on unnamed sources to be "fake news" and has, in fact, made the issue a very yes/no, right/wrong situation with no middle ground or grey area. So, it comes down to this: if Breitbart uses "fake news" as its own source, is Breitbart 'real news'?; if you repeat what you contend is a lie, does it make the lie true?...

As for Levin, he is well into the running for the title of "King of Unnamed Sources", in close competition with the likes of Alex Jones. The reportage of Levin and Jones, et al, is long on speculation and inference and rather short on actual fact; I guess, by Trump's measure they are also "fake news"...

Also, in all the links you posted, there is not a single one specifically stating there was factual, verifiable support to Trump's charge Obama personally and specifically ordered any wiretapping of Trump for politically motivated purposes. All those links own titles have nothing to do with Trump's trumped-up charges. Got any links from news sources with actual named sources to back up Trump's claims?...

Agreed: Breitbart is "fake news:... :03:

<O>

August

03-09-17, 03:06 PM

And?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

And what?

If I say that you can't trust Oberons secret sources then that automatically means you can't trust anyone elses secret sources either? Does someone elses fake sources mean that yours are any less fake? No on both counts.

Bottom line here is the media is not a trustworthy source of information, especially when it concerns politics and even more especially when it concerns a Republican. That reputation is well deserved and well precedes the Trump administration.

Now you may not like that because with you it's all about tossing mud at our country, hoping something will eventually stick but like the watersports story and the groping story and the Russian hacking story and a few dozen other similar fake news stories it'll continue to fail and continue to illuminate the Democratic party as the sore losers they are and not fit to govern a latrine detail let alone the country.

Oberon

03-09-17, 03:20 PM

And what?

If I say that you can't trust Oberons secret sources then that automatically means you can't trust anyone elses secret sources either? Does someone elses fake sources mean that yours are any less fake? No on both counts.

Bottom line here is the media is not a trustworthy source of information

The media is about as trustworthy a source as the President.

Nippelspanner

03-09-17, 03:43 PM

I didn't follow the wire tap thing since just seeing or hearing trump makes me nauseas by now so help me out:

Trump claimed Bo wire-tapped him?
Ok. Is there any evidence to that available then?

August

03-09-17, 04:02 PM

I didn't follow the wire tap thing since just seeing or hearing trump makes me nauseas by now so help me out:

Trump claimed Bo wire-tapped him?
Ok. Is there any evidence to that available then?

See my last post on the preceeding page. The newspapers were trumpeting this as fact less than a month ago:

http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-03/198086_5_.jpg

Nippelspanner

03-09-17, 04:33 PM

Even more confused now.
First of all, I thought the NY times is fake news?

And Trump was blubbering about -his- phones on twitter, the headline says something about associates/aides?

Again, is there actual evidence to the claim trump made?

Bilge_Rat

03-09-17, 04:36 PM

Also, in all the links you posted, there is not a single one specifically stating there was factual, verifiable support to Trump's charge Obama personally and specifically ordered any wiretapping of Trump for politically motivated purposes. All those links own titles have nothing to do with Trump's trumped-up charges. Got any links from news sources with actual named sources to back up Trump's claims?...

That is just the typical double standard the "Left" uses.

for close to one year, Democrats and the MSM have been trying to claim that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet after all that time, all they can show are innuendos, weak circumstantial evidence and claims made by anonymous sources. There is still not one piece of hard evidence showing any "collusion". Yet that has not stopped Liberals from demanding a special prosecutor and further investigation.

Yet when the NY Times and the BBC both report, based on the same anonymous sources behind the Russia fable, that the Obama administration was spying/wiretapping the Trump campaign, the left insists on seeing immediate and irrefutable proof.

Either both the Trump-Russia collusion story and the Obama spying story are equally plausible and both should be thoroughly investigated or both are crap and should be dropped.

You guys can't keep sucking and blowing at the same time.

August

03-09-17, 04:41 PM

Nippelspanner

03-09-17, 04:51 PM

His twitter messages heavily imply it's his personal phones, at least that's how it sounds to me.

Anyways.
What's the evidence for his claims?
That's what I was interested in.

August

03-09-17, 04:56 PM

His twitter messages heavily imply it's his personal phones, at least that's how it sounds to me.

That is not an opinion I've heard shared by anyone else.

Anyways.
What's the evidence for his claims?
That's what I was interested in.

At this point about the same amount of evidence that the Russians hacked our election. For months the Democrats have been investigating the Trump campaign. It was on the front page of the NYT which is one of their biggest propaganda outlets. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that such an investigation would make use of wire taps?

ikalugin

03-09-17, 05:00 PM

Apparently Sberbank-Russia confirmed via the press statement to TASS that Tony Podesta was working on a contract with it's subsidiery Sberbank-CIB to lobbey against sanctions.

statement:
http://tass.ru/ekonomika/4082297

Tony Podesta is affiliated through his brother with the HC campaighn.

This means that HC campaighn had an indirect connection with the Russian state owned company due to one affiiated person lobbying on their behalf. I can be wrong but to me it appears that Trump's campaighn is accused of simmilat affiliations.

Nippelspanner

03-09-17, 05:04 PM

That is not an opinion I've heard shared by anyone else.
Now you have then...

At this point about the same amount of evidence that the Russians hacked our election. For months the Democrats have been investigating the Trump campaign. It was on the front page of the NYT which is one of their biggest propaganda outlets. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that such an investigation would make use of wire taps?
Err, ok.
Whatever Russia blabla, I asked for evidence for trumps claims, not what anyone "believes".

So, evil durmocrurts not providing a source is "lies and propaganda", yet an evidence-less story from the Republican side immediately finds complete support, isn't questioned, isn't doubted.
I could swear someone just said something about double standards. Mmhh...

vienna

03-09-17, 06:10 PM

That is just the typical double standard the "Right" uses.

for close to one week, Far Right GOP and the Alt_Right Media have been trying to claim that there was specific wiretapping by Obama against Trump. Yet after all that time, all they can show are innuendos, weak circumstantial evidence and claims made by anonymous sources. There is still not one piece of hard evidence showing any "wiretapping". Yet that has not stopped the Far Right from demanding a special prosecutor and further investigation.

...

Fixed it for you, no thanks necessary...

Incidentally, I am all for investigating both claims. Remember, I am an Independent and I am neither Right nor Left. It just seems the Far Right and Trump are glomming onto the Obama wiretap allegations as a means of avoiding any investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Election process, sort of "We'll drop ours if you drop yours". I say investigate both of them and see if there is any substance to either allegation(s). If there is nothing to hide, there is no need to fear an effort to get to the truth. Note that none of the Russian allegations say Trump was directly involved with Russian efforts, only that there are disturbing indications of possible efforts by some of Trump's associates having potentially illegal associations during the campaign and afterwards. This is not Watergate where you have a tape of the President directly coordinating criminal activity. If the investigation does turn up illegal behavior, I doubt it will get to the very doorstep of Trump. However, if it is found those around him are guilty of criminal acts, it would behoove Trump, whose has famously said he was going to "drain the swamp" and who has otherwise stated he wants to eliminate governmental corruption and graft, to actually walk the walk, grow some cojones and eliminate from his administration those who are corrupt or criminal; otherwise, all he is is just another lying, dishonest politician...

Now, it is true if the Russian allegations are substantiated, the legitimacy and integrity of his ascension to and assumption of the Presidency may be somewhat 'illegitimized', but he should then look at that possible result as an opportunity to live up to his 'hype' and act like a responsible, law enforcing leader and proving to the American people, other than his small core constituency, that he really means what he said...

However given his past performances, I wouldn't hold my breath...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

03-13-17, 02:41 PM

politico accuses ny times of not being a credible mainstream American news outlet

well no, not directly, I was just trying to write news headline like all the anti-Trump journalists out there. :ping:

I read this quote in Politico and just about spit out my coffee:

But no credible mainstream American outlets have reported that the Obama administration conducted surveillance on Trump Tower or the Trump campaign, whether in the form of a court-ordered wiretap or something else.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/sean-spicer-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping-236001

Hello! Anyone remember this?

NY Times:

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

(...)

The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

vienna

03-13-17, 05:09 PM

Looks like Trump is trying to tap dance (pretty hard when you you've got one foot in your mouth up to your kneecap) his way out of the whole wiretapping mess he started.

http://rs259.pbsrc.com/albums/hh298/invalidgriffin/random/TAP.gif%7Ec200

Along with his dance partner, Sean Spicer, they are now trying to mince quotation marks, of all things, in an effort to mitigate what has become one whale of an act of bad judgement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/13/sean-spicer-just-explained-why-wire-tapping-is-different-from-wire-tapping/

SNL writers must be feeling a sense of job insecurity because Trump & Associates are self-writing skit material themselves. The real problem for Trump, and by extension, the GOP, is how this second-rate vaudeville act will play for the voters come election day in 2018...

From the Politico article cited:

“I think there is no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely-reported activity that occurred back then,” Spicer said. “The president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that.”

He added: “It is interesting how many news outlets reported that this activity was taking place during the 2016 election cycle, and now we're wondering where the proof is. It is many of the same outlets in this room that talked about the activities that were going on back then.”

It is unclear what reports Spicer was referring to. News outlets have reported that intelligence officials have been investigating whether there were inappropriate ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As part of the probe into the country’s suspected attempts to meddle in the election and regular surveillance on Russia’s ambassador, they have reportedly intercepted communications between some campaign aides and Russian officials.

But no credible mainstream American outlets have reported that the Obama administration conducted surveillance on Trump Tower or the Trump campaign, whether in the form of a court-ordered wiretap or something else.
[Italics mine]

The mainstream press apparently did report, extensively, about the surveillance of various outside elements as it related to the issue of possible Russian effort to influence the 2016 Presidential election. The mainstream media is asking not for proof of what they have already reported, but, specifically, for proof of criminal accusations Trump, himself, personally, has made against a previous sitting President. Trying to mince and parse in an effort to walk back (or tap dance back) a brilliantly stupid and insane bit of really bad misjudgement is, well, "sad", "weak". (And, yes, in this case it is a direct quote, not one of those 'air-quotes'.)

As far as the NY Times article cited, nowhere in the article does it mention any direct surveillance of Trump himself; the surveillance was of outside elements such as the Russian ambassador. If the members of Trumps team were stupid enough to communicate openly with someone they should have had a reasonable expectation of being watched by the US government, then what would they expect? Again, remember, none of the allegations thus far have in any way personally linked Trump himself to any interactions with agents of foreign states or with any illegal activity; and, again, if Trump is really the 'champion' of law and order and anti-corruption with nothing to fear, he will act decisively to eliminate any corrupt and/or illegal elements within his administration. After all, he was the one who was going to "drain the swamp". I guess it must be extremely hard to ascend to the moral high ground when the soles of one's feet are liberally coated with so much swamp-bottom slime...

<O>

Rockstar

03-13-17, 05:43 PM

From the Politico article cited:

[Italics mine]

[QUOTE]The mainstream press apparently did report, extensively, about the surveillance of various outside elements as it related to the issue of possible Russian effort to influence the 2016 Presidential election. The mainstream media is asking not for proof of what they have already reported, but, specifically, for proof of criminal accusations Trump, himself, personally, has made against a previous sitting President. Trying to mince and parse in an effort to walk back (or tap dance back) a brilliantly stupid and insane bit of really bad misjudgement is, well, "sad", "weak". (And, yes, in this case it is a direct quote, not one of those 'air-quotes'.)

From someone who doesnt really pay attention to this kind of political party drama much I have to ask what is your point? One hand you seem to say the press didnt really ask for any proof concerning what they wrote 'extensively' about 'possible' foreign election influence. Then go on and seem to say the press and the world is now owed proof concerning what someone else wrote or said?

As far as the NY Times article cited, nowhere in the article does it mention any direct surveillance of Trump himself; the surveillance was of outside elements such as the Russian ambassador. If the members of Trumps team were stupid enough to communicate openly with someone they should have had a reasonable expectation of being watched by the US government, then what would they expect? Again, remember, none of the allegations thus far have in any way personally linked Trump himself to any interactions with agents of foreign states or with any illegal activity; and, again, if Trump is really the 'champion' of law and order and anti-corruption with nothing to fear, he will act decisively to eliminate any corrupt and/or illegal elements within his administration. After all, he was the one who was going to "drain the swamp". I guess it must be extremely hard to ascend to the moral high ground when the soles of one's feet are liberally coated with so much swamp-bottom slime...

<O>

Being observed by itelligence services openly communicating with others is not illegal. So I have to ask where is the proof they did or said anything illegal? I would expect the president to live up to his word. But where is the proof that his staff was engaged in illegal activity that would lead you, me or anyone to say he must now drain the swamp because of what his staff did?

What exactley is the point of your entire post? Because so far their is no proof anything only the usual political b.s. along party lines. Perpetuated by the bored.

ikalugin

03-15-17, 01:42 AM

Rockstar

03-15-17, 09:24 AM

Warning, the links below lead to the areas of internet with dangerous levels of paranoia.

Some stuff on the Washington DC construction:
https://cryptome.org/eyeball/usndc/usndc-eyeball.htm
It appears that there is either a new underground transportation system under construction between the two sites (which are next to the Pentagon and the Naval Observatory) or a very large underground fascility.

And on nuclear weapons transportation
https://cryptome.org/eyeball/nnsa-ost/nnsa-ost.htm

Guilt by assosiation.

Its so very disappointing when the public reads their favorite political rag and an article is presented in such a way to lead you to believe when someone has openly communicated and associated themselves with another that its deemed a high crime, an illegal act of espionage, deserving of full blown investigation and punishment. And they fall for it everytime.

Reminds me of a bunch of old women gossiping about their neighbors.

When something illegal has happened and the press actually did their job and found real tangiable proof of an illegal act is part of the discussion/arguement, lets talk.

Now that secret underground project in D.C. thats for real, I think you're on to something here. But its not the Navy or even the U.S. government. The real secret is that its a mind control project funded by the Vatican at the request of Putin and built by either the Masons or Illuminati.

ikalugin

03-15-17, 01:01 PM

Now that secret underground project in D.C. thats for real, I think you're on to something here. But its not the Navy or even the U.S. government. The real secret is that its a mind control project funded by the Vatican at the request of Putin and built by either the Masons or Illuminati.
I mean if you disregard the paranoid ramblings those conspiracy theorists make and look at the evidence itself you can make a conclusion that there is significant underground construction happening.

Considering that the contractor in question loves neo-austrian tonneling method it is quite telling that they have a concrete factory with it's visible water tanks on site. Shame I don't have my own human asset network as that way I would be able to estimate the volume of construction from cement going in and earth going out.

August

03-15-17, 02:28 PM

I mean if you disregard the paranoid ramblings those conspiracy theorists make and look at the evidence itself you can make a conclusion that there is significant underground construction happening.

Considering that the contractor in question loves neo-austrian tonneling method it is quite telling that they have a concrete factory with it's visible water tanks on site. Shame I don't have my own human asset network as that way I would be able to estimate the volume of construction from cement going in and earth going out.

So in other words you have no idea if they aren't just pouring a new slab for the building they just built on the site.

ikalugin

03-15-17, 02:33 PM

So in other words you have no idea if they aren't just pouring a new slab for the building they just built on the site.
Considering the site productivity (water reserves) the length (years) of production and site size that must be two very deep slabs they have been pouring under those beige hangars.

However you are right, the findings are inconclusive, I would come back to this topic if I find extra data, say the financial stuff. Though I can't help myself but think that there is indeed extensive underground construction there because how precisely those two sites follow TIS patern down to what they write on the sighns. The vibe I get is that after the public coverage of Russian construction in the late 90s and after 9/11 happened the USG went out and said that they want the shiny toys Russians are having.

p.s. the neo-astrian method that US contractor (Clark Construction Group) loves sprays concrete on the tonnel walls to reinforce them. Hence having fresh concrete is convenient, but surprisingly not as nessesary as with pressurise concrete pour.

Rockstar

03-15-17, 03:57 PM

Nobody knows for sure but the word on the street is the work carried out was a utility assessment and upgrade.

Considering the island is man made built atop a swamp and waste maybe they really had to do some upgrades to a pre-existing structure.

It could be something new too but I find it hard to believe they are just getting around to connecting Reagan airport, W.H.. and the Pentagon.

Underground FEMA death camp maybe? :)

Buddahaid

03-15-17, 04:19 PM

ikalugin

03-15-17, 04:27 PM

I like how they label the Capital Building the White House. Pretty obvious error which makes the whole thing suspect.
Sadly the people who discuss this topic on the internet tend to be paranoid/retarded, but one has to start somewhere. You can however do what I did and search the sat immagery for the sites and analyse it.

It could be something new too but I find it hard to believe they are just getting around to connecting Reagan airport, W.H.. and the Pentagon.You can always dig deeper. In Moscow we have atleast 2 destinct generations of the non civilian underground metro and we are still expanding that system (of systems).

Back in the late 90s those projects got some western publicity, you can read about those systems here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/overview_c3i.htm
quality if poor and the materials themselves are old but then with those kinds of things you can't really get any better materials.

Rockstar

03-15-17, 05:16 PM

I like how they label the Capital Building the White House. Pretty obvious error which makes the whole thing suspect.

Haha good point. Been to D.C. many times never occurred to me the site referred to the Capital building as the W.H. I did the same thing even after looking the word 'capitol' on the map.

mapuc

03-15-17, 06:28 PM

Have recently heard that a Judge in Hawaii have stopped Trumps decree on Travel ban from some Muslim countries.

Guess he will come with a third in some weeks or so.

Markus

AndyJWest

03-15-17, 06:47 PM

Yup. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/mar/16/trump-travel-ban-blocked-nationwide-hawaii-court-live
No doubt Trump will try again. And try to make a better case next time. I rather like this comment from the ruling:
The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.

em2nought

03-15-17, 08:01 PM

Have recently heard that a Judge in Hawaii have stopped Trumps decree on Travel ban from some Muslim countries.

Guess he will come with a third in some weeks or so.

Markus

I think Trump should tweet "considering declaring state of war with the countries on the travel ban instead", that should make some heads spin ala Linda Blair. :D

Rockstar

03-15-17, 09:49 PM

Sadly the people who discuss this topic on the internet tend to be paranoid/retarded, but one has to start somewhere. You can however do what I did and search the sat immagery for the sites and analyse it.

You can always dig deeper. In Moscow we have atleast 2 destinct generations of the non civilian underground metro and we are still expanding that system (of systems).

Back in the late 90s those projects got some western publicity, you can read about those systems here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/overview_c3i.htm
quality if poor and the materials themselves are old but then with those kinds of things you can't really get any better materials.

Oh Im sure they're like little moles digging tunnels all over the DC area. I reckon one could always look at the geology to better understand what kind or how deep one could build particular structures. The whole place used to be a swamp and the island is man made. I figure a tunnel would need bedrock to rest on. Since bedrock may not be suitable throughout the area for such things my guess its probably utilizing the same bed rock those bridges are resting on. That is if its a tunnel and its all based on an uneducated guess

ikalugin

03-16-17, 02:42 AM

Oh Im sure they're like little moles digging tunnels all over the DC area. I reckon one could always look at the geology to better understand what kind or how deep one could build particular structures. The whole place used to be a swamp and the island is man made. I figure a tunnel would need bedrock to rest on. Since bedrock may not be suitable throughout the area for such things my guess its probably utilizing the same bed rock those bridges are resting on. That is if its a tunnel and its all based on an uneducated guess
You can dig through the swamp either through chemical reinforcement of the soil (siliconisation, injecting concrete, etc) or through freesing the soil (you can use anything from cold salt water to liquid nitrogen for this). We tend to use the later method in the Saint-Petesrburg area (because that city is built on a swamp) but if you are not carefull it can lead to unfortunate incidents (such as the tunnel rapture with subsequent flooding due to insufficient freesing).

In Moscow the current generation non civilian construction appears to be at depths of 200m and below, meaning that it is conducted in the bedrock mostly.

Jimbuna

03-17-17, 07:18 AM

Boy flew home from Miami last week and thought his old man would appreciate this...

http://i.imgur.com/Mk0SXjT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2UPF24p.jpg

I noticed he didn't spare any expense :)

vienna

03-17-17, 07:34 AM

Don't let Trump know or he'll insist on moving the decimal point two positions to the right... :D

<O>

AVGWarhawk

03-17-17, 09:49 AM

Boy flew home from Miami last week and thought his old man would appreciate this...

http://i.imgur.com/Mk0SXjT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2UPF24p.jpg

I noticed he didn't spare any expense :)

Wear it proudly, sir! Just not in public. :o

Jimbuna

03-17-17, 09:51 AM

Don't let Trump know or he'll insist on moving the decimal point two positions to the right... :D

<O>

Wear it proudly, sir! Just not in public. :o

LOL :)

Buddahaid

03-17-17, 09:55 AM

I thought it was a DVD at first!:doh:

August

03-17-17, 10:00 AM

I noticed he didn't spare any expense :)

Well there was postage too... :)

Jimbuna

03-17-17, 10:05 AM

I thought it was a DVD at first!:doh:

75mm in diameter.

Well there was postage too... :)

Probably took advantage of his seamans excess baggage weight allowance :03:

August

03-17-17, 10:15 AM

Probably took advantage of his seamans excess baggage weight allowance :03:

Smart boy, are you sure he's yours? :)

Jimbuna

03-17-17, 10:27 AM

Smart boy, are you sure he's yours? :)

Cheeky bugga :)

Come to think of it, I've only got his moms word on that :hmmm:

Catfish

03-17-17, 03:54 PM

^ man i really missed you all :haha:

On topic:
About Merkel's visit to the USA, "Die Welt" (a german newspaper) titled
„Die Anführerin der freien Welt trifft auf Trump“
~= "The archon of the free world meets Donald Trump"
Of course they meant it ironically, but when i first heard that :rotfl2:

Rockstar

03-17-17, 05:58 PM

Was just watching the news; said the meeting with Merkle was at best contentious Trump pressing hard for NATO members to pay their fair share "and yes we are going to paying our fair share". Doubt they'll let it slide this time.

There was also talk about equiping South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons in repsonse to North Korea temper tantrums and of course to impress China that they would get on board and finally put an end to the war . I like this guy.

Catfish

03-17-17, 06:06 PM

^ I would have been disappointed, had they shown any love for each other.

There was also talk about equiping South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons
Did not hear that, but of course possible. :hmmm:
I'm sure they could build those themselves, if not in a short time. But would this make it all safer, or does Trump want to find a way to stay out in case of a local exchange of blows?

Rockstar

03-17-17, 06:11 PM

I had to chuckle hearing about the meeting with Merkel hope we hold NATO members feet to the fire and they pay up. But that interview with Tillerson letting the world know we are willing to weaponize the Asian region with nukes, that got the heart pumping a little faster, seems patience with N. Korea has finallly run its course and we're putting our foot down. Hes on his way now to China to shares those ideas. :)

August

03-17-17, 06:18 PM

CNN really seems determined to destroy any remaining shreds of their own credibility.

https://www.boston.com/news/media/2017/03/17/sean-hannity-denies-pointing-gun-at-juan-williams-on-fox-set

NEW YORK (AP) — Sean Hannity says he never pointed a gun at Fox News colleague Juan Williams, despite a CNN report to the contrary. CNN reported Thursday that Hannity pointed a gun directly at Williams and turned on the laser sight off-air following a heated segment last year.
In a statement, Hannity said he was showing ‘‘my good friend Juan Williams my unloaded firearm in a professional and safe manner for educational purposes only.’’
Williams said on Twitter that he and Hannity are ‘‘great friends’’ and the ‘‘incident is being sensationalized.’’ He says ‘‘everything was under total control throughout and I never felt like I was put in harm’s way.’’

CNN claims to get the story from the usual anonymous sources but it's just another political hit piece.

Nippelspanner

03-17-17, 06:55 PM

CNN claims to get the story from the usual anonymous sources but it's just another political hit piece.

Aka, you cannot verify the source as legit or not - but you just know it's bogus?

eddie

03-17-17, 09:02 PM

Nice to see Trump switch the wire tapping blame from Obama to the Brits now,lol

August

03-17-17, 10:41 PM

Aka, you cannot verify the source as legit or not - but you just know it's bogus?

Well considering that both parties involved strenuously deny the incident i'm strongly leaning in that direction. How about you?

August

03-17-17, 10:43 PM

oh and:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/17/brazile-admits-forwarded-town-hall-questions-to-clinton-camp.html

Former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile admitted Friday that she forwarded Democratic primary town hall questions to members of Hillary Clinton's campaign – something she had previously denied.

Jimbuna

03-18-17, 07:45 AM

eddie

03-18-17, 09:02 AM

She should have turned her back on him and left Jim!:D

August, you have been on my ignore list for a while now, don't have to read anything by you anymore,lol

Dowly

03-18-17, 09:05 AM

@Jimbuna Yeah, I found that a bit strange, and he seems to just ignore whatever Merkel said to him.

Didn't the Japanese PM also have to "school" him a bit? As they shook hands, Trump kept staring at the PM who said to trump "Look at the cameras" or something to that effect?

Skybird

03-18-17, 09:37 AM

I wonder what so-called psychologists etc. would make of this body language
This:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2473468

Not just the refused gesture, but his complete appearance. Trump to me, before anything else, is a blender. He is by far not as self-convinced as he poses at. His rude behavior is over-compensation. He feels uncertain due to the deficits he probably has started to realise in his political understanding of things and proceedings. Thats why he explodes so easily when slamming his head against a wall and being perplexed afterwards that the wall did not fall down, but still stands. He thought this job to be much easier and solutions much more simple. With Merkel now he meets somebody who is more at home in the White House than he is himself. :D In other words: Merkel knows how the game is being played. Trump does not, and thought he could just easily play his own, more simple, game. Easier said than done.

Also, Germany is a heavy weight economic opponent the US cannot just push aside. If Germany moves, the EU would follow - and then any trade wars launched by Trump would dramatically backfire against the US as well. Somebody must have told him that :). Thats why he does not feel well in Merkel's presence. In business and economics, she met him at least as an equal, if not slightly superior. German budget last year was scoring a plus, while the US again made new debts.

Posing men loving to get things done by slamming fists on the table often feel handicapped in such situations, not just Trump. Typically this is a very male thing, females' ways to react in such a situation when being in Trump's role, would look different.

As they say: men murder with firearms, females with poison. :D

BTW, you have seen Trumps pose and behavbior before, this taken-back, somewhat ciontracted body expression of his: that was when he first met Obama in the White House aftewr he got elected: the old routinier knowing all the ins and outs of WH proceedings, and the greenhorn knowing nothing and having no clue what was about to come down on him now.

If Trump realises he cannot blend his vis-a-vis opposition, and realises further he does not fully control the situation, he "contracts". The result is the body posture you saw. The refused gesture was an attenpt to regain cointrol over the situation by demonstrating: "Look, I must not do that if I do not want to do that. That shows how much in control I am of this." Well, leave a child its illusions, I say. It plays with itself that way.

All this is no new or special psychology, its all pretty old stuff. I wonder why Trump'S fans still celebrate him for that, at least do not notice it. His noise is by far not always self-assurance and self-certainty, but a very solid dose of kind of helplessness. A poser, a blender, a bluffer.

I am extremely certain that Merkel has read him like an openj book. I am sure she looked right through him. You cannot impress her with behavior like Trump's, she is immune to it, she has too much experience with blokeheads like him. Sometimes this soberness works against Merkel, especially in domestic politics over here. But in that situation with trump, it worked in her favour.

as well as wondering if Merkel might face criticism in her own country for not leaving the meeting pronto.
No, it is seen as kind of a point socred by Merkel, because all the world saw what happened, and blame Trump. And the internatiuonal presds is repeating up and down the American'S reporters praise for their German colleagues who really caught Trump off guard. I am a bit pouzzled there, since in germany journalists have become extremely tame and loyal to the poltical line. Trump just is a very much accepted Feindbild over here, and so they forgot their inhibitions for a short while.

Platapus

03-18-17, 01:01 PM

There was also talk about equiping South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons

I wonder how this will work out with the NPT. Or is Trump's plan for the US to withdraw from the treaty?

For those nuclear states, which the US is one of them, Article 1 of the NPT states

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. TLDR, nuclear states can't give nukes to non nuke states.

From the other end, non nuclear states, which Japan and ROK are, there is article 2

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..TLDR Non nuke states can't receive nukes.

The $.64 question is: can the PotUS unilaterally (ie, without consent of the Senate) terminate a treaty that has already been ratified by the Senate?

The answer is Maybe. Depends on who you ask and no one has asked the SCotUS.

It depends on if there is corresponding federal law concerning the treaty. Not all treaties have corresponding federal law, but many do.

Example 1: Treaty has been ratified by the Senate but there are no corresponding federal laws. Can the PotUS unilaterally decide to withdraw from the treaty?

Maybe. US Presidents claim they can, US Senate claims they can't. It would have to go before the SCotUS. Both sides have strong arguments. The key issue would be that while ratification obligates the Senate, does it obligate the PotUS. The issue has never come up before.

Example 2 Treaty has been ratified by the Senate but there are corresponding federal laws. Can the PotUS unilaterally decide to withdraw from the treaty?

Well the first part would be answered by example 1, but the PotUS can't unilaterally cancel federal law. Only the congress can do that or the SCotus can invalidate the law. So it might be true that the PotUS can unilaterally decide to withdraw from a treaty, the PotUS would still be bound to abide by the existing federal law.

This will be very interesting to watch unfold.

Bilge_Rat

03-18-17, 01:51 PM

Nice to see Trump switch the wire tapping blame from Obama to the Brits now,lol

yep, brilliant move, point to the Fox news story so they take the heat and keep the Obama wiretapping story alive for another news cycle.

Bilge_Rat

03-18-17, 01:59 PM

I was rather shocked at the POTUS body language in front of the world press and his ignoring of Merkels offer to shake hands.

I wonder what so-called psychologists etc. would make of this body language as well as wondering if Merkel might face criticism in her own country for not leaving the meeting pronto.

Well POTUS can pretty much do what he wants and Merkel will just take it. After all, she did nothing when Obama was caught wiretapping her phones which is a much worse insult IMHO.

Personally I doubt Trump intentionally snubbed Merkel. It is more likely he just did not hear her.

Rockstar

03-18-17, 04:02 PM

I wonder , since we have well established bases in each country could we move and maintain control of such weapons in these countries without defying existing treaties.

Rockstar

03-18-17, 04:05 PM

ikalugin

03-18-17, 04:31 PM

I wonder how this will work out with the NPT. Or is Trump's plan for the US to withdraw from the treaty?US doesnt need to withdraw from the treaty, as US is already de-facto violating it (US has a claim that de-jure they are not violating it because the custody of the weapons has not been transfered yet, after all we haven't seen a conflict in Europe that would warrant nuclear use) and has been violating it all along with it's policy of deploying it's weapons on allied territory, training and planning for transfer of the weapons to said allies in the times of war.

I dont see why if B61-12s can exist in Turkey they can't exist in the same capacity in ROK.

The only concern that I do see is the Chinese reaction, as B61-12 despite their modest looks are top notch first strike counter force weapons.

Mr Quatro

03-18-17, 05:37 PM

Well POTUS can pretty much do what he wants and Merkel will just take it. After all, she did nothing when Obama was caught wiretapping her phones which is a much worse insult IMHO.

Personally I doubt Trump intentionally snubbed Merkel. It is more likely he just did not hear her.

If Trump slighted her then .. he didn't slight her later: http://nypost.com/2017/03/17/trump-doesnt-shake-hands-with-merkel-during-photo-op/

When reporters asked whether there would be a handshake, Merkel leaned in and appeared to ask, “Do you want to have a handshake?”

Trump did not even look back at her.

By contrast, the president did shake hands with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May when they visited him in the Oval Office.

A photograph taken when Merkel first met with Trump earlier in the day outside the White House shows the two leaders shaking.

If Merkel felt slighted, she didn’t show it.

During a joint press conference afterwards, she thanked Trump for his “very warm and gracious hospitality.”

Rockstar

03-18-17, 09:50 PM

Find it odd this sudden talk of nuclear weapons, lack of patience, pre-emptive strikes dropping democracy and freedom bombs on N.Korea. All the sabre rattling could be for South Korean public consumption in an attempt to use fear to sway an election to the more conservative party. As it stands the South Korean liberal party has a good chance of winning the upcoming elections. They tend to take a different approach to their Northern neighbors.

ikalugin

03-19-17, 05:39 AM

Find it odd this sudden talk of nuclear weapons, lack of patience, pre-emptive strikes dropping democracy and freedom bombs on N.Korea.
It is also ideological.

Platapus

03-19-17, 02:37 PM

I wonder , since we have well established bases in each country could we move and maintain control of such weapons in these countries without defying existing treaties.

That is what we did to circumvent the NPT restrictions. We called it "Nuclear Sharing". After all sharing is caring. :doh:
Since the NPT would immediately become void in times of declared war (both de jure and de facto. this is one of the key differences between a treaty and a convention), the US stationed nuclear weapons with foreign non-nuclear states but the permissive locks remained in US control.

To the US, this meant that they did not transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, but in emergency, permissive controls would be released to that state.

There is disagreement about whether nuclear sharing violates the NPT.

ikalugin

03-19-17, 03:13 PM

That is what we did to circumvent the NPT restrictions. We called it "Nuclear Sharing". After all sharing is caring. :doh:
Since the NPT would immediately become void in times of declared war (both de jure and de facto. this is one of the key differences between a treaty and a convention), the US stationed nuclear weapons with foreign non-nuclear states but the permissive locks remained in US control.

To the US, this meant that they did not transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, but in emergency, permissive controls would be released to that state.

There is disagreement about whether nuclear sharing violates the NPT.
If so, what is the problem with doing the same with ROK?

Rockstar

03-19-17, 06:33 PM

I dont see any problem with deploying nukes to the ROK (again). I read somewhere in past times we used to have tactical nukes in the ROK. After of a joint declaration between ROK and the DPRK calling for a nuke free peninsula we removed them around 1991. But as we all know the north has been full speed ahead developing nukes and delivery systems since that kumbaya moment.

Platapus

03-20-17, 03:38 PM

If so, what is the problem with doing the same with ROK?

It will be the same problem as before, but as before the US will just ignore any complaints

Because: 'merica

Catfish

03-20-17, 03:51 PM

Well Trump's all over the news here once more. But i admit i am not really interested anymore, i just wonder how long he will last.
News is full of german scandals and this Erdoghan idiot, it's enough already.

vienna

03-21-17, 02:43 AM

Many people here are also wondering how long he'll last...

An interesting analysis of Trump's worst enemy -- himself:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/20/trumps-worst-enemy-is-his-own-big-lying-mouth/

<O>

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 06:20 AM

, i just wonder how long he will last.

Until jan. 20, 2021 or jan. 20, 2025 if re-elected.

Democrats do not really want to push him out, since that would mean President Mike Pence would be running for re-election in 2020.

vienna

03-21-17, 06:37 AM

Until jan. 20, 2021 or jan. 20, 2025 if re-elected.

Democrats do not really want to push him out, since that would mean President Mike Pence would be running for re-election in 2020.

It appears there may be more and more Republicans warming up to the idea of a President Pence...

<O>

Rockstar

03-21-17, 08:34 AM

There also appears to be aliens circling the White House, for real they're there you just can't see them. I feel like real Americans have a right to know. The media should report! ask the question birds or aliens? Get the people to wonder and argue and boil along party lines like lemmings. This in turn rallies the politicians to investigate and spend heaps of tax payer money for no reason other than a chance for some good ol'fashioned political grandstanding, err I mean investigation. Now the media has more to report on watch their ratings soar!

btw way anyone listen to the inquiry? I did, what a farce, what a waste of my time and energy tuning in a needless expenditure of my taxes. Makes me wanna holler!

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 08:41 AM

It appears there may be more and more Republicans warming up to the idea of a President Pence...

<O>

well Pence is a real conservative. Trump is a moderate who pretends to be a conservative.

Whether Trump stays or Democrats put President Pence in office, it is a win-win for conservatives. :ping:

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 08:48 AM

vienna

03-21-17, 08:54 AM

well Pence is a real conservative. Trump is a moderate who pretends to be a conservative.

Whether Trump stays or Democrats put President Pence in office, it is a win-win for conservatives. :ping:

Trump is a clown and an albatross around the neck of the GOP. I rather suspect the GOP, feeling the possibility of losing big in the mid-terms, will be the ones to cut their losses and find a way to dump Trump; it would be a win-win for them: they get rid of what they didn't want or need in the first place and they can present themselves as being the ones who corrected the particular liability that is Trump rather than prolonging their agony for partisan reasons. Remember, the majority of the US voters did not vote for Trump (and, by extension, the GOP) in 2016 and, so far, the mood of the voting public has not moved in Trumps favor (and, by extension, neither towards the GOP) and the mid-term elections will have no 'winner-take-all' ploys to manipulate; its just a straight up or down vote, no gimmicks. If they should for some insane reason decide to cling to Trump for too long, well, we all saw how well that tack worked out for the GOP with Nixon...

<O>

vienna

03-21-17, 09:25 AM

so I have trouble following the reporting in the NY Times...

First, they report that the Obama admin is wiretapping the Trump campaign..

Then when Trump tweets about their reporting, they disavow their own articles and say there is no evidence of wiretapping...

Now, they unveil their source and double down on the claim of wiretapping:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html?_r=0

I wish the "mainstream" media would make up their mind...:arrgh!:

There remains a couple of big problems with those claims: (1) There has been no documented proof, or sworn testimony, from either the Justice Dept. (FBI) nor the NSA that any such warrants were ever sought or, more importantly, issued under FISA; (2) The whole matter of their existence or non-existence could be very, very simply cleared up by Trump making a phone call or issuing an order declassifying the data and compelling Justice and the NSA to make public any materials related to the ISA allegations. But he hasn't: Why not? You would think he would jump at the chance to rub the noses of those who oppose him in the proof he was right. But he hasn't: Why Not? He could extend his base and solidify his base constituency just by ordering the declassification and release of his proof. But he hasn't: Why not?...

So what do we have? No verifiable, evidentiary or sworn proof of any of Trump's or his supporter's claims and the inexplicable refusal of Trump to even lift a finger to solve the whole problem, once and for all and to his advantage and the advantage of his party. Curious indeed...

The source of the claim that GCHQ was involved in espionage against Trump during the election on behalf of the Obama administration has been revealed and, like so much of the source material of Trump and his advocates, it has been found very highly suspect and very seriously wanting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.html

<O>

Drakomis

03-21-17, 09:47 AM

When it comes to politics, this election has taught me one thing: Liberals are the scorn of the earth. It's been stated time and again through-out US history, and only now do I understand what those great leaders spoke about.

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 10:26 AM

Trump is a clown and an albatross around the neck of the GOP. I rather suspect the GOP, feeling the possibility of losing big in the mid-terms, will be the ones to cut their losses and find a way to dump Trump; it would be a win-win for them: they get rid of what they didn't want or need in the first place and they can present themselves as being the ones who corrected the particular liability that is Trump rather than prolonging their agony for partisan reasons. Remember, the majority of the US voters did not vote for Trump (and, by extension, the GOP) in 2016 and, so far, the mood of the voting public has not moved in Trumps favor (and, by extension, neither towards the GOP) and the mid-term elections will have no 'winner-take-all' ploys to manipulate; its just a straight up or down vote, no gimmicks. If they should for some insane reason decide to cling to Trump for too long, well, we all saw how well that tack worked out for the GOP with Nixon...

<O>

You are making the same mistake as all democratic pols, namely underestimating Trump. Liberals are talking to themselves and convincing themselves that Trump does not know what he is doing, but all they are doing is garanteeing his re-election in 2020.

Trump is actually a very good politician, he beat all of his opponent, including the Clintons.

You misunderstand the mood of the GOP. What you saw yesterday at the hearings is all GOP congressmen and Senators tying themselves 100% to Trump since in many cases, he helped get them elected.

According to all the polls, GOP support for Trump is still 90% plus. No GOP pol is going to bail on him since they are worried about a primary challenger next year, that will only come from a more conservative challenger.

IF there is a massacre in november 2018 and Dems regain the Senate and/or the House, that may change, but that is still far away.

Trump will get a free ride from the GOP until fall 2018.

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 10:31 AM

There remains a couple of big problems with those claims: (1) There has been no documented proof, or sworn testimony, from either the Justice Dept. (FBI) nor the NSA that any such warrants were ever sought or, more importantly, issued under FISA; (2) The whole matter of their existence or non-existence could be very, very simply cleared up by Trump making a phone call or issuing an order declassifying the data and compelling Justice and the NSA to make public any materials related to the ISA allegations. But he hasn't: Why not? You would think he would jump at the chance to rub the noses of those who oppose him in the proof he was right. But he hasn't: Why Not? He could extend his base and solidify his base constituency just by ordering the declassification and release of his proof. But he hasn't: Why not?...

So what do we have? No verifiable, evidentiary or sworn proof of any of Trump's or his supporter's claims and the inexplicable refusal of Trump to even lift a finger to solve the whole problem, once and for all and to his advantage and the advantage of his party. Curious indeed...

The source of the claim that GCHQ was involved in espionage against Trump during the election on behalf of the Obama administration has been revealed and, like so much of the source material of Trump and his advocates, it has been found very highly suspect and very seriously wanting:

You misunderstand that the purpose of the claim was never to prove it is true, but merely to create a counter point to throw at Democrats when they keep harping on the Trump-Russia fable.

You listen to CNN or MSNBC and liberals are going crazy discussing that one tweet. On FOX, it is barely even mentioned.

The GOP base does not care what liberals think.

Nippelspanner

03-21-17, 10:33 AM

Trump is actually a very good politician.

Yeah. Right.
I guess now we heard it all.

Bilge_Rat

03-21-17, 11:00 AM

Yeah. Right.
I guess now we heard it all.

I was going to say Brilliant, but I will wait a few more weeks for that. :arrgh!:

Meanwhile, the only poll that really counts at this point...

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_gallup_republican_presidents_approval.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/correction-heres-how-trump-doing-among-republican-voters

ikalugin

03-21-17, 02:37 PM

How did the intelligence community know that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee? CrowdStrike told them so.
http://russialist.org/how-did-the-intelligence-community-know-that-the-russians-hacked-the-democraticnationalcommittee-crowdstrike-told-them-so-from-the-march-20-house-intelligence-committee-hearing/

Platapus

03-21-17, 03:49 PM

Trump is actually a very good politician

That's a lousy thing to say about anyone. :D

em2nought

03-21-17, 05:25 PM

Well Trump's all over the news here once more.

Fake news promulgated by a big government that doesn't want to share power with the states or be weakened(reduced). No one ever expected anyone in the federal government to be friendly to Trump, but this level of resistance might be too much. If Trump held a rally and called on his supporters to act in some manner it might really get interesting. :up:

Nobody that voted Trump is going to bail on him since it became evident that the other side would have actually elected Bernie Sanders were it not for their own corruption.

vienna

03-21-17, 05:28 PM

I was going to say Brilliant, but I will wait a few more weeks for that. :arrgh!:

Meanwhile, the only poll that really counts at this point...

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_gallup_republican_presidents_approval.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/correction-heres-how-trump-doing-among-republican-voters

So what if he's popular with GOP voters? They weren't enough to get Trump a popular vote win and they still aren't enough to hold tight to the slim GOP majorities in the Senate and House. If there had not been an Electoral College, Trump would not now be President. The American people, on an individual one-person-one-vote basis, declared their own will as to who should have been President and it wasn't Trump and the winning party wasn't the GOP. Both parties have been hemorrhaging registered voters to either 'third parties' or strictly Independent, but the GOP has been losing registrations at a rate twice that of the DEMs. Trump is approaching an overall, not just the GOP, approval rating lower than that of Obama and the overall disapproval rating, among all voters, is approaching 60%. The mood and/or approval of the GOP voter pool does nothing to offset the mood and/or approval of the rest of the voter pool, which is much larger than that of the GOP. Without the ploy of 'winner-take-all', the GOP has to rely on the oldest and most reliable metric of all: the will of the people at large and they, the people, have already expressed, in the popular vote, how they feel about Trump and, by extension, the GOP, and the people are growing increasingly dissatisfied by the course and behavior of Trump and the GOP, so far. The DEMs really don't have to do much lifting at all: Trump and the GOP are the best campaign ads for a DEM return to Congressional majorities the DEMs could have hoped for and its not costing them a cent. Once the overall disapproval rating hits 60% and above, let's see if the GOP will think its a good idea to stand by Trump. There is very little wriggle room for the GOP; the undecided or undeclared pool of voters is now at about 10%, not enough, even if persuaded, to give the GOP enough voters to make any appreciable gains. To only look at and cite GOP polls of GOP voters ignores the fact that the GOP is a minority party in the US with fewer registered voters than the DEMs and, therefore, far more reliant on swaying independents than the DEM party. In the 2016 Presidential Election, even against a candidate like Clinton, the GOP could only muster 46.1% of the vote, a percentage which is about 10% higher than Trumps current approval rating; its not a good sign when your approval rating percentage is lower than the percentage of voters who actually voted for you in the Election. Its not good and its not getting any better for the GOP...

<O>

em2nought

03-21-17, 05:31 PM

vienna

03-21-17, 05:36 PM

It's cute that you still believe in polls. :D

I appear to be in what the GOP would consider good company: Trump loves to gleefully cite those darn polls, particularly when he perceives the results as in his favor, a perception that often, like much of his other 'realities", flies in the face of the actual truth... :haha:

<O>

mapuc

03-21-17, 05:58 PM

First I read it in a Danish News paper who had quoted the Independent

Hinting she might know more than she is able to let on, Ms Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, replied: “We have a lot of people looking into this. I think he’s going to get himself out.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-will-resign-soon-dianne-feinstein-senator-senate-judiciary-committee-a7639341.html

I'll see it before I believe it.

Markus

Mr Quatro

03-22-17, 04:49 AM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/ElectoralCollege2020.svg/348px-ElectoralCollege2020.svg.png

Isn't it odd that the Russians only influenced the swing states in the 2016 election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2020

Barring any major change in circumstances, Republican Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016, will be eligible to seek re-election. The winner of the 2020 presidential election is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021.

Skybird

03-22-17, 05:28 AM

The US financial system heavily owes to Keynes and this crazy idea that debts must not bepaid back and money worth its name can be made out of nothing. But since years, China and especially Russia increase their gold reserves and dump US treasuries.

Bloomberg data shows it like this:

https://www2.pic-upload.de/img/32887834/IMG_2315.jpg (https://www.pic-upload.de)
(sometimes Linux is killing my last remaining nerves...)

From an American perspective, this must be an alarming signal. Not less than a massive strategic shift planned over a long breath of time is taking place here, and it is directed against the dollar and the US - and Western - economy.

Even since the takeover by Trump, Russia has continued to buy gold and dump treasuries. They also did not stop it during the Crimean crisis' early days when financial sanctions were issued against Russia and their Rubel reserves started to drop. So much for "trust" Putin was claimed to have in Trump. Indeed, what is to be seen here, is both a deep mistrust into the dollar and probably the paper money system in general, and a longterm strategic plan to form an economic weapon.

For Trump's idea of just making even more debts (and no intention to ever pay them back), this could be threatening, once this mistrust graps the international fisala market in general.

Inflation in Germany and other European states is now above 2%. Germany still does not dare to demand back ALL gold it has stored in New York, and only transports back little ammounts of it to calm critics in Germany.

For porivate gold owners this all could be bad news, since the more state criminals demand to buy and own gold, the mor elikely it becomes they release another gold prohibition for private people, confiscating private treasuries or forcing people to sell them to their disadvantage.

ikalugin

03-22-17, 06:13 AM

heavily owes to Keynes Indeed, what is to be seen here, is both a deep mistrust into the dollar and probably the paper money system in general, and a longterm strategic plan to form an economic weapon.If you knew those people (the ones that run the Central Bank and the economics related bits of the Goverment) you won't say that. You would be cursing them for being the generic keynesians (and monetarists and institutionalists) that they are.

Inflation in Germany and other European states is now above 2%.Inflation in the gold hoarding Russia is around 5 percent (12 months) and this is considered to be very low (average equivalent inflation over past 60 months was around 8-9 percent for 12 months).

p.s. if you ever feel the need to buy gold, you can do so here :), all the major banks trade in gold and other metals, both bars and coins.

ikalugin

03-22-17, 08:57 AM

https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/844026368405004288 (https://twitter.com/russianforces)

Kristensen, a major FAS expert, claims that the SSC-8 launchers are distinguishable from the Iskander-K launchers.

This implies that Iskander-K launchers are not violating INF, however this leads to the question as to what an SSC-8 launcher is then and how it looks like. We would see the US narrative develop.

Context - US accuses Russia of breaking INF treaty by fielding a SSC-8 system which in media has been assosiated with the Iskander series.

Bilge_Rat

03-22-17, 09:13 AM

So what if he's popular with GOP voters? They weren't enough to get Trump a popular vote win and they still aren't enough to hold tight to the slim GOP majorities in the Senate and House. If there had not been an Electoral College, Trump would not now be President. The American people, on an individual one-person-one-vote basis, declared their own will as to who should have been President and it wasn't Trump and the winning party wasn't the GOP.

You see that as a strength, I see that as another symbol of the incompetence of the Clinton campaign. Clinton got 4.2 million votes more than Trump in California alone, a state she was guaranteed to win in any scenario. So she wasted precious resources racking up high, but useless vote totals in true blue states. If she had concentrated on the rust belt states, she would be President.

The reason why Trump won is because he ran a smarter campaign. There are some interesting articles about this. For example, Jared Kushner ran the data room. He ran it using "moneyball" principles making sure he got the most bang for the buck and using social media to micro target potential voters:

Kushner structured the operation with a focus on maximizing the return for every dollar spent. "We played Moneyball, asking ourselves which states will get the best ROI for the electoral vote," Kushner says. "I asked, How can we get Trump's message to that consumer for the least amount of cost?" FEC filings through mid-October indicate the Trump campaign spent roughly half as much as the Clinton campaign did.

(...)

Television and online advertising? Small and smaller. Twitter and Facebook would fuel the campaign, as key tools for not only spreading Trump's message but also targeting potential supporters, scraping massive amounts of constituent data and sensing shifts in sentiment in real time.

(...)

Soon the data operation dictated every campaign decision: travel, fundraising, advertising, rally locations--even the topics of the speeches. "He put all the different pieces together," Parscale says. "And what's funny is the outside world was so obsessed about this little piece or that, they didn't pick up that it was all being orchestrated so well."

(...)

As the election barreled toward its finale, Kushner's system, with its high margins and up-to-the-minute voter data, provided both ample cash and the insight on where to spend it. When the campaign registered the fact that momentum in Michigan and Pennsylvania was turning Trump's way, Kushner unleashed tailored TV ads, last-minute rallies and thousands of volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.

And until the final days of the campaign, he did all this without anyone on the outside knowing about it. For those who can't understand how Hillary Clinton could win the popular vote by at least 2 million yet lose handily in the electoral college, perhaps this provides some clarity. If the campaign's overarching sentiment was fear and anger, the deciding factor at the end was data and entrepreneurship.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/11/22/exclusive-interview-how-jared-kushner-won-trump-the-white-house/#6b7b83883af6

The other issue was messaging. Trump did not just think up his anti-immigration message. It was driven by polls showing that message resonated in Red States:

Fast-forward to August 2014. Just two months after signing onto the Zuckerberg group’s Republicans-must-reform-or-perish memo, Conway came out with a new poll that seemed to make the opposite argument. There was, she wrote, “strong consensus on many populist immigration policies,” including enforcing current immigration law, limiting illegal immigrants’ access to welfare and work, and reducing legal immigrants’ ability to bring family members to the United States.

The issue, she wrote, should be framed in terms of “America First,” and as a matter of “fairness … to blue-collar workers.” Three-quarters of likely voters, she pointed out, wanted more enforcement of current immigration laws. (Most economists agree that low-skilled immigration displaces some native-born workers while improving the economy and creating more net jobs overall. And while majorities of voters of both parties consistently oppose deporting the undocumented en masse, majorities generally also oppose increasing the number of legal immigrants.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/kellyanne-conway-trumpism/520095/

Trump's team ran the campaign as if it was 2016. The Clintons ran theirs as if it was 1992, spending vast amounts on TV ads and being clueless to what was happening on the ground. That is why Hillary Clinton lost.

Trump is a very smart politician. He will say and do what is needed to win.

If Democrats keep deluding themselves that they lost because of Russian interference or that Trump does not know what he is doing, they are just setting themselves up for another loss in 2020.

August

03-22-17, 10:56 AM

If Democrats keep deluding themselves that they lost because of Russian interference or that Trump does not know what he is doing, they are just setting themselves up for another loss in 2020.

They're trapped by their narrative that Trump is an idiot. To change course now would be to admit that they're the true idiots for waging such a poor campaign that he could beat them so handily.

AVGWarhawk

03-22-17, 11:28 AM

They're trapped by their narrative that Trump is an idiot. To change course now would be to admit that they're the true idiots for waging such a poor campaign that he could beat them so handily.

True.

Platapus

03-22-17, 02:35 PM

The democrats lost the last election because they put forth a candidate so controversial and so hated that many people decided that Trump would be better.

Hillary's legacy was being a candidate so bad that she lost to a guy like Trump.

Losing to a buffoon. That's something she can be proud of.

It was a race to the bottom and she could not even win that.

Rockstar

03-22-17, 03:29 PM

All those accusations and finger pointing at Trump and his staff having ties to Russia and how Russia gave him the.presidency have pretty much paralyzed this administration from opening doors and work towards establishing normal relations with Russia. You know what story I'd like to hear? What the source of these accusations had to loose if normal ties to Russia had been established? That would I think, be a good read.

Skybird

03-22-17, 03:55 PM

If you knew those people (the ones that run the Central Bank and the economics related bits of the Goverment) you won't say that. You would be cursing them for being the generic keynesians (and monetarists and institutionalists) that they are.

Inflation in the gold hoarding Russia is around 5 percent (12 months) and this is considered to be very low (average equivalent inflation over past 60 months was around 8-9 percent for 12 months).

p.s. if you ever feel the need to buy gold, you can do so here :), all the major banks trade in gold and other metals, both bars and coins.
I will not discuss my personal investment (and saving) strategy in public, not now and not in the future, but I hint at these two texts in English:

https://dailyreckoning.com/path-10000-gold/

https://dailyreckoning.com/rising-demand-falling-supplies-equals-higher-gold-prices/

and this text in German, by the same author:

http://www.businessinsider.de/neue-finanzkrise-wall-street-guru-james-rickards-warnt-vor-gefaehrlicher-goldkaufpanik-2017-3

Paper is patient. (German saying). I consider physical gold not as an investment, but a saving strategy. The difference between both is monumental. Many people do not understand this, or allow greed to blind their mind.

If you buy gold, buy it anonymously. As long as you still can. What the state does not know of, it cannot plunder. Gold always means physical gold, never socalled paper gold. Gold mines' influenc eof gold courses are overestmated. The ammount of "new" gold flowign onto the market per year that actually is newly prospected in mines, is elss than 2% - the other 98% of new gold on the market, actually is "old" gold" that is beign sold by its former owner and so is meade abalabl once again for market action. So if gold mines increase or decrease their mining result by lets say 25% over 10 years, thsi sound slike a big influence on the marekt orice, but actually you talk about a variation of freely available and traded gold in the range of just below 0.1% of total gold stiocks traded per year. The price influence thus is minimal.

Physical gold is a tricky asset. Do not care for it if you are not really understanding what you are doing - AND WHY. Paper gold is just one thing, plain and simple: fraud. "Investing" in paper gold, is no investment, but casino gambling. No strategy involvedthat goes beyond throwing dice.

If somebody wonders why this is put into the US policy thread, just give it some time. There will come a time in the not so distant future when you should see it.

Bilge_Rat

03-22-17, 03:57 PM

ikalugin

03-22-17, 04:08 PM

What the state does not know of, it cannot plunder.What if a person is a part of the state? Or much better what if the state is accountable to said person?

On the topic of gold the practice here is:
- either buy physical gold (or coins) with certificates and store them at home (or any other place that you choose - banks also offer storage services if you need them).
- or buy what you would call paper gold.

Can't agree with you on the point of hiding your gold. As we say the thermorectal cryptoanalyser would break any secrecy you can think of. You can see an example of one below:
http://elektrikdom.com/pajalnik/kakoj_pajalnik_vybrat.jpg

Personally I don't see the point in hoarding gold and our fammily invests elsewhere.

Bilge_Rat

03-22-17, 05:11 PM

Nunes has now confirmed that:

1) the Trump transition team was spied on under a FISA warrant;

2) the surveillance had nothing to do with the Russia investigation; and

3) the reports were disseminated widely in the intelligence community.

Members of the intelligence community "incidentally collected" communications from the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.

House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said this produced "dozens" of reports which eventually unmasked several individuals’ identities and were "widely disseminated."

He said none of the reports he had read mentioned Russia or Russians and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower -- as President Trump has suggested. Nunes also was unsure if then President-elect Trump was captured by the surveillance, which occurred in November, December and January.

“I recently confirmed on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected intelligence,” Nunes said.

(...)

Nunes said the surveillance collection was "legally collected foreign intelligence under FISA incidental collection." But Nunes said he was "alarmed" the intelligence "ended up in reporting channels and was widely disseminated."

It was previously reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was "unmasked" in this way, however, Nunes said "additional names" were unmasked as well.

He said he didn't know what foreign intelligence value the surveillance had "and why people would need to know that about President-elect Trump and his transition team." Nunes did not identify which foreign targets were under surveillance.

Asked if he thought Trump was spied on, Nunes replied: "I'm not gonna get into legal definitions here, but clearly I have a concern."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/22/trump-team-communications-captured-by-intelligence-community-surveillance-nunes-says.html

So this confirms Obama was spying on Trump.

The real question for me is why did Comey lie on monday or was he not aware of the FISA warrants? If so, who did ask for the FISA warrants? :hmmm:

mapuc

03-22-17, 05:18 PM

I have a confession
Trying to keep in touch with all this US Politics and what have been said or not been said about trump is sometimes for me like

"Confused watch next episode of Soap"

Markus

vienna

03-22-17, 05:21 PM

Breaking news: apparently Trump may have been wiretapped by the Obama administration

At the very least, it seems the Obama administration was "monitoring" the Trump transition team after the election and that this was not part of the Russia investigation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

[Bolding mine]

Did anything in Nunes' statements directly name or specify either Obama himself or members of his White House administration as the instigators or architects of any of the wiretapping of the Trump campaign, much less any wiretapping of Trump, personally? I've read the stories from the various reports and postings on the web and have watched the videos posted of Nunes making his statements and have not seen any specific claims. Obama was not the instigator of the wiretappings and surveillance; they were part of the process of investigations by the FBI and other intelligence entities into the suspicious and possibly illegal activities of certain individuals, some of whom are actors for foreign interests. The communications of those actors were monitored and, in the process, so were the communication between them and those with whom they communicated. If some of those persons were, in fact, persons who may have been associated with the Trump campaign or the Trump White House, then whatever they did or said is on their heads alone unless subsequent data proves otherwise. Even Nunes himself says the data he found was incidental, not specifically directed at Trump or his associates, and part of a normal investigative process, so no "smoking gun" for either side. I'm waiting for a fuller release of data before making a definitive decision; unlike the DEMs, I am not making any absolute declaration of Trump's guilt; Unlike the GOP, I am not making a claim there is nothing to investigate nor that all of Trump's associates are innocent. Perhaps if Trump and his circle were not given to making so many patently false statements, some outright lies, then, maybe, this whole matter could have been easily resolved. So far, the process seems to follow the Gen. Flynn step-by-step mold: (1) "I have never had contacts with Russians" [statement given under sworn oath]; (2) "OK, I did have contacts with Russians, but didn't have material conversations"; (3) "OK, I did have material conversations, but never discussed [insert possible violation(s) her, in Flynn's case, the lifting of sanctions]; (4) "OK, I did discuss [possible violation(s)]"; and there's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out...

In a bit of a related breaking news, another of those Trump associates who has previously denied any connections with Russia is facing new revelations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manaforts-plan-to-greatly-benefit-the-putin-government/2017/03/22/52f6bfb8-0ee7-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html

I think Manafort's well along the Flynn Process now...

<O>

vienna

03-22-17, 05:35 PM

For those inclined to read or see for themselves what was actually said by Nunes, here is a link to a site with the full text of Nunes' statements:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-devin-nunes-talking-about-guide-perplexed

The full text is towards the bottom of the post and there is an analysis of the claims made by Nunes' in the main body of the post...

This is a link to a video of Nunes making his statements:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425829-1/devin-nunes-confirms-surveillance-trump-transition-team-informs-speaker&live=

<O>

Skybird

03-22-17, 05:55 PM

What if a person is a part of the state? Or much better what if the state is accountable to said person?

On the topic of gold the practice here is:
- either buy physical gold (or coins) with certificates and store them at home (or any other place that you choose - banks also offer storage services if you need them).
- or buy what you would call paper gold.

Can't agree with you on the point of hiding your gold. As we say the thermorectal cryptoanalyser would break any secrecy you can think of. You can see an example of one below:

Personally I don't see the point in hoarding gold and our fammily invests elsewhere.
Banks will be shut in times of bank runs, also states already before have cracked storage safes in banks during crisis. Keep it out of reach and out of knowledge by the state.

In Germany, you can still buy Gold up to a daily amount worth up to 14999 Euros per day, per head, without getting registered or being identified. Its called Tafelgeschäft (table deal), and perfectly legal. Also, no taxes if the format is so called investment gold (misleading term, but thats how it is). That means bars, and coins that in the past 200 years have been official currency in any state in the world. If you keep it for at least one year, you also pay no taxes when selling it.

Keynesians of course desperately want to change all this. No cash deals. No private gold ownership. No legal anonymity. The state mafia must get its share, the citizen has to be totally naked, defenceless and transparent to the state - and even then he still is suspicious and claimed guilty if he cannot prove his innocence.

If you buy gold, 1. buy it physically, 2. anonymously, and 3. do not place it in a storage at your bank. If you do not do like this, then you have no real idea why you even buy gold. As I said: its no investment, its a safety play. It alters ypur chances, and still the state can catch you if it wants - when you need to sell your gold (taxes).

ikalugin

03-23-17, 04:41 AM

So what if the person in question is the state and knows that the state would not infringe on his property rights?

Skybird if state (or any other organised) group wants your (individual's) gold they will get it, for example by abducting and torturing you (most recent example I could think of was battalion "Tornado" case). If you want to improve your security you do not hoard gold or guns, you participate in politics either in existing system or, if it no longer works, in the system that you create (local militias, etc) because the only things that protect your rights are the social contract and the the mass violence that backs it up.

Did anything in Nunes' statements directly name or specify either Obama himself or members of his White House administration as the instigators or architects of any of the wiretapping of the Trump campaign, much less any wiretapping of Trump, personally?
Same logic as when Putin comes up. If the people affiliated with the Russian state are perceived as doing something wrong Putin gets accused of ordering them to do that.

Skybird

03-23-17, 05:46 AM

You mean a state that "runs around", torturing people at random to find out whether they hide some welath or not? That would be arbitrary, like in any banana republic, a tyranny. I would flee from such dictatorship - or grab a weapon and sjoin the other side in this civil war. Because that is what this sooner or later leads to.

In the past, in the US, raids on private safes were rare during the prohibition of gold. In England, which had a very strict limit for owning private gold untol the 70s, it happened almost never. In Nazi-Germany and before, the police searched homes when they had a starting suspicion that somebody hid something. Thats why I say: if you buy gold, buy it ANONYMOUSLY. Which currently can be done perfectly legal in Germany with a daily limit of short of 15000€. You walk to the counter of a serious "Scheideanstalt" (Affinerie with kind of a banking license, or a certification), put money on the table and take gold in return and walk out. Like buying a portion of fish and chips. I would not do it in the shady shops you find at the central station, private jewelers and so forth. - In Argentine was the last time, some years ago during their crisis back then, that the police raided banks and opened lockboxes held by private people. Bank storage is no safe option in such scenarios, also,ðurign bank runs, banks are closed. You have mo access to yor lockbox. Also, there is no automatical insurrance in case the private safes get opened by robbers, like happened twice in berlin in past 10 years, and once in my own home city.

The other part of your question is too hypothetical as if I would set up my mind with it. Such a person knowing what is on order becasue that person is the state hinself - fine for him. In the end, you speak of Putin here. Why shoudl a private person compare himsef to Putin? Does not affect me, you or anyone else. Insider knowledge it is called, and using it for own profit - t happens at the stockmarkets all the time, I bet. A form of fraud with early announcement.

And keeping gold is not about keeping your security in a violance-related context, but against the loss of buying power due to the devaluing of goods and currencies (inflation, confiscation, exprpriation, penalty taxes) I meant that remark exclusively in a financial, economical context.

u crank

03-23-17, 06:02 AM

For those inclined to read or see for themselves what was actually said by Nunes, here is a link to a site with the full text of Nunes' statements:

From the linked article...

When asked whether the Justice Department authorized him to make the information public, Nunes said he thought the President “needed to know,” presumably indicating he did not, in fact, have DOJ permission. Considering the focus on leaks of FISA material of Republicans at Monday’s hearings, the question of whether Nunes himself has just improperly discussed classified FISA matters in public is one that deserves at least some attention.

