Trump Fires Back

[homersapien 11,812]

56 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Exactly 

So you're OK with that?

[Strychnine 1,804]

Just now, homersapien said:

Oh, I agree with Titan that this is (probably) just BS nuttery coming from a narcissistic psychopath.

But he is the POTUS.   So we have a choice of deliberately degrading the office in order to account for such an unfit person or we respect the office and hold the unfit person to the standard we should expect from the POTUS.

If he obviously fails that standard - and I think he does - then maybe the American people - as represented by our legislators - can remove him from office.

But he shouldn't get a pass because he's unfit.  He should be removed.  Or at the very least exposed to all as being unfit for office.  We owe that to our country.

 

That is basically what I meant.  The (pre-Trump) standard is that when the President makes such allegations, it is to be taken seriously and investigated.  The reason that standard exists is that pre-Trump Presidents would not make such allegations without sufficient evidence.  If Obama made such allegations about Bush, or Bush such allegations about Clinton, they would have been investigated instead of shrugged off as the rantings of a belligerent lunatic.

I also agree with Titan that this is most likely crackpot nuttery.  I agree with you that the President should be held accountable for uttering crackpot nuttery.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I think the real question is not whether Trump's twitter rant is based in truth but what is this a smokescreen for?

[homersapien 11,812]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That gives a President the power to place all opponents under investigation without evidence. Being under investigation raises a cloud and weakens those under it. This is petty tyrant behavior, not how a nation under the rule of law conducts itself.

Not true.

The president cannot "place all opponents under investigation without evidence."

The president cannot even have a wire tap approved without producing evidence for a judge to approve it.

But you are right in that this is petty tyrant behavior.  Most tyrants ride to power on the back of populism. (Just look at the number of people who are supporting Trump on this forum.)

If the president is allowed to say anything without being held accountable, then he has total freedom to use his populism to become a tyrant.

Short of charges being filed against Obama, the only way such populist tyranny can be countered is through the legislative system using their investigatory powers.  That is the only way such specious claims by the POTUS can be revealed as lies.
 

[homersapien 11,812]

10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I think the real question is not whether Trump's twitter rant is based in truth but what is this a smokescreen for?

True, but you can't address the implications of why he said it without first establishing the veracity.

And I disagree with any implication that an investigation to determine the facts would be too expensive or too much trouble.  I think it could be done relatively quickly and easily.

Regardless, it merits the effort.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

True, but you can't address the implications of why he said it without first establishing the veracity.

And I disagree with any implication that an investigation to determine the facts would be too expensive or too much trouble.  I think it could be done relatively quickly and easily.

Regardless, it merits the effort.

 

There are a wide variety of theories as to why he said it. While I have no problem with an investigation being held ( it would probably last all of one phone call to the IC), it's painfully obvious that rules of decorum our past presidents have followed have been tossed for a reality tv star's unverified Twitter tantrum claims. It's way past the point of ridiculousness and Trump needs to be held accountable for his words. 

[homersapien 11,812]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

There are a wide variety of theories as to why he said it. While I have no problem with an investigation being held ( it would probably last all of one phone call to the IC), it's painfully obvious that rules of decorum our past presidents have followed have been tossed for a reality tv star's unverified Twitter tantrum claims. It's way past the point of ridiculousness and Trump needs to be held accountable for his words. 

Well I think he said it because he has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old. He was pissed and wanted to lash out at someone, so why not Obama?

And this goes beyond the "rules of decorum".  This is a direct assault on what the office of the presidency stands for.  It's also a direct challenge to the country regarding what sort of behavior we are willing to accept for the office.

What happens if - for example - a reason develops for possible justifiable for military action against Iran or N. Korea?  Who in hell is going to simply accept Trump's word for it? 

As far as I am concerned, the office of the POTUS is currently vacant.

 

[TexasTiger 13,559]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So you're OK with that?

With what?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bottom line, he said it because he has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.  He was pissed and wanted to lash out at someone, so why not Obama?

And this goes beyond the "rules of decorum".  This is a direct assault on what the office of the presidency stands for.  It's also a direct challenge to the country regarding what sort of behavior we are willing to accept for the office.

What happens if - for example - a reason develops for possible justifiable for military action against Iran or N. Korea?  Who in hell is going to simply accept Trump's word for it? 

As far as I am concerned, the office of the POTUS is currently vacant.

 

Definitely agree with you on the emotional maturity. I think he may have been unknowingly manipulated by Bannon who tweeted an article from Brietbart about this alleged wiretapping. 

We are in dangerous uncharted waters with this man. We have a leader who has never been held accountable for any wrong he has ever done. Money has bought him out of every situation. Any hope we have lies in the GOP standing against his ridiculous claims and holding him accountable for his actions. I possess no faith that they will do this. 

The head that's in the office of President is vacant.

