Thanks to Trump, we may now have new rules on what constitutes 'truth':

1. If I'm fairly certain that something happened, then it happened.

2. It somebody could have done something, then it's very likely that they did.

3. If somebody had a motive for doing somethinng, they probably did.

There you go: either Trump came up with the suspicion, or dreamt it (it happens) that Obama misused his office to try to bring Trump down; OR Obama could have, OR he probably wanted to, THEREFORE, if you put all that together, it's obvious that Obama had Trump's offices wire-tapped.

This new way to establish 'truth' opens up many exciting avenues for OLO posters:

* if you suspect something has happened, you won't need anything as mundane as proof, you already KNOW it's true;

* if someone has a different opinion to yours, then clearly they are not only wrong, and have all manner of ulterior motives, but they hate you, so you can attack them with no need to use anything like evidence;

But other avenues open up: clearly, Trump believes that, armed with the 'truth', he will be immune to prosecution for besmirching the name of a former President, the former head of the FBI, etc., etc.
So no matter what you 'know' of someone else, you are probably right to attack them any way you can. After all, they're playing dirty, so you can too.

Welcome to the playground.

You forgot.

If there is proof he has done it to others he probably would do it especially if he thought you were a threat to his power.

Here’s the List: More Than a Dozen Proven Victims of Obama’s Many Wiretaps
https://wikileaks.org/nsa-201602/

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd (see link here) of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

Continued.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

Update – WikiLeaks tweeted overnight that the Obama Administration spied on their journalists as well:

The New York Daily News tells us that "Here's the
difference between fake news and real news reporting.
If you're a reporter for a legitimate news organisation
and you use bogus information from unsubstantiated or
fake sources, you get fired."

"If you're a candidate for President and you use bogus
information from unsubstantiated or fake sources you
get elected."

The paper goes on to tell us that President Trump, however,
who rails constantly against "fake news" went on another
Twitter rant claiming former President Obama had Trump
Tower wire-tapped. Trump's information appears to have
come from a Breitbart News report being circulated among
White House staff of a broadcast by conservative radio
host Mark Levin. The paper tells us that "Too bad
the Breitbart report reads like an indictment of Trump
associates cosiness with the Russians and ends with the
targeting of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his
undisclosed meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey
Kislyak - a top Russian spy and recruiter - as reported
by CNN".

Hi Phillip,

So are you suggesting that the CIA, FBI, NSA, the Justice Department, perhaps the military and Homeland Security and various other agencies, received permission from a range of state and federal courts to tap those phones at the behest of President Obama ?

This could get interesting: Obama is a lawyer, with access to many other specialised legal firms and human rights agencies, and he's cashed-up from his book deal.

I'm anticipating a joint suit against Trump lodged by Obama, Clapper, Comey, and many others, perhaps even some state and federal government agencies. Yes, Trump might go down in history all right.

Cheers,

Joe

The only thing that the Posts tell me is that all Politicians "spy & Lie" for the bigger things "we" are not supposed to know about. This Includes our Politicians. Nothing new here. Loudmouths right.

Loudmouth - Why do you think they had to go to a court to get permission?

Fisa courts

Also Obama signed at least 5 Executive orders, the contents of which were never revealed very few people know what they involve, so maybe they don't need permission for certain acts.

Hi Phillip,

Ah, I get it: this is so secret and underhand that there is no evidence of it all, it's all been covered up ? Devilishly cunning.

The problem with no proof is that there is no proof. Cunning and devious, they all may be, but you may have nothing to back up this gigantic assertion.

Quote "nothing to back up this gigantic assertion." That is the beauty of it I can't prove it BUT you can't disprove it.

Here's another interesting take on why trumps latest
accusation could backfire:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-trumps-latest-obama-accusation-could-backfire

Hi Phillip,

I don't have to. As Christopher Hitchens said, 'He who asserts must prove'. Or as the romans put it, 'Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis' - what is asserted without proof can be ignored without the need for evidence.'

But thanks for demonstrating my original points :)

Cheers,

Joe

I think politician who not tell the truth is very bad because all the people should believe them to speak truth about very important things, that effect all the people.

If we cannot believe them, who can the people believe. They are man and woman of God because they are called Ministers, and Ministers must not tell any lies at all, am I wrong perhaps to trust them if I cant trust them who do I believe about important things in this country?

