Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

[thplinth]

"Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html

Still I am sure it was in no way a political decision... Just like the decision to disseminate the 'intelligence' as wide and as far as possible in the final days of the previous administration and of course the decision to start the spying in the first place. All done for America's best interest and not Obama's or Hillary's political gain. No. And anyone who says so is a racist or a sexist. 

For those that may have forgotten Rice is the same person who blamed the Benghazi attacks on the showing of a film. 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

Read a comment this morning that Washington DC was the place that voted the most for Hillary Clinton in the election... and that is where Trump now has to live. Nightmare.  

[thplinth]

Hmmm gone a bit quiet. 

Bigger than Watergate.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/04/judge-jeanine-pirro-susan-rice-unmasking-trump-names-did-obama-know

The whole Russia stuff with Trump is bollox. It is to 'reverse justify' the outrageous spying and not the other way round. They spied first, realized later they needed an excuse as they were going to get caught and so we have all the ridiculous Russia garbage.

It sure explains a lot. This Russia garbage was the best they could mine out of their political spying data and they are desperately using it to justify their completely illegal and outrageous political spying. And that is how it will be judged make no mistake.

A lot of these people should go to jail. 

[thplinth]

I really wish I had not got into this shit. It is scary what is going on here, it really is. 

[mariokempes56]

FOX as a source ?

Really reliable or am I missing something ?

[thplinth]

i pick the sources I agree with no matter from where they cometh.

One day it is fox the next the socialist worker.

Funnily enough no matter what source I use I find some one trying to make the source the story instead of the substance.

Edited April 5, 2017 by thplinth

[mariokempes56]

Just now, thplinth said:

i pick the sources I agree with no matter from where they cometh.

One day it is fox the next the socialist worker.

Funnily enough no matter what source I use I find some one trying to make the source the story instead of the substance.

i didn't do that as such. FOX is a joke no ? (though they are not alone for sure)

[thplinth]

oops! lost that post. that'll teach me to try to correct a spelling mistake.

Edited April 5, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

24 minutes ago, mariokempes56 said:

i didn't do that as such. FOX is a joke no ? (though they are not alone for sure)

I am not so much looking at the source as the substance. 

What can I tell you but right now Fox is worth viewing. Has been for a while.

Breitbart is also good. I'd go to anywhere they tell you not to watch these days. Drink it in.

Edited April 5, 2017 by thplinth

[mariokempes56]

Who to believe ? It sure isn't easy.

 

(interesting on CH4 news tonight when discussing Syria and an invited "expert" (think he really was) disagreed with the received wisdom that a bomb detonating a weapons store could not replicate the "effect" that they had said on all channels could only have come from a direct chemical/nerve bomb.

Mr Snow wasnae happy. 

 

Is this really where we are now ? FFS

[brant grebner]

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Breitbart is also good.

is it pish.

It's like listening to Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, Sarkon of Akkad and all the other hateful alt-right fandans that need to go leave their pits in the ground and stop hating awbdy. A slew of right wing shitebags that have no concept of empathy or real life.

If you use it right, there's enough empirical data out there to show that aw they Syrian kids deserve to get gassed and the wee Iraqi asylum seeker in London deserved to get 20 khunts bashing the fuk ootay him at a bus-stop, so what?

We're in 1938 again. Let's not pretend that these duplicitous right wing media bastards that we've got leading us along their merry way are in anyway normal or fukking acceptable.

[thplinth]

That is a hugely bigoted post Brant. Just because you don't like their politics 'they have no empathy for human life'.

That is just a load of utter shite.

As for we are in 1938 again...Jesus I never took you for one of these hysterical types. 

Time to exit the thread again methinks.

Edited April 6, 2017 by thplinth

[PapofGlencoe]

He's just an old man, Trump.  He says what he feels.  He'll say one thing one day and the opposite the next.  It's like listening to my grandad except he's saying it down the pub rather than the oval office. 

I don't think Trump is evil.  He just doesn't think politically like we're used to and doesn't seem to realise his words have consequences and can affect other people.

Political correctness is annoying and it brings bland politicians.  But on social issues, it's brought a lot less hate to the western world.  Partial truths are one thing.  Like my Grandad, Trump may often be right but overall you've got to lead a country.

If he concentrates on issues which he can take the people with fine.  Economic nationalism is one thing he could expect support for rightly or wrongly.  