[homersapien 11,812]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

With what?

The post you were responding to* (of course):

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And I think that's why he's doing it too.  It's a way to create noise to distract from the stuff that we *know* - stuff with actual evidence to it that should be investigated.

Simply ignoring this is enabling Trump to get away with it.  So are you OK with allowing him to get away with such a diversion?

*(Note: If it were up to me, I would have at least the last two comments appear when you quote someone, which would avoid such confusion.  

It's certainly a pain to have to go back and figure out what you were referring to when you said "exactly", but I am surprised that as a moderator, you would use this forum weakness to obfuscate the discussion.)

[TexasTiger 13,559]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The post you were responding to* (of course):

 

Simply ignoring this is enabling Trump to get away with it.  So are you OK with allowing him to get away with such a diversion?

*(Note: If it were up to me, I would have at least the last two comments appear when you quote someone, which would avoid such confusion.  

It's certainly a pain to have to go back and figure out what you were referring to when you said "exactly", but I am surprised that as a moderator, you would use this forum weakness to obfuscate the discussion.)

I'm surprised you're accusing me of obfuscating the discussion.

[Strychnine 1,804]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The post you were responding to* (of course):

 

Simply ignoring this is enabling Trump to get away with it.  So are you OK with allowing him to get away with such a diversion?

*(Note: If it were up to me, I would have at least the last two comments appear when you quote someone, which would avoid such confusion.  

It's certainly a pain to have to go back and figure out what you were referring to when you said "exactly", but I am surprised that as a moderator, you would use this forum weakness to obfuscate the discussion.)

 

I would not call it a forum weakness, as I believe it is an option that was disabled, most likely to curtail the wall of quoted text from a forum full of lazy posters that did not trim the quotes in their replies.  Personally, I miss it, for the same reason that you do.  I do not miss having to scroll through an entire conversation in each post.

EDIT:  Forgot to add to you can use the orange + to the left of "Quote" to select multi-quote.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Calling him out" means nothing in today's media climate.  Some have been "calling him out" every since the Republican primaries.  He thrives in the noise and controversy he creates.

Besides, we have people on this forum that claim a free press doesn't exist.  So who does the calling?

The only way to expose this sort of thing is with a formal, bipartisan investigation of the truth.

And you will show him that all he needs to do is make outlandish accusations to tie up Congress and the press with endless frivolous investigations to distract from other stuff that matters.

I get your frustration, but you can't go wasting taxpayer dollars and time and energy with "full blown investigations" every time the crank opens his fat yap making s*** up.  You simply tell him that you're all ears as soon as you have some viable evidence to go on, otherwise put him on ignore.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

It wasn't just right wing sources that had reported on wiretapping. The NY Times reported back in January that Trump aides had been wiretapped. 

There's been no evidence that Obama had ordered the wiretapping; however, the Obama White House was provided with reports on the wiretapping. Why did the Obama White House need to know about the investigation if the reports found no evidence of wrongdoing?

It seems odd that the Obama White House, which didn't order the investigation or wiretapping, would be given reports of the investigation that found no wrongdoing. If the Obama White House was given reports of the investigation, then why wasn't Trump given these reports? It seems a tad political to only give the reports to one party.

Also, if wiretapping was used as the NY Times stated, it would have had to have been through a warrant that was approved by the FISA court.

 

Quote

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

 

By  MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017

 

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

 

Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And you will show him that all he needs to do is make outlandish accusations to tie up Congress and the press with endless frivolous investigations to distract from other stuff that matters.

I get your frustration, but you can't go wasting taxpayer dollars and time and energy with "full blown investigations" every time the crank opens his fat yap making s*** up.  You simply tell him that you're all ears as soon as you have some viable evidence to go on, otherwise put him on ignore.

 But don't you think those within his party are normalizing his behavior? Chaffetz has said that they will investigate these claims.  Why is that? There is absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And considering Trump's history of false claims it's almost ridiculous to give credence to anything he says.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

10 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

It wasn't just right wing sources that had reported on wiretapping. The NY Times reported back in January that Trump aides had been wiretapped. 

There's been no evidence that Obama had ordered the wiretapping; however, the Obama White House was provided with reports on the wiretapping. Why did the Obama White House need to know about the investigation if the reports found no evidence of wrongdoing?

It seems odd that the Obama White House, which didn't order the investigation or wiretapping, would be given reports of the investigation that found no wrongdoing. If the Obama White House was given reports of the investigation, then why wasn't Trump given these reports? It seems a tad political to only give the reports to one party.

Also, if wiretapping was used as the NY Times stated, it would have had to have been through a warrant that was approved by the FISA court.

 

 

Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Yes, we know about these things.  It's why Michael Flynn is no longer employed.  That is not what is being asserted by Trump now.  He's saying that he and his business - Trump Tower no less - was being wiretapped under orders from Obama.  He's offered zero proof and yes, only partisan right wingnut sites are reporting about it.