If you're of the view that Trump is a fool then its entirely probable that you'll think that he just got up one morning and decided, between his morning coffee and his morning ablutions, that he'd send out a series of tweets making assertions based upon nothing more than a news report.

If on the other hand, you think that Trump is spectacularly savvy you might think that he’s just pulled off a master stroke, weeks in the making.
We know that surveillance was being done – exhibit A..Mike Flynn. We know that there were all sorts of leaks emanating from the deep state about what might or might not have been connections between Trump et al and Putin et al. We know that those trying to delegitimise Trump were doubling down on their Flynn victory by going after Sessions. We have some indications that those associated with Obama might have sought court permission to tap Trump. We have some indications that some in the intelligence community might have briefed Trump on what was going on (Mike Rogers).
So maybe we might conclude that savvy (rather than foolish) Trump knows what he’s doing. Already we’ve seen the Russian stories pushed by the (dis)loyal opposition collapsing. After all they can’t very well continue to claim there’s evidence of collusion without admitting that tapping was going on. So even there Trump has already had a victory. Now we see the MSM trying to say that their previous reports about how evidence was gathered against Trump, wasn’t true. Another, in a long line of wins, of Trump over the MSM.

Most telling for me is the way the Obama sycophants are carefully choosing their words. Obama didn’t order any tapping they assert. And that’s probably true since these people always need plausible deniability and a winks as good as a nod. But they aren’t deny that the tapping might have occurred.

Trump’s set the ball rolling. Investigations will ensue. Popcorn futures just went up.

Thanks MHaze,

"We have some indications that those associated with Obama might have sought court permission to tap Trump."

" ..... the tapping might have occurred."

Thanks again for validating my original points.

Yes, it's possible that Trump isn't the narcissistic idiot that he has patently demonstrated so far, the 'bully at the back of the class', or psychotic. He may actually have a very clever plan. Yes, he may not be as he seems.

Or he may be: he may be even more of a fool than we assume. We'll see. Every day brings new fascinations, after all.

Expect a flurry of law suits. Defamation of a former President is probably some sort of offence, even in the US.

Cheers,

Joe

"Thanks again for validating my original points."

Well if your original points were that we'll have to await developments then, yes I agree. But if that was your point then you might need to re-write your original post since that wasn't what you you said. It was more along the lines of, since you can't see the evidence, there isn't any.

I noticed how you adopted the same stance with regards to the Russia connection as well...<sarc off>.

Yeah, defamation action might be possible for the Obamessiah...if he doesn't mind having all his dirty linen aired in court. On the other hand, using the mechanisms of the state to target political oppenents might also be an actionable offence. Its unlikely they'll find Barry's finger-prints on anything here, but when his underlings are under oath before a Congression investigation of Special Prosecutor, maybe some uncomfortable finger pointing might ensue.

In the meantime, the President can get on with fulfilling his promises to the electorate, while the Clinton/Obama/Democrat machines along with the MSM lick their wounds and fret over what he might have over them. And all because of 4 x 140 character 'bullets'. Now they know what its like to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Hi MHaze,

My point ?

* if you suspect something has happened, you won't need anything as mundane as proof, you already KNOW it's true;

Perhaps I should stress that I don't think this is the way to go. One does need some proof, not just a suspicion, or a 'maybe'.

Do you have anything besides 'might' and 'might have' ?

And given the links that Tillerson, Sessions and Flynn seem to have had with the Russians, via their contacts with FSB head-man Kislyak, which nobody is denying, in this game of 'Might have', that seems to be a stronger possibility than any illegal wire-tapping ordered by Obama.

He who asserts must prove. Nobody is obliged to prove NOT.

Joe

anyone half interested in truth knows that their is only one Man who always told the truth. They hung him on a tree. Trump no doubt has twisted the truth however Obama, Clinton, baby killers and so called climate scientist makes him look good. There are habitual liars and their are some who tell the truth most of the time. Usually the leftist media ignore it when their own lie and then act horrified when they think they have caught others out. The abc is among the worst.

aBC. Does far more good than harm.. They work with police to setup a catch. Which otherwise go undetected. You need proof to take someone to court. To have it in for Griggs is nothing but sour grapes.
Praising Abbott for misleading a nation is only punishable by an opposition.
You need to weigh things up without predgudice..

