[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-March-05, 21:27, said:

You did read that the FBI under Obama was issued a FISA warrant for wiretapping the Trump phones, etc., right? Obama says that he did not order it, but it did happen on his watch, so some responsibility must accrue to him, right? As Harry Truman famously said: "The buck stops here!"

And what is your source for that, seeing how both Comey and Clapper say no FISA warrant ever happened? Let me help you: Breitbart is to news what National Inquirer is to celebrity.

From the Washington Post: (among many reporting the same thing)

Quote

Comey asked Justice officials to refute Trump’s unproven wiretapping claims
The FBI director’s request is the latest rebuff of Trump’s unfounded accusation that then-President Obama had ordered a wiretap of his campaign headquarters. Former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, denied allegations that wiretaps were authorized against Trump.

[Zelandakh]

It is surely completely obvious to everyone that this tapping thing is merely a distraction from the Russia issue that has refused to go away in the news cycle. Now noone is talking about Russia any more. Job done. The same thing happened the last time with the allegations of voter fraud. This is the pattern and this administrations method of controlling the media cycles. I would hope that the media outlets will get wise to it at some point but news entertainment is set up to focus on the current big story these days, so going back to the real big story (the one with credible facts behind it) is not so easy - viewers just think you are behind the curve and reporting "yesterday's news". As long as it works to block the bad headlines, these fake stories will be put out and used to move things on.

[y66]

Zelandakh, on 2017-March-06, 04:03, said:

It is surely completely obvious to everyone that this tapping thing is merely a distraction from the Russia issue that has refused to go away in the news cycle. Now noone is talking about Russia any more. Job done. The same thing happened the last time with the allegations of voter fraud. This is the pattern and this administrations method of controlling the media cycles. I would hope that the media outlets will get wise to it at some point but news entertainment is set up to focus on the current big story these days, so going back to the real big story (the one with credible facts behind it) is not so easy - viewers just think you are behind the curve and reporting "yesterday's news". As long as it works to block the bad headlines, these fake stories will be put out and used to move things on.

Attempted distraction you mean. The Russia issue is not going away. Trump just poured gas on his own fire.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-05, 23:05, said:

And what is your source for that, seeing how both Comey and Clapper say no FISA warrant ever happened? Let me help you: Breitbart is to news what National Inquirer is to celebrity.

From the Washington Post: (among many reporting the same thing)

https://heatst.com/w...ties-to-russia/

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-March-06, 06:43, said:

https://heatst.com/w...ties-to-russia/

This is certainly interesting. I would not say it makes Trump look good.

Let's take a quick look at the tweets:

Quote

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

and

Quote

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

The suggestion here, with these tweets, is that Obama misused the intelligence agencies to tapp Trump's phone. If the cited story checks out, it would seem that whatever taps there were arose from the FBI was investigating Russian meddling in the election. There is a great deal of difference between a politically motivated wiretap ordered by the president compared with a criminal investigation by the FBI and approved by FISA officials. Trump mentions Watergate. That was an illegal break in, not approved by any court, conducted illegally, intended to provide politically useful information.

I'm fine with uncovering the truth of exactly what happened. I hope we do. But so far it appears that what happened is that the Russians were heavily involved in trying to influence the American election through hacks and leaks, the FBI and other intelligence agencies were aware of this and actively pursuing leads, the Trump people were i it up to their necks, and they got found out.

Trump can try to portray the investigation as shocking McCarthyism. This will play well with some, but I think fewer and fewer every day. It is not just Dems who are coming to the conclusion that the country has made a very serious error in electing this man.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2017-March-06, 07:33, said:

But so far it appears that what happened is that the Russians were heavily involved in trying to influence the American election through hacks and leaks, the FBI and other intelligence agencies were aware of this and actively pursuing leads [...]

Possibly. Or maybe they just did nothing:

https://www.nytimes....ipad-share&_r=0

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-March-06, 06:43, said:

https://heatst.com/w...ties-to-russia/

Your source is more Murdoch led right wing claptrap: https://mediabiasfac...om/heat-street/

You are trying the Trump tactic of repeating, with no evidence or independent confirmation and, with people who have intimate knowledge of the facts publicly contradicting your position, a non-factual biased story that attacks the very nature of reality. To engage debate with you - or anyone - on these type claims is to legitimize propaganda.

