Bluey's Dad

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 said nothing about state secrets. Lol why bring it up? The issue (or part of it) is violating the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from conducting diplomatic affairs with other nations. There is no proof, or any that has been released. All investigations start somewhere, and this one has started with the US surveillance tapes. If they find something, there will be huge issues for the Trump white house. If they find nothing, we move on. It's just an investigation at this point, and the circumstances surrounding these calls warrant it. Both sides of congress agree that it is worth investigating. Which brings me to: Here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html Second paragraph: The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations. The article says the calls between Flynn and the Russians contained nothing illegal. We are still waiting for information from the calls on the other 3 (again, I think it's 3 others) Trump campaign officials.

The story about the Russians has several issues: 1 - A normal citizen of a country cannot conduct diplomacy with a foreign power. This is a problem for Trump as 4 (I think?) of his campaign members are believed to have had contact with the Russian ambassador. If they made promises to him then this violates the Logan Act and is a criminal offence. It is suspicious because Putin did not retaliate after Obama sanctioned him after the Russian hacks. It has the appearance of someone from the Trump campaign telling the Russians "don't retaliate, we'll make it better once we're in power". A private citizen cannot say these things to a foreign diplomat. It's illegal. All circumstantial, but warrants investigation. 2 - Flynn and Sessions both denied having contact with the Russians, but evidence has shown that they did. Flynn resigned over it. Sessions has recused himself of any future investigations that involve the Russians. Sessions outright lied to his confirmation committee about this. This is unacceptable for a US Attorney General. This evidence was obtained because of US surveillance of the Russians, not of the campaign members. 3 - The contact between Trump's campaign and Russian officials is circumspect because the CIA has stated that the Russians attempted to influence the US election by hacking the DNC. If the wire taps of Russian agents reveal that members of Trump's campaign were aware of the Russian hacking efforts, or worse that Trump himself was aware of it, it would delegitimise Trump's candidacy and subsequent presidency. Even rusted on Trump supporters would be upset if they found out he used a foreign power to hack his opponents to win an election*. 4 - Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, resigned from that position after it became public that the FBI and the Justice Department were investigating his company for links to corruption in the Ukrane (which had a pro-Russian president at the time). Trump's public explanation was that Manafort had become a distraction, however in light of what has happened now, it looks worse than it might have been. 5 - Trump has not released details of his finances and may be benefiting from Russian involvements (loans to his businesses/family etc). 6 - There is bipartisan support for the congressional investigation into the Trump campaign's Russian ties. No one wants a president who's subject to foreign influence. *To be clear, I don't know if Trump knew about this or not. I'm only saying that because the ramifications of this are so massive, they have to be looked at.

It's ok BBO. I am here to save the day:

lol yeah. Wrecker's argument is fine for the most part, but unfortunately falls down at the end because Trump's tweets are often misleading and false in their own right. Part of the problem is that people then take those tweets as gospel.

I think there are free thinkers and followers on both sides Wrecker. None of us has exclusivity on the rational nor the idiotic. I'm just as embarrassed by Social Justice Warriors as you are no doubt by Birthers.

lol. By his own Press Secretary's definition, it makes Trump a dictator: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sean-spicer-once-said-only-dictatorships-would-ban-media-access-a7598831.html When Politico’s Jake Sherman asked Mr Spicer if the new administration would limit press access, he responded by saying the media is what “makes a democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship.” Sorry, should not have lol'd. It's not funny any more. You just can't make this stuff up. Or, I suppose you can, but you'd think it was fiction. I know it's been said before but this is real 1984-type stuff. Exclude the media, become the source of information, assert false facts as true and true ones as false. Has the chocolate ration been increased yet?

Exactly. For mine, this is something we all knew was happening, but couldn't be proven. Now we can see Gil making assurances he can't have made and the EFC being angry they weren't kept. For that's the drama. The attempted subversion of the anti doping rules by the AFL. Gil's the one who should be under fire here.