LM,

Kislyak wasn't head of the FSB. He's the ambassador. (Little wonder you misunderstand so much when you understand so little.) Tillerson etc aren't denying they met him, because, it seems, everyone in DC met him at some point - From BHO to Hillary, Pelosi and all the way down. Although some on the DNC side have denied it, forgetting that the WWW never forgets, and have been exposed as, ahem, forgetful.

I'm not saying that there's proof at this point. Only that your insinuations that, since there isn't proof its evidence that The Donald made it up from whole clothe, are wayward. There are processes to go through. Trump started the ball rolling. The Congress will push it down the hill - and its all downhill for Barry and Hill.

So we'll just have to wait to see the outcome. But I'm betting that DT knows plenty, else he wouldn't have sent the tweets. But those who have a low opinion of Trump will think otherwise, as you do.

Of course, if things go bad for the Dems, you'll find some way to forget your current misunderstandings. But fear not, I'll be here to remind you.

Hi MHaze,

No, I didn't say he was, just head man of the FSB at the Russian Embassy in the US. So Sessions swearing to tell the whole truth, but 'forgetting' to mention private meetings with Kislyak in his own office, i.e. telling an 'incomplete truth', is right in the Trump mould.

But put that together with this:

"..... your insinuations that, since there isn't proof[,] its[it's] evidence that The Donald made it up from whole clothe[cloth], are wayward."

So no matter how a Trump appointee lies, it's just a matter of 'incomplete truth' ? And when Trump makes an accusation, without any proof, any observation to that effect, is wayward ? Does Trump or any of his myrmidons have any notion of what constitutes the truth ?

God, what a circus. But seriously, what are the legal(and financial) implications of accusing an ex-President of massively breaking the law ? Sure, Trump might have done it just off the top of his head, like some sort of thought-bubble, but such thought-bubbles have enormous consequences. Trump can say later, "Well, he might have," as if that's simply a minor point of discussion, but (I know this is a completely futile wish) wouldn't it be more sensible for him to keep his trap shut until he got some evidence ?

He's accusing a President of putting the muscle on numerous government agencies, and perhaps a special court, to break the law and influence a forthcoming election. How ? Down that chain, who would obey ? Why ? Why should perhaps hundreds of people incriminate themselves to satisfy Obama ? Or were they all willing participants in a massive conspiracy ?

That's the trouble with a conspiracy theory: it might start small but ends up involving - and somehow swearing to secrecy - great numbers of people in order to make the whole plot work.

Oh well, Obama (and many others) is probably about to say: 'See you in court.'

Joe

Not sure I understand things right, but from what I heard somewhere when I was half dozing off, Trump wasn't specifically targeted.
Obama's people inside the intelligence community only had to create the context of 'colluding with Russians' to create a context to listen in to those calls.

So they were spying on Trump in a way that they could say "We weren't spying on Trump"...

Hi AC,

Yes, various US intelligence agencies have probably been quite legitimately gathering intelligence on anybody who is having dealings with any Russian firms, banks or government agencies. I certainly hope so.

So if Trump has got caught up in some of their investigations, so be it. One way he could dampen down any accusation of being in Putin's pocket is to release his tax returns, which would itemise all of his investments, including those in Russia or through Russian banks, and dividends (or losses) from those investments. No Russian investment - less likely to be any collusion between Trump and any Russian oligarch.

For the record, here at Trump's tweets last weekend:

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

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

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

On the other hand, suppose Trump IS in the pocket of Putin: can we call Trump something like - "The Siberian Candidate" ?

SAD !

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,
Lots of people don't like Alex Jones and Infowars.
They think he's loud, an alarmist and frequently associated with conspiracy theories; which isn't exactly untrue, though I'd mostly defend him and say his track record probably isn't any worse than other news agencies.
I certainly have my criticisms; his company slogan is "A war for your mind" and sometimes that's all I think it is.
He doesn't go into detail and present information as well as what I'd like, often ranting and butting in during interviews.
But despite the criticisms, I must say he's doing really well bringing independent news recently.
He's been getting on some really good people; insiders that have some really good insight into what is really going on with Trump, on a daily basis.
I wouldn't even say Alex is altogether responsible for the improved content anymore than say that people who support the constitution and republic are instead using Alex Jones' show to wage war against the Deep State and to save America.

