Wrecker45

Did we play a man short?

For the record I fall into the non-expert category who sees whatever I want.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-dump-gives-russian-hacking-deniers-perfect-ammo/ This pretty much sums up the wikileaks and the surrounding politics from the above article: it has unleashed a cloud of confusion that makes it hard for experts to discern the facts and easy for non-experts to see whatever they want.

Stop. You just did it again.

I'll be doing the same when I come across them. A bit like how I don't stop at traffic lights if I lived in or spent a lot of time in the suburb before they were there. It hasn't failed me yet.

Trump does seem to be blessed by the leaks every time. I don't know if that is a fluke or more sinister.

Sorry to reply to this again Choke, particularly, after I said I wouldn't but in light of the wikileaks dump overnight I can't help myself. In regards to number 2 above it now seems the CIA have the capability to mimic foreign spyware and even make it seem as though the hacking is being executed by that foreign power. I don't like Assange and don't trust him but none the less he swears the Russians didn't leak to him during the election campaign. I can't keep up with who is spying on who and who is leaking on who and what is real and what is fake news. Ordinarily, I'd trust the New President who came in promising to drain the swamp but he is potentially the least trustworthy of them all.

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.

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.

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.

Consider lifting my self appointed ban on Etihad.

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

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.

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.

Suckling lives near me and could barely walk his dog 100m over the offseason. Even after Christmas. Had an obvious issue with one of his legs. Surprised he is playing this early after what i have seen to be honest. Any love handles he has is a seriously unfair comparison to Watts' condition.

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.

Who did the US officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity speak to? The media? Forgive me if I am not 100% convinced. Would you believe counterintelligence operatives who spoke anonymously if they said Trump was monitored during the election campaign?

I'm not arguing either way Choke just interested how you know?

That's ok the Russian ones will...

I don't think my argument falls down. I'm saying Trump beats an often misleading and false media at their own game. He gets his own news out first. Who knows if its factual, completely misleading or if he even beliefs it himself.

Even before the advent of social media and before the internet was the main source of everyones news the Murdoch papers went further right and Fairfax papers went completely left. It was probably less a reflection on them than the general public who only read what they agree with. The papers were just satisfying a demand. Once everyone started getting their news manly from the net, the papers stopped making money and as a result they spent less money on quality journalism. The Australian is an exception in my opinion (I know most of you will find it too far right) the content and journalism is fantastic but it is running at a massive loss. Murdoch seems happy to subsidise it. And now as you point out the main news outlets are much more concerned about breaking a story first than fact checking or caring about the content. In a way it justifies Trumps prolific tweeting and he is beating a pathetic media at its own game. He'll get his own news out before any of them can.

Nut I'm so tied in a knot on this I don't know what to think. There are countless possibilitites 1) There is every possibility that Trump is just crazy and believed right wing conspiracies he read in Breibart 2) He was actually tapped and I've read countless ways that this could have been done both legally and by pushing boundaries. In which case Trump will reciprocate and tap whoever he pleases using the same means. 3 ) If he was tapped and it brought up nothing illegal but dropped key members of his team in it for meeting the Russians during the campaign. Not illegal but that is how they were caught out. 4) We will never know and there will be fake news slanting both ways that can never completely be believed or even ruled out 5) And the least likely of the above is Trump does have some evidence to come out

The AFL do whatever suits them and the image of the game. They always change and break their own rules.

Surely if Brian Stynes' son is of a standard to be drafted we would ask for some kind of special consideration in taking him as an international father son rule where the family has moved to the country because of association to the Melbourne Football Club.

And here is a pretty detailed timeline on known events. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/ You guys can dismiss it all you want because it is in breibart but it doesn't make it any less real.