20 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

FBI director James B. Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject President Donald Trump's assertion that the president Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Trump's phones, senior US officials said. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/fbi-director-james-comey-asks-justice-department-to-reject-donald-trumps-wiretapping-claim-20170305-gurb08.html

I don't think it matters any more iv'a.

Just saw it was Wrecker quoting Brietbart at the top of the page. He's already too far down the rabbit hole.

In a year he'll be quoting /r/TheDonald. In 2 years, the red pill. A few more, 8chan*. Breitbart is like a gateway drug for the alt-right.

Nothing we say will make an ounce of difference.

I'll miss you, old version Wrecker.
 

*If anyone doesn't know 8chan, you'll know their work. They deliberately design leftist memes to encourage right wing blow-back and outrage and drive more to their cause.

43 minutes ago, Choke said:

*If anyone doesn't know 8chan, you'll know their work. They deliberately design leftist memes to encourage right wing blow-back and outrage and drive more to their cause.

so just a tlt for tat site, choke? plenty of rightist memes doing to the rounds

besides, memes are good fun........mostly

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so just a tlt for tat site, choke? plenty of rightist memes doing to the rounds

besides, memes are good fun........mostly

Uh, no. lol.

You can do there for yourself to see. Download TOR first though.
 

Edit: this probably explains the phenomenon better than I can. It's a safe link to an article on a comedy website (of all places). Conservatives won't like the tone since it's played for laughs, but it's useful if for nothing other than getting safe images of 4chan and 8chan without actually having to go to either cesspool:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2381-toddler-rape-threats-other-tactics-alt-right.html

 

1 hour ago, Choke said:

Not necessarily. However, if a counterintelligence operate who spoke anonymously said such a thing, and then Trump resigned because of it - it'd be a pretty good indication that those conversations took place wouldn't you agree?

That's what happened here - with Flynn. The tapes clearly exist and he spoke to the Russians - he resigned because he lied about it to the Vice President. If the tapes did not exist, then he did not lie, and he'd still have a job.

All we're looking for is an investigation, which is what's happening.

My posts were in response to Biffen asking what the deal was with the Russians. I believe I have explained it sufficiently and provided enough information for an agreement at least that the investigation is warranted, no?

If it comes back that the other 3 had conversations that were an innocuous as Flynn's, then fine - no issue. But if it is established that they violated the Logan Act, then they need to be prosecuted.

This isn't some invention by the left wing media. Congress is investigating this - they need to know if their president or his staff are compromised.

FWIW I hope they aren't. Despite the immense satisfaction I'd get from finding out that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians (and subsequent impeachment), it'd be a terrible thing for Democracy and the USA. I think if Trump is to be impeached, I believe it will be because of financial conflicts of interest. I really hope it's not because he's in bed with the Russians.

 

I'm was not arguing that the tapes / evidence doesn't exist of Flynn, my original question was how did you know that the evidence came as a result of surveillance on the Russian's and not on Trump or his team? You provided a quote from an anonymous source. I really don't think anything is certain in any of this.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm was not arguing that the tapes / evidence doesn't exist of Flynn, my original question was how did you know that the evidence came as a result of surveillance on the Russian's and not on Trump or his team? You provided a quote from an anonymous source. I really don't think anything is certain in any of this.

 

 

Are you kidding?

You seriously think it's more likely Obama was spying on Trump than the FBI was conducting routine monitoring of foreign powers?

You said just now, the tapes clearly exist. Do you actually believe they exist because Obama managed to find some formerly unknown method for a President to spy on political rivals (and that he was idiotic enough to use it), or that the FBI was just doing its job and checking out Russia's communications?

I believe the claim for 2 reasons:

1 - it was the explanation provided by the source
2 - the alternative is ludicrous

 

Of course nothing is certain - but as I said, this is the beginning of the investigation. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

2 hours ago, Choke said:

Are you kidding?

You seriously think it's more likely Obama was spying on Trump than the FBI was conducting routine monitoring of foreign powers?