Why am I telling you this?
Because when you often say things to the effect of 'Pull up your chairs, Trumps Presidency is going to be entertaining', I sometimes think that your news sources are depriving you of half of the show.
Maybe even the best parts too.

The other thing I want to say is that you might end up being on the wrong side of this; on the wrong side of history.

This CIA thing today 'DeepStateGate' is another huge victory against them, and I get the feeling Trumps chances of succeeding are improving.
Though it's only just getting started....

Regarding the tweets, he's just not allowing the corporate media to have it over him by going around them and addressing his supporters himself.

Trump's tactics have been quite successful, they're saying the 'Wiretapping' and 'Wikileaks' was a deliberate strategy, not accidental.

Instead of being concerned about Trump's disparaging of Obama, you might be more concerned about Obama and Co. going down for espionage.

Here's a two good interviews from today:
Roger Stone and then Steve Pieczenik
http://youtu.be/rGsK5zXyjiE?t=31m50s

Loudmouth: The problem with no proof is that there is no proof.

Hmmm... Just because there is no proof doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Look at our Justice System. If Evidence is not obtained legally it's not admissible (Eg; the Greyhound affair video). Even if the evidence is glaringly there, it's not allowed to be used to convict.

misanthrope: I cant trust them who do I believe about important things in this country?

It's a Quandary Ay. Believe none of what you here & only half of what you see."

Loudmouth: Tillerson, Sessions and Flynn seem to have had with the Russians, via their contacts with FSB head-man Kislyak,

But, just what did they discuss. Sports? No-one has said.

doog: aBC. Does far more good than harm..

Ha! ha! ha! ha!... Picking one's self off the floor.

Loudmouth: telling an 'incomplete truth', is right in the Trump mould.

One only has to watch the ABC on Parliamentary Commissions. There are Official Truths & Unofficial Truths & it's how the Question is framed as to which one you get the response to. They all do it. Nothing to learn here, moving on.

AC: I sometimes think that your news sources are depriving you of half of the show.

"& only half of what you see."

Hi AC,

Perhaps you're right: Trump is actually masquerading as a buffoon but actually is incredibly smrat [oops, samrt], and is playing a very long game. He is goofing around in order to lull his adversaries etc.

WISE !

On the other hand .......

//when you often say things to the effect of 'Pull up your chairs, Trumps Presidency is going to be entertaining', I sometimes think that your news sources are depriving you of half of the show.
Maybe even the best parts too.//

Yeah, there's not much in this world that is funnier than the lunacy of Alex Jones. I know it's wrong too laugh at the mentally ill, but how can you not laugh at stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CphSi3-9DXo

Yep, doesn't get much better than that XD

The only concerning part is that the AC's of this world are apparently so bereft of a sense of humour that they don't get the joke.

You're a complete idiot Toni.
I say 'complete' because I likely already called you an 'idiot' the last time you posted that video.
You keep thinking that posting a video from 'Media Matters for America' is going to prove some point.

You're just a 'useful idiot' posting propaganda.
Tell me this: How many of you and the other numbskulls portraying yourselves as intelligent liberals know anything about the content or could contribute anything useful at all about it, of what was discussed on Inforwars yesterday, what is actually going on in the Trump scene.

Many here do have an idea of what's going on.
Others like yourself just whinge and whine and nitpick and contribute nothing of real value, wasting the whole day entrenched in a uninformed mindless jellyfish mentality, when all you have to do is follow the others and click a damn link and become informed.

You and others continually beat your head against a wall like you expect a different outcome, then portray yourself as smart.
Dumb as dogshite.

Here's a bit of light relief for us all:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433554/donald-trump-art-seduction

Do we have a Trump in Australia?

Dearest Foxy,

Thanks so much for this brilliant expose of Trump. Scary ! But it explains so much :)

Now I've got to send it around ........

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I'm glad that you liked it.

At present I've got a touch of the flu, so I'm drifting
in and out of posting. Still I'm pleased that I was able to
come across something of interest.

Foxy,
I read the article on Trump the seducer.
His supporters are not seduced they are very well aware of the salesman
and misogynist that Trump is.

They voted for him anyway because they understand clearly how the left wing
Lot like Hilary Clinton for example, have stuffed up America, Europe and Australia.

