POTUS 2016, part 3

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

Who would you like to see winning the presidency of the U.S.?

Hillary Clinton - (Dem.)
38
47%
Donald Trump - Mike Pence (Rep.)
21
26%
Gary Johnson - Bill Weld (Libertarian)
8
10%
Jill Stein (Green)
14
17%
 
Total votes: 81

Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: There is such a thing as objective reality.

Post by Reductor » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:56 am

alan wrote:And in that reality, there are things that can be proven true.
And things which are false. If you can't prove it, it is not true. For instance, President Obama did not "tap" Trumps's phone, yet he insists it is true. This man is deranged. He insists on saying stuff that has no basis in reality.
What is "Fake News"?" It's stuff that has been made up, and is not real--cannot be proven--not stuff you don't like.

God Dam Trump pisses me off. Why? Because he is not connected to reality. He's a shameless liar. He has no idea what is real, and what is fake.
Trump does seem deranged. He might be an arsehole, too. Americans will have to keep a watch on him - but with a large segment belonging to the GOP and willingly going along with him, it'll be tough. CONSTANT VIGILANCE! Erm, sorry, channeling my inner Moody. (That's a Harry Potter joke - don't know if you read those.)

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: There is such a thing as objective reality.

Post by binocular » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:46 am

alan wrote:God Dam Trump pisses me off. Why? Because he is not connected to reality. He's a shameless liar. He has no idea what is real, and what is fake.
That's a naive way to see it. I think he is a good strategist. Some people just don't like the goals he wants to achieve. That doesn't mean that he can't tell the difference between fake and real.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:08 pm

A few posts from "Fake News" have been merged in starting with this post.
Phena wrote:No, it absolutely has been disproven. Obama (or any President) cannot order a wire tap to be placed on anyone on a whim.

So where's the evidence that Obama ordered a wire tap on Trump Tower?
I hope my post doesn't cause us to digress into semantics, but, yes, you are absolutely correct: a president cannot order a wire tap on a whim. But that is no longer the question (most journalists are five days behind and hung up on a legal technicality) and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. What allegedly occurred is, that in their investigation into Russian hacking of the Presidential Race, the Obama White House twice applied to the court for surveillance which would have included the Trump campaign (twice because the focus in the initial application was too broad). Now why exactly they were inclined to do so remains to be seen so you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it --- perhaps there is so significant evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russian gov’t to sabotage the Clinton campaign. Remember the question is not whether or not the wire tapping actually occurred but why did they apply for it.

And I do not have time to get clarification, but many news outlets here are reporting, without providing a name of course, that a Breitbart piece about the findings of some “radio talk show host” are what started all of this. If they look into who this talk show host is they will find out that it is former White House Chief of Staff and Attorney General, Mark Levin (he is also a Constitutional lawyer). I recommend looking into his findings if you want a broader view on what that idiot Trump is yammering about.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:05 pm

SDC wrote:
Phena wrote:No, it absolutely has been disproven. Obama (or any President) cannot order a wire tap to be placed on anyone on a whim.

So where's the evidence that Obama ordered a wire tap on Trump Tower?
I hope my post doesn't cause us to digress into semantics, but, yes, you are absolutely correct: a president cannot order a wire tap on a whim. But that is no longer the question (most journalists are five days behind and hung up on a legal technicality) and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. What allegedly occurred is, that in their investigation into Russian hacking of the Presidential Race, the Obama White House twice applied to the court for surveillance which would have included the Trump campaign (twice because the focus in the initial application was too broad). Now why exactly they were inclined to do so remains to be seen so you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it --- perhaps there is so significant evidence that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russian gov’t to sabotage the Clinton campaign. Remember the question is not whether or not the wire tapping actually occurred but why did they apply for it.

And I do not have time to get clarification, but many news outlets here are reporting, without providing a name of course, that a Breitbart piece about the findings of some “radio talk show host” are what started all of this. If they look into who this talk show host is they will find out that it is former White House Chief of Staff and Attorney General, Mark Levin (he is also a Constitutional lawyer). I recommend looking into his findings if you want a broader view on what that idiot Trump is yammering about.
Hi SDC
I don't think Mark Levin was the Attorney General. His findings seem to be a few collated newspaper articles.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: There is such a thing as objective reality.