But when he's messing with social issues which affect communities (undocumented people); that's quite another.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by PapofGlencoe

[phart]

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

That is a hugely bigoted post Brant. Just because you don't like their politics 'they have no empathy for human life'.

That is just a load of utter shite.

As for we are in 1938 again...Jesus I never took you for one of these hysterical types. 

Time to exit the thread again methinks.

No concept of empathy or real life, not, "they have no empathy for human life"

This is a classic straw-man invent a quote , argue that it makes the person bigoted, then flounce off.

Saying it is 1938 again because we have Trump when we've had the security services since 1963 is indeed hysterical. Or over here since the mid 70's.

[thplinth]

Aww gie's peace man. I misread or for of. After the second paragraph I never thought to go question it. 

edit: No I see have misread it actually, my apolgies to Brant. It is still pretty insulting but not as bad as I first thought.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

And I am sick of this turning the opposition into these unfeeling monsters, racists, white supremacists, etc etc blah blah. It is not a discussion at that point. And if anything is reeking of 1938 it is that bullshit. 

edit: my mistake it is not as bad I thought. Still 'haters' of course but at least they may care about kids getting gassed. my error.

Edited April 6, 2017 by thplinth

[phart]

To be fair i've stopped processing all the shit. Too much noise.

You've got to demonize the enemy how else can you rationalize all the crazy shit you think about them?

[thplinth]

No this is new. I have never seen this level of it before in my lifetime. It is really sinister and foreboding. The opposition to Trump seem to want to engineer a situation whereby one half of the population feel entitled to be violent against the other half because they are 'stopping nazis'.

"What would you do if it was 1938 again?" What is the answer to that question exactly... invariably it means rise up, fight the 'nazis'. None of that would be justified or possible in people's minds without first the process of demonization of the opposition. I really find the tactics of the left extremely sinister. If you want my humble opinion if you are looking for the threat of the new nazis take a look in their direction. They tick a lot of the boxes. The re-emergence of the right as a popular force is in large part due to these odious tactics of the left. They are so stupid they cannot see this but.

Fox News and Breitbart are about the only two news outlets who are not flaming Trump haters. It is almost impossible to get a story on Trump that is half fair without quoting those sources. And Fox are still pretty critical. But again it is the same shit. Folk try control the sources of information you are allowed to use to ones which suck Hillary ring. 

I am done for a while, had enough of the craziness. Genuinely a bit worried Trump will get assassinated given all of this incendiary language as that is setting it up and then we are all in a very bad place. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by thplinth

[phart]

Alex Jones got one thing right, it is an information war. scientia potentia est  and all that

[phart]

Tonight, I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. And we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail.

 

Boak, launching 60 cruise missiles isn't going to end slaughter and bloodshed.

[phart]

2 hours ago, phart said:

Tonight, I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. And we hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail.

 

Boak, launching 60 cruise missiles isn't going to end slaughter and bloodshed.

might be tokenism the attack though.

[Eisegerwind]

57 minutes ago, phart said:

might be tokenism the attack though.

An "appropriate" response to some chemical weapons getting chucked around according to May. This presidency is bowling along lovely. Was that speech he made the creepiest thing ever.

[thplinth]

Well this is the first piece of fruit from the tree and it is not a good one. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by thplinth

[phart]

Might stlll be tokenism.

Assad never launched that chemical attack, just like he never launched the other ones.

Why the feck would Assad use a tiny chemical attack on the eve of peace talks that would cement his power-base and drive the rebels out. So he gasses a 100 civilians and scuppers his own chances of retaining power? He must be the stupidest world leader of all time.

Prof Theodore Postol of MIT and the UN inspector report agree it was the rebels firing it that time.

Postol bio: A physicist, Postol is professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. His expertise is in ballistic missile defense technologies and ballistic missiles more generally. Prior to coming to MIT, he worked as an analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment and as a science and policy adviser to the chief of naval operations. In 2001, he received the Norbert Wiener Prize from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous false claims about missile defenses.

http://thebulletin.org/bio/theodore-postol

[thplinth]

Yeah it is possible. (In which case he is playing another blinder.) I understand Russia (and therefore Syria) was forewarned. Too early to say, need to see how this rolls out from here a bit.