You said just now, the tapes clearly exist. Do you actually believe they exist because Obama managed to find some formerly unknown method for a President to spy on political rivals (and that he was idiotic enough to use it), or that the FBI was just doing its job and checking out Russia's communications?

I believe the claim for 2 reasons:

1 - it was the explanation provided by the source
2 - the alternative is ludicrous

 

Of course nothing is certain - but as I said, this is the beginning of the investigation. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

So Agitprop is now a weapon appropriated by the alt right?

The expropriators will be expropriated I suppose-only fair.

 

2 minutes ago, Biffen said:

So Agitprop is now a weapon appropriated by the alt right?

The expropriators will be expropriated I suppose-only fair.

 

Is this Vietnamese speak for Rice paper rolls, or what?

I despair for the state of American Politics.

I am not sure it would have been any better had Hillary got in - I think it would have been an entirely different sort of disfunction with continued "corruption" and "misdeed" type of allegations swirling around her.

It's like going to the footy and knowing you have to eat but then seeing the choices before you. You are going to eat, but you know the food is all going to be crap.

( and for the record - Australian political choices are no better)   

12 hours ago, Biffen said:

So Agitprop is now a weapon appropriated by the alt right?

The expropriators will be expropriated I suppose-only fair.

 

I wouldn't call it Agitprop since it isn't state sanctioned - but yes, there is a significant portion of alt-right nut jobs who construct memes and other social/shareable content in order to sway people to their side. Either for ideological reasons or just for the fun of it.

It's more organised than we think, via /pol as suggested previously, but has the appearance of being disorganised and amorphous because us normies don't go there and the mainstream media has little understanding of it.

 

 

16 hours ago, Choke said:

Are you kidding?

You seriously think it's more likely Obama was spying on Trump than the FBI was conducting routine monitoring of foreign powers?

You said just now, the tapes clearly exist. Do you actually believe they exist because Obama managed to find some formerly unknown method for a President to spy on political rivals (and that he was idiotic enough to use it), or that the FBI was just doing its job and checking out Russia's communications?

I believe the claim for 2 reasons:

1 - it was the explanation provided by the source
2 - the alternative is ludicrous

 

Of course nothing is certain - but as I said, this is the beginning of the investigation. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

Choke I'm not going to keep arguing this because it is honestly not worth either of our time. Your welcome to have the last say but just in response to the above

1 - the source was anonymous. It fits your narrative and it may well be legitimate but the whole thing is so grubby from both sides I don't know what to believe. I'm glad Flynn has been caught out lying but counter terrorism surveillance operatives shouldn't be leaking to the media. It has political motive written all over it. They are not a fact checker organisation to keep the Government honest.

2 - I think it more likely a group set up to monitor the Government and officials would leak to the media about a Government official. Than a long standing counter terrorist operative spying on Russia just to fact check on a Government official and call him out for lying. That would be such a minor and incidental thing that they came accross and a massive breach of their duty. The whole thing is ludicrous no matter which way you look at it.

The interesting question for me is whether anyone thinks that Obama would wiretap Trump for political purposes ? I could half understand it if Obama was seeking re-election  - aka Nixon. But does anyone believe the Obama would do something Wategate'esque some 2 months before he was going to leave office ? 

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

The interesting question for me is whether anyone thinks that Obama would wiretap Trump for political purposes ? I could half understand it if Obama was seeking re-election  - aka Nixon. But does anyone believe the Obama would do something Wategate'esque some 2 months before he was going to leave office ? 

Fair call, particularly, given he hates the Clintons. That said as a lame duck president Obama did get most of his stuff done through Executive Orders and Trump was pretty explicit in the fact he was going to undo Obama's legacy.

Whist the below is a quote from Sessions, my comment afterwards applies to all politicians

"I do not recall any discussions with the Russian ambassador, or any other representative of the Russian government, regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasion," he wrote in the letter.

