Forums Forums (
-   Politics (
-   -   Obama Wire Taps Trump (

CalHunter 03-07-2017 08:28 AM

I pretty much donate to anybody running against McCain as he is an absolute RINO and sellout. I don't have any use for Graham either.

As for the topic at hand (wiretapping), this entire spectacle seems like Obama is scared to death that his shenanigans are going to come out and is trying like heck to destabilize and obstruct Trump as President.

Like many of us have said before, Obama makes Carter look good. Hillary is evil and drove a stake through the heart of the Dem party in this last election with her defrauding Bernie in the nomination process. Although I think Hillary and Bill are somewhat involved in all of this protest crap, it honestly has Obama's fingerprints all over it. What do you do when you're a community agitator and are no longer President? Why stir up crap and protests in some self imploding way to try to make yourself still relevant.

Ranger77 03-07-2017 09:26 AM

there is no benefit to Trump lying about this

this is absolutely right in line with what the Democrats have done the past 12 months

Alsatian 03-07-2017 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Alsatian (Post 4296619)
By the way. I'm not taking the position above that the position of the media on Trump & Russian election interference is in some sense equally supported with Trump's allegation that the Obama administration wire tapped Trump tower. Unlike the case of the alleged involvement of the Trump campaign with Russians -- where there is no public evidence of either (1) the Trump campaign working with the Russians or (2) that the Russians DID interfere in the election. That is a point which is overlooked. Were IS the evidence the Russians interfered in the election? Did they or is that just a hair-brained theory of Democrats/Liberals/Obama deep-state administrators?

Just today Wikileaks has released a massive dump of CIA documents. One of the things I saw in passing was that somehow a lot of Russian hacking tools -- software -- has been outed and is available to many hackers. Thus, if you believe that story, ANYONE could have hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians. The basis of the judgment that it was Russia that hacked the DNC is that Russian hacking tools were used. If those tools were out in the open, there was no telling who actually used them to hack the DNC. This is very new information -- the Wikileaks dump of this story only came out today -- I don't know if this specific aspect of the story will hold up over time. It could be very significant, however. It IS still a question whether it was the Russians who hacked the DNC. This is the sole basis for the claim that Russians tampered in the election. Russia has steadfastly denied this all along. Wikileaks -- the source where the DNC emails were published from -- has steadfastly denied that Russia supplied the emails and that ANY foreign state supplied the emails for that matter. In my judgment -- and I have said this long in the past -- the best reputation for honesty among all these parties is that of Wikileaks. To my knowledge Wikileaks has NEVER been demonstrated to purvey bogus information, unlike just about every other source -- the US government, the Obama administration, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the Russians.

Bob H in NH 03-07-2017 11:39 AM

The problem is Trump ruined a plan that was in place 8+ years ago. Obama and Clinton ran for president, it was going to get ugly, one was going to break ground, first woman or first black president. Simply put, it was winner take all for history!

Or was it.....

As it fell out it was clear that it was going to be a long drawn out fight, meaning at least of, possibly 2 things:
1) For sure: whomever lost the nomination, Obama or Clinton, they were finished. There'd be no coming back from a nasty fight.

2) Possibly, given a nasty fight, the republicans might just win. Thereby ending BOTH and removing the chance to make history.

In steps Bill (my theory!): IF Hillary bows out before it gets nasty, Obama is a slam dunk win. Obama agrees to make Hillary Secretary of State, so that she gets un-challengeable exposure and experience and then 8 years later runs when Obama is done. They then BOTH make history!

In steps Trump. he throws a monkey wrench in, there by :
1) Taking Clinton's chance at history
2) Threatening Obama's place in history by exposing the crap he did
3) Actually runs the chance of exposing ALL of government and elected officials as idiots and sweeping in massive change.

So here we are, they have to either stop him via obstruction or let him fail. They don't believe for a second he will fail on his own, so they have to obstruct.

Alsatian 03-07-2017 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bob H in NH (Post 4296649)
So here we are, they have to either stop him via obstruction or let him fail. They don't believe for a second he will fail on his own, so they have to obstruct.