They know that although Trump is a risk, it's 5minutes to midnight when it
Comes to the co- lapse of the West because of the crazy utopian policies
Of the left and academics. These people still espouse the same ideas
And can't see that what's wrong with their countries is their own doing.
So this article about Trumps seduction of voters is an attempt to say his supporters
can't think for themselves and he has seduced them and the people who
Oppose him are really the ones who have the right ideas.

Sorry, but it is the Obama, Hilary supporters who have bought the West to its knees
with their delusional ideas that they can engineer society into some utopian love and peace global village. Time to take off the blinkers and see, the massive failure this has become. In the military and economic sense. The whole experiment has been
A disaster.
The Trump supporters are the ones able to see this clearly.
Donald Trump may yet prove to be unworthy or unable to do the things that need to be done to reverse the situation in time but he was the only one who offered any alternative to the current mess. His supporters know he may not deliver but he was the only choice
to the hippie la la land brainwashed by ideology academics, and socialist, capitalist,
haters. Believe me Indont like the capitalists either, but I don't see the point of
taking the whole of western society down and handing it to an enemy, like Julian Assange for one seems to want to do. People who voted for Trump are sick of His type.

I tend to agree with you Cherful. Well thought out.

well said cheerful.

The Democrats were thrown out. From their record the Democrats deserved to lose. That was the assessment of voters.

Trump could not have arisen as an alternative without the public, the electorate, previously deciding that the Democrats had been coming up short, they failed, and change was needed

Obama and the Democrats are in denial. Clinton was always fighting a losing battle, but she had contributed to the mess and knew she was bluffing it.

Hi Cherful,

The old leftie in me would have held his nose and voted for Clinton last year, but in many ways, is it possible that Clinton and Trump are opposite sides of the same coin ?

They each pandered to sections of the US public, each in his/her own way a proponent of different forms of identity politics, to different groups: each ignored, neglected or denigrated whole sections of the American population: Clinton the working-class base of the Democrats, Trump of course 'Mexicans' (i.e. all Latin Americans) and Muslims (i.e. all Muslims). Each split the nation.

Internationally, Obama followed and/or engineered what was probably the most sensible paths in incredibly difficult situations, Syria, Afghanistan and eastern Europe. What Six-gun Trump might do in the case of the first do is anybody's guess, although we have an idea of what he is doing in his dealings with Putin.

I agree that any push for all-out socialism is manifestly ridiculous, given its history, but that capitalism has enormous defects as well. Perhaps in the next four years, there will be a lot of searching for alternatives to both, or at least a way of ameliorating the faults of each. I'm inclined towards Karl Popper's notion - it must seem so wimpy to both sides - of 'incremental amelioration', where it is possible - and, in my view, extreme caution where it is not.

Again, both sides, Clinton and Trump, would prefer 'bold' moves to transform American society and the world. But it's an incredibly complex and fraught world at the moment, with shaky alliances and entire regions of hot-spots, so 'bold' moves, in so many situations, can lead to disaster these days. It seems like one of those times when nobody in their right mind would try to predict the future, not accurately anyway.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear CHERFUL,

Voting is not compulsory in the US. Many people did
not vote. Also Trump did not win the popular vote.
Which means that more people voted for Clinton than
they did for Trump. The electorate process needs reform.

Whether Trump survives we'll have to wait and see.
One thing's for sure - Most Americans are embarrassed
by him. His behaviour is not that of a leader of a
prominent nation but that of a host of a TV show.
But then Americans have had their George W. Bush's,
Richard Nixons, and others. So I guess that Congress
and the Courts will be able to ride this one out for as
long as he lasts.

Hey CHERFUL,
That was an awesome summary of the situation.
Only I wouldn't necessarily characterise Assange as a bad guy.

If Trump represents a 'conservative, nationalist, constitutionalist, We the People' position;
Then Hillary represents the 'progressive, globalist, anti-constitutionalist "We the Elites, Central Bankers, Multi-National Corporations, Deep State, New World Order' position.

