Forum Thread

Diversion tactics?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 27 1 2 Next
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Trump launched new "tweets" accusing Obama of "wire tapping" his phones in Trump Tower during the election. On top of that he accused Pelosi and Schumer having contact with the Russians etc. I guess these are pure "diversion tactics".

    However I think the media is "barking up the wrong tree". They should concentrate on the "money trail" instead. There is an trail as explained by Rachel on MSNBC. He did deal with the Russian "fertilizer" billionaire" buying property in the US; he also dealt via this Ross guy with his bank connections in Cypress. Also the private jet of the "fertilizer" guy was spotted on quite a few airports where Trump's plane was spotted. Trump made an huge profit ($40 to $60 million) on the property deal with this guy. So I think there is much more to find, especially when he is free to deal and wheel from his FL property every weekend. I guess the biggest problem is that the FBI is not cooperating because of Comey who's part of the Trump "gang". I hope and pray that shortly the whole mess is exposed; if not, welcome to an dictatorship. Show some "backbone" America; instead of only "yap, yap, yap". Where are the "lawyers" to sue him for conflict of interests??

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes, Dutch, I watched that segment on Rachel Maddow's show. She is digging deeper and connecting the dots in an uncomfortable way for the Trump tribe. A picture is emerging that just cannot be brushed under the carpet. The only worry we have is that James Comey may not be pursuing this. His refusal to share what he knows with the House committee could be that he is blocking the investigation for political reasons, or alternatively that he doesn't want to compromise his own investigation. I would hope it's the latter and that at some point James Comey will lay out all the dirty laundry as grounds for impeachment of Trump and jail time for many of his cronies. If Trump is removed from office via impeachment, look for Pence to immediately pardon him like Gerald Ford did to Richard Nixon.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I can't figure out if its diversion, simply crazy BS, or both. Even if its intended to be a diversion, its sooo bad. Can't wait for his white segregates go on the Sunday political shows trying to explain it. I hope it Stephen Miller because he doubles down on anything Trump tweets.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    What happened today looks like "little children"; look at what he did also; pointing fingers for what they did themselves.

    No this does not look like "grown up's" On your last line: If Pence "helped" him as well was part of the "ploy", how could he then "pardon" him, if he's an accomplish in crime.? Furthermore if Pence would take over, then we are still stuck with the idiots Trump put in positions all over, thus still "garbage" is in power. Also don't have the "people" an say in this? The only way "the people" can correct this, is first abolish the "electoral college", then have an"new" (honest) election.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Also don't have the "people" an say in this? The only way "the people" can correct this, is first abolish the "electoral college", then have an"new" (honest) election.

    I am not happy that Trump was elected, but I believe the system overall is fair. It does provide a balance of power that our country needs to protect rural states. If it were a straight election, a few states with dense populations would decided who becomes president, and smaller states would be simply ignored during the campaign. This last election is a good example that small states can flip a election if they feel they are not being heard by the major candidates.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    How far can he go with tweeting pretty without providing something to back it up?
    He said today Obama wiretapped his office at Trump Tower. He is suggesting that laws were broken; shouldn't that be taken seriously and require action?

    My point: A person can't yell fire in a theater when he\she knows there's no fire.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As per Rachel's program, US intelligence officials routinely wiretap phone calls of foreigners, especially those in high positions. However, if any American citizen is part of the conversation, they need a FISA court ruling to allow them to wiretap. It could be that the court granted that permission in the case of Trump's cronies contacting Russian agents.

    However, President Obama would not likely have been directly involved. These intelligence guys work in the dark as does the FISA court. If the FBI was behind the wiretapping, the request most like originated from James Comey. I doubt whether the court would have authorized any wiretapping of Trump's phone, but I'll bet Russian agents probably did in some fashion. They don't need a court to tell them what they cannot do.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    However, President Obama would not likely have been directly involved. These intelligence guys work in the dark as does the FISA court. If the FBI was behind the wiretapping, the request most like originated from James Comey. I doubt whether the court would have authorized any wiretapping of Trump's phone, but I'll bet Russian agents probably did in some fashion. They don't need a court to tell them what they cannot do.

