News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Deeper into the Trump Abyss.

Started by Dave, January 30, 2017, 07:22:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mr. B

Quote from: Recusant on March 07, 2017, 06:07:51 PM
McCarthyism:

QuoteThe term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

[Emphasis mine. - R]

Trump's use of the term in his unsubstantiated

Unsubstantiated?

October 31, 2016
QuoteWASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0

QuoteOnly Trump knows why he tweeted what he did early on Saturday morning, but there were previous reports and allegations that the Obama administration might have been conducting surveillance on people close to Trump.

Here are some of those reports:

Oct. 31: The New York Times reported that in the summer of 2016 the FBI had investigated whether the Trump Organization had connections to a Russian bank, but concluded that it did not.

Nov. 7, 2016: The website Heat Street posted a piece by former Conservative British politician Louise Mensch stating that "two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed" that the FBI twice sought warrants to "examine activities of 'U.S. persons' in Trump's campaign with ties to Russia." The article states that a June warrant request was denied, and that a second request in October was approved.

Jan. 11: The Guardian reported that a June application by U.S. intelligence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been denied, and that the newspaper had not confirmed the Heat Street reporting about an October order.

Jan. 12: The BBC reported that the June application had been denied, and quoted "a lawyer outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case" saying the court had granted a request by U.S. intelligence to intercept electronic records from two Russian banks, and that the order involved three of then-President-elect Trump's associates.

March 2: Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin accused Obama of using "the instrumentalities of the federal government, intelligence activity, to surveil members of the Trump campaign and put that information out in the public," on his radio show and podcast, The Mark Levin Show.

March 3: The website Breitbart cited Levin in a post about alleged wiretaps dating back to October 2016.

March 4: Trump tweeted, "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower."


What do intelligence officials say about the allegations?

The director of the FBI, James Comey, asked the Justice Department to publicly deny the allegation. The Justice Department hasn't said anything.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/06/518797121/faq-on-alleged-wire-taps-of-trump-communications

Trump is a fucking idiot but that doesn't mean he was necessarily wrong. It's the timing that I'm thinking about. I'm guessing this "bombshell" tweet over the weekend would overshadow his new and improved travel ban. It's like watching a kid play checkers or chess. He knows how the pieces move but he doesn't have a strategy. Which is probably a good thing for us as long as we don't allow ourselves to get too offended by having to play this game with a petulant child.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Mr. B

Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:01:23 PM
They are being dragged in for lying under oath, not for talking to Russia during an election.

Why were they even asked? Forget why they felt uncomfortable admitting that they talked to Russians for a moment. That is a separate issue.

I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime so it is fascinating to watch unfold.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 08:02:24 PM
Unsubstantiated?

Yes. Nothing you posted substantiates Trump's accusation. The closest is the examination of the computer that was connected to a Russian bank. It's only by a very generous and inaccurate interpretation that anybody would describe that as a wiretap. Levin is practically next door to Alex Jones in the loony-tunes conspiracy monger neighborhood.

Trump's twitter crap parallels the "McCarthyism" description in almost every particular. He's earned the opprobrium he's been getting.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Davin

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 08:06:24 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:01:23 PM
They are being dragged in for lying under oath, not for talking to Russia during an election.

Why were they even asked?
Because of all the confirmed and speculated Russian involvement. Nothing wrong with asking questions about various topics under questioning.

Quote from: Mr. BForget why they felt uncomfortable admitting that they talked to Russians for a moment. That is a separate issue.
It doesn't matter if a person feels uncomfortable about talking about things when speaking under oath, they still lied under oath. It's not really a separate issue. If they were above board, with nothing to hide, why not just tell the truth and say that they were doing their job. Why lie about it?

Quote from: Mr. BI've never seen anything like this in my lifetime so it is fascinating to watch unfold.
That is true. It's also disturbing and frightening.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Mr. B

Quote from: Recusant on March 07, 2017, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 08:02:24 PM
Unsubstantiated?

Yes. Nothing you posted substantiates Trump's accusation. The closest is the examination of the computer that was connected to a Russian bank. It's only by a very generous and inaccurate interpretation that anybody would describe that as a wiretap. Levin is practically next door to Alex Jones in the loony-tunes conspiracy monger neighborhood.

Like I said, Trump is a fucking idiot. To most fucking idiots, the only way to monitor someone's activities is to "bug" or "tap" their phone. It's kind of like how everyone used to use the word Xerox when they wanted a copy of something. "can you Xerox this for me?" Or, how many people use the word "Kleenex" when they want a piece of tissue paper. "You got a Kleenex?" Does it have to be a Kleenex? Does it have to be copied using a Xerox machine?

Wiretap, for fucking idiots, means, "they are watching every move I make".

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Dave

Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. BI've never seen anything like this in my lifetime so it is fascinating to watch unfold.
That is true. It's also disturbing and frightening.