I will not do so.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-06, 10:06, said:

Your source is more Murdoch led right wing claptrap: https://mediabiasfac...om/heat-street/

You are trying the Trump tactic of repeating, with no evidence or independent confirmation and, with people who have intimate knowledge of the facts publicly contradicting your position, a non-factual biased story that attacks the very nature of reality. To engage debate with you - or anyone - on these type claims is to legitimize propaganda.

I will not do so.

Did you use the 100-strike rule?

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2017-March-06, 11:16, said:

Did you use the 100-strike rule?

Haven't you heard? Collective bargaining is a sin, so strikes send you to hell.

Instead of being distracted by Trump's attempt to propagandize nonsense, let's refocus on what we know so far about ties between Trump and Russia.

1) We know that in 2008, a Russian Oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev bought a Florida home from Trump for $95 million, a profit of $54 million for Trump.
2) We know the airplane owned by this same Russian Oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev was seen and photographed at a number of airports in the cities where Trump was campaigning at the time.
3) We know that J.D. Gordon has changed his story and now claims that the changes in the Republican platform to favor Russia over the Ukraine came directly from Trump at a March, 2016 meeting at the unfinished Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
4) We know that both Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at Trump Tower and that Michael Flynn lied to the vice-president about that meeting and Jared Kushner did not speak up until after the press broke the story.
5) We know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and failed to make those meetings known during confirmation hearings while under oath.
6) And then then there is this, from U.S.A. Today:

Quote

Here is a timeline of Trump’s known connections to Russia:

1987: Trump was invited to Moscow by the Soviet ambassador to the United States to discuss luxury hotel developments. Trump later told Playboy magazine that his plans to build hotels in Moscow failed because the country “was out of control and the leadership knows it.” Four years later, on Christmas Day, the Soviet Union officially dissolved, and Russians who had been allowed to buy state-owned enterprises amassed enormous fortunes.

1996: While wrapping up a series of bankruptcies in New York, Trump talked of building a replica of his Trump Tower in Moscow and traveled there to discuss renovating the Moskva and Rossiya hotels, according to Bloomberg News. The bankruptcies led to a change in Trump’s business model: Instead of building projects from the ground up, he signed licensing agreements that in some cases gave him an ownership stake in properties that bore his name without putting up any of his own money. The Trump Organization continued to seek wealthy investors in Russia.

Dozens of condominiums in Trump World Tower in midtown Manhattan were bought by Russians in the late 1990s, said Dolly Lenz, a real estate broker who sold many of the units. Many buyers sought an audience with Trump, whose business acumen they respected, Lenz said.

Early 2000s: The Trump Organization developed several projects abroad, many of them involving Russian money.

2007: Trump debuted his Trump Super Premium Vodka at the Millionaire’s Fair in Moscow. Large orders for the gold-glazed spirit followed, but the brand fizzled by 2009, according to The New York Times.

2008: Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., told investors in Moscow that the Trump Organization had trademarked the Donald Trump name in Russia and planned to build housing and hotels in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sochi, and sell licenses to other developers, the Russian daily Kommersant reported. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump Jr. said at the time. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Trump Jr. traveled to Russia a half-dozen times in 18 months looking for deals, but none materialized. He said there were plenty of investment opportunities, but the business environment was dangerous and trustworthy partners hard to find. “It really is a scary place,” he said, according to eTurboNews, an online business publication.

2010: Trump’s next big U.S. project, the Trump SoHo in New York, was built with partner Bayrock Group, founded by Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet official.

2013: Trump brought the Miss Universe Pageant to Moscow, funded by $20 million from Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. The venue was Agalarov’s Crocus City Hall on the outskirts of Moscow. Trump took part in a music video with Agalarov’s son, Emin.

2016: Trump's presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, resigned in August amid reports that he worked on the political campaign of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been forced to flee office because of his pro-Russian stance.