    I was thinking the something along those lines. I'm thinking the FBI might have been monitoring calls made by the Russians, and some of those calls were to Trump tower. Basically not Targeting Trump specifically.

    Overall, Trump, the Russians, and 98% of the rest of us never thought Trump would be elected, so anything discussed would have been how they could work together after the election as business partners and political allies. I believe Trump was looking forward to being a high profile mouth piece against President Hillary Clinton after the election. Think about it for a few moments, given all the nasty BS he said during the campaign (and as President), we all can imagine how much BS trouble he would caused her through tweeting and possibly even more rallies. It's easy to imagine him going around the country after the election continuing having anti-Clinton rallies, saying the election rigged, etc, etc. Russians feeding him useful intel to use against her. US Intel agencies would be scratching their heads wondering where in the hell is he getting such classified info about her and US operations..... Its just all speculation on my part about what I think would have happened if Clinton were elected. Make a good spy novel if nothing else....lol

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Comey showed his alegence last October. Is that all we've got ? What can we do or expect from an FBI that loves the new guy. We are a real mess. Hello CIA, we're in a jam... can you, the NSA, and.... yeah, we're screwed. The whole Trump organization is crooked and we can do nothing. Eventually people will present incriminating evidence but we will have to wait while they try to find some courage. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have blinked.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    My speculation is those agencies are building a strong case against him, and when they do release their findings, Trump is not going to like any of it; it very likely they are going find connections between the Russians and his campaign; and that is when he'll really become unhinged (tweets: "FBI is totally corrupt, I'm going to have the CIA investigate the FBI, then...."), much like how Nixon lost it mentally when it was clear he no longer had control to stop the Watergate investigation.

    With the Russians interference with the US election, at the very least, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort will be exposed as having exchanged campaign intel with the Russians; Manafort is a plumber, doing anything\everything that needs to get done. Trump will either deny everything and defend Manafort, or cut Manafort loose by tweeting "I had no idea he was talking to the Russians, not my fault what he does after working hours!

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:

    Also don't have the "people" an say in this? The only way "the people" can correct this, is first abolish the "electoral college", then have an"new" (honest) election.

    I am not happy that Trump was elected, but I believe the system overall is fair. It does provide a balance of power that our country needs to protect rural states. If it were a straight election, a few states with dense populations would decided who becomes president, and smaller states would be simply ignored during the campaign. This last election is a good example that small states can flip a election if they feel they are not being heard by the major candidates.

    Protection of people in rural states and in all states exists in congress. That is where representation of the people comes from. The president ought to be elected by all of the people. Which means if more people favor one candidate over another that candidate ought to be president. Election by less than a majority of those voting means said president does not hold views supported by a majority of those who voted. Of course if the stupid American electorate can't be bothered to vote we'll that is something else.

    And I do not care what others say Hillary ran a lousy campaign.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And, yes, it is follow the money. But it is also follow the ideology.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Election by less than a majority of those voting means said president does not hold views supported by a majority of those who voted.


    That does make sense.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Election by less than a majority of those voting means said president does not hold views supported by a majority of those who voted.


    That does make sense.

    Sorry the subject was diversion tactics; Trump accused Obama of wire tapping; that is what I call "diversion" tactics. I wish him luck with this "invention".

    On the subject of "voting":

    In any other civil country, just the votes count. Here it is an system which is asking for corruption. It is nonsense that the rural area's determine who wins based on lower population. I think developed area's like on both coasts have the most "brains" thus it is recommended to have their votes count as an majority, because they have the most population anyway. But yeah we love "conservatism" to set us back into the 1800's. When is this country going to enter 2017??

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Question: How far can any president go with making claims, but not provide any supporting evidience?

    In this case, Trump is claiming wiretaping. What if Trump were to tweet "Obama raped his daughters in the oval office"? A majority of his base would believe it was true and demand Obama be arrested and charge immediately. Thus, I am curious at what point is "too far" or "too much", or do all presidents have the authority to say anything they want without any concerns about held legally accountable for making false statements. Clearly there are political repercussions for not telling the truth, but presidents are exempt from a lot laws because as president they need to say\do things that are in the best interest of the country.