Thanks HT, I hadn't seen that before. I don't find it funny in the slightest though. Maybe if he was a minor politician it'd be amusing, but given his station it's just worrying.

Hang on a sec. Let me see if I have this right. Some Imam said some really [censored] things, and no leftie on here posted about it. Outrage! So despite being constantly accused of trying to censor people with our oppressive political correctness, when we DON'T do it, we're accused of hypocrisy? Hadn't even heard about the comments until now. From what's posted above, yeah they are terrible and should be condemned. Plus, lets not assume there's some sort of equivalency between the most powerful man in the world and some Muslim leader ProDee couldn't even be bothered to name. What Trump says has infinitely more impact than this guy, whoever he is. Or, let's flip it around. Why do right wingers need to jump down the throat of any minor Muslim leader when they say something abhorrent, but not when Trump makes patently false and dangerous statements? By your logic ProDee, any time you fail to condemn anything Trump says that doesn't align with your world view it makes you a hypocrite. It's ridiculous logic.

lol thanks mate. FWIW I think you're probably the only righty around here I could have a beer with without coming to blows. I still think your quote from last month re Trump "He is both better and worse than I expected" is the best statement anyone's made on Trump around here.

Not directed at me, but as an apparent lefty I might as well throw mine in. My views have definitely changed over time. I went from very right wing while in high school and at uni to pretty left now. I was a massive Howard fanboy back in the day (in fact I would still take him over some of the current offerings on both sides despite me now disagreeing with some of his positions). Having said that, I'm 31, so it'll probably change more as I get older (although who knows which way). I was very close to voting Liberal again this election, but Turnbull's concessions to the extreme right wing of the party turned me off. Cannot bring myself to vote for Shorten, he is a lightweight of the highest order. I honestly struggle with politics these days, I don't feel either major party represents me in any meaningful way and voting a minor party just seems to clog up the works. I'm sick of politics.

And that would be equally worthy of condemnation. If Hillary or Obama said this, my post would be exactly the same with the names changed. Also, if every issue is a matter of the people of america, then what are we doing in this thread? So, righty responses so far: 1 - it's clever and progressive (lol) 2 - it's a freedom of speech issue (nope) 2 - it's a matter for the american people (also lol, what's the point in debating at all?) Any more acrobats out there?

Calling the media the 'enemy of the American people' is not clever. It's ok to disagree with something your man says. I did it all the time on Hillary's campaign trail. Just because you support the man doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he says and does. I'm assuming that's what's going on here, since I really struggle to see how your stated defence of this tweet makes any sense at all. Denouncing one tweet won't make you any less of a conservative. He CAN say what he wants. It doesn't mean that he should, or that denouncing the free press as the enemy of the people is at all an appropriate thing for a president to say. This is not a freedom of speech issue - at all. This is the leader of the free world demonising one of the most important aspects of democracy and Western civilisation. Tweet about bias all you want, but the concept of the fourth estate is solid. McCain may be old and bitter, but on this he is correct. And he's worth listening to as his voice still carries weight within the Republican party. You're right, shutting down the press is what dictators do. Before they do that though, they have to have a reason. Announcing to the world that it is the enemy of the people seems like a good first step if one wanted to do that.

Sigh. 1 - I did not say he was a dictator. That quote is from Republican Senator John McCain, who also said Trump is not a dictator, but said that denouncing the press as an enemy of the people is what dictators do. 2 - Trump's tweet did not say the media is biased (although he has said that in the past, and his point there is valid). This time, he said it is the enemy of the people. This is much more dangerous than calling out media bias. Don't put words in my mouth. I said it was 'just plain wrong', and more disturbing than Kellyanne Conway talking about 'Alternative Facts' in the wake of simply making up a terrorist attack. Get my information directly from the White House? I think not. Calling this tweet 'clever' is a great example of the act mental acrobatics I was expecting. TBH I didn't think it'd be from you though, as you're mostly pretty reasonable with your arguments even if I disagree with them.