[homersapien 11,812]

15 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

I would not call it a forum weakness, as I believe it is an option that was disabled, most likely to curtail the wall of quoted text from a forum full of lazy posters that did not trim the quotes in their replies.  Personally, I miss it, for the same reason that you do.  I do not miss having to scroll through an entire conversation in each post.

EDIT:  Forgot to add to you can use the orange + to the left of "Quote" to select multi-quote.

I agree with you on the "wall of quotes", which is why I suggested limiting it to two.

I haven't tried the multi-quote function so thanks for pointing it out.

[homersapien 11,812]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

And you will show him that all he needs to do is make outlandish accusations to tie up Congress and the press with endless frivolous investigations to distract from other stuff that matters.

I get your frustration, but you can't go wasting taxpayer dollars and time and energy with "full blown investigations" every time the crank opens his fat yap making s*** up.  You simply tell him that you're all ears as soon as you have some viable evidence to go on, otherwise put him on ignore.

My point is that we are obligated to spend taxpayer dollars, time and energy when the POTUS makes such a comment.  And like Ellie said, in this case, a "full blown" investigation might be very quick.

Apparently, we don't agree about the seriousness of such falsehoods when they are made by the POTUS.  If Obama broke the law, we need to know about it.  If Trump is deliberately lying, we need to know about it.  This is not like saying "you can keep your doctor" or "I am going to revitalize the coal industry".  This has to do with criminal behavior that threatens our political system. 

We cannot afford to put the POTUS on ignore if he makes an accusation about criminal behavior.  If the POTUS makes such claims he knows are false, that is a problem we need to address openly, for the sake of the country.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

My point is that we are obligated to spend taxpayer dollars, time and energy when the POTUS makes such a comment.  And like Ellie said, in this case, a "full blown" investigation might be very quick.

Apparently, we don't agree about the seriousness of such falsehoods when they are made by the POTUS.  If Obama broke the law, we need to know about it.  If Trump is deliberately lying, we need to know about it.  This is not like saying "you can keep your doctor" or "I am going to revitalize the coal industry".  This has to do with criminal behavior that threatens our political system. 

We cannot afford to put the POTUS on ignore if he makes an accusation about criminal behavior.  If the POTUS makes such claims he knows are false, that is a problem we need to address openly, for the sake of the country.

I don't think we are.  I think we are obligated when the POTUS makes such a comment and has some evidence that the claim actually occurred.  It has to be more than just him making a claim.  

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Trump would do well in this forum.  He gets it!  

A distortion, some deflection, and suddenly, no one remembers the original topic of discussion.

 

At the outset, Trump and Obama should be irrelevant.  Forget partisanship.  Let's investigate the extent of Russia's attempts to influence our presidential election.  Let the chips fall where they may.  How about an investigation that attempts to find facts and, come to a conclusion rather than, an investigation that attempts to find only facts that support a predetermined conclusion?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

30 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think we are.  I think we are obligated when the POTUS makes such a comment and has some evidence that the claim actually occurred.  It has to be more than just him making a claim.  

Investigations with zero credible evidence are witch hunts.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

I think the frustrating thing to many Americans is the fact that after 5 months of investigating the collusion charge there is nothing there other than conversations exist. Most Americans understand conversations always exist. This is nothing new and have taken place forever. 

Give us something or move along. The appearance of a witch hunt is there. The appearance of obstruction is there. Time to put up or shut up. Do i expect that to happen? No.

[homersapien 11,812]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Investigations with zero credible evidence are witch hunts.

Has it gotten to the point where we should just accept the incredibility of the POTUS on such a significant claim?  Is it OK to tolerate a POTUS who is willing to forment such a "witch hunt".

If so, I would suggest we are obligated to pursue whatever legal means necessary to remove him from office. We owe that to ourselves and our country.

The evidence is the statement the POTUS made. 

 

[homersapien 11,812]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think the frustrating thing to many Americans is the fact that after 5 months of investigating the collusion charge there is nothing there other than conversations exist. Most Americans understand conversations always exist. This is nothing new and have taken place forever. 

Give us something or move along. The appearance of a witch hunt is there. The appearance of obstruction is there. Time to put up or shut up. Do i expect that to happen? No.

As yet, there has been no investigation.  Information leaks do not constitute an investigation.

[homersapien 11,812]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think we are.  I think we are obligated when the POTUS makes such a comment and has some evidence that the claim actually occurred.  It has to be more than just him making a claim.  

We are talking past each other.  You are arguing the facts (as you assume them). 

I am arguing a philosophical point regarding how we respect the office of the presidency.  To simply blow this off is to manifest a casual disregard for the office.  This is more about process than it is Donald Trump.