:hmmm:

ikalugin

03-23-17, 06:37 AM

You mean a state that "runs around", torturing people at random to find out whether they hide some welath or not?I was talking about organised groups. For example in Ukraine Tornado battalion (de-jure part of the state but de-facto independent) was abducting/torturing people in order to extort money from them. While Tornado battalion got disbanded and prosecuted (without sucsess) by the state authority that did not give the men affected back their anal virginity (prisoners were forced to sodomise other prisoners for the amusement of the captors).

raids on private safesI guess that perception comes from the experience that you have studied, Soviet experience shows that if you have gold (or foreighn currency cash) and if the state wants it (and such things were illegal in USSR) they would take them and if was done within the rule of law they would not give it back.

I think we need to separte the intersts from rights. If the rights are no longer protected by the rule of law, then an individual cannot protect his property and thus hoarding gold is useless. If the rights are protected then you can protect your interests within the rule of law by participating in the political life, meaning that gold hoarding is redundant.

On the second part - if a person is affiliated with the state said person, with the insider knowledge, would be able to perceive the state's intentions and capabilities and thus, see if his interests require protection. As a such person I do not see the need to protect my interests in Russia. And if I did I would not hoard gold or any physical valuables (gems, etc), I would invest outside of my home country to diversify my wealth and, should there be a collapse in the rule of law, I would rather have loyal (volonteer) militiamen and (hired) security guards around me, rather than hoarded gold and guns.

vienna

03-23-17, 07:08 AM

From the linked article...

:hmmm:

It is indeed an interesting question whether Nunes did any proper vetting or handling of the information before he scurried off to the White House to inform Trump. It is known he informed neither his own party members on the Intelligence Committee nor, obviously, any of the DEM members, notably Schiff, the ranking member and co-chair. From what I have read and seen, none of the investigative or intelligence entities involved in the investigation(s) into possible criminal activity, any or all of whom could have been the source of Nunes' 'data', were even ever approached by Nunes prior to his meeting with Trump. This not only brings into question the reliability of his 'data', it also brings into question whether his actions constitute a serious, likely illegal, breach of protocols regarding classified information and, if his intent was to derail further investigation by 'muddying the waters', is he then guilty of deliberate hindering of a Federal investigation and/or obstruction of justice...

Another aspect that is interesting is, based on Schiff's account of his discussion with Nunes afterwards, apparently the 'data' Nunes had in his possession had some parts 'masked' or redacted, most likely the actual names persons cited in the 'data'; Schiff said:

As to the substance of what the Chairman has alleged, if the information was lawfully gathered intelligence on foreign officials, that would mean that U.S. persons would not have been the subject of surveillance. In my conversation late this afternoon, the Chairman informed me that most of the names in the intercepted communications were in fact masked, but that he could still figure out the probable identities of the parties. Again, this does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies. Moreover, the unmasking of a U.S. Person's name is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the content of collected foreign intelligence information.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/schiff-statement-nunes-trump-surveillance-allegations

Either Nunes is really dense as to the real workings of the Intelligence community and its agencies or he is playing a bit 'dumb' in a disingenuous attempt to divert attention from his possible real intent. It is possible he is actually dense: he has zero intelligence experience and his main occupation before joining Congress was farming. It is to be remembered appointments to committees and their chairmanships are through a process of primarily seniority and, to a lesser degree, party cronyism. I once, in another thread, posited the question of how the vetting of a security 'clearance' for a newly elected President would be handled: would the intelligence community be fully comfortable giving full, unimpeded access to intelligence to someone who, in normal life never would get to the higher levels of security clearances, but who now, by reasons of a political process is in the Oval Office? I think the same question can be asked about members of the House and Senate: does it make any sense for anyone, of either party, to be placed in positions where they would have access to, or knowledge of, highly sensitive national security matters simply because they had 'X' number of years in office or simply because they are a political 'favorite' of the party in power. Seniority respect and party loyalty are all fine and good, but in the case of national security and the fate of the nation, a well-considered and executed selection process would seem to be a better choice of action...

Here is a link to another interesting article on the Nunes situation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/what-devin-nuness-bombshell-does-and-doesnt-say/520455/

At the White House, however, Nunes offered an answer that muddied the waters on whether he thought the collection was in fact legal.

“What I have read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but I don’t know that it’s right, I don’t know that the American people would be comfortable with what I read, but let’s get all the reports,” Nunes said.

But this, too, is perplexing, as though Nunes was just now realizing for the first time that U.S. persons’ information is routinely caught up in FISA surveillance.

<O>

Skybird

03-23-17, 07:46 AM

I was talking about organised groups. For example in Ukraine Tornado battalion (de-jure part of the state but de-facto independent) was abducting/torturing people in order to extort money from them. While Tornado battalion got disbanded and prosecuted (without sucsess) by the state authority that did not give the men affected back their anal virginity (prisoners were forced to sodomise other prisoners for the amusement of the captors).

I guess that perception comes from the experience that you have studied, Soviet experience shows that if you have gold (or foreighn currency cash) and if the state wants it (and such things were illegal in USSR) they would take them and if was done within the rule of law they would not give it back.

I think we need to separte the intersts from rights. If the rights are no longer protected by the rule of law, then an individual cannot protect his property and thus hoarding gold is useless. If the rights are protected then you can protect your interests within the rule of law by participating in the political life, meaning that gold hoarding is redundant.

Rights are formal rules applied by the state, basing on the law of the strongest. And if the state makes state-run robbery legal, than state-run robbery is legal. It is immoral and a violation of the natural right to own property (one of the three only human rights there are) , but legal by the letter of the rights/laws it nevertehless is. The crimes and acts of barbary by the Gestapo, the Securitate, the Stasi, the KGB, the expropriation of people by the state - all that were legal acts. Evben urder, torture, kidnapping can be legal - of state'S laws say they are. Lawful and morally okay, legality and morality are two very different things. One can act legal and immoral at the same time.

Helmut Schmnidt once said the highest instance a politician must accept his accountability to, is not the people who voted him, nor the letter of the law or the constitution, nor loyalty to his party - but his conscience. Nice comment. If he always did like this, can be discussed. Sometimes at least he did indeed.

But the state is the biggest villain of all. A rule-giver who uses his monopole to exclude himself from the rules, and can violate his own rules and afterwards make the act of violation legal by changign the rules . King Kong writing the law of the jungle.

But all that is leading to far here. i wanted to oint out only that the chnaged polcies of China and Russia of no longer putting trust in US treasuries but hording gold instead shows a trend that sooner or later must collide with financial interests of the the United States of Paper Money and Ininite Debts, and since Trump was said to have enjoyed Putin'S Trust, the fact that PÜutin nevertheless continues to buy all Gold he can get tells the opppsite. Putin is too unsentimental as if "trust" would be a motivation for his acting. His plan with the US and Europe has nothing to do with trusting Trump. Or anyone else.

ikalugin

03-23-17, 08:01 AM

But all that is leading to far here.Ok I would drop the topic then.
i wanted to oint out only that the chnaged polcies of China and Russia of no longer putting trust in US treasuries but hording gold instead shows a trend that sooner or later must collide with financial interests of the the United States of Paper Money and Ininite Debts,Geopolitical tensions are in my opinion the simpler explanation. The Trump-Putin relationship is even more overblown than Obama-Medvedev relationship back the day. After each of the POTUSes tried to "improve" relations with Russia we dont really trust them anymore.

Bilge_Rat

03-23-17, 09:07 AM

From the linked article...

:hmmm:

standard tactic, you don't like the message, you attack the messenger, both sides do it.

Vienna, I don't have time to go into the Nunes bombshell now, but will later on today.

u crank

03-23-17, 09:16 AM

So let me get this straight. Both sides think they have scandal that will cause much pain to the other. So the possible outcome could be that Dems will prove that Trump colluded with the Russians to beat Hillary Clinton but possibly the only way to prove it is by using intelligence gathered by a sitting President, (legally or illegally), on a Presidential candidate who won the election, during the election.

More coffee. Need more coffee. :O:

ikalugin

03-23-17, 09:17 AM

More coffee. Need more coffee. :O:
And popcorn.

Rockstar

03-23-17, 10:42 AM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pY7PUiT_yD4

Skybird

03-23-17, 03:59 PM

ikalugin

03-23-17, 04:25 PM

Trump has his fail-deadly - Pence.

August

03-23-17, 05:11 PM

Another defeat for Trump. The vote on Obamacare has been delayed, his own party's support was not certain. Even if he gets it later, even more prestige - or what is left of it - has been lost. If he gets needed support later, more losses will follow - due to the inevitable chaos following the dismantling of Obamacare. Its a no win-no-win situation now. Meanwhile the Russian Connection slowly but surely turns into a guillotine for Trump. I do not take it for granted that he will make even the first year. Last public approval rate for him reported over here was less than 36% - after not even 90 days. Record? But who cares, as long as his daughter got her own office in the West Wing.

Are those the same poll takers that had Trump loosing the election by 10-20 points?

As for the health care bill. The failure would not be Trumps. If it doesn't pass it'll be the GoP led Congress that failed to put a it on his desk to sign in spite of claiming to have a working replacement plan for nearly 8 years. I seriously doubt that fact will be lost on anyone although i'm sure the democrat press will attempt to blame it on Trump.

And what the heck is that crack about his daughter supposed to mean?

u crank

03-23-17, 05:13 PM

I do not take it for granted that he will make even the first year. Last public approval rate for him reported over here was less than 36% - after not even 90 days.

American Presidents are not removed from office by approval polls Skybird. There are only three ways that I know of. Death, resignation or impeachment. Four died of natural causes and four by assassination. Only one President has ever resigned, Nixon. Two Presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives but both later acquitted at trials held by the Senate. The next poll that means anything are the 2018 mid term elections. Who knows what will happen till then but it sure is interesting. Pass the popcorn. :O:

Mr Quatro

03-23-17, 05:35 PM

American Presidents are not removed from office by approval polls Skybird. There are only three ways that I know of. Death, resignation or impeachment. Four died of natural causes and four by assassination. Only one President has ever resigned, Nixon. Two Presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives but both later acquitted at trials held by the Senate. The next poll that means anything are the 2018 mid term elections. Who knows what will happen till then but it sure is interesting. Pass the popcorn. :O:

The truth is like a shinning light ... nice to see the truth in GT US Politics :o

As for all the gold fears on this thread ... Who can afford to store gold?

Walking around with it is not a safe plan ...
Driving around with it may cause some concern if you plan on leaving it in your automobile or van or truck ...
Leaving it in your empty nest all day could be a problem if anyone knows you buy and sell gold ...
A bank deposit vault is nice, but what if you need it in a hurry ...
Stock market is paper and subject to the ups and downs ...
If you use it in an emergency to cross the border for example someone will follow you for sure ...
The only safe way is to have a home full of people that know you will take care of them in any emergency and have teenagers that stay up all night playing video games to ward off any strangers looking in the windows ... :yep:

As for Obama's healthcare plan he managed to put down Trump today:http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/obama-affordable-care-act-anniversary/

Former President Barack Obama defended his signature health care achievement on its seventh anniversary Thursday as the House of Representatives prepares for a major vote to repeal it.

He called the fight "about more than health care," but rather, "the character of our country."

If the new plan doesn't pass tomorrow it will pass sooner or later ... the old plan is just a way to double check what you say your make a year anyway.

But a room full of men deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies is going to hurt the GOP in the end. :yep:

Skybird

03-23-17, 05:47 PM

Are those the same poll takers that had Trump loosing the election by 10-20 points?

As for the health care bill. The failure would not be Trumps. If it doesn't pass it'll be the GoP led Congress that failed to put a it on his desk to sign in spite of claiming to have a working replacement plan for nearly 8 years. I seriously doubt that fact will be lost on anyone although i'm sure the democrat press will attempt to blame it on Trump.

And what the heck is that crack about his daughter supposed to mean?

He did not brought up the support he needed and did not manage to have enough supporters rallying around him. That is what is his defeat, his loss in prestige, his fail. The last defeat fail in a now logner list of defeats and fails. We can split hairs on what term matches best, but it is not needed. He once again got stopped, and not for the first time.

His daughter has started to behave as if she could claim any electorial or administrative legitimation, but she has none. Her rank is not inheritable, but they behave in that Trump clan as if it were based on the rank of her father. - After the row over the Kennedys and their family-focussed cabinet, your country introduced laws that in the future should prevent such meddlings because it increases the chance for nepotism. But violating these rules and habits is what the Trumps are practicing now. A conflict of interests between family business interests, and the demand of the office. The smell of nepotism lies heavy in the air. Trump handed over his businesses to his sons and daughters, and then gives these highly infuential, dominant psoitions in the government crew? Unacceptable. That does not just smell like nepotism - that IS nepotism.

The White House stinks like that huge hill of fish they piled up in New York in that movie, in order to lure Godzilla out of the sewers.

Not even mentioning the three investigations running by the FBI, the Senate, and the Congress, and CNN's latest claims about Trumps team contacts to Russia during campaign. That could indeed lead to impeachment, even if Trump does not get personally accused.

I am not surprised that Trump faces such a load of problpöems, and that he creates himself so many challenges and enemies. I am surprised however by the speed at which he drives it all frontally against the wall. I thought that he would not make it beyond year 3 or 4 - but that after less than 90 days he already is where he is now, that surprised me indeed. I expected more time to pass.

August

03-23-17, 05:54 PM

He did not brought up the support he needed and did not manage to have enough supporters rallying around him. That is what is his defeat, his loss in prestige, his fail. The last defeat fail in a now logner list of defeats and fails. We can split hairs on what term matches best, but it is not needed. He once again got stopped, and not for the first time.

And I would imagine it won't be the last as long as the swamp remains undrained but I would term a bill written by others versus one he came up with more than a split hair.

His daughter has started to behave as if she could claim any electorial or administrative legitimationCan you list the claims she has made in that regard?

The White House stinks like that huge hill of fish they piled up in New York in that movie, in order to lure Godzilla out of the sewers.That's odd, I feel the same way about your theories.

August

03-23-17, 07:18 PM

I also would like to say that the GoP, not having the replacement plan they had claimed to have, are compounding their error by trying to ram through an ill thought out alternative.

By not giving members the time to study the bill they are basically doing the same thing the Dems did with the ACA. Or in Pelosi's words "We have to pass it to see what is in it". Wrong wrong wrong. :nope:

Skybird

03-24-17, 05:44 PM

Another stomping-feet-day for little Donald not getting his will. That will not stop of course those who still see him as the messiah reincarnated on Earth. In alternative fact it is not a defeat but a fake-defeat, and probably it is an alternative victory then, but what do I know about the art of using words in most meaningless manner. Several Republicans nevertheless said the counter-Obamacare bill "is dead" for this legislation period. Trump tried to blackmail them, to intimidate them, and to bluff them. He was called on his cards, and lost. Very big loss of prestige and reputation. Good poker players know that he made a big mistake there.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.jmgNlHOHskjczjusdNtDAwEsDp&pid=15.1&P=0&w=215&h=168

On another thing: some days ago they had a short docu on TV, shot on US metropoles' streets and in rural places as well, and they interviewed fans of Trump and tried to find out why these people support him. A very confusing fact was that many of them admitted freely that they knew/were certain/were quite aware that he lies, and that he is distorting things and not tells the truth on almost every occasion possible. What is confusing, alarming, worrying, troublesome is that these people still stay loyal to him and said "But I don't care that he lies", and "He still is our man."

They know, they say, he is a liar, but they do not care, they say. This sounds like the ultimate hopeless-case scenario to me. If people frankly admit they do not care whether their leaders lie or not, and just nod it off and say "I don't care, I still support him", then everything seems to be lost indeed.

I wonder in how far this is linked to this study's object on hopelessness and raising suicide rates and self-harming behaviour amongst white non-Hispanic men in the past one and a half decade:
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround.

Can you list the claims she has made in that regard?

I did not say the made claims, I said she claims, in the meaning of making claim for something. If I messed up correct language here I'm sorry, if not, my reply to your question would be the problem is that she is in a position where she she should not be, seems to claim in all naturalness responsiblities that she should be banned to have, claims access to secret information she is not legitimised to get, and in general simply is in a place where she ought to have no business to do. None of his family should have any position in his government, since all his children have private business interests that should automatically ban them from holding any positions in the government club. This all is as classic a conflict of interests as "classic" can mean. That Trump calls them in, is nepotism. What they perform, is dynastic politics. They have to leave, unconditionally. And Trump should have sold his own businesses not to his family that he now includes in the government, but to third parties.