According to Mr Trump, the media is the 'enemy of the people'. John McCain responds: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/19/donald-trump-john-mccain-media-enemy-of-the-people/98126656/ "If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free -- and many times adversarial — press," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on NBC's Meet The Press. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time — that's how dictators get started." Citing history, McCain told NBC that "the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press," though he hastened to add: "I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history." This isn't some statement about media bias or conflicted interests. He actually said that the press is the enemy of the American People. An AMERICAN PRESIDENT said this. This is surely indefensible, although I am looking forward to some of the conservative mental acrobats here try to excuse or contort Trump's statement. 'Alternative Facts' by Conway was disturbing enough, but this is.. I don't know what this is. Just plain wrong I guess. Even a Fox News anchor has taken up the issue. Combine this with the ongoing investigation over the Russian links and I'd say that the word "impeach" is likely to be bandied about a lot in Republican circles today. If the FBI proves Trump knew about the conversations his people were having, then I think it'll be enough to cross that impeachment line. I stand by my comment that he won't be in power by the end of the year. The Russian thing or something else will force the Republicans' hand. They will prefer Pence to Trump, who they only stuck with because he was their only chance of winning the election.

lol, I must concede! I simply don't bet money on anything, it's a blanket rule I've applied to my life. It has nothing to do with the strength of my view that somehow he'll be ousted by years' end. If it's a cash bet you're after then maybe someone else will take you up on it. As I said, happy to bet the shame of changing demonland avatars or something like that. edit: spelling

I don't place bets for money. Happy to do a Pro-Dee Jack Watts style demonland avatar one though. @Wrecker45?

It's more like 69% lies (Mostly False plus False plus Pants on Fire). Their selection criteria is found here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/ If you'd like to see the claims themselves: Pants on Fire claims by Trump False claims by Trump Mostly False claims by Trump

Yep. And right now I reckon he's doing a pretty terrible job. At least Mark Neeld had a honeymoon - Trump's been terrible since day 1. And now his national security adviser has resigned. I honestly believe we'll be evaluating the performance of President Pence by the end of the year, such is the rate at which Trump is lurching from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

As much as I'd hate to agree with old Ben up there, he's right, the electoral college is a good system (or at least it achieves one vital aim). Without it, the Democrats win pretty much every election because the bulk of the US population reside in California and the North Eastern blue states. It's where most of the wealth is generated too. Without the collage, the rural communities get screwed - which I believe was a central issue in this last election. There are a lot of visuals around that show the heavily slanted population distribution in the US. I find this one is the most illustrative: This one is just as important, showing where the US generates its wealth: The wealth in the USA is extremely concentrated. The electoral college prevents these areas from running roughshod over the needs of those who live in the other areas. I suppose it's ironic that in the case of the last election, the college allowed for the election of a billionaire from one of those centres (New York) claiming he represented the 'working class' rural communities. And just while I'm on graphics, this one is pretty interesting too (brought to my attention when a mate linked me a John Oliver clip - whatever you think of him, the stat here is pretty staggering): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ Adding those figures up, 69% of what Trump says is a lie (this excludes the 'half true' figure of 14%). This is flat out dangerous. You can't make policies based on lies. Actually, maybe you can. But you shouldn't. Also, just for the lols: : (I know, out of context etc, I just think it's a funny gif)

Agreed, that's disgusting. Also agree on draining the swamp, as you previously defined it. Problem is that I don't think Trump is really filling appointments with people who aren't 'feathering their own nests'. Most appointments I have read about seem conflicted, and his own lack of disclosure on conflicts of interest indicate to me that he's just there for his own personal gain and that of his billionaire mates.

Trump's trying to repeal Dodd-Frank. If there was every any evidence that he's in it for himself and his billionaire friends, not the little guy, this is it. But his supporters don't care about evidence. They don't seem to care about Gary Cohn as someone mentioned earlier. Don't get me started on Betsy DeVos. That country, in a word, is [censored].

Thanks for that, too much to read on my lunch break but I'll get to it

Ah. So the fact that this guy chose the Daily Mail to reveal his exclusive story should bring doubts to its authenticity?