I think this is relatively on point. I think to some extent at least some of these forces lined up against Trump are independent of each other. For example, I think the "never Trump" people on the Republican side are in the hire -- or otherwise beholden to -- the political establishment and/or economic special interests. Trump is rocking the boat of that establishment, so the "never Trump" attack dogs are fighting him tooth and nail every way they can. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Will, Bill Kristol, others. At this point the argument that Trump is not conservative enough and hence "never Trump" is a viable position simply does not withstand scrutiny. Sorry gang, but frankly Trump lines up well on more conservative issues than most other Republicans.

I can imagine the kind of modus vivendi that Bob H in NH mentions, but it doesn't fully address the subject. The election is over. Hillary lost. That isn't going to change. What is in it now for either Obama or for Hillary -- in the context of their initial agreement? Dragging Trump through the mud is unrelated to that earlier plan, if there was such an arrangement of convenience.

I think it is arguable that there are two different armies on the march here and each with different objectives: an army of liberal/progressive/democrat soldiers and an army of Republican political establishment soldiers.

It is quite possible the liberal/progressive/democrat soldiers are fighting a desperate rear-guard action. If they fail, the Democrats become increasingly irrelevant to the vanishing point in our state and national governments. This sounds ludicrous, perhaps, but do bear in mind that Republicans hold 66% of governorships, an overwhelming majority of state legislatures, a dominating majority in the US house or representatives, a majority in the US senate, and the presidency. If the Democrats lose ground in the next election cycle, where are they?

It looks to me like the Democrats are plying a "bet the farm" strategy. If they lose, the farm is gone and they are dispossessed nothings. That seems unwise to me. To my mind they would be better served to adapt their policies -- away from radical leftist policies, away from grievance politics, away from minority identity politics and towards addressing real problems that effect real people. If they double down on radical leftist policies, grievance politics, minority identity politics -- as they appear to be doing -- if they don't succeed, they will have ceded the battleground of prudent, balanced political ideas to the Republicans. At that point, the Democrats can't win by rejoining the fold: they can't shout "Me too! Me too! I'm for that too! Vote for me instead of them!" If the Republicans have staked our incumbency in the fields of rationality and prudent policy the Democrats can't squat there -- they have to position themselves with breathing room between them and Republicans. But what would that breathing room be? The Democrats are base jumping off a building with a parachute of "Delegitimize Trump." If that parachute doesn't function . . . they are going to hit the pavement hard.

The Republican Never Trump soldiers, by contrast, are fighting to keep Trump from effecting his campaign promises because they damage their patrons' interests -- their patrons being the political establishment. This establishment includes people who would make a lot of money from a new cold war with Russia, who would lose money if we altered our trade imbalance, who would lose money by halting the national drift towards globalization, who lose money by ditching the open borders status quo.

steve4102 03-07-2017 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Alsatian (Post 4296619)

Not only that, I see today that Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have demanded Trump to present evidence for these claims. If I were Trump I would tell them go s<crew yourself. We'll release our evidence when we see fit, and if we choose to do an investigation of this via branches of the executive first, that's what we'll do. There is a thing, Johnny boy and Lindsey, called independent branches of government.

I see some of these Republican congressmen -- McCain and Graham are good examples -- of deep enemies of Trump. I hope Trump mounts a vigorous campaign to oust these senators when they are next up for election. They are enemies.

Alsatian 03-08-2017 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by steve4102 (Post 4296662)

Me thinks the Senator doth protest too much . . .

Given the intense fight McCain is giving Trump I wonder if Trump will campaign on behalf of McCain's republican opponent?

Oldtimr 03-08-2017 05:26 AM

For too many years McCain has done nothing but take up space and side with the left. It is time Arizona shows him the door. The political revenue he had from being a prisoner of war has long since been spent.

Bob H in NH 03-08-2017 05:35 AM

RE Alsatian: What's in it for Obama/Clinton now that Clinton lost? Simple, neither can accept that the plan failed.

Obama's is an easier ready. His "legacy" is up for grabs, Trump's stated goals dismantle much of what he would stake his "greatness" on. If Trump succeeds, removes much of it and things improve and our country gets better, then Obama is a miserable failure. However if Trump fails trying to undo-Obama, then well clearly it's because Obama policies were just awesome. Sadly.

Hillary is a bit tougher and longer plan. She NEEDS Trump to fail miserably. She's been VERY quiet since November. She's sitting in the wings waiting and hoping for 4 years of hell, where she can ride in on her white pants-suit and rescue the world. Or she's easing into retirement, only time will tell.

steve4102 03-08-2017 06:16 AM

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.