Once a politician says one of two phrases I figure they are lying 

1/ I do not recall ( or to my recollection)

2/ To my knowledge/to the best of my knowledge

14 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Whist the below is a quote from Sessions, my comment afterwards applies to all politicians

"I do not recall any discussions with the Russian ambassador, or any other representative of the Russian government, regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasion," he wrote in the letter.

Once a politician says one of two phrases I figure they are lying 

1/ I do not recall ( or to my recollection)

2/ To my knowledge/to the best of my knowledge

Our own George Brandis is a master at this. Bloody Germans.

 

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Whist the below is a quote from Sessions, my comment afterwards applies to all politicians

"I do not recall any discussions with the Russian ambassador, or any other representative of the Russian government, regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasion," he wrote in the letter.

Once a politician says one of two phrases I figure they are lying 

1/ I do not recall ( or to my recollection)

2/ To my knowledge/to the best of my knowledge

Gillian Triggs starts most of her sentences with one or the other.  Not a politician I know.

What gets forgotten with the possible Russian connection,  tapped phones,  immigration issues,  fake news,  misreporting and all the rest of it is Trump's plan to kick-start jobs & manufacturing.  After all, that's what a large majority of Americans are actually interested in. 

Whether Trump is able to succeed or not is debatable but the following article from 'The New York Times' paints a decent picture of where the USA sits with regards to trade, tariffs et al. 

Taking the path of taxing imports, imposing value-added taxes or suchlike is risky and can have repercussions but the illustrated graphs in the link sees the United States way behind most if not all of it's trading partners with regards to trade barriers. 

It will be fascinating to see what Trump and his administration do as the Republicans have traditionally never felt a need to veer away from an open trade policy.

Anyway, it's worth a read ... Building Trade Walls

 

 

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Gillian Triggs starts most of her sentences with one or the other.  Not a politician I know.

Let me widen the scope - anyone who starts a sentence with either of those phrases is usually telling fibs.

 

7 hours ago, Macca said:

What gets forgotten with the possible Russian connection,  tapped phones,  immigration issues,  fake news,  misreporting and all the rest of it is Trump's plan to kick-start jobs & manufacturing.  After all, that's what a large majority of Americans are actually interested in. 

Whether Trump is able to succeed or not is debatable but the following article from 'The New York Times' paints a decent picture of where the USA sits with regards to trade, tariffs et al. 

Taking the path of taxing imports, imposing value-added taxes or suchlike is risky and can have repercussions but the illustrated graphs in the link sees the United States way behind most if not all of it's trading partners with regards to trade barriers. 

It will be fascinating to see what Trump and his administration do as the Republicans have traditionally never felt a need to veer away from an open trade policy.

Anyway, it's worth a read ... Building Trade Walls

 

 

If and i imagine it is Trumps main concern that the US are getting bad trading "deals". Is it too simpler solution to just mirror the tarrifs each of the trading partners are imposing on the US? 

Forgetting for a second that would be in breach of the WTO's rules.

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

Let me widen the scope - anyone who starts a sentence with either of those phrases is usually telling fibs.

 

any politician who opens his mouth is usually about to tell a fib

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

If and i imagine it is Trumps main concern that the US are getting bad trading "deals". Is it too simpler solution to just mirror the tarrifs each of the trading partners are imposing on the US? 

Forgetting for a second that would be in breach of the WTO's rules.

Whether any 'rules' actually apply is anyone's guess in the current climate ... if things stay as they are with their trade policy it's hard to see anything changing of any note with regards to manufacturing jobs.  He went with a platform of creating real jobs and bringing back or revitalising the manufacturing industry all under the banner of making America great again. 

Did you read the article and see where the USA sits?  I was quite surprised to see how so many other countries are so far ahead of the USA with regards to trade differentials (in real terms) 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Hopefully he can do it, but I reckon a lot of those manufacturing jobs won't be back and he'll have a very angry electorate on his hands. Lots of jobs are lots due to technology and market forces, but he only really spoke about the outsourcing issue.