Carter Page, a former Merrill Lynch investment banker in Moscow, was a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser until August, when Yahoo News reported that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating whether he had been communicating with Russian officials about lifting U.S. sanctions if Trump became president.

Yet, Donald Trump claims he has no connections to Russia. I admit there is no proof of wrongdoing. But it seems a bit fanciful to believe that there is no association, doesn't it? The continued denials before the press forces agreement is perplexing and actions more usually aligned with people wanting to hide something. All in all, I don't see how it would hurt to turn all this over to an independent commission that has subpoena power - we need to know if there was wrongdoing, but equally, if there was no wrongdoing. Without a solution, the Russian ties controversy will continue to haunt this presidency.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2017-March-06, 07:41, said:

Possibly. Or maybe they just did nothing:

https://www.nytimes....ipad-share&_r=0

Yes, it is certainly possible. If we are speaking of a FISA warrant, or whatever approval by FISA is called, it should be possible for people with the proper clearance to determine this pretty quickly. Probably they already have.


Some time back I related an experience I had helping in buying a house. The ad said wall-to-wall carpeting. I am inside the house, standing on a bare floor, not even a throw rug, and the real estate guy is not acknowledging that the ad is in error. I am prepared to accept "honest mistake" as an explanation. But no, he sees no problem with the ad. He doesn't acknowledge it to be in error, he doesn't exactly claim it is true, he regards the truth as irrelevant. Or something like that. I can't really grasp his way of looking at things. It causes me mental distress to have to speak with such people, and this is the way I react to Trump. It is simply hopeless to attempt a rational discussion regarding what he says. Some find his approach effective and I suppose it is, for a while. I find it repulsive. And I think it is going to be very damaging in the long run.

With the real estate guy you could say that I was standing there seeing the floor, so no harm was done by the ad. But it hurts my brain. I don't want to talk to the guy,.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2017-March-05, 18:18, said:

for starters I read that 50% of our planes are unable to fly....yes 50% or more.

I wonder if we have so many planes that 50% is more than enough to get the job done.

US military spending is more than the next 8 countries combined. And Trump wants to increase it, at the same time as he says that our NATO allies aren't doing their fair share and they should contribute more.

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2017-March-06, 15:04, said:

at the same time as he says that our NATO allies aren't doing their fair share and they should contribute more.

The 2% of gdp figure that the US wants NATO members to spend and defense spending in general is a bit of a mirage. The US includes things like the GI bill and (probably?) VA costs and other things that no one else does.

I really wonder what the true story is but have no idea.

[jogs]

So much for Nancy Pelosi never meeting the Russian Ambassador!! lol
He is the fourth from the left.

[PassedOut]

jogs, on 2017-March-06, 18:11, said:

So much for Nancy Pelosi never meeting the Russian Ambassador!! lol
He is the fourth from the left.

Yes, if she lied about that under oath, she should suffer the same heavy penalty as Sessions.

[y66]

From Smothering Speech at Middlebury by the NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

How to begin an editorial about a violent free-speech debacle at Middlebury College in Vermont? Maybe with some words from John Stuart Mill about the importance of giving despised dissenters a chance to speak. “Truth would lose something by their silence,” Mill wrote, even if their views go against the entire world, and the entire world is right.

Persuasive words. But not last Thursday in an auditorium at Middlebury, where a student recited that very quotation in introducing the notorious social scientist Charles Murray. Moments later caterwauling erupted, and the event collapsed into a night of turned backs, shouted chants, pounding fists and one wrenched neck — belonging to a professor who was supposed to have provided a counterpoint to Mr. Murray’s remarks, and to lead the Q. and A., but instead was attacked while leaving with him.

Mr. Murray’s account of the evening is worth reading: a depressing tale of a missed opportunity for ideas to peaceably collide. In the years since he drew ridicule for promoting widely discredited race-based theories of intelligence in his book “The Bell Curve,” Mr. Murray has been a frequent speaker on college campuses, and the frequent target of protests. He said these events have taken on the ritual decorum of Kabuki theater — students are allowed to deride him, he is allowed to speak, blood pressures rise and fall, and life goes on.