Just politics as they are played. The stupid ones get caught, the real bastards get away with it.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Gloucester on March 07, 2017, 08:42:28 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. BI've never seen anything like this in my lifetime so it is fascinating to watch unfold.
That is true. It's also disturbing and frightening.

Just politics as they are played. The stupid ones get caught, the real bastards get away with it.
I don't think that is true. Politics, like everything else, is subject to change and changes often.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 07, 2017, 08:42:28 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
Quote from: Mr. BI've never seen anything like this in my lifetime so it is fascinating to watch unfold.
That is true. It's also disturbing and frightening.

Just politics as they are played. The stupid ones get caught, the real bastards get away with it.
I don't think that is true. Politics, like everything else, is subject to change and changes often.
Oh, yes, there are various forms of politics but,

politics
ˈpɒlɪtɪks/Submit
noun
1.
the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.
"the party quickly gained influence in French politics"
synonyms:   government, local government, affairs of state, public affairs, diplomacy, party politics
"a career in politics"
2.
activities aimed at improving someone's status or increasing power within an organization.
"yet another discussion of office politics and personalities"

the cynic in me says that the second definition remains a constant thread over the ages.

That cynicism also feels that there is usually a thread of the dishonest, by omission, commission, circumvention or whatever. Ambrose Bierce had the flavour of it:

QuotePolitics
n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

I know your feelings, Davin, but I will only trust a politician in what he or she actually does, after the fact. Rather be told the raw story than what they want me to believe to bolster their position. That is why I can never align myself with any party or polarity. I have to review their performance over the last two or three years then hope that I pick the least worse.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 08:38:41 PMLike I said, Trump is a fucking idiot.

Is it wrong to oppose an idiot in power? If intelligence agencies are engaging in surveillance of an inimical foreign power and it is discovered that some of the idiot's inner circle were in communication with that foreign power and then lied about it, is it McCarthyism to call them out for their lies?
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Mr. B

#129
Quote from: Recusant on March 07, 2017, 09:30:22 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 08:38:41 PMLike I said, Trump is a fucking idiot.

Is it wrong to oppose an idiot in power?

Of coarse not. What matters is how yo do it.

QuoteIf intelligence agencies are engaging in surveillance of an inimical foreign power and it is discovered that some of the idiot's inner circle were in communication with that foreign power and then lied about it, is it McCarthyism to call them out for their lies?

That entirely depends upon the communication. What was actually said. It is McCarthyism for the media et. al to proclaim guilt for simply communicating? If lying under oath is the only standard we are concerned about then why wasn't Hillary prosecuted for her lies under oath while the Democrats were still in control?

I'm not against the ongoing investigations. I also think it was good of Sessions to recuse himself. I just object to the slander without convictions. I object to the guilt by association because people from the Hillary campaign and Democratic senators also talked to Russians during the election but no one is asking them what they talked about.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 07, 2017, 09:30:22 PMIf intelligence agencies are engaging in surveillance of an inimical foreign power and it is discovered that some of the idiot's inner circle were in communication with that foreign power and then lied about it, is it McCarthyism to call them out for their lies?

That entirely depends upon the communication. What was actually said. It is McCarthyism for the media et. al to proclaim guilt for simply communicating?

Where has that guilt been proclaimed? You are remarkably lax about citing examples.

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 10:54:04 PMIf lying under oath is the only standard we are concerned about then why wasn't Hillary prosecuted for her lies under oath while the Democrats were still in control?

I'm aware that "Hillary LIED!!!" is a right wing talking point. Can you cite any specific instances that support your accusations?

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 10:54:04 PMI'm not against the ongoing investigations. I also think it was good of Sessions to recuse himself. I just object to the slander without convictions.

What specific slanders are you aware of?

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 10:54:04 PMI object to the guilt by association because people from the Hillary campaign and Democratic senators also talked to Russians during the election but no one is asking them what they talked about.

The American intelligence community has stated that the Russian intelligence services were actively trying to thwart Clinton's campaign, and closer to the election, actively trying to aid Trump. Those that are pointing to contacts between Democratic politicians and the Russian ambassador are engaging in disingenuous false equivalency.

Given the trend in your posts, I expect you will bring up Claire McCaskill. Yes, she lied about her contact with the Russian ambassador, and McCaskill was a Clinton supporter. On the other hand, those contacts took place before she became somewhat prominent as a mouthpiece for Clinton. Again, the Clinton campaign was the target of the Russians. Unless you're getting your information from wackaloon sources, nobody is claiming that there might have been shady dealings of a political nature taking place at a meeting between McCaskill and the Russian ambassador. In fact, the subjects of those contacts are known: Protesting the shutdown of adoptions of Russian orphans by American parents, and a discussion of the Iran nuclear limitation agreement.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Mr. B


The guilt is not so much proclaimed as it is implied. The implication is that the Russians stole the election from Hillary therefor, anyone on Trump's team who spoke to any Russian at any time in the past 20 years is culpable for Hillary's loss.