In this light, Assange's original release of Manning documents in regards to NSA's unwarranted mass-surveillance on US citizens supports the 'conservative, nationalist, constitutionalist, We the People' Trump position.
Before Trump arrived on the political scene many in the conservative right wondered of Assange, "Is he a good guy or a bad guy?"
But since then one can't deny that he's done a lot of good for the 'We the People / Trump' position.
He released of Podesta emails supporting the 'We the People / Trump' position, which greatly damaged the Clinton campaign, and just recently when Trump accused Obama of wiretapping, Assange acted in a manner that was defensive or supportive of Trumps statements by releasing the CIA documents outlining their capabilities.
Their may have been prior inside knowledge of Wikileaks CIA release which Trump may have deliberately used to bait the media by tweeting regarding 'Obama's wiretapping' thus creating ObamaGate; similar to Richard Nixons 'Watergate'.
Assange promised to hand himself in if Manning was granted clemency, which Obama did, but then in January he renegged.
What if Trump himself told Assange not to hand himself in and that he could do more good remaining in the embassy for the time being?
I'm not saying that's what happened, but who knows?

Hi AC,

So Trump, Putin and Assange are all now besties ?

If Assange turned up at the US embassy, after having done his time in Sweden for rape, and if Trump is still President, maybe Assange could get given a Medal of Honour from Trump ?

Who would have predicted that a few months ago, when Obama was hounding Assange and demanding that the Swedes immediately hand him over, just after the British had handed him over to the Swedes ?

'The past is unknown, the present is indeterminate, only the future is certain' say Utopians. Really ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,
"...is it possible that Clinton and Trump are opposite sides of the same coin?"

We'll as outlined in the previous comment, domestically they seem to hold differing viewpoints.
What really interests me is Trumps foreign policy positions.
It's there your question becomes really relevant.

"Internationally, Obama followed and/or engineered what was probably the most sensible paths in incredibly difficult situations, Syria, Afghanistan and eastern Europe."

Syria: Arming and Supporting Jihadists in a proxy war against Assad?
Afghanistan: The war has been great for Opium production, and I'm sure Oil and Gas pipelines from the Caspian to India are high on their agenda too.
Eastern Europe: Victoria Nuland's $5Bln coup of Ukraine?

Its not about Trump and Putin being 'mates'.
It's about these very issues you are citing and the Deep State's agenda that's the real reason why Trump being 'mates' with Putin is so deeply opposed and undermined.
Check this news article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ambassador-cause-of-death-wont-be-released/
Seems obvious it wasn't natural causes, so are the Obama-loyal intelligence agencies trying to prevent Trump and Putin working together?
Trying to cause a stink between them like Obama tried to do ordering all ambassadors back to Russia last last year?

Hi AC,

I think you are mixing your conspiracies there :)

No, I didn't suggest that the policies of Clinton and Grump were the same, or even similar (although some of Sanders' and Trump's might be, come to think of it), but that they were the reactive opposites of each other.

I'm a simple person: I don't believe too many conspiracy theories (maybe because I can't really understand them, they're just too complicated). They are usually unprovable one way or the other, so they're not worth wasting brain-work over. So I'll stick to 'what you see is what where is.' God, I'm so naïve.

Cheers,

Joe

A key part of this thread that's bothered me is the way it's phrased repeatedly as though Trump is setting new rules on truth.

Trump is following in a long tradition.

The late Christopher Hitchens is worth a watch on the Clintons. This one is mostly about Bill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbegbXEj9eM on his book "No One Left To Lie To"

Very few are left I think who would doubt that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies regarding evidence of weapons of mass destruction. A lie of the Bush administration that has cost at least hundreds of thousands of lives but possibly millions, trillions of dollars and enormous turmoil.

From what I understand Obama lied about the mass surveillance that was exposed by Edward Snowdon. I'm not sure how much else has been conclusively proven to be lies. I'd put the comments by him about the suppression of right leaning and libertarian groups by the IRS as lies.

R0bert

Loudmouth - Follow the link your whole argument has been blown out.

Basically there will be no document saying wire tap Trump, because everything is being recorded and has been for years.

http://www.corbettreport.com/?s=paultruth

Only 9.48 minutes

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-685-russ-tice-reveals-the-truth-about-nsa-spying/

R0bert: Trump is following in a long tradition.

Of course he is, that's a given.

Phillip S: Basically there will be no document saying wire tap Trump, because everything is being recorded and has been for years.

Of course it has, that's a given. To believe otherwise is naïve. They, including our Politicians, have whole Departments keeping tabs on each other. Obeid has offered to blow the whistle on all of them for a price. I would be surprised if he has an "accident" or dies from whatever illness he has before he opens his mouth.

The author of this post is obviously right. Especially with the last point!