Jump to content

64 Ways Obama is Sabotaging Trump


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, blackbird said:
37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because the

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict and a blowhard. I could not care less what he has to say on any subject and wouldn't trust him if he told me the weather. Why would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:
 

It's true as this article on WND says.  I think it should be obvious the protests were NOT just random grass-roots protests.  They were well organized. 

Grassroots protests can be well organized. And even if that weren't possible and Obama and George Soros were secretly organizing them, so what? They are allowed to participate legally in the democracy however they wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Grassroots protests can be well organized. And even if that weren't possible and Obama and George Soros were secretly organizing them, so what? They are allowed to participate legally in the democracy however they wish.

Because if you read the 64 Ways ..    it shows there is an organized and professional effort  by certain key operatives underway to attack the government and eventually bring down Trump.   MSM doesn't report this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2017 at 0:37 PM, BubberMiley said:

Grassroots protests can be well organized. And even if that weren't possible and Obama and George Soros were secretly organizing them, so what? They are allowed to participate legally in the democracy however they wish.

"

Quote

 

WASHINGTON – It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate. “Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.  The source also told the paper that Obama loathes President Trump and considers his presidency illegitimate  .“Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy – Obamacare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,” the source told the paper.


 


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#vopt5I4dS7SHEo8p.99"

This is unprecedented.  Setting up a Operations centre to oppose a democratically elected president, not for the democratic purpose of preparing for the next election, but for the purpose of using every strategy possible to bring the government down by questionable means.  Whether any of this is legal or not, I am not a lawyer and couldn't answer that question.  It certainly sounds sinister.  In taking the view Trump is an illegitimate president they are disrespecting the democratic system and the outcome of the election.  The democratic system is supposed to operate in the elected Congress and Senate.

"28) The manual advised protesters to spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposed the Republican host’s positions. It said, “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urged them to ask “hostile” questions – while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” – and loudly boo the GOP politician.

Edited by Michael Hardner
added quotes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 The democratic system is supposed to operate in the elected Congress and Senate.

Citizens are legally allowed to organize and try to influence policy, including ex-presidents. There's nothing unprecedented about that. Nevertheless, Obama has nothing to do with the FBI's investigation into Trump's treason. That's on Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Citizens are legally allowed to organize and try to influence policy, including ex-presidents. There's nothing unprecedented about that. Nevertheless, Obama has nothing to do with the FBI's investigation into Trump's treason. That's on Trump.

Trump is not being investigated for treason.  That's fake.

If you read the 64 Ways, you will see that the tactics  which are being organized by the activists are undemocratic and anarchist.  Taken from manuals of anarchists.   Planting radicals in what are supposed to be grass roots meetings of constituents for the purpose of creating chaos and disruption of meetings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

There have been claims for months by some democrats that there was collusion between the Russians and Trump team during the election campaign.  As a result of such claims, there is an ongoing investigation by authorities such as FBI, but they are investigating because they are required to investigate any allegations.  It doesn't mean or prove there is anything in it.    Democrats know that if they can keep investigations going, they get some propaganda value out of it.   That's the nature of the system.  I doubt it will find that the Trump team was working with the Russians to defeat Hillary and the Democrats.       This is not an investigation for treason.  There is such allegation except maybe by some extremists.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This is not an investigation for treason.  There is such allegation except maybe by some extremists.

The FBI isn't a political organization (unless it's reporting on Hillary's emails just before an election). It doesn't take orders from the Democratic party and it doesn't investigate things because a political party is complaining about something. It starts an investigation when there is an indication that there may have been illegal acts commited, such as treasonous collusion with a foreign government to subvert the democratic process. Just the fact that there is an investigation ongoing is very, very bad. If there was an investigation into treason by Hillary, you would already be calling for a firing squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict and a blowhard. I could not care less what he has to say on any subject and wouldn't trust him if he told me the weather. Why would you?

Just looked him up on Google.  He is a well-known entertainer, conservative talk-show host and writer.  He has written many books.     Your opposition to him probably stems more from disagreeing with what he says.   I don't know if there is any truth that he is a drug addict.  Blowhard is a subjective term.  Depends on your point of view.  Talk show hosts who speak forcefully are the ones who get big audiences.  It's part of the job.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The FBI isn't a political organization (unless it's reporting on Hillary's emails just before an election). It doesn't take orders from the Democratic party and it doesn't investigate things because a political party is complaining about something. It starts an investigation when there is an indication that there may have been illegal acts commited, such as treasonous collusion with a foreign government to subvert the democratic process. Just the fact that there is an investigation ongoing is very, very bad. If there was an investigation into treason by Hillary, you would already be calling for a firing squad.

No,   I wouldn't take it as seriously as you.   I don't believe such claims.   It's way too far fetched.   It won't go anywhere.  Only a diehard democrat would believe that kind of stuff.  The Russians did not effect the outcome of the election and nobody said they did.  If they can't effect the election, why would there be any collusion?  It just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No,   I wouldn't take it as seriously as you.   I don't believe such claims.   It's way too far fetched.   It won't go anywhere.  Only a diehard democrat would believe that kind of stuff.  The Russians did not effect the outcome of the election and nobody said they did.  If they can't effect the election, why would there be any collusion?  It just doesn't make sense.

How could the illegal leak of the emails, which was the centrepiece of discussion throughout the campaign, not have affected the result? That's all anyone talked about. That doesn't make any sense. 

