Our New President - President Donald Trump

Post Reply New Topic

Obama's response to Wikileaks was to go after the leakers, and spend far less energy on reforming the system which had produced the embarrassing material they disclosed. I objected to it then. However, if I had to decide whether or not to keep tabs on our allies, I'd also do it and try not to get caught. Seriously, who wouldn't?

That does not pertain to this situation. My argument, however, will not make sense to anyone who believes -- against all evidence -- that Trump is smarter than Obama. It would be unbelievably short-sighted to wiretap a political opponent. No one with any sense would do it. In fact, if you were wiretapping actual criminals, and they contacted an opposition political campaign, and you had it on tape, that material should reasonably scare the crap out of you. If anyone makes a mistake, then everyone who had contact with it becomes radioactive.

Now, if you believe that idiot liberals exercise complete control over massive enterprises, then I guess you might think Obama would be overconfident enough to ring up the FBI and order a wiretap of a political enemy. All I can say is, wow.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/stat ... 33/photo/1

so Hillary Clinton knew

Obama spied on lots and lots of people, this is confirmed fact

The Left's Russian obsession is positively weird. It really feels like a bigger version of the "the Benghazi attacks were caused by a YouTube video" story. Not a simple fabrication, but a fabrication designed specifically to cover up something much bigger.

So, in your eagerness to prove Trump's paranoid assertions, you just conceded Trump did in fact have communications with the Russians?

Always get revenge?

If it's true that Trump had gotten help getting elected by the Russians, which seems to be backed up by meetings with Putin operatives which Trump and company had tried to keep quiet, then it means Trump's victory is illegitimate if not illegal. Nothing weird about that. If the shoe was on the other foot, you righties would be calling for the gallows without benefit of trial.

Especially since the Left/Democrats has/have been fraternizing with the Russians for decades.
I remember back in the 80s, the American Left was quite cozy with the Russian Communists.
Did a quick Google search, and this popped up:

"Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit

"Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

"Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

"Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

... "Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism."

Complete article at the link below:

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

The Democrats have been at this "fake news" thing for a long time.

...

Isn't it kind of funny that Trump supporters keep claiming there is no evidence the Russians meddled with our election despite all of our intelligence agencies saying they did, but they will swallow anything Trump tweets despite having no evidence to back it up whatsoever?

No, the least bright of the Kennedy brothers had made an uncomfortable offer to the Soviets, but that hardly means all Democrats were so cozy with them.

Only when it's just a few of them prattling on the internet. It gets weird real quick if large numbers of people fall under that kind of delusion.

It would be funny that they take the word of a narcissistic buffoon with a Twitter obsession over intelligence agencies and the media, were it not for the terrifying fact that that very narcissistic buffoon is the President of the United States.

No, I haven't conceded anything about Trump.
You will note that Hillary's tweet contains the word "apparently."
So the jury's out on that until more information comes in.

What I heard was that the tweet that I just shared
has mysteriously vanished, but not before a screen capture was procured.
If in fact that tweet remains in her Twitter feed,
then I will stand corrected.
But if that tweet is no longer there,
my question is why?
What would motivate Hillary to delete it?

Yeah, that's true. And unfortunately that seems to be our reality.

Obama is another one who cozied up to the Russians ... Putin, in fact, using Medvedev as an intermediary. Are you thus also implying anything about Obama's brightness or lack thereof, based on your comment about Ted Kennedy?

Have the Russians been accused of meddling in the election to get Obama elected like they did with Trump? That's what the difference is.

Why does anybody do something illegal? People don't do it thinking they're going to get caught, they must of really thought Hillary was going to win or that they'd fight something incriminating which they found absolutely nothing of. Obama has a long history of targeting his political opponents, he comes from the Chicago Saul Alinsky school of politics. Obama officials are denying responsibility(pay close attention the their wordings) but don't deny that it happened, these people are confirmed multiple times over liars so nothing they say should be trusted. If the surveillance happened then an investigation I think should be able to tell us pretty easily, with FISA stuff and the leaking of classified information the law has been broken for us to even know about it so limits how the president can lawfully respond.