kimmy Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 I keep asking, why is anybody surprised that Trump would appear in surveillance when he brought all these Russian-connected operatives into his inner circle? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Well, we already knew that Obama spied/wiretapped Chancellor Merkel and other foreign leaders, so it is not surprising. Former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden already explained how U.S, citizens are routinely caught in intelligence intercepts. The practical and political problem is that Donald Trump, now the sitting president, has the resources and access to blow the lid off of the entire game. The lid has been blown off all of that for quite some time. As I recall, most conservatives were calling for the guy who did so to face charges of treason at the time. And that was for exposing warrantless surveillance of Americans. Why would anyone assume that surveillance of people like Manafort, Flynn, Carter Page, or Rick Gates would be done without warrant? -k 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 On 3/17/2017 at 6:18 PM, OftenWrong said: It's a fair question. I will try to provide the answer for you- In 2012, Flynn got the biggest promotion available to a military intelligence guy: director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon’s in-house intelligence agency. President Obama personally appointed Flynn to the job, and tasked him with reforming the agency. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12129202/michael-flynn-vice-president-donald-trump Seems this Flynn guy has been advising presidents for a while. Flynn may have been viewed as hot stuff in 2012, but in 2014 he got booted from the job because he just wasn't very good at it. Since then, he's a paid lobbyist and "consultant" for foreign governments, and a regular guest of the Russian propaganda organ "Russia Today". Leaving aside Flynn, what about other Russian-connected individuals Trump brought into his circle? Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Rick Gates? All just coincidence? -k 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 9 hours ago, kimmy said: I keep asking, why is anybody surprised that Trump would appear in surveillance when he brought all these Russian-connected operatives into his inner circle? -k The big belly laugh happens after Trump tweets that Obama tapped his phone, and then every Republican does a massive backstretch to say it meant that Trump campaign folks were caught on tape when US intelligence was taping RUSSIANS. I saw a Tweet saying that Trump threw Ryan under the bus so maybe the grand artist of deals is close to putting his fingerpaints away for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 9 hours ago, kimmy said: What's the rush? The Republicans were content to let Scalia's seat go vacant for 10 months waiting for the election. Surely it can stay vacant for a little longer while the Russia mess gets investigated. Why on earth would the Democrats be afraid of anything Roger Stone has to say? If he had anything damaging to the Democrats, he would have spilled it long ago. Roger Stone was part of the Republican campaign, and a Trump advisor. Roger Stone has also bragged about having contacts with "Guccifer 2.0", the hacker who claims to have hacked the Democrats last summer. Roger Stone claimed to have discuss the hacks with "Guccifer". Roger Stone also bragged about having "back channel access" to WikiLeaks. There are only 3 possibilities here: A ) Roger Stone is a big fat liar. B ) Roger Stone is the link between the Republican campaign and the hacking of the Democrats. C ) both A and B are true. Either B or C would be extremely bad news for the Republicans. So if anybody is worried about Roger Stone, it's you-know-who. Who knows what might come out of Stone's twitter account next time he goes on a bender? If Stone has any "accidents" in the near future, it's not the Democrats you should be looking at. -k Roger Stone says has documents to prove everything he knows and he can prove he has had nothing to do with Russia except talking to that contract u mentioned. I don't think he would come out and say he wants to testify to clear himself if he didn't have evidence to do so. Now he will do that because he has been called to testify but if the Dems change direction of the next week, they may not let him do it. BTW, did u know the NSA employee who leaked the truth about Clinton and the Bernie election where Bernie supporters who voted for Bernie , computers ended up giving it to Clinton. The leaker was found dead, shot in the head, and no money or personal items taken. Wikileaks and You Tube has this exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 24, 2017 Report Share Posted March 24, 2017 16 hours ago, kimmy said: For the past 6 years people accused Obama of being unable to negotiate because he couldn't make deals with the Tea Partyists in Congress. Now that the so-called Freedom Caucus have pledged to kill "Trumpcare" because it's not draconian enough for their liking, it appears that maybe it wasn't Obama who couldn't make deals, maybe it was these Tea Partyists. -k I've been saying that for a while. The Tea Party, which is calling itself the Freedom Caucus, is an uncompromising group. You can't make democracy work without compromise. How you can actually get on TV and tell people how the American people need to be freed from having health care is beyond me, but I'm not an American crazy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cum Laude Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 21 hours ago, kimmy said: I keep asking, why is anybody surprised that Trump would appear in surveillance when he brought all these Russian-connected operatives into his inner circle? -k The dynamic between spectator and participant has always been interesting, from sports to politics, from psychological projection to the emotional. It’s inherent within the spectator to analyze and criticize. Could the spectator do better, does he really want to be the participant? I’m sure that at times, and to some extent, he thinks he can and he does. I don’t have any real political power besides my vote. I think that Mr. Kunstler has much more than any of us here, and that he exercises it fairly well. Who here wouldn’t like to have his voice? But here, Our voices are also heard, and we become more the participant, less the spectator. We can learn, but we also may be able to teach a bit. Trump is now The Participant in Pandemonium, and we, Spectators in and of the Swamp. To many, his journey has been more emotional than intellectual. What about our comments here? Aren’t many based on bare emotion, clothed in diaphanous intellectual raiment? Who knows what this flawed man foreshadows. Remember, the rich became richer under Obama also. But did he promote our sense of nation and make it safe? The answer is an obvious no. Health care itself is both an intellectual and emotional issue. How do we, the public, fit in? We have become victims instead of participants, also spectators watching ever increasing costs far out in the bleachers. Sure, the free market and profit are the roads to better health care. For the rich, yes. The bullshit coming out of Ryan’s mouth is near intolerable. Is Russia just a stalking horse being used by the Dems? Who knows. But I’d rather strong ties between Trump and Putin than Putin and Xi Jinping, with us left out. The swamp is now above my waders, but I’ve become more than just a spectator to the rising murk, somewhat consoled by the other participants around me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 These ads aired yesterday in a number of cities, celebrating the passage of the healthcare bill that didn't actually pass. The ads were bought before the bill got killed, so it's an understandable mistake, but the content of the ad is equally funny, as the dead bill actually did very little of what the ad claimed it would. It's like they took the parts of Obamacare that people actually like, and told them that they're in the new bill, even though they aren't, so that people wouldn't get mad at them. Reminder: these guys have been saying for 8 years that they've got a better plan than Obamacare. ...and they still can't figure out what that plan actually is. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, kimmy said: Reminder: these guys have been saying for 8 years that they've got a better plan than Obamacare. ...and they still can't figure out what that plan actually is. -k There's something in this that actually favours Trump, sort of. He relied on politicians and political strategists to put this thing together, and tried to use his deal-making in a massive multiplayer landscape and it failed. This *could* spur him to: - Engage different strategists to put together a real compromise that includes moderates, after all there are more moderate Democrats than Freedom Caucus people - Ignore the FC - Open up the field of possibilities to something that politicians might hate, but others might like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said: Roger Stone says has documents to prove everything he knows and he can prove he has had nothing to do with Russia except talking to that contract u mentioned. Which is A PRETTY BIG DEAL. It's a definitive link between the Trump campaign and the hacks on the DNC. I assume Stone didn't know that his contact "Guccifer 2.0" was actually a group of Russian government hackers. If he did know, then it's even worse. If Stone did know that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian operation, I doubt Stone would have been bragging about his contacts. I expect Stone just thought Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian hacker, as Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to be. And that's the one saving grace for Stone in all of this. If he didn't know, he got played like a sucker. If he did know, he conspired with a foreign government to influence the election. Personally, I think he is a sucker who got played. And for the people in the Trump campaign, they can only hope that Stone doesn't connect anybody else with the WikiLeaks/Guccifer stuff. "We had no idea what Stone was doing. We weren't involved in any of that. That was Stone, and only Stone." I still can't figure out why you think the Democrats are scared of anything Stone might say. They're the ones hoping he incriminates other members of the Trump campaign. People in the Trump campaign are the ones worried about what he might say. On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said: Roger Stone says has documents to prove everything he knows and he can prove he has had nothing to do with Russia except talking to that contract u mentioned. I don't think he would come out and say he wants to testify to clear himself if he didn't have evidence to do so. Now he will do that because he has been called to testify but if the Dems change direction of the next week, they may not let him do it. The Republicans are the ones who want this thing kept quiet. The (Republican) chairman of the hearings, Devin Nunes, has already decided that next weeks hearings will be closed-door. On 3/24/2017 at 4:55 AM, Topaz said: BTW, did u know the NSA employee who leaked the truth about Clinton and the Bernie election where Bernie supporters who voted for Bernie , computers ended up giving it to Clinton. The leaker was found dead, shot in the head, and no money or personal items taken. Wikileaks and You Tube has this exposed. What in the blazes are you even talking about?? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 19 hours ago, Cum Laude said: The dynamic between spectator and participant has always been interesting, from sports to politics, from psychological projection to the emotional. It’s inherent within the spectator to analyze and criticize. Could the spectator do better, does he really want to be the participant? I’m sure that at times, and to some extent, he thinks he can and he does. Are you saying "yeah, well, do you think you could do better?" Whether I (or you or the rest of us on the forum) could do better is irrelevant. However, there are lots of people who I do think could do better. Many of them are in Trump's own party. 19 hours ago, Cum Laude said: Trump is now The Participant in Pandemonium, and we, Spectators in and of the Swamp. Trump, like you and me, is a spectator who looked at the job and declared "I could do way better!" And unlike you and me lacked the sense to know that it's not as easy as it looks. Now a couple of months into the job he's declaring "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated!" ...actually, everybody knew that, except for him apparently. 19 hours ago, Cum Laude said: Who knows what this flawed man foreshadows. Remember, the rich became richer under Obama also. But did he promote our sense of nation and make it safe? The answer is an obvious no. The rich and the banks and the largest corporations all did extremely well under Obama, and I think it's Obama's greatest failing that the rest of America didn't do nearly as well. I strongly expect that situation will get worse, not better under the Trump administration. 19 hours ago, Cum Laude said: Health care itself is both an intellectual and emotional issue. How do we, the public, fit in? We have become victims instead of participants, also spectators watching ever increasing costs far out in the bleachers. Sure, the free market and profit are the roads to better health care. For the rich, yes. The bullshit coming out of Ryan’s mouth is near intolerable. Well, agreed on the Paul Ryan part, at least. His failed healthcare bill was little more than a big tax-cut for rich-people. But if that's how you feel, why are you such an avid Trump supporter? Trump's whole agenda is devoted to generating more corporate profits and lower taxes for the wealthy. Despite a lot of lip-service about helping the "little guy", there's nothing actually there. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: There's something in this that actually favours Trump, sort of. He relied on politicians and political strategists to put this thing together, and tried to use his deal-making in a massive multiplayer landscape and it failed. This *could* spur him to: - Engage different strategists to put together a real compromise that includes moderates, after all there are more moderate Democrats than Freedom Caucus people - Ignore the FC - Open up the field of possibilities to something that politicians might hate, but others might like Mr "The Art Of The Deal" was out yesterday blaming Democrats for not supporting his bill, ignoring the fact that his party has a majority in the House of Representatives, and he couldn't even get enough of his own party to support his bill. If he was willing to bend far enough to create a bill acceptable to Democrats, how much more of his own party would turn against him? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 Just now, kimmy said: If he was willing to bend far enough to create a bill acceptable to Democrats, how much more of his own party would turn against him? I don't think it was his strategy to begin with. Ryan told him this would work but it didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 "Nobody knew healthcare would be so complicated" The only question I have is whether the embarrassment and ideological mud fight that has landed will spur Trump to actually get out of politics and start making deals... or whether he'll just detach more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 25, 2017 Report Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, kimmy said: Reminder: these guys have been saying for 8 years that they've got a better plan than Obamacare. ...and they still can't figure out what that plan actually is. -k Ex speaker John Boehner was quoted on one of the US networks the other day that in his 25 years on the hill the Republican Party had never achieved any consensus on what they believed health care should look like or how much government should be involved in it. Edited March 25, 2017 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: "Nobody knew healthcare would be so complicated" The only question I have is whether the embarrassment and ideological mud fight that has landed will spur Trump to actually get out of