QuoteJust a month into Donald Trump's presidency, Democratic Party leaders are trying to rein in the talk of impeachment that's animating the grass roots, the product of a restive base demanding deeper and more aggressive investigations into Trump's ties to Russia.

Democratic officials in Republican-dominated Washington view the entire subject as a trap, a premature discussion that could backfire in spectacular fashion by making the party appear too overzealous in its opposition to Trump. Worse, they fear, it could harden Republican support for the president by handing his party significant fundraising and political ammunition when the chances of success for an early impeachment push are remote, at best.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-democrats-235184



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

Comey testified under oath that Hillary did not tell the truth regarding her handling of classified emails.

The GOP asked the Justice Department to look into it.

QuoteThe Justice Department declined to comment on the request.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/us/politics/gop-seeks-criminal-inquiry-of-hillary-clintons-testimony-to-congress.html?_r=0

Comey didn't recommend bringing her up on charges because he believed she may have been ignorant of the laws.

I am not aware of any specific slanders. The general slander is that anyone associated with Trump is a piece of shit. At least, that's the impression I get from the general public. There are all kinds of reasons for them being pieces of shit but the one that is the most prominent today is whether or not they communicated with Russians during the election. That's the one that will cause people to lose their job. Or possibly worse.

And again, what is the standard we want to set with this? Should it be officially illegal for anyone working in a campaign to communicate with foreign agents? To claim that no one from the Hillary campaign spoke to anyone from Russia is to deny reality.

The reason the Trump people are being scrutinized is because Trump wasn't supposed to win. If Hillary had won, all we would be hearing about would be Benghazi and her illegal server and her lying about it. But we wouldn't be hearing about how people in her campaign talked to Russian ambassadors.

It's all bullshit.



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Dave

#132
QuoteThe reason the Trump people are being scrutinized is because Trump wasn't supposed to win. If Hillary had won, all we would be hearing about would be Benghazi and her illegal server and her lying about it. But we wouldn't be hearing about how people in her campaign talked to Russian ambassadors.
Mr B, like others I feel there is something wrong in your arguments. The statement above seems out of balance, you seem to be saying that, "Both sides have comitted acts worthy of scrutiny," but, at the same time, implying the actions against Trump are wrong because he was the wrong person. If he had lost then, to the pro Trump factions, Clinton would have been, "the wrong person."

As you say, "It's all bullshit," but that takes all the purpose out of what you seem to be claiming. If you sought the kind of "partisan neutrality" that last statement implies you have not exactly succeeded in my perception.

Unfortunately the situation impinges on the lives of everyone on the planet to some degree, actually or potentially, so that is important bullshit. And I am as disgusted with it as you seem to be. Can't really decide which bullshit I want to smear on as warpaint - just hoping that, somehow, common sense wins. But, I doubt that it will. Politics trumps wisdom.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

I've seen this happen a few times now, where Mr. B will avoid criticism of Trump related things, by trying to throw a third party into the mix (specifically Hillary). This is not something we're unfamiliar with, this is the same avoidance tactic used by religious apologists quite often. In all cases it's not truth seeking behavior.

Let's say that Hillary is the worst. Literally the worst. Maybe she would have been 20 Hitlers combined. That doesn't excuse Trump in any way. It has fuck all to do with Trump, and is bullshit to bring it up. So bringing up Hillary doesn't matter even in the worst case scenario.

I mean, all these Conservative people were going around saying, "Trump is president, get over it, snowflake." But they are the ones that can't stop talking about Hillary or Obama. There must be something to it, it feels like they are trying their best to convince themselves that Trump might not be great, but he was the better option. It's sad really, they must on some level understand that they done fucked up, otherwise why haven't they moved on and accepted that Trump is the president now?
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Arturo

Quote from: Davin on March 08, 2017, 04:27:56 PM
I've seen this happen a few times now, where Mr. B will avoid criticism of Trump related things, by trying to throw a third party into the mix (specifically Hillary). This is not something we're unfamiliar with, this is the same avoidance tactic used by religious apologists quite often. In all cases it's not truth seeking behavior.

Let's say that Hillary is the worst. Literally the worst. Maybe she would have been 20 Hitlers combined. That doesn't excuse Trump in any way. It has fuck all to do with Trump, and is bullshit to bring it up. So bringing up Hillary doesn't matter even in the worst case scenario.

I mean, all these Conservative people were going around saying, "Trump is president, get over it, snowflake." But they are the ones that can't stop talking about Hillary or Obama. There must be something to it, it feels like they are trying their best to convince themselves that Trump might not be great, but he was the better option. It's sad really, they must on some level understand that they done fucked up, otherwise why haven't they moved on and accepted that Trump is the president now?

I think I see what you're saying. It's like "we are attacking trump. Why? I dunno but Hillary was pretty bad"
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