Now, he says, Middlebury may prove an “inflection point” — where colleges yield the lectern to intolerant liberals, hastening a bastion of free thought toward its demise.

It’s an outcome that many on the right seem to be aching for. Though speakers of all ideologies regularly appear at colleges without incident, a few widely publicized disruptions feed a narrative of leftist enclaves of millennial snowflakes refusing to abide ideas they disagree with. From the president to Fox News, right-wing voices wail, through their megaphones, about how put upon they are, like soccer players collapsing to the turf and writhing in pretend agony.

A letter like the one sent by Middlebury alumni assailing Mr. Murray does not help. “The principle” — of free speech — “does not apply, due to not only the nature, but also the quality, of Dr. Murray’s scholarship.”

Hey, hey, ho, ho — heck no. The principle does not distinguish between great minds and mediocrities. Mr. Murray is an academic with an argument to make about class in America — from his 2012 book “Coming Apart” — and maybe it is flawed. But Middlebury students had no chance to challenge him on any of his views. Thought and persuasion, questions and answers, were eclipsed by intimidation.

True ideas need testing by false ones, lest they become mere prejudices and thoughtless slogans. Free speech is a sacred right, and it needs protecting, now more than ever. Middlebury’s president, Laurie Patton, did this admirably, in defending Mr. Murray’s invitation and delivering a public apology to him that Middlebury’s thoughtless agitators should have delivered themselves.

This story provides students' points of view.

BTW, has anyone seen Hrothgar?

[kenberg]

Some might find this appropriate:
https://www.washingt...m=.aa6406cd4271

A more sober discussion occurs at
http://www.pbs.org/n.../videos/#208965
After scrolling past comments from Spicer such as "But there's been enough reporting that strongly suggests that something occurred" you get to a presentation of opposing views from Adam Schiff and Stuart Baker. Schiff sees things my way ( a wise, wise man) and, in my opinion, came across as far more rational. Yes, I am claiming I can recognize rationality in people who disagree with me. I did not see much here.


The above are primarily concerned with the tweets.
But the bottom line is that we must stay focused. That is the central message of
https://www.washingt...m=.aa3cb2434ffe

We need a dedicated commission with people of great experience who can be trusted to look deeply both at what happened and, of even greater importance, what we need to do to protect ourselves in the future. I firmly believe that there are people who can approach this serious matter with the proper sense of what is important. If not, we are doomed. Such a look will no doubt uncover some good guys and some bad guys, both here and abroad, let those chips fall where they may. We need to see what happened, we need to plan our defenses for the future.

[jogs]

PassedOut, on 2017-March-06, 18:52, said:

Yes, if she lied about that under oath, she should suffer the same heavy penalty as Sessions.

http://www.politifac...ranken-about-m/

Quote

Sessions and spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores have said his statement was truthful because he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a senator, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-March-07, 08:24, said:

http://www.politifac...ranken-about-m/

Nixon said, "Your president is not a crook," before he was forced to resign for being a crook. So, what's your point?

[Al_U_Card]

y66, on 2017-March-07, 07:44, said:

From Smothering Speech at Middlebury by the NYT Editorial Board:


This story

BTW, has anyone seen Hrothgar?

Happily, no but like a bad penny, I am sure that he will show up to regale us with his venom and histrionics, not to mention the fastest google in the west...

[y66]

kenberg, on 2017-March-07, 07:57, said:

A more sober discussion occurs at http://www.pbs.org/n.../videos/#208965

After scrolling past comments from Spicer such as "But there's been enough reporting that strongly suggests that something occurred" you get to a presentation of opposing views from Adam Schiff and Stuart Baker. Schiff sees things my way ( a wise, wise man) and, in my opinion, came across as far more rational. Yes, I am claiming I can recognize rationality in people who disagree with me. I did not see much here.

Adam Schiff is indeed a wise man and an effective Congressman for his district in LA which is one of the most diverse districts in the country. Probably to the left of you and slightly more libertarian on the political compass which is not an indication of wisdom or rationality.