But I would have agreed it was far fetched until Trump denied that Russia was responsible during the debate. Then I realized he was colluding with them. He would have had no reason to defend them otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of the behavior of some that oppose Trump is the thugs the operate among protesters.  In Berkley, California they banned a pro Trump speaker from speaking on campus by rioting and destroying some property.  How many cars have been burned since Trump was elected and how many streets have been illegally blocked and people intimidated by these masked thugs.  Ask yourself why so many are wearing masks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

A good example of the behavior of some that oppose Trump is the thugs the operate among protesters.   

I suppose you could take that stand, but the corollary is that all of the reprehensible activities by pro-Trump groups has to stick to them.

I don't think it's helpful to condemn people solely based on which side they support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/18/2017 at 5:20 PM, blackbird said:

I thought you were a "defender of the right", as your info says.  You can't be a defender of the right and be a leftist at the same.

Keep in mind that the "right wing" is not some monolithic entity that always has the exact same attitudes on every single issue. There can be variations, depending on how a person prioritizes certain policies. (e.g. a right wing person may want to cut taxes, and the deficit and increase military spending, but often those policies run contradictory to each other. Trump has proposed cutting taxes and increasing military spending, but the ultimate effect will be to drive up the deficit.)

Its also possible for someone to be a conservative, but still favor some social programs that help the less fortunate.

Plus, it should be pointed out that many of Trump's policies may not actually BE right wing. For example, free trade is something that generally the right wing has favored in recent history, but Trump's populist anti-NAFTA/anti-TPP policies actually seem to go against conservative/republican ideals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Plus, it should be pointed out that many of Trump's policies may not actually BE right wing. For example, free trade is something that generally the right wing has favored in recent history, but Trump's populist anti-NAFTA/anti-TPP policies actually seem to go against conservative/republican ideals.

There you are. I thought you might have died. 

" conservative/republican ideals" have always been highly protectionist. That is pretty much the history of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There you are. I thought you might have died. 

" conservative/republican ideals" have always been highly protectionist. That is pretty much the history of the USA.

Note that in my post I specifically said conservatives/republicans were for free trade in recent history.

It is true... in the early 20th century it tended to be the left-wing/liberals that favored free trade. But that shifted in the middle part of the last century, and the 2 groups ended up changing sides, with the left-wing becoming more protectionist and the right-wing becoming more pro-trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Note that in my post I specifically said conservatives/republicans were for free trade in recent history.

It is true... in the early 20th century it tended to be the left-wing/liberals that favored free trade. But that shifted in the middle part of the last century, and the 2 groups ended up changing sides, with the left-wing becoming more protectionist and the right-wing becoming more pro-trade.

There is no right wing/left wing in the US. It is all right wing and further right wing and crazy, nutty out of this world right wing. I know that you could easily think of people who fit in each category

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

There is no right wing/left wing in the US. It is all right wing and further right wing and crazy, nutty out of this world right wing. I know that you could easily think of people who fit in each category

And even easier think of their left wing counterparts here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to tell u guys things were going on under Obama and now u can believe or still say tinfoil.                                                        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Topaz said:

I tried to tell u guys things were going on under Obama and now u can believe or still say tinfoil.                                                        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html          

Just wondering what exactly you think that article says? It certainly doesn't support the myth that Obama was deliberately spying on Trump and/or having his phone tapped.

What it does say is that Trump associates were caught up in surveilance of foreign officials. (That article doesn't mention Russia, but I suspect they were referring to Russian contacts.) The only thing new/different about this particular piece is the fact that it indicates Rice wanted to "unmask" the names of those people, whereas normally that information is redacted. If Trump associates WERE collaborating with Russian agents, I suspect people would have wanted to know before the election.

ETA: The article even gives some situations where such unmasking is allowed: they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. I suspect having a major political figure collaborating with a foreign government in order to get power might be considered an issue of "national security".

I find it rather telling that the article doesn't mention Russia at all (the likely people that the Trump associates would have been speaking with), and spends more time talking about Rice's supposed scandals/mistakes rather than questioning why these Trump people were caught meeting suspected Russian agents in the first place.

Edited by segnosaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many days has Obama been sabotaging Trump?

In your opinion how many days will he continue sabotaging?

Can Bush help Trump in his fight against Obama? Bush is also a former president. Why not?

On which side are reptiloids in this war? Rotshilds, Rockafellas?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bonus said:

Can Bush help Trump in his fight against Obama? Bush is also a former president. Why not?

Probably not. I know you were probably joking about at least some stuff in your posting, but Bush is more likely to oppose Trump than support him.

Supposedly, during Trump's innaguration speech, Bush was heard to say "That was some weird... stuff" (substituting stuff for another word.) He's also been critical of several of Trump's actions, like his attacks on the media.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/31/bush-trumps-inauguration-weird-sht/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/george-w-bush-criticism-trump.html?_r=0

I'm not saying Bush was a great president (I can certainly see many flaws in his administration.) But despite his blunders, at least he didn't contribute to the racial conflicts like Trump is doing. (Does anyone remember that after 9/11, one of Bush's first acts was to visit a Mosque... as sort of an acknowledgement that while the terrorists involved were 9/11 were muslims, they did not represent the views of ALL or even a majority of muslims, and instead represent only a radical fringe. I doubt you would get Trump doing the same thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...