Personally I think it would have been better to let the market take its course and implement programs to retrain those who lost their jobs. But this brings up other issues - I read recently that part of the issue with retraining mostly male factory workers runs into resistance with them not wanting to go into traditionally non-male industries. So their ego gets spanked twice. Once because their job has been replaced by a robot or someone cheaper overseas, and again when they're told their only other options for employment are jobs they think are only for women (health care/hospitality).

So now you throw in macho man Trump, who promises to bring it all back. He better deliver, or that rust belt ego will be hit a third time and they'll be damn angry that their hero didn't come through. 

If he makes it to the next election without being impeached, I think this will be a big problem for him. All those voters who supported him will see that the factories haven't reopenned and things have not improved. They won't vote for him in the numbers they did before, and some may change depending on if the Dems can put up an even half viable candidate.

14 minutes ago, Choke said:

Hopefully he can do it, but I reckon a lot of those manufacturing jobs won't be back and he'll have a very angry electorate on his hands. Lots of jobs are lots due to technology and market forces, but he only really spoke about the outsourcing issue.

Personally I think it would have been better to let the market take its course and implement programs to retrain those who lost their jobs. But this brings up other issues - I read recently that part of the issue with retraining mostly male factory workers runs into resistance with them not wanting to go into traditionally non-male industries. So their ego gets spanked twice. Once because their job has been replaced by a robot or someone cheaper overseas, and again when they're told their only other options for employment are jobs they think are only for women (health care/hospitality).

So now you throw in macho man Trump, who promises to bring it all back. He better deliver, or that rust belt ego will be hit a third time and they'll be damn angry that their hero didn't come through. 

If he makes it to the next election without being impeached, I think this will be a big problem for him. All those voters who supported him will see that the factories haven't reopenned and things have not improved. They won't vote for him in the numbers they did before, and some may change depending on if the Dems can put up an even half viable candidate.

I am not well versed enough on The US to know but drawing a parallel to Australia, if any party or politician said that they/he/she was going to bring manufacturing back into this country it would get an almighty "pffft". The simple matter is any labor intensive large scale manufacturing is outpriced in this country because of our labor cost. Unless massive tariffs are introduced or massive cuts to labor costs to make "Australian made" competitive it won't happen.

I will watch with interest how Trump intends to get manufacturing back to the US.

 

27 minutes ago, Choke said:

Hopefully he can do it, but I reckon a lot of those manufacturing jobs won't be back and he'll have a very angry electorate on his hands. Lots of jobs are lots due to technology and market forces, but he only really spoke about the outsourcing issue.

Personally I think it would have been better to let the market take its course and implement programs to retrain those who lost their jobs. But this brings up other issues - I read recently that part of the issue with retraining mostly male factory workers runs into resistance with them not wanting to go into traditionally non-male industries. So their ego gets spanked twice. Once because their job has been replaced by a robot or someone cheaper overseas, and again when they're told their only other options for employment are jobs they think are only for women (health care/hospitality).

So now you throw in macho man Trump, who promises to bring it all back. He better deliver, or that rust belt ego will be hit a third time and they'll be damn angry that their hero didn't come through. 

If he makes it to the next election without being impeached, I think this will be a big problem for him. All those voters who supported him will see that the factories haven't reopenned and things have not improved. They won't vote for him in the numbers they did before, and some may change depending on if the Dems can put up an even half viable candidate.

But I think that's the whole point the market can't take its course if there are tariffs being imposed on the US but they are not imposing them back to the same extent.

32 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

But I think that's the whole point the market can't take its course if there are tariffs being imposed on the US but they are not imposing them back to the same extent.

Fair enough.

I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out when the tariffs are put in place.

59 minutes ago, Choke said:

Fair enough.

I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out when the tariffs are put in place.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you it's just the market can't take its course.

Know idea how it will play out when tariffs are put in place. I don't think it will magically re-create old industries and jobs.