Sorry, that are the rules, Donald.

August

03-24-17, 08:31 PM

That will not stop of course those who still see him as the messiah reincarnated on Earth

Dude why is it that you never seem to be able to make a statement without attempting to precast and vilify anyone who might possibly hold a different opinion than you? I mean it's your second sentence. What chance do you think you have of getting the proper debate that you claim to seek if you poison the waters of discourse so early on before anyone has a chance to even read the body of what you write?

I did not say the made claims, I said she claims, in the meaning of making claim for something. If I messed up correct language here I'm sorry, if not, my reply to your question would be the problem is that she is in a position where she she should not be, seems to claim in all naturalness responsiblities that she should be banned to have, claims access to secret information she is not legitimised to get, and in general simply is in a place where she ought to have no business to do. None of his family should have any position in his government, since all his children have private business interests that should automatically ban them from holding any positions in the government club. This all is as classic a conflict of interests as "classic" can mean. That Trump calls them in, is nepotism. What they perfom, is dynastic politics. They have to leave, unconditionally. And Trump should have sold his own businesses not to his family that he now includes in the government, but to third parties. I'm not sure where in the US constitution it says that a person must liquidate all their their personal assets before assuming the office of the president nor do I recall it saying that family members are prohibited from seeing/talking to him about what they want pretty much whenever they want.

Because of the familial access they have to the president a security clearance is given to every member of his immediate family including little children. That does not mean however they have the right to demand (or claim) access to classified information and it's not correct to imply that it does. It just allows them to move without escort in areas of the White House not open to the public.

Bilge_Rat

03-24-17, 09:11 PM

Nippelspanner

03-24-17, 09:11 PM

Dude why is it that you never seem to be able to make a statement without attempting to precast and vilify anyone who might possibly hold a different opinion than you?
Pahahahaha!!
Oh boy... oh boy...

Nippelspanner

03-24-17, 09:13 PM

I have to admit, I always a kick of how clueless most Europeans are about US politics..

Oh my God, this thread gets more fun with every post! xD

August

03-24-17, 09:23 PM

I have to admit, I always a kick of how clueless most Europeans are about US politics.

You surf most conservative sites, you see everyone is blaming Ryan for this, not Trump. Trump tried his best to sell the deal, no one can fault his efforts.

The real culprit here are the GOP congressmen, who spent 7 years railing against Obamacare and can't even agree on a replacement plan. They are the ones who will have to answer to their constituents when they run for re-election next year.

Yep, even worse they claimed to have a replacement plan already prepared but it looks like they just cobbled this together like a college kid who waits to the night before an essay is due before even starting on it.

Buddahaid

03-24-17, 09:41 PM

Yep, even worse they claimed to have a replacement plan already prepared but it looks like they just cobbled this together like a college kid who waits to the night before an essay is due before even starting on it.

This is a very telling moment for the GOP, and may be Trump's biggest gamble post election.

Skybird

03-25-17, 01:37 AM

Who was the bigmouth telling people that he could change Washington over night and make America great again all by himself...?

A competent man in his seat would not have pushed something he knew he had no support for, and so avoided this disgrace. He would have spent more time on preparing better instead of lectuirng the press about fak enews, making himself enemies in his own system, offending the secret services and so forth. Simple truth his Trump is busy most of the time with being a bigmouth. And when relaity does not fall to its knees in front of his endless tweets and tirades, it is not this man's guilt...? You guys over there really deserved what you got with him then!

Trump was credited with beign a great negotiator. But he overestimated himself and the importance of this bill for those who now let himstanding in the rain. And as a German analyst noted yesterday - the bill became the more unpopular the more Trump linked it to his own name and made it the boss' own project.

The same analyst noted that Trump's attempts to intimidate and threaten, does not really impress too many: when a judge stopped his migration ban, he opened fire at the judges in general - and got the second ban on a silver plate short time later. When the secret services leaked details on links between his team and Russia, he threatened them again after he already had offended them before - and the FBI walks on the stage and embarrassed him. Now he set up an ultimatum to his own party - and they shrug shoulders and leave him behind.

Making America great again? So far all he pulls out of his top-hat is loud words, bad behaviour, clueless thinking and weak doing. And the party? May have had a good time rambling about what went wrong in the past years - and was so focussed on it that it forget to stay trained in dealing with reality and mastering the simple essential tools of political trade.

Incompetence and dilletantism and always a big mouth - the three dominant characteristics of this regime so far. True for the "president", true for the party.

Pah! You get what you vote for.

Skybird

03-25-17, 01:47 AM

Dude why is it that you never seem to be able to make a statement without attempting to precast and vilify anyone who might possibly hold a different opinion than you? I mean it's your second sentence. What chance do you think you have of getting the proper debate that you claim to seek if you poison the waters of discourse so early on before anyone has a chance to even read the body of what you write?

I'm not sure where in the US constitution it says that a person must liquidate all their their personal assets before assuming the office of the president nor do I recall it saying that family members are prohibited from seeing/talking to him about what they want pretty much whenever they want.

Because of the familial access they have to the president a security clearance is given to every member of his immediate family including little children. That does not mean however they have the right to demand (or claim) access to classified information and it's not correct to imply that it does. It just allows them to move without escort in areas of the White House not open to the public.
This is rhetoric drivel once again and on so many levels that I really could not make myself caring any longer.

August

03-25-17, 02:25 AM

This is rhetoric drivel once again and on so many levels that I really could not make myself caring any longer.

How convenient. It's clear to me from this and your past diatribes that you do not understand us or our political system at all but there is no telling you that so believe what you want.

Skybird

03-25-17, 03:46 AM

This time I don't post it in PC and Hardware section, but in US politics.

LINK - Senate puts isp-profits over your privacy (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/senate-puts-isp-profits-over-your-privacy)

LINK - Why this matters (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections)

LINK - action for US citizens (https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-undermine-our-online-privacy)

LINK - What PC users can do as first aid (http://www.pcworld.com/article/3184767/security/three-privacy-tools-that-block-your-internet-provider-from-tracking-you.html)

LINK - readers' comments (https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/senate-puts-isp-profits-over-your-privacy/)

Especially the comment by a guy named "fp" is worth to be noted:

As is usually the case, the real issue is missed.

Such acts are a reflection of the utter corruption of the system. We went from corporate interests controlling the govt to them BEING the govt. So this sort of behavior is a logical conclusion of that fact and Jefferson predicted it. Expect worse.

The current reality is that there is NOBODY in the system to care about and protect the public. If the public wants its rights it has to FIGHT to get them back. If it does not–which is usually the case–it does not deserve them.
Many Americans are terribly naive about freedom — just because they have enjoyed some of it for a long time they take it for granted. They tolerate creeping violations and will do until it’s too late. There is also the notion that the world progresses from dictatorship to democracy, which false. When power finds no obstacles…

vienna

03-25-17, 04:07 AM

How convenient. It's clear to me from this and your past diatribes that you do not understand us or our political system at all but there is no telling you that so believe what you want.

Oh I don't know if that's entirely true; considering how the Trump administration and the GOP have been approaching the concept of governance, our country's 'leadership' is becoming more akin to what is found in many other countries, and, in the case of Trump's leadership 'style', perhaps even closer to some 'banana republics'...

After the election, the effects began to set in: finger pointing about the results, a party in disarray, factional infighting, the inability of its leaders to coalesce support, direction-less and wandering policy statements, having to deal with the scandals uncovered during the campaign, a failure of its leaders to form any sort of consensus, and just a general failure of leadership at all. Sounds like what the GOP was saying about the DEMs after last November's election, while they laughed loud and heartily and patted them selves on the back. The main problem for the GOP is all the above now describes the GOP after they put Trump in office. The DEMs, as noted before, haven't had to lift a finger or spend a cent in order to make their case against Trump and the GOP: the GOP is doing it for them themselves. All the DEMs have to do is stand aside and let Trump and the GOP write their mid-term campaigns for them...

Well, for the GOP, there's bad news and there's bad news; without Trumpcare passing, they have greatly reduced political capital, really a bad thing if this continues into the mid-terms; and now there is no major distraction to what may come in the Russian-Trump Campaign probes. Now the media, and, more importantly, the voters will be able to turn full attention to the investigations. Can we perhaps expect another WikiLeaks disgorging soon? Anything to deflect from failures and scandal?...

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is digging the grave a little deeper day by day. Not only has he had to walk back the majority of statements he had made after he scurried off to get instructions from the Trump Mothership, not only has he had to admit he really had nothing to show for his claims, not only did he have to apologize to the Co-Chair and the rest of the committee, now he has made a unilateral and politically very questionable decision to hold the rest of the hearings behind closed doors. Exactly what is it he (and the Mothership) are afraid to let see the light of day?:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/us/politics/paul-manafort-russia-house-intelligence.html?_r=0

For an administration and party who were pounding the podiums about public transparency and uncovering corruption, graft, and governmental illegalities, you know, "Draining The Swamp", Trump and the GOP have now stopped pounding the podiums and find it better to hide behind them...

<O>

ValoWay

03-25-17, 04:14 AM

Skybird

03-25-17, 04:27 AM

^ Both men failed here. Ryan for making an incompetent law, and Trump campaigning for it and going against all odds, trying to bluff and bully.

Not with those cards, man, not with those cards...

He could and should have known. And people knowing more about politics than Trump ever will, probably would have known. This tells you that not just Trump did not realise it, but that he either does not listen to advisers, or that he has no competent advisers. Maybe a mad man only has madvisers.

Next the "I do it alone and over night"-man will try a tax reform. Somethign that previous administraitosn have shied away form since - since when...? Since a dman long time for sure.

Popcorn, I need more popcorn, this is great show, verrrry grrreat shouw.... The faster you drive a car against the wall, the louder the bang and the higher the pieces fly into the air :yeah:

Platapus

03-25-17, 10:38 AM

One thing Trump is positive about is that he is not to blame for any of this. It seems like everyone else is to blame. Awesome leadership ability.

The buck stops somewhere over there.

Even though I despise Hillary Clinton as a potential president (and I do), I wonder if she would not have been the better of two lousy choices?

At least her corrupt administration would move smoothly as everyone would be paid off

Given two horrible choices between incompetence and corruption, I am starting to think that incompetence was not the wise decision for the United States.

Maybe that dry frying pan would be a little bit better after all. :doh:

Gonna be a long four years.

August

03-25-17, 10:51 AM

Ryan was going gainst O-Care since 2009. They had 8 years to study its flaws and how to make it better but what they came up with they probably wrote on a coaster the day before the deadline.. The opposition always seems to know better in western politics..

I think they didn't work on a plan in all that time because they didn't see themselves ever in the position of having to actually produce one. They, by which I mean the old school GoP leadership, are just too comfortable with their status as losers. Trump, the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, these all are signs that the base has lost confidence in the leadership and are rebelling against them.

em2nought

03-25-17, 02:53 PM

Who was the bigmouth telling people that he could change Washington over night and make America great again all by himself...?

The guy with a very well armed number of supporters who are fed up with the Fed. :D
http://www.alloutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bundy-ranch.png

Not too mention fed up with the whole shift to the left by exposing our impressionable youth to foreign ideas gaining traction via "our" internet.

Rockstar

03-26-17, 09:54 PM

http://i.imgur.com/pZALJZt_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

vienna

03-27-17, 01:39 AM

^ :har:

<O>

Skybird

03-27-17, 05:58 AM

BMOTUS does what he can do best (being a big mouth) and has shown again what an elementary-school-level understanding of politics he has.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-houses-intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k

Sorry Donny, no chance that will come true. But nice joke. :har:

And no, while i would like to see it, I do not expect to see that Germany will raise defence budgets to 2% of GDP in the coming two or three government periods. Instead the germans will - pointlessly - insist on that their development aid should be calculated as "defence costs".

Drilling for sweet water in the Sahel zone will deter Russia from doing somethign stupid in East Europe, you know.

A reasonable reaction by the US would be not presenting this bill, but to simply systematically reduce military presence in Europe - not to pose and to intimidate, but due to indeed really mean what one is doing: leaving Europe more and more alone and turning a military back on it. To that, Europe either reacts then by trying to become stronger itself militarily, or it does not and remains to be a toothless somebody. In the end, US interests by now are stronger located in the Far East than in Europe. Let the Europeans care for what essentially is their very own business and interest.

August

03-27-17, 05:16 PM

We’re Doing Grant, Not Patton, But Neither One Had A Goof Like Ryan Screwing Things Up

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/03/27/were-doing-grant-not-patton-but-neither-one-had-a-goof-like-ryan-screwing-things-up-n2304530

We know the strategy – grind out win after win, big and small, over time until the liberals are broken. It’s the tactics that Ryan has botched; he’s shown no aptitude for the basic blocking and tackling of legislating and consistently falls back on the errors of the past. Here’s how healthcare should have gone. Paully, starting the morning of November 9th, you should have orchestrated an inclusive effort to create a bill based on a consensus that incorporated every stakeholder with the ability to icepick it (the transition team, the Freedom Caucus, the squishes, the think tanks, and most vitally, the Senate). Once you had something everyone agreed on – and 216 sure votes in the House and 51 in the Senate – you all appear with the Prez in front of the cameras to announce it before you actually put out the document, thereby cementing in the narrative about why the people should dig it before the haters can hate it into little pieces. Then you pass it and win. But what did we get? A tactical clusterflunk. Seven years in and Ryan wasn’t ready. He putzed around with no sense of urgency until there was a sense of urgency. Who was expecting this dog’s breakfast to drop when it did? And it just dropped on us out of the blue – one day, suddenly, there’s this whole plan out there. Surprise! I listened to Hugh Hewitt the morning after it was released; he was stunned that he couldn’t get any of the Republican House leadership [sic] on his show to talk to his conservative audience about the biggest piece of legislation in Trump’s first term.
Made me smile.

Platapus

03-27-17, 05:56 PM

I don't think the GOP spent any of the last 7 years actually thinking about a new health care plan. All they did, for seven years, was whine and complain and waste time putting multiple bills that stood no chance of passing.

They had seven years and this was their big plan? Not very well thought out.

Rockstar

03-27-17, 06:23 PM

https://www.420magazine.com/2017/03/monumental-bill-introduced-congress-legalize-cannabis-federal-level/

If they cant get it together and find a solution to percieved issues with Obama Care wouldnt it be nice if they could pass Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017. :D

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstonerdays.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Ffat-blunts-girls-smoking-weed-102.jpg&f=1

Skybird

03-28-17, 11:40 AM

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-hubris-meets-nepotism-in-jared-kushners-expanded-role/a-38170364

When an autocrat in what is often described as a banana republic taps family members to run major government tasks such a move is usually critizised as nepotism in the West, and rightly so. By drastically expanding the already murky role his son-in-law Jared Kushner (http://www.dw.com/en/trump-son-in-law-jared-kushner-to-face-questions-on-russia-in-congress/a-38151298) plays in the administration, US President Donald Trump has done exactly the same thing. And therefore it behooves us to also call what it is: nepotism.

To be fair, Kushner, who is regularly described as smart and business-savvy, has by all accounts done well for himself in the same field as his father-in-law, real estate development. And it also needs to be noted that Kushner was not being paid for his previous White House role as senior advisor to the president and is likely to not be compensated for his new position as head of a task force charged with overhauling how the government works. (http://www.dw.com/en/trump-sets-up-new-office-run-by-son-in-law/a-38133588)

But it is deeply disconcerting that two of the president's closest family members, his daughter (http://www.dw.com/en/ivanka-trump-to-get-own-white-house-office-in-expanding-role/a-38037552) and his son-in-law, are now firmly ensconced in the White House as key presidential advisors with important portfolios. While it has been reported that Kushner would give up his role as head of his own company, he apparently has not done so yet. Instead, as is practice with many in this administration, when it comes to avoiding potential conflicts of interest between their business and political roles, he is trying to navigate the fine line between what is legally permissible and what isn't.
(http://www.dw.com/en/ethics-lawyers-file-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-constitutional-violation/a-37237787)

(http://www.dw.com/en/ethics-lawyers-file-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-constitutional-violation/a-37237787)

(http://www.dw.com/en/ethics-lawyers-file-lawsuit-against-trump-alleging-constitutional-violation/a-37237787)

Rockstar

03-28-17, 01:30 PM

If advisors are chosen and employed within the confines of current law. I for one really don't give a rat's butt who he chooses. Who better to trust than family ?

Buddahaid

03-28-17, 02:27 PM

Seems like instead of draining the swamp he's just filling it with his own brand of stench.

Bilge_Rat

03-28-17, 03:02 PM

it is also incorrect that Kushner is in a "conflict of interest".

He hired Jamie Gorelick a democratic super-lawyer and Clinton supporter to advise him on untangling himself from his businesses:

Gorelick said separating Kushner from his real estate company took up most of her time in December and January and that his financial disclosure form will show that he still retains sizable assets.

“I like hard and interesting problems, and I have certainly had them in this representation," she said. “The Kushner Cos. is really a series of dozens and dozens and dozens of individual buildings and their own corporate structure. Extricating him from each one of those was extremely difficult.”

But she said Kushner gave her carte blanche to make it work. “His view was, ‘Do what needs to be done.’ There are a lot of assets left and he will have to recuse himself on quite a few issues.”

Months after getting involved with the people closest to the man she tried to help defeat, Gorelick said Klein's assessment of Kushner has held up. “I don’t have much insight as to what he is doing inside on a daily basis,” she said, “but he does seem like a good person.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/ivanka-trump-lawyer-jamie-gorelick-clintons-236445

August

03-28-17, 03:15 PM

it is also incorrect that Kushner is in a "conflict of interest".

That is not the Pravda that was handed down by the media gods. :hmmm: He has to be guilty of something because you know, Trump!

Skybird

03-29-17, 06:05 AM

To me, somebody who systematically tests out to the last millimeter what he could get away with without beeing called foul, is as dubious and suspicious as someone who already has been found intentionally violating the rules.

If you need to use microscopes and dividers to measure whether the dot over the "i" indeed is as round as it should be, and use curve rulers to determine whether the curves in the §-symbol indeed are nicely rounded and fit the legally demanded shape for the §-symbol to indeed qualify it for a §-symbol - then you defend a most likely lost case and should worry about maybe already looking dubious yourself.

Convincing clarity is somethign very different.

What these guys are doing is trying to find ways to break the rules without breaking the rules so obviously that they must fear countermeasures.

Bilge_Rat

03-29-17, 10:26 AM

Torvald Von Mansee

03-29-17, 10:53 AM

Bilge_Rat

03-29-17, 11:04 AM

So, you're staying stupid people stay stupid? What a shock.

yup, not much hope for Dimocrats I fear...:O:

Buddahaid

03-29-17, 12:18 PM

More childish name calling I see.

Platapus

03-29-17, 03:31 PM

The word of the day is

Kakistocracy

It is a word that we may be hearing a lot of these days. :up:

eddie

03-29-17, 03:59 PM

ikalugin

03-29-17, 04:48 PM

Meanwhile a classical spy story:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state-department-employee-arrested-and-charged-concealing-extensive-contacts-foreign-agents

Jeff-Groves

03-29-17, 05:40 PM

Victoria and Ivan from Red?
Victoria was cleared of suspicion by putting 3 bullets in Ivan's chest.
:har:

August

03-29-17, 06:50 PM

Victoria and Ivan from Red?
Victoria was cleared of suspicion by putting 3 bullets in Ivan's chest.
:har:

She proved her love to Ivan by putting them into his chest instead of his head.

vienna

03-29-17, 08:07 PM

Well I hope the Senate investigation of the Russian connection with people in the White House, goes better then what is happening with the House Investigation, Nunes has his head stuck up Trumps arse! I don't know how he can even draw a deep breath way up n there,lol No matter how the investigation comes out, we have to get this over with so the country can move on.

For those who would rather have a visual explanation of the Nunes situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niptfGSrhk

The US does have to get the investigations done and done properly. The Senate GOP seems to have a better grasp of the need to be transparent and thorough; the House not so much and the main problem is Nunes. The house investigation under Nunes is a shambles and has opened up the GOP and Trump to cover-up and collusion accusations. I think the shark was jumped after the White House/Nunes meeting(s) and was further compromised by Nunes first wanting to have further hearings behind closed doors rather than in public. When it was reported some of the more notorious actors in the investigation (Manafort, etc.) offered to testify, little note was made of the fact Nunes was going to have those persons testify without taking the usual oath , thereby making them virtually immune to criminal perjury and, basically, giving them open license to lie. Nunes has go to go and Ryan needs to appoint a new GOP chair with clean hands, not only for the sake of a proper investigation, but, also, for the sake of the reputation of the GOP...

<O>

Jeff-Groves

03-29-17, 08:30 PM

She proved her love to Ivan by putting them into his chest instead of his head.
What a Woman!
:D

vienna

03-29-17, 08:31 PM

interesting, Trump does appear to be Teflon among republicans. His support remains sky high and he gets little blame for the ACA repeal issues:

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/03/29/4f2c8065-dfd5-4266-891a-66ab278e1513/resize/620x/bb92769219f344d41d8f73c07cef06d0/trump-job-rating-0329.jpg

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/03/29/20113b0b-a047-45fa-8c95-bca12ce4b7cb/resize/620x/f5a28e9b90576c83a678fccc4afb53eb/healthcare-poll-upd.jpg

just as interesting is the partisan divide over whether there was Russian interference...

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/03/29/307cf871-7178-4107-9151-a0aba0c363d2/resize/620x/1c1eba0531c13b0a0af9cbc7c191293c/russian-interference.jpg

..and whether Trump was wiretapped...

http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/03/29/c979632d-b816-4f99-b71b-0f206edb9de0/resize/620x/a7d972c26417569ab60a7e9e7d64185f/wiretapped-poll.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-health-care-trump-approval-russia-election-meddling-cbs-news-poll/

no chance of any GOP revolt in Congress with these numbers.

Two things to take from this:

1. Bilge_Rat openly mocks and refutes all polling, such as the CBS (gasp!) polls he uses as validation of his points, as phony unless it makes whoever/whatever he supports look good;

2. GOP members approve of GOP candidates/issues which is a huuuge surprise (Stop the presses!!);

The big problem with this is the GOP is still the minority party overall in the US, slowly but surely falling well below the total number of registered DEM voters and even about to fall below the total number of voters registered as Independents; the GOP cannot win with just its own membership just as the DEMs cannot win with just its own membership. Take a look at the Approve/Disapprove graph posted: the Overall Total in Disapproval is 52%, while approval is at 40%, a whopping margin of 12%; given the undeclared percentage is only 8%, the GOP has a sizeable hill to climb; just to get to 51% approval, they need to get every single undeclared plus pare down at least 3% of the disapproval. Just because one is popular/approved with their own circle doesn't mean the same holds true outside; skunks are popular with other skunks, but outside of that, not so much...

The word of the day is

Kakistocracy

It is a word that we may be hearing a lot of these days. :up:

Haven't heard of the word in some time, so thanks much!. Highly apt in the current situation... :up:

<O>

em2nought

03-29-17, 10:07 PM

The big problem with this is the GOP is still the minority party overall in the US

Not if we can get more of these on a regular basis :up: http://www.newson6.com/story/35006296/broken-arrow-homeowner-shoots-two-intruders-police-say

Gargamel

03-29-17, 10:22 PM

This was written years before trump was even on the radar politically, but I find it very applicable for him today.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

vienna

03-30-17, 01:06 AM

Not if we can get more of these on a regular basis :up: http://www.newson6.com/story/35006296/broken-arrow-homeowner-shoots-two-intruders-police-say

Those kind of stories have cropped up for decades now and they haven't appeared to benefit the GOP much, if at all. There are too many variables that have worked against the GOP over the years for something like this to really have n impact. If you really want to see what might very well happen to the GOP nationally, take a look at the California GOP: they let the wing-nuts take the reins of the party and the main body of the CA-GOP left the party in droves. It has gotten so bad, Orange County, CA, the strongest bastion of Conservative GOP politics in the state, with a majority of registered voters identifying as GOP, voted for a DEM Presidential candidate for the first time in 80 years. Equally amazing, the turnout in the county was 80.7%, about 25 points higher than the national average (Clinton got 50.9% of the total County vote compared to 42.3% for Trump). An additional fact is Orange County is considered to be a prime GOP "ATM", much in the way Hollywood is the DEM "ATM" when it comes to fundraising. Losing the decades long hold they have maintained on their 'foundation' county has put the CA-GOP in a much deeper hole politically and financially than ever. This matters to the national GOP because political trends in CA often have a ripple effect nationally. Perhaps
if Trump, during the campaign, had not stupidly acted in a manner that alienated women voters, he might have had a shot at winning the popular vote, a loss which is still a bug up his behind. Notably, if he had not riled a particular GOP woman, Meg Whitman, who has a significant influence with GOP power and money brokers and who, in disgust at Trump, turned her efforts to fundraising and campaigning for Clinton, he might have not given the CA-GOP such an embarrassing loss. As always, Trump is his own worst enemy...

<O>

eddie

03-30-17, 12:52 PM

Now that Congress has killed a part of Internet Privacy, which means that you Internet Provider can sell your personal browsing history to Corporate America, what can we do about it? First thing I am glad of is that our state government is passing legislation that Internet Providers cannot sell your browsing history without our written consent. I hope other states will do the same thing, because this sucks to no end what they in Washington are doing!! Is this part of Trumps pledge to make America great again!?! What bullcrap!

But what I do like is what this guy is doing to get back at the clowns who voted for this ignorant bill. He has started a crowd funding project to raise $1 million dollars to buy the browsing history of the politicians who voted for this bill!:haha: Sure hope he makes it!

http://resistancereport.com/resistance/crowdfunding-lawmakers-internet/

Here is how people voted for what politicians browsing history should be bought first. He has raised 100K already,lol

https://searchinternethistory.com/

ikalugin

03-30-17, 01:40 PM

They just maintain the status quo.

August

03-30-17, 02:03 PM

Eddie you do realize that web companies like Google and Facebook were exempt and could sell your personal information without your permission even before these rules were rescinded right?

August

03-30-17, 02:18 PM

AndyJWest

03-30-17, 02:37 PM

Interesting bit of news.

Apparently "some" EU supporters are trying to break up my country. :hmmm:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/785813/European-Union-EU-boss-threatens-break-up-US-retaliation-Trump-Brexit-support

Or more likely, one EU supporter made a feeble joke. Though he's German, and as Mark Twain noted, German jokes are no laughing matter. :03:

EdiT: Oops. Juncker is Luxembourgish, not German. No idea what Luxembourgish jokes are like. Or even if they have any...

Skybird

03-30-17, 04:02 PM

Ja wat den nu?

LINK - The Telegraph - EU always was a CIA project (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/)

Catfish

03-31-17, 01:44 AM

Interesting bit of news.

Apparently "some" EU supporters are trying to break up my country. :hmmm:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/785813/European-Union-EU-boss-threatens-break-up-US-retaliation-Trump-Brexit-support

"The newly elected US president was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same," European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said. However, he warned, "if he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas, in the United States of America."

Right answer :haha:

Skybird

03-31-17, 06:03 AM

"The newly elected US president was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same," European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said. However, he warned, "if he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas, in the United States of America."

Right answer :haha:

No, a revealing answer. It shows what an understanding of the eU as a continental one-size-fits-all superstate he has. His answer would fit if Trump would have called for Bavaria or Saxony to leave the German state. But the national states in the EU union do not compare to the status of federal states in the German state.

It is arrogance like this that will alienate the EU more and more from the people. You cannot just trample on the historically grown feelings of identity of people in local regions and replace it with an artifical, life-less theoretic construct basing on so universal perspectives that all and everybody can read something into them and no individual identity is recognizable anymore. This is so deeply in our genes and bases so fundamentally on - in the end - our desire to form famlies and protect them, that it always will raise hostility if you dismantle these base structures - and such histility then is pure existential self-defence.

Right these ways of proceedings the eU practices today, led the Roman republic into the imperial (dictatorial) order that followed the collapse - and the empirical and sociological evidences that the EU is following the same path, are very strong.

As Niklas Luhman put it: all identity forming comes from inevitable discrimination and defining of what one is not. You cannot be somebody if you do not differentiate between yourself and the other, and accept differences to be there. To assume that that is possible, is a logical fallacy, and a sociological folly. If practicing this violation in the name of a new sociological world order, such combining of the political and sociological demand in one gives birth to what we call fascism.

Catfish

03-31-17, 06:35 AM

[...]

It is arrogance like this that will alienate the EU more and more from the people. You cannot just trample on the historically grown feelings of identity of people in local regions and replace it with an artifical, life-less theoretic construct [...]

Ah yes, tell this to Scotland, Wales, Ireland.
This is something that has grown over centuries, and your genes are not interested if you are born 20 miles left or right e.g. of the french-german border.
The patriotic feelings of "nations" (a rather new artificial concept b.t.w.) is what gives you an excuse for invading your neighbours, when any common sense tells you it is bovine scatology.
What do you think all those tribes thought about a unified Germany back then? House of Hannover? Bavaria? Let's go back and be happy? lmao.

What about the positive aspects of the EU? It is all so self-evident and "boring", and no need to boast about accomplishments all the time. People tend to forget how it was before. But if some bigmouths climb their soapbox and shout the EU is damned everybody has to listen to him? Desinformation rules, and the loudest bigmouth is right? Punch him in the face and drag him down!

Jimbuna

03-31-17, 06:56 AM

Interesting bit of news.

Apparently "some" EU supporters are trying to break up my country. :hmmm:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/785813/European-Union-EU-boss-threatens-break-up-US-retaliation-Trump-Brexit-support

I shouldn't take him too seriously If I were you. I doubt anyone outside of the EU does but be thankful for one thing....he didn't get close enough to the POTUS to give him one of his 'infamous' kisses or slaps around the head.

Skybird

03-31-17, 08:12 AM

Ah yes, tell this to Scotland, Wales, Ireland.
As I have repeatedly said in the past: they have my best wishes if they want to leave the UK, and they have any natural right to do so if that is what I want. Like Cataluniyans have any righ to fall out of Spain, because the other Spaniards do not own them, they are not their slaves or possession. Nobody is born for the sake of somebody else. The only thing I nsist on is that they do not demand others - us Germans, the EU - to pay their bills then. They must know what it means for their economic future if they vote for independence. A people claiming sovereignty and independence, but being unable to pay for its living and cannot afford it, is neither independent nor sovereign. And German employees and workers already pay more than enough and get plundered their rewards they have woked for - why should others have any claim for these, and even raise these claims even more? So if the Welsh, Irish and Scots want to leave, fine - I do not oppose them - but have your fricking bills paid by yourself, I tell them. Be sure you can afford what you want. Do not demand us to pay for your wishes.

This is something that has grown over centuries, and your genes are not interested if you are born 20 miles left or right e.g. of the french-german border.
The drive to make babies and form families and from there: tribal structures, is rooting in your genes since thousands and tens of thousands of years, you can assume that. Its dirctly linked to the sexual drive. And from that comes forming of tribal culture, and with some more steps in-between, in the modern era, the forming of national states. Just 300 years ago Germans had an understanding of themselves being one group, and yet: a group internally differentiated by cities and dukedoms, nevertheless united by shared experiences and shared language. Since one thisuands years, Europe knows of "the Germans", although there wa sno united, single, one national German state for centuries to come.

But at the very basis, at the fundament is the core family, and has always been: father, mother, children. Why do you think the left wants to destroy families and their internal mutual loyalties, and replace it with state- and ideology driven constructions and "alternative" settings? Because it is the basis of the social communal structure of what they hate so much: the burgeoise society. Like they want to destroy capitalism by destroying money, they want to destroy society by destroying family. They think then they have the free space created to form their new dystopic one-size-fits-all collective.

The EU is drunk of these concepts.

And so the Eu has to be teared down, in self defence, and replaced with a setting of utual trade agreements with far smaller ambitions that should not lead beyond just trade. What kind of culture a local population in a region wants to have, is somethign that o EU fat cat and no damn leftist ideologist has to lecture them on and has to impose on them against their will. The EU bahves like feudal landlors owning the peasant living on their lands and owing their work and the fruits of their labour to them. And this is where even violence is legitimate to end this slaverish regime.

Augustine may have brought back stability, law and order to Rome after the collapse of the first republic. But the price was a hefty one: military dictatorship, a massive decline of freedom, an mperial redesign of the plticla system, an establishing of heritable politicla power, and a massice loss of former civil lberties and freedoms. But this is what we all head for once again in Europe, once the EU has fallen apart - and it is set to fall apart for sure like the first republic, and for almost the same reasons. The parrallels are breathtaking.

But there is one big difference: the pax romana following was possible last but not least due to the military power of Rome after Sulla'S reforms and the professionalization of the army. Europea today however has developed a so strong pacifism and demilitarised basic attitude that one can hardly imagine that Europe would project military power to enforce its demands outside its imperial core and periphery in a comparable fashion like Rome was willing - and sometimes, though not always, actually carrying out - to do. An enforced pax europaea for exampel towards the ME or Russia, is hardly imaginable. The substantial willingess to use physical force is much stronger in the orient, than in the modern occident.

The patriotic feelings of "nations" (a rather new artificial concept b.t.w.) is what gives you an excuse for invading your neighbours, when any common sense tells you it is bovine scatology.

That is more nationalism than patriotism. However, a group of French will feel more shared similarities amongst themseves when travelling in Poland, than a mixed group of Europeans travelling in Poland. But a group of mixed Europeans, despite their differences, will feel more similiarities of their shared cultural heritage again - Hellenism, Romanism, Christian tradition and all that - if they travel together as a tourist group in China, whch is a very different cultural and ethnic context.

We are not all the same, and the level to which we share same roots and preconditions, varies. Ignoring this, is not helpful, but does a lot of dmaage, even causes conflict. The problem then is less the other, the foreign, but the situation we allowed to arise and that we should have wanted to avoid.

What do you think all those tribes thought about a unified Germany back then? House of Hannover? Bavaria? Let's go back and be happy? lmao.
Stupid shortcutting and simplifications just to fire an snappy reply does not make me look foolish, but yourself. And Europe knows of and speaks of "the Germans" (not the "Germanic people", but "the Germans") since roughly one thousand years. For most of that time, a single German national state nevertheless did not exist. Strange.

August

03-31-17, 09:38 AM

I shouldn't take him too seriously If I were you. I doubt anyone outside of the EU does but be thankful for one thing....he didn't get close enough to the POTUS to give him one of his 'infamous' kisses or slaps around the head.

I didn't think so but it would be fun (on both sides of the pond I suspect) to watch the Secret Service gang tackle him if he were to try it.

Catfish

03-31-17, 11:50 AM

Regarding Juncker's quote i really wonder if some people here have a lesser sense of humour than it is always said of Germans :hmmm:

vienna

04-01-17, 09:24 AM

This from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBO85ms_ZXU

So, how long before Trump signs an EO to build a wall around Colbert?... :D

<O>

Mr Quatro

04-01-17, 01:03 PM

I actually saw a major news station on last night's evening news that did not mention Trump or Russia one single time :up:

Nippelspanner

04-01-17, 04:44 PM

I actually saw a major news station on last night's evening news that did not mention Trump or Russia one single time :up:

*checks posting date*
Mhyeah right, right... :D

Platapus

04-01-17, 05:47 PM

I would think that today would be a most appropriate day for news stories about Trump.

Mr Quatro

04-01-17, 07:42 PM

Well there was one April Fool's joke today that came to my attention ... in fact I still wonder if it's true.

Breaking: NFL will force Stephen Ross to sell the Miami Dolphins
Read more at http://cover32.com/2017/04/01/breaking-nfl-will-force-stephen-ross-sell-miami-dolphins/#t34YBRvh3KZKmrhI.99

Miami Dolphins owner forced to sell his team due to being against the Raiders moving to Las Vegas

em2nought

04-01-17, 10:22 PM

Dear Europe, there are no true Americans that trust the mainstream media anymore. We would more likely believe what we read in Pravda if you could still read it. Don't judge support for Trump based on our mainstream media. lol
http://www.hangthebankers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CIA-hackers-Russia-WikiLeaks-Vault-7-Scooby-Doo.jpg

Nippelspanner

04-02-17, 05:34 AM

Don't judge support for Trump based on our mainstream media. lol

Can't and won't speak for others - Europeans ot not - but who says people are doing so?
Personally, I judge people based on what they:
A) Want
B) say and
C) do

If you know a better, more secure, more accurate and reliant way, I'm all ears.
Maybe reading trustworthy sources like Breitbart?

PS: What's a "true American"?

ikalugin

04-02-17, 07:55 AM

How do you determine what a person wants?

Skybird

04-02-17, 07:57 AM

Who said Putin has no sense of humour? :D

http://www.dw.com/en/moscow-pulls-an-april-fools-joke-on-hacking-scandal/a-38255204

Platapus

04-02-17, 09:20 AM

PS: What's a "true American"?

It is a variation of the "No True Scotsman" logic fallacy.. and not even a clever one at that.

eddie

04-02-17, 04:28 PM

The Brits will bet on anything,lol Even making bets involving Trump!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/are-folks-gambling-like-crazy-on-trump-bet-on-it/ar-BBzbxum

Bilge_Rat

04-03-17, 11:14 AM

the surveillance scandal is starting to close in on Obama.

Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser is the White House official that was reading the raw intelligence spying reports on the Trump transition team AND asking for the names of U.S. citizens to be unmasked so she could identify them:

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The spying seems to have been done to obtain political information on what the Trump administration was planning to do:

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

It also appears that the reason Nunes went to the White House was to review Susan Rice's log with the requests to "unmask" names:

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

Was Susan Rice doing this on her own? did she keep Obama in the dark? unlikely. Rice would most likely have told Obama exactly what she knew and did this on his orders or with her blessing.

This is political espionage pure and simple.

Buddahaid

04-03-17, 11:23 AM

"...according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly...."

Then this is little better than hearsay.

August

04-03-17, 01:09 PM

Was Susan Rice doing this on her own? did she keep Obama in the dark?

Plausible Deniability. I'd think thre is no way will we find Obamas personal fingerprints on this.

"...according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly...."

Then this is little better than hearsay.

You're right. Time will tell I guess. On the other hand if true it's pretty explosive news.

Mr Quatro

04-03-17, 01:12 PM

even Bernie Sanders knows the truth ... all of this Russian stuff is a waste of time.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/92207166-e2bb-3bb1-a314-a9cfd9edb786/bernie-sanders-says-trump.html
Politics:Bernie Sanders Says Trump Voters Not ‘Deplorables,’ Hillary Clinton to Blame for Election Loss

Donald Trump supporters are not racist “deplorables” and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are to blame for November’s shock election defeat: So said Clinton’s defeated primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders

What month or even what year will be last time we hear about the Trump/Russian campaign that caused the DNC to lose?

Platapus

04-03-17, 02:43 PM

I am glad they are investigating this.

August

04-03-17, 03:00 PM

I'm waiting for the Russians to bring up how much meddling we've done to their political system over the years.

ikalugin

04-03-17, 03:01 PM

I'm waiting for the Russians to bring up how much meddling we've done to their political system over the years.
You mean on this forum or on the news?

August

04-03-17, 03:09 PM

You mean on this forum or on the news?

I meant in the news.

ikalugin

04-03-17, 03:12 PM

I meant in the news.
We spin it as internal US thing we have nothing to do with.

Platapus

04-03-17, 03:42 PM

If, and that is still a yuge if, the Russians interfered with our election, I wonder what law did they violate?

Spreading information/disinformation, even if it is the truth, may be a cruddy thing for them to do, but is it illegal?

Platapus

04-03-17, 03:56 PM

It appears that president Trump had donated his first quarter's presidential pay to the National Park Service.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/03/donald-trump-donates-salary-national-park-service-first-quarter-2017

Good for him! He said he was not going to accept his pay, and it looks like he is following through with it.

I was not aware it was legal to donate it to any specific agency other than The Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

August

04-03-17, 07:23 PM

I was not aware it was legal to donate it to any specific agency other than The Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

If not there is tomorrows headline. Then again it might be a little awkward to spin him into a monster for donating his pay to a good cause.

vienna

04-04-17, 12:03 AM

the surveillance scandal is starting to close in on Obama.

Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser is the White House official that was reading the raw intelligence spying reports on the Trump transition team AND asking for the names of U.S. citizens to be unmasked so she could identify them:

The spying seems to have been done to obtain political information on what the Trump administration was planning to do:

It also appears that the reason Nunes went to the White House was to review Susan Rice's log with the requests to "unmask" names:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

Was Susan Rice doing this on her own? did she keep Obama in the dark? unlikely. Rice would most likely have told Obama exactly what she knew and did this on his orders or with her blessing.

This is political espionage pure and simple.

It looks like the FBI is ramping up its investigation of the Russian influence on the US elections and the possible connections to Trump campaign associates; they are forming a special section solely to deal with the investigation:

https://www.ft.com/content/40498d94-155b-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

In an appearance on Wednesday night before an industry group, Mr Comey declined to discuss the investigation. But he said the FBI would follow the facts without regard for potential political consequences. “We’re not on anybody’s side, ever,” he said. “We’re not considering whose ox will be gored. We just don’t care.”An interesting observation from another article on the same subject:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-turns-heat-russian-election-162300405.html

The Fox report on Saturday said that the “unmasking” was done at the request of a senior figure in the Intelligence Community. That, too sent trump to Twitter, to claim he had been “spied on” by the Obama administration. “If this is true, does not get much bigger. Would be sad for U.S.,” he wrote.

On Monday morning, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake wrote a story suggesting the unmasking of Trump associates in dozens of reports containing accounts of conversations between Trump associates and foreign actors came at the request of then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

According to Lake, “One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.”

This would dovetail with Trump’s repeated claim that he was placed under surveillance for political reasons. However, it also raises a fairly obvious question: If this information was gathered for a political hit on Trump during the election year -- something that would be a stunning abuse of power -- why did nothing emerge given that it’s now clear that there were multiple contacts between the Trump team and Russian officials during the campaign?

An alternative explanation is that Rice, as President Obama’s National Security Adviser, had been informed that there was an active FBI investigation into the Russian meddling and the potential connection between the Kremlin and the Trump team and that she wanted to stay abreast of what intelligence agencies were finding.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

<O>

vienna

04-04-17, 01:41 AM

A couple of interesting editorials in the Los Angeles Times (two of four in a series):

Our Dishonest President:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

Why Trump Lies:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/

More to come...

<O>

Nippelspanner

04-04-17, 02:08 AM

Great read so far.
I'd love to hear what the Trump supporters active in this thread think about it.

August

04-04-17, 07:37 AM

We'll see who wins this dog fight.

https://spectator.org/the-media-gives-short-schiff-to-obamagate/

It is slowly dawning on some in the media, including David Ignatius, the Washington Post reporter who served as a stenographer for leaking Obama embeds, that this story is moving in Trump’s direction. Ignatius had to make this point gingerly, lest he incur the wrath of his liberal confreres, but he made it (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-april-2-2017-haley-cornyn-king/) nonetheless on Face the Nation:So under existing surveillance orders, the United States is listening to all kinds of diplomats, intelligence officials around the world under various authorities. And when that collection picks up incidentally the names of Americans, Joe Russia happens to be calling Joe America, Joe America’s name is typically minimized. It’s — it’s masked so that that person’s privacy is — is protected. In — in certain circumstances when it’s necessary to understand who the conversation is — was between, the name is unmasked and then if — if there’s a — a legal investigation beyond that, there — there — there are even more reasons.
What’s happened this month is that what initially seemed a preposterous argument by Donald Trump, that he had been wiretapped by President Obama illegally, has morphed into an argument about privacy, about proper masking techniques, a very technical, legal issue, and is now accepted, I think, as part of the mainstream set of issues that are going to be debated by the two intelligence committees. And from — from Trump’s standpoint, that’s, I think you’d have to say, that’s a success. It may be a pyrrhic victory for Nunes, whose — whose credibility, the ability to lead the committee, is radically compromised, but that’s now in the center stage.
Eli Lake, the columnist for Bloomberg who reported on the Rice revelation (Cernovich says that Bloomberg also sat on the story until he broke it), said to the displeasure of the comically biased Katy Tur, “This is troubling what happened here.” That is not what Tur wanted to hear. She quickly tried to change the subject and later made the preposterous argument that the focus on Susan Rice helps Russia.
In other words, no one is supposed to notice that one government did interfere in the U.S. election — ours. For months and months, the Obama administration was spying on Trump and leaking hints of its investigation to the press in the hopes of helping Hillary, who, by the way, colluded in the effort. Yet even the ruthless partisan Adam Schiff can’t “definitively” cite a single proof of collusion on Trump’s part, as he reluctantly acknowledged on Sunday. Given all the spying and leaking on Trump, wouldn’t we know by now if they had any evidence of collusion?
To say that Trump in this matter is more sinned against than sinning is an understatement. He was the blatant victim of political espionage and criminal leaking by the Obama administration, then when he complained about it, he was smeared anew. Two questions have swirled around this story: Did the Obama administration spy on Trump? Did Trump collude with the Russians? The answers are yes and no. The media wanted the answers to be no and yes. So now their game is to pretend like they didn’t ask the questions or that the “real story” is Trump’s imprecise tweeting. Notice that almost every story on the Rice revelation begins with throat-clearing about how it doesn’t “vindicate Trump’s tweet,” as if grading him on a tweet, in which he was clearly using wire-tapping as a synonym for spying and investigating, is the most pressing concern here.

Rockstar

04-04-17, 07:44 AM

President Obama to Mitt Romney: "...when you were asked what's the biggest geo-politicial threat facing America, you said Russia... The 1980s are now calling and asking for their foreign policy back. Because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

vienna

04-04-17, 08:06 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Those who have no guilt will fear no investigation. So far, the only people trying to avoid or squelch any investigations are the Trump associates, the GOP, and Trump himself. I have heard of no open attempts by any others to stop an investigation. Look at it this way: if you were the President, or any of the other actors involved and you knew the charges were false, wouldn't it be far more advantageous to allow the proceedings to continue and emerge vindicated? Not only would your own record be clean, you would also have the pleasure of seeing your detractors and accusers humiliated in the public eye. Think back to the Clinton impeachment: Clinton was probably guilty of some transgressions, but not enough to warrant removal from office; the GOP mounted a grand, ludicrous spectacle of a 'trial' (including the sight of the Chief Justice of SCOTUS donning a robe design lifted from, somewhat appropriately, a Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera); the 'trial' was so farcical, by the time it was nearing an end, fully three-quarters of Americans polled wanted the whole thing stopped. The GOP came out of the affair looking like fools and lost a considerable amount of political capital in the eyes of voters. The GOP now should flip the theme on the DEMs: if there is no basis in fact to any of the allegations, let the investigations go on and just wait for vindication, leaving the DEMs to suffer public humiliation; the GOP would raise their standing in the public eye (something they sorely need) and could garner a few more seats in Congress. It's just a form of political "rope-a dope"; let your opponent exhaust themselves and, when they have weakened themselves, give them the knockout punch and walk away with the win and the championship...

But, right now, it looks like the GOP are the "dopes", flailing and throwing punches that miss their mark, acting like punch-drunk club fighters, and exhausting themselves in the eyes of the public. They are not acting like people who are confident of their stance and of their innocence; they are acting like furtive, fearful, guilt-ridden children who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and are desperate to deflect blame to anyone but themselves. If some one acts like they're guilty, odds are they usually are guilty...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 10:27 AM

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...

<O>

True, what Susan Rice did MAY be innocent, just like it MAY be political espionage. What we really need is an investigation which will happen since multiple congressmen and senators are now asking that Rice's role be investigated.

Rand Paul wants her brought before Congress so she can be asked under oath what Obama knew and when did he know it.

to be followed

Bilge_Rat

04-04-17, 10:38 AM

Rockstar

04-04-17, 10:44 AM

"Those without guilt will not fear an investigation.". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over!

That statement is wrong on so many levels it makes me want to vomit. Can you articulate any suspicion WHY there needs to be an investigation? Do you have any probable cause or evidence that would lead one to believe a crime has been committed? Because as our own American history has shown any investigation called for or conducted without those things amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition, a public spectacle and ultimately leads to a national embarrassment.

But if you think its OK to begin an investigation without anyone being able to articulate thier suspicion, develop probable cause or present any evidence. You wouldnt mind then if the government investigates you for collusion, fraud, or un-American behavior and activities would you?

Though I dont have any evidence as of yet, I need to fish for err... I mean investigate your past. I just want to know who you have spoken with and what the subject matter was to discover any possibilities you might have been or are now engaged in un-American activities.

But dont worry Vienna just remember your own words if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about, OK? Nothing to fear as I go about investigating your past, your friends and tarnish your good name. Oh, and I'll have to open your private life to the public too and publish it all on front page news feeds. You see we dont use courts or rules of law anymore to determine guilt all I need to find you guilty these days is a simple majority public consensus. Then I can act with their permission and sentence you.