politics and start making deals... or whether he'll just detach more. When the Health Care thing started I wondered how it was possible for Donald Trump to come up with a new plan in such a short time after he was elected, considering how complicated such a plan is. It turns out that this is not actually his plan. The media has made references to "Trumpcare" but in recent days I see references to "Ryancare". It turns out that the Republican party has been calling for a repeal of Obamacare for 7 years. The revised plan was developed some time ago and put forward by the GOP/ Ryan for Donald Trump to present to Congress. I think this makes sense and shows a little about the inner workings of US politics... Trump is not necessarily an expert in health care policy, let alone legislation and the GOP has had plenty of time to develop their health care plan, long before the election. Donald Trump supported repealing Obamacare and when he became the president, stepped in to become the spokesman for the GOP plan, under advisement from Paul Ryan. Trump believed that the GOP knew what they were doing, as a CEO does he presented a plan that the party has been working for a long time. Certainly he would be upset that he followed advice of people he must regard as experts, and yet their failure made him look bad. Now the comment, "Nobody knew healthcare would be so complicated." makes sense. It might have even been a veiled sarcastic comment, as Trump and Ryan had serious disagreements during the campaign when Ryan heavily criticized and would not support Trump, and now after giving Ryan the benefit of the doubt this happens.LinkLink This further demonstrates that "alt-facts" given in media can still be facts, but are easily misinterpreted by omission of important information. On 2017-03-24 at 10:16 PM, OftenWrong said: Alternative facts can also be "true" when taken in a certain context, especially within the realm of politics. Mainstream facts can be lies, when they are presented as half-truths. It's not so much a problem with the information itself as what it means. It is easy for most people to react emotionally to a headline and splashy picture, but not easy to dig deeper and get all the facts in and think rationally. Edited March 26, 2017 by OftenWrong fixey linkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 26, 2017 Report Share Posted March 26, 2017 22 hours ago, kimmy said: Which is A PRETTY BIG DEAL. It's a definitive link between the Trump campaign and the hacks on the DNC. I assume Stone didn't know that his contact "Guccifer 2.0" was actually a group of Russian government hackers. If he did know, then it's even worse. If Stone did know that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian operation, I doubt Stone would have been bragging about his contacts. I expect Stone just thought Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian hacker, as Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to be. And that's the one saving grace for Stone in all of this. If he didn't know, he got played like a sucker. If he did know, he conspired with a foreign government to influence the election. Personally, I think he is a sucker who got played. And for the people in the Trump campaign, they can only hope that Stone doesn't connect anybody else with the WikiLeaks/Guccifer stuff. "We had no idea what Stone was doing. We weren't involved in any of that. That was Stone, and only Stone." I still can't figure out why you think the Democrats are scared of anything Stone might say. They're the ones hoping he incriminates other members of the Trump campaign. People in the Trump campaign are the ones worried about what he might say. The Republicans are the ones who want this thing kept quiet. The (Republican) chairman of the hearings, Devin Nunes, has already decided that next weeks hearings will be closed-door. What in the blazes are you even talking about?? -k What I'm talking about is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 16 hours ago, Topaz said: What I'm talking about is.... Ok, that's a ridiculous, and that guy talks like Kasey Kasem drank too much Nyquil. I couldn't make it through the whole video but I read about Seth Rich from several other sources and it's more of the same tin-foil hat lunacy from the same people who think Sandy Hook is fake and PizzaGate is real. But leaving aside how inane that is, you still haven't provided any motive why the Democrats would want to silence Roger Stone. Clearly they have every reason to want to hear what he has to say, because what he's already claimed is damaging to the Trump campaign. Clearly the Democrats aren't the ones with the a motive to silence him. And if he had magic information that would exonerate him or the Trump campaign, do you really think he'd be keeping it secret? That's nonsense. If he had such information, it would be blaring 24/7 from Fox News, Breitpravda, Daily Caller, and every other right-wing media outlet in America. Sean Hannity would have Roger Stone on his show every night if Roger Stone had any such information. You know he doesn't. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 5/6/2016 at 9:31 AM, Hal 9000 said: I think Trump is much smarter than people give him credit for. Smart for his own good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 6 hours ago, kimmy said: Ok, that's a ridiculous, and that guy talks like Kasey Kasem drank too much Nyquil. I couldn't make it through the whole video but I read about Seth Rich from several other sources and it's more of the same tin-foil hat lunacy from the same people who think Sandy Hook is fake and PizzaGate is real. But leaving aside how inane that is, you still haven't provided any motive why the Democrats would want to silence Roger Stone. Clearly they have every reason to want to hear what he has to say, because what he's already claimed is damaging to the Trump campaign. Clearly the Democrats aren't the ones with the a motive to silence him. And if he had magic information that would exonerate him or the Trump campaign, do you really think he'd be keeping it secret? That's nonsense. If he had such information, it would be blaring 24/7 from Fox News, Breitpravda, Daily Caller, and every other right-wing media outlet in America. Sean Hannity would have Roger Stone on his show every night if Roger Stone had any such information. You know he doesn't. -k Kimmy, I understand why u feel this way and u probably would have the some feeling if someone told u 9/11 was about to happen, so the only thing I can say to u is to wait for Stone to testify, if he's allowed to do in open session. BTW, Stone has been on a radio, hosted by one of the Fox host and he was on Sunday morning shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 3/21/2017 at 5:44 PM, Topaz said: Gallup has Trump approval at 37% Remember when the polls said he wouldn't be President? I take them with a grain of salt. Just in case it hasn't been discussed enough... The polls taken immediately before the election were actually very accurate... Clinton beat Trump by ~2% in the popular vote, whereas most opinion polls prior to the elect had Clinton's victory in the 1-4% range. Now, it is true that many political writers gave Trump little chance to win, but that was not the fault of the polls... it was a problem of bad analysis (in particular, concentrating on the federal popular vote rather than state polls that would have an effect on the electoral college.) In short, I think the polls are probably an accurate assessment (depending on the question that was actually asked in the poll.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 27, 2017 Report Share Posted March 27, 2017 On 3/26/2017 at 9:36 AM, OftenWrong said: When the Health Care thing started I wondered how it was possible for Donald Trump to come up with a new plan in such a short time after he was elected, considering how complicated such a plan is. That's the thing... most of those who opposed Trump didn't wonder how he could come up with a new plan in a short time, because we knew he was lying during the election when he said he was going to replace Obamacare with "something great". It turns out that this is not actually his plan. The media has made references to "Trumpcare" but in recent days I see references to "Ryancare". Yes, it is true... most of the withdraw health care bill was authored by people other than Trump. However: - Trump still supported the bill and claimed he was using his great negotiating skills to get people to support it. - If the bill was Ryan's, and Trump was campaigning throughout the election about how he had all these great health care plans, why didn't he present his own ideas rather than using Ryan's plan? Trump is not necessarily an expert in health care policy , Nor is he an expert in politics, nor is he an expert in business (as his multiple business failings show). This should be a warning to anyone who foolishly voted for Trump because he was "an outsider"... Bringing someone in to "shake things up" is not necessarily a good plan if their lack of skills and knowledge actually prevent anything useful from being done. Trump believed that the GOP knew what they were doing... Then Trump is an idiot. I'm not American, and even I knew that the republicans had no idea what they were doing, other than "Obama was evil so we must kill Obamacare". You would hope that the man elected to run the country would at least know enough about politics to realize that. Yet he still went along with the claim that he could quickly bring in a plan that was better. Certainly he would be upset that he followed advice of people he must regard as experts, and yet their failure made him look bad. By "made him look bad", do you mean "make trump look like the incompetent liar that he truly is"? It wasn't just the republican's failure, It was Trumps. Trump claimed he could easily replace Obamacare with something better. Trump ignored the lack of useful proposals coming from the republicans prior to the election. Trump actually got behind the bill. Perhaps if Trump wasn't so busy golfing every chance he gets, he could have looked at Health care and said "You know, maybe we'll just fix Obamacare". 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-approval-ratings-fall-record-low-obamacare-a7653071.html Trump's approval rating is record low now, at 36%. That's not as bad as I thought. I think it should start to go up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Trump's approval rating is record low now, at 36%. That's not as bad as I thought. I think it should start to go up again. Why do you think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 28, 2017 Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, dialamah said: Why do you think that? Well, the polls hit at the epitome of Trump's failure to close a deal. Seems to me that 36% will support him no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.