[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-22, 12:29, said:

This makes the most sense to me of where all this is heading.

That would certainly explain why Trump is so freaked out about the investigation.

Good article by the way. . . .but I am having a tough time with this one.

One thing I want to ask, didn't some of these alleged connections exist way before Trump won the election in November 2016? And if so, why are we just hearing about this "intelligence" now? I trust that my government, who believes in wiretap surveillance without federal judge approval under the Patriot Act, had the "goods" on Trump way before now. If there were all of these suspicious relationships and associations, wouldn't the government have vetted them out before he became President-Elect?

All I vaguely remember is that the media and the Washington D.C. establishment were quick to note that Trump was "friendly with Putin" during his campaign season as if that were a potential landmine they could use later should he accomplish the unthinkable and win the 2016 Presidential election.

I think I am asking a very fair question, and if Trump (and his aides) were the threat to American national security that they "appear" to be, wouldn't somebody have leaked that to the government and the media way before now? Why would we wait until Trump won the election, had his inauguration, and then start this snowball chain of political drama?

By the way, I am astounded at the broad surveillance powers of the US government after the passage of the Patriot Act. See the ACLU table in the article below. Just ridiculous how intrusive it is.

https://www.aclu.org...-usapatriot-act

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-22, 12:59, said:

Good article by the way. . . .but I am having a tough time with this one.

One thing I want to ask, didn't some of these alleged connections exist way before Trump won the election in November 2016? And if so, why are we just hearing about this "intelligence" now? I trust that my government, who believes in wiretap surveillance without federal judge approval under the Patriot Act, had the "goods" on Trump way before now. If there were all of these suspicious relationships and associations, wouldn't the government have vetted them out before he became President-Elect?

All I vaguely remember is that the media and the Washington D.C. establishment were quick to note that Trump was "friendly with Putin" during his campaign season as if that were a potential landmine they could use later should he accomplish the unthinkable and win the 2016 Presidential election.

I think I am asking a very fair question, and if Trump (and his aides) were the threat to American national security that they "appear" to be, wouldn't somebody have leaked that to the government and the media way before now? Why would we wait until Trump won the election, had his inauguration, and then start this snowball chain of political drama?

By the way, I am astounded at the broad surveillance powers of the US government after the passage of the Patriot Act. See the ACLU table in the article below. Just ridiculous how intrusive it is.

https://www.aclu.org...-usapatriot-act

The US government does not vett presidential candidates; however, the press does. This time, the genuine press was ignored in favor of propaganda-producing social media, aided by Russia bots. Trump certainly has a spotted history and has had his run-ins with law enforcement but has thus far remained unscathed. https://www.theatlan...candals/474726/

And this.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-22, 13:30, said:

The US government does not vet presidential candidates; however, the press does. This time, the genuine press was ignored in favor of propaganda-producing social media, aided by Russia bots. Trump certainly has a spotted history and has had his run-ins with law enforcement but has thus far remained unscathed. https://www.theatlan...candals/474726/

OK. No vetting of Trump by the US government when he was a presidential candidate. How about when he became President-Elect?

Wouldn't the government have to vet the President-Elect before he starts to view and read classified materials in daily meetings and briefings? I wonder how thorough this vetting is and what, if anything, they found when it was done (especially as it relates to business associations and dealings with "foreign entities").

Also, the media-industrial-complex did not vet Trump properly or conduct their due diligence through the old school investigative journalism we are used to. That type of journalism costs extra money and you know how today's corporate media leaders are about "non-value-added" business expenses; they are sliced and diced to beef up the profit margin. Instead, these media conglomerates figured if they put Trump's name on any article, it would increase their television and cable ratings and increase their magazine and newspaper circulation, and not to forget, increase their web traffic.

https://cs.stanford....html?page_id=10

That is why Trump sucked up all of the media oxygen during the Presidential campaign cycle. It was financially profitable to do this, but the electorate did NOT receive a thorough political analysis and commentary of a man who has been in the real estate/casino business and television world for over 30 years!

https://www.washingt...m=.6a54f73d618b

Nice article about the Trump-mob link, but the article did qualify it...

Quote

Before we detail Trump’s alleged ties, none of this proves that Trump was happy doing business with the mafia or even in cahoots with them at all...While it’s important to note that these connections were not atypical in the real estate and casino businesses in the 1980s, Cruz’s statement is accurate. Media reports have linked Trump to mafia bosses and mob-connected business associates for decades.

I am pretty sure a New York mob boss made Trump "an offer he couldn't refuse" à la The GodFather.

[kenberg]

It is perhaps an interesting question as to what vetting is even allowed after a person has won the election. There have been problems, rumored or real, before. However I am not at all sure that I would like it if after the election some commission decided that the president-elect could not be given the oath of office because of some ties he had, alleged or proven. We have an impeachment procedure, and I would oppose short-circuiting it. I recall someone saying, approximately, "Whatever LBJ did as a senator, he had the good sense to stop doing it as president". That might or might not be true, but the point is right. We hold an election, someone wins the election, he takes office, and he serves unless he is impeached. Massive voter fraud, the real thing rather than a Trump fantasy, could be a reason to overturn an election. But I have difficulty thinking of other reasons. I regard Trump as a truly awful choice. Not bad, awful. I believe we will all come to regret it. But an election stands. We don't fiddle with that. And of course the pres has to read the secret stuff, whatever the level of classification.

We need to make better choices. What else is new?

[RedSpawn]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-22, 10:18, said:

Ten days away from Trump felt pretty good.

Are you sure you missed the Trump melodrama in Washington, D.C.?

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

Flynn was the eighteenth director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And should I be concerned that Flynn is a former top military intelligence chief who has allegedly turned against the U.S. to help Russian interests?

So does the Pentagon, NSA or CIA not coordinate their intelligence services with the assistance of the Patriot Act to make sure these high level people remain securely vested in American interests or do we wait for impeachment hearings to sound the alarm?

The political drama just gets curiouser and curiouser.

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-22, 13:59, said:

OK. No vetting of Trump by the US government when he was a presidential candidate. How about when he became President-Elect?

Wouldn't the government have to vet the President-Elect before he starts to view and read classified materials in daily meetings and briefings? I wonder how thorough this vetting is and what, if anything, they found when it was done (especially as it relates to business associations and dealings with "foreign entities").

Also, the media-industrial-complex did not vet Trump properly or conduct their due diligence through the old school investigative journalism we are used to. That type of journalism costs extra money and you know how today's corporate media leaders are about "non-value-added" business expenses; they are sliced and diced to beef up the profit margin. Instead, these media conglomerates figured if they put Trump's name on any article, it would increase their television and cable ratings and increase their magazine and newspaper circulation, and not to forget, increase their web traffic.

https://cs.stanford....html?page_id=10

That is why Trump sucked up all of the media oxygen during the Presidential campaign cycle. It was financially profitable to do this, but the electorate did NOT receive a thorough political analysis and commentary of a man who has been in the real estate/casino business and television world for over 30 years!

https://www.washingt...m=.6a54f73d618b

Nice article about the Trump-mob link, but the article did qualify it...



I am pretty sure a New York mob boss made Trump "an offer he couldn't refuse" à la The GodFather.

I am strongly on your side that the U.S. media has abrogated their responsibilities to provide non-biased news. If you want to look at the history, you will find a direct path back to the ideology of Ronald Reagan, which have been carried on and expanded by both Republicans and Democrats. The huge popular election wins of Reagan did huge damage as the Democratic Party thought it had to adopt much of that thinking to capture some of that vote.

But it is more than simply "profits" that drive these organizations, though. They want to control the narrative.

[jogs]

 PassedOut, on 2017-May-21, 10:58, said:

Iran is more democratic than Saudi Arabia and Rouhani just won a landslide victory in Iran over hardliner Raisi by campaigning on granting more freedom to the people and on working to end Iran's international isolation. In contrast, the state-sponsored school text books from Saudi Arabia are so radical that they're used in ISIS schools.

The Supreme Leader of Iran has the power. The vast majority of the Iranian people pose no threat to the West. Rouhani is their choice. The Supreme Leader will decide when to use nuclear weapons, not Rouhani.

[jogs]

The elite progressive left are drama queens. They think as a monolithic singular entity. No diversity of thought is allowed. The left is inflexible, intolerant hypocrites. PC is code for censorship of opposition views. The left denies free speech to all whose who dare to disagree.
The left believes in globalism. Trump believes in America, American citizens should have more rights than non citizens. Trump also believes the US should make trade deals with terms favorable to America.
These are the two main reasons I reject the elite progressive left.

[Cyberyeti]

 jogs, on 2017-May-23, 07:37, said:

The elite progressive left are drama queens. They think as a monolithic singular entity. No diversity of thought is allowed. The left is inflexible, intolerant hypocrites. PC is code for censorship of opposition views. The left denies free speech to all whose who dare to disagree.
The left believes in globalism. Trump believes in America, American citizens should have more rights than non citizens. Trump also believes the US should make trade deals with terms favorable to America.
These are the two main reasons I reject the elite progressive left.

Trade DEALS are made to benefit both sides, they don't get made unless that's the case, or the other party has to do it to survive in which case they get America despised around the world.

[Winstonm]

From WaPo:

Quote

One of the remarkable side effects of universal access to information is how it has bolstered the human tendency to embrace information that reinforces our existing beliefs. Clearly the value in providing interconnected access outweighs the erosion of rational argument, but that erosion is substantial and disconcerting.

The Trump era has overlapped with the blossoming of a number of questionable rhetorical practices, not the least of which is the practice of responding to any critique of Trump with a tangentially similar critique of one of his political opponents, usually Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Someone, somewhere dubbed this “whattaboutism” — as in, “What about what Obama did?” CNN hired several of the world’s preeminent practitioners of whattaboutism in Jeffery Lord....

It is hard to have a genuine discussion with someone dedicated to obfuscation.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-22, 17:19, said:

I am strongly on your side that the U.S. media has abrogated their responsibilities to provide non-biased news. But it is more than simply "profits" that drive these organizations, though. They want to control the narrative.

To meet someone who agrees about the U.S. media abrogating its responsibilities to provide non-biased news. Wow!

"They want to control the narrative." So very true. . . .

When you control the narrative, you control HIS-STORY, and when you control history, you control the future.

Quote

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. ---George Orwell, 1984.

Narrative control is very critical in politics. The media conglomerates and D.C. Establishment said Trump wouldn't stick to the scripted message during his campaign and would frequently misspeak and "make up his own set of facts".

That maybe true, but that is what narrators do sometimes. . . Trump was controlling the narrative that he was selling to HIS followers and that may directly conflict with the narrative that the media and D.C. establishment want to control for their viewers and constituencies. Hmmm...

Below is a very intriguing article about narrative control and politics....

https://www.marketin...bcS1qZCJ4Zi0.97

Quote

Human beings are not logic processors. We are story processors.

Why are stories so powerful? It’s all down to how people make decisions. As is now broadly accepted, human beings are not in general slow, considered decision-makers who carefully weigh up options. Instead, they choose quickly, using decision-making shortcuts, or heuristics. The most important of these heuristics are the availability heuristic (does this choice come readily to mind?), the affect heuristic (does this choice feel right?) and the processing fluency heuristic (do I recognise this choice quickly?).

Or to put it more simply – Fame, Feeling and Fluency. If the brand comes easily to mind (Fame), feels good (Feeling), and is quickly recognised (Fluency), it will be a popular choice – no matter what its more ‘rational’ or ‘differentiating’ properties are.

[PassedOut]

 jogs, on 2017-May-23, 07:37, said:

Trump believes in America. Trump also believes the US should make trade deals with terms favorable to America.

Seriously? What on earth gave you those ideas?

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-21, 17:11, said:

If Clinton or Obama had committed crimes, they should have been charged. Same holds true for Donald Trump.

Not so fast. Obama would not have been indicted and charged in the sense we think. There are always Articles of Impeachment, but the question of whether we can indict a sitting President is still unclear from a Constitutional vantage point.

https://www.forbes.c...t/#491bfda5491b

http://www.nytimes.c...-president.html

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-23, 09:16, said:

To meet someone who agrees about the U.S. media abrogating its responsibilities to provide non-biased news. Wow!

"They want to control the narrative." So very true. . . .

When you control the narrative, you control HIS-STORY, and when you control history, you control the future.



Narrative control is very critical in politics. The media conglomerates and D.C. Establishment said Trump wouldn't stick to the scripted message during his campaign and would frequently misspeak and "make up his own set of facts".

That maybe true, but that is what narrators do sometimes. . . Trump was controlling the narrative that he was selling to HIS followers and that may directly conflict with the narrative that the media and D.C. establishment want to control for their viewers and constituencies. Hmmm...

Below is a very intriguing article about narrative control and politics....

https://www.marketin...bcS1qZCJ4Zi0.97

Interesting article. This part:

Quote

Find the story you have permission to tell, and everything else gets a whole lot easier.
Read more at https://www.marketin...cxX8u5pis6F5.99

fits nicely with what I understand about the internet tracking of companies like Google in order to fit interest to content and advertisement.

It seems we have reached a point where it is becoming necessary to break out of the mold in order to determine facts.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-06, 13:04, said:

Haven't you heard? Collective bargaining is a sin, so strikes send you to hell.

Instead of being distracted by Trump's attempt to propagandize nonsense, let's refocus on what we know so far about ties between Trump and Russia.

1) We know that in 2008, a Russian Oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev bought a Florida home from Trump for $95 million, a profit of $54 million for Trump.
2) We know the airplane owned by this same Russian Oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev was seen and photographed at a number of airports in the cities where Trump was campaigning at the time.
3) We know that J.D. Gordon has changed his story and now claims that the changes in the Republican platform to favor Russia over the Ukraine came directly from Trump at a March, 2016 meeting at the unfinished Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
4) We know that both Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at Trump Tower and that Michael Flynn lied to the vice-president about that meeting and Jared Kushner did not speak up until after the press broke the story.
5) We know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and failed to make those meetings known during confirmation hearings while under oath.
6) And then then there is this, from U.S.A. Today:

Quote

Here is a timeline of Trump’s known connections to Russia:

1987: Trump was invited to Moscow by the Soviet ambassador to the United States to discuss luxury hotel developments. Trump later told Playboy magazine that his plans to build hotels in Moscow failed because the country “was out of control and the leadership knows it.” Four years later, on Christmas Day, the Soviet Union officially dissolved, and Russians who had been allowed to buy state-owned enterprises amassed enormous fortunes.

1996: While wrapping up a series of bankruptcies in New York, Trump talked of building a replica of his Trump Tower in Moscow and traveled there to discuss renovating the Moskva and Rossiya hotels, according to Bloomberg News. The bankruptcies led to a change in Trump’s business model: Instead of building projects from the ground up, he signed licensing agreements that in some cases gave him an ownership stake in properties that bore his name without putting up any of his own money. The Trump Organization continued to seek wealthy investors in Russia.

Dozens of condominiums in Trump World Tower in midtown Manhattan were bought by Russians in the late 1990s, said Dolly Lenz, a real estate broker who sold many of the units. Many buyers sought an audience with Trump, whose business acumen they respected, Lenz said.

Early 2000s: The Trump Organization developed several projects abroad, many of them involving Russian money.

2007: Trump debuted his Trump Super Premium Vodka at the Millionaire’s Fair in Moscow. Large orders for the gold-glazed spirit followed, but the brand fizzled by 2009, according to The New York Times.

2008: Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., told investors in Moscow that the Trump Organization had trademarked the Donald Trump name in Russia and planned to build housing and hotels in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sochi, and sell licenses to other developers, the Russian daily Kommersant reported. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump Jr. said at the time. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Trump Jr. traveled to Russia a half-dozen times in 18 months looking for deals, but none materialized. He said there were plenty of investment opportunities, but the business environment was dangerous and trustworthy partners hard to find. “It really is a scary place,” he said, according to eTurboNews, an online business publication.

2010: Trump’s next big U.S. project, the Trump SoHo in New York, was built with partner Bayrock Group, founded by Tevfik Arif, a former Soviet official.

2013: Trump brought the Miss Universe Pageant to Moscow, funded by $20 million from Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. The venue was Agalarov’s Crocus City Hall on the outskirts of Moscow. Trump took part in a music video with Agalarov’s son, Emin.

2016: Trump's presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, resigned in August amid reports that he worked on the political campaign of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been forced to flee office because of his pro-Russian stance.

Carter Page, a former Merrill Lynch investment banker in Moscow, was a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser until August, when Yahoo News reported that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating whether he had been communicating with Russian officials about lifting U.S. sanctions if Trump became president.

Yet, Donald Trump claims he has no connections to Russia. I admit there is no proof of wrongdoing. But it seems a bit fanciful to believe that there is no association, doesn't it? The continued denials before the press forces agreement is perplexing and actions more usually aligned with people wanting to hide something. All in all, I don't see how it would hurt to turn all this over to an independent commission that has subpoena power - we need to know if there was wrongdoing, but equally, if there was no wrongdoing. Without a solution, the Russian ties controversy will continue to haunt this presidency.

THIS, sir, which you posted on March 6, 2017 should have been in the news headlines and heavily scrutinized by the media conglomerates BEFORE the November 9th Election. The USA Today article appeared in February 2017 which is a bit late for the November 9, 2016 election. . .but better late than never.

There is no proof of wrongdoing, but APPEARANCES matter in politics and any news outlet worth its weight should be asking very tough questions that Presidential candidates (Trump) hate to answer . . . BEFORE the election! The voting public needs to factor these type of business dealings and associations into their final decision making process.

VERY GOOD STUFF!

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-23, 12:52, said:

Not so fast. Obama would not have been indicted and charged in the sense we think. There are always Articles of Impeachment, but the question of whether we can indict a sitting President is still unclear from a Constitutional vantage point.

https://www.forbes.c...t/#491bfda5491b

http://www.nytimes.c...-president.html

You are right, of course. I should have said each one should face the same consequences for the same action.

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-May-23, 09:16, said:

To meet someone who agrees about the U.S. media abrogating its responsibilities to provide non-biased news. Wow!

https://www.marketin...bcS1qZCJ4Zi0.97

Not really wow. It simply means I'm old enough to remember a time when such news bias was not so, when opinion was announced as opinion, and television news was a money-losing department for the networks and there was genuine concern for acting in the public interest.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-23, 13:38, said:

Not really wow. It simply means I'm old enough to remember a time when such news bias was not so, when opinion was announced as opinion, and television news was a money-losing department for the networks and there was genuine concern for acting in the public interest.

...And let the congregation say "Amen!" 🙏

[Winstonm]

Oops!!

Quote

Trump Budget Based on $2 Trillion Math Error [Updated]

One of the ways Donald Trump’s budget claims to balance the budget over a decade, without cutting defense or retirement spending, is to assume a $2 trillion increase in revenue through economic growth. This is the magic of the still-to-be-designed Trump tax cuts. But wait — if you recall, the magic of the Trump tax cuts is also supposed to pay for the Trump tax cuts. So the $2 trillion is a double-counting error.

http://nymag.com/dai...=facebook_nymag

Seems Donald is trying to use the same budgeting tactics he used for his casino, airline, and university.

Quote: "Who knew math was so complicated!?"

[Winstonm]

This is worth reading IMO:

Quote

Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”

America used to be like that, with prominent senators declaring that we must stop “partisan politics at the water’s edge.” But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that. (A new poll shows that Republican approval of Vladimir Putin has surged even though — or, more likely, precisely because — it has become clear that Russian intervention played an important role in the U.S. election.) Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.