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:23 pm

alan wrote: If you can't prove it, it is not true.
Can you prove that statement?

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:27 pm

Mr Man wrote:Hi SDC
I don't think Mark Levin was the Attorney General. His findings seem to be a few collated newspaper articles.
Correct. He was chief of staff for the attorney general under Reagan. (I knew that didn't sound right).

Yes, that is most of it. I didn't say he proved anything. Question is did it happen and if it did, why.

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:08 pm

SDC wrote:.........
........ and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. ..........
............
Perhaps trump wants it to be tangled up...or maybe bannon does if he is orchestrating all this. The more tangled up it gets the greater the percentage of voters who give up on trying to ferret out the truth and the easier it is to feed them whatever "truth" you want.
chownah

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:45 pm

chownah wrote:
SDC wrote:.........
........ and if Trump were not such a buffoon, perhaps this whole thing would not have come to light so tangled up. ..........
............
Perhaps trump wants it to be tangled up...or maybe bannon does if he is orchestrating all this. The more tangled up it gets the greater the percentage of voters who give up on trying to ferret out the truth and the easier it is to feed them whatever "truth" you want.
chownah
I’m inclined to agree. My summation – if it comes to light that these taps were indeed applied for (and/or the request granted) – is that there was some serious meddling on behalf of the Trump campaign to work with Russia to sabotage Clinton. Their only defense at this point might be to expose it first and confuse the hell out of the situation (good point). The Obama crew did not seem to be so reckless as to make these requests and gather intelligence simply to plant a landmine as a failsafe just in case Hillary failed to win (which seems to be the assertion on behalf of conservatives). But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 4236
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Rubber Forest, Phrao, Chiangmai

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Dhammanando » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:30 pm

SDC wrote:But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.
Indeed.

https://youtu.be/rAdUuGsi30g?t=5

chownah
Posts: 7597
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:44 pm

SDC wrote:.........
......But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.
INdeed, this is one example of why I have repeatedly posted that politics in america is a stupid game for mostly stupid people....it certainly is fascinating and perplexing that people would be so naive (stupid) that they have unquestioning trust.
chownah

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:27 pm

SDC wrote:But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.
Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring. :cry:

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:59 pm

Mr Man wrote:
SDC wrote:But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.
Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring. :cry:
Yeah, I clearly did so when I twice suggested the Trump team likely conspired with the Russians to interfere Clinton’s campaign. Thanks for pointing it out. :roll:

Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president, and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won. But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident. This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem. This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems. The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:14 pm

SDC wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
SDC wrote:But I would not put something like this past the US gov’t, and I find the overwhelming level of trust being extended to the former administration both fascinating and perplexing.
Hi SDC
Sounds like you have bought in to Trump's red herring. :cry:
Yeah, I clearly did so when I twice suggested the Trump team likely conspired with the Russians to interfere Clinton’s campaign. Thanks for pointing it out. :roll:
No problem. :smile:

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:16 pm

SDC wrote:

Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president, and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won. But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident. This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem. This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems. The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.
:goodpost:

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3375
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:27 pm

SDC wrote:
Interesting how the US gov’t can all of the sudden be honest when under a supposed honest president,
Has someone said that?
SDC wrote: and even more so when fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won.
Who has been "fantasizing about what life would be like had “someone else” won"?
SDC wrote:But considering the reckless and corrupt track record of the US gov’t - which has been thoroughly discussed here - I did not expect to see such selective attitudes when constructing the narrative for this latest incident.
Do you have examples of the selective attitudes? Do you mean on this forum?
SDC wrote: This is yet another chance for the world to call us out for what we are and instead they run to the defense of the representatives of both their sensibilities and political affiliation and thereby continue to hide the problem.
I don't think this is true. My UK political affiliation does not transpose to the US. Do you have examples of this?
SDC wrote:This is why no one can ever catch the US with their pants down --- too busy gunning for scapegoats and “right now” problems.
America has got pants down right now and the right now problem is rather a big one (a dysfunctional govt.). Has anyone noticed?
SDC wrote: The healthiest thing would be for multiple people from both sides to go down as a result of this.
If they have done wrong.

---

PS I wanted to put a "friendly dialogue smiley" here but could not find the appropriate one.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests