But seriously folks -- we have a current president, without any evidence at all, accusing a past president of acts he claims are criminal, calling him a "sick" and "bad" man. (I understand his basis for this is an article on Breitbart.)
Seriously, this is not okay. This is fucking disturbing. Go to his Twitter account to see the series of tweets. It's unhinged.
Oh, shirtless Justin Trudeau pictures... I may need to start a thread for that.
I always used to scoff at people who shrieked about moving to Canada. But now that we have a tribble-head and they have Trudeau, Canada is looking better and better.
The first meeting Jeff Sessions had with the Russian Amb was set up by the Obama Administration under education program for 100 Ambs...... Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jeff Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone. Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
f you’re wondering, What on earth is Trump talking about? Then it’s likely you don’t spend much time reading right-wing media. The idea that Obama abused his power to undermine Trump has become a popular talking point of the far-right outlets. On Thursday night, radio host Mark Levin flat out accused Obama of masterminding a “silent coup” against Trump. That was picked up by Breitbart, where senior editor-at-large Joel Pollack ties Levin’s claims together to create a story line that begins with the June 2016 request to monitor Trump and several advisers (which was denied) and ends with the Washington Post “targeting” Sessions.
Although there is obviously no evidence that Trump was inspired by the Breitbart piece, there is one key sentence that suggests he might have been. While going through his whole explanation of how Obama tried to undermine Trump, Pollack specifically writes at one point that in October the previous administration “submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons.”
You might be thinking, Who cares? It’s clear Trump wants to change the story, so why give the fringe conspiracy theories the time of day? Well, because not everyone sees them as that. Case in point, as soon as Trump went on his tweetstorm, the anchors over at Fox News were positively giddy. “A sitting president going after essentially an incoming president would jack up this whole story,” Ed Henry says. Abby Huntsman agrees: “This could totally change the entire conversation.” And then even though we know Trump has often been inspired by cable news for his tweets, Pete Hegseth says the president knows stuff we don’t so we should listen: “The president has been pretty astute of getting ahead of the news cycle with more information—because he knows it, he sees it, he has intelligence briefings, we don’t—he tweets it, we speculate about it and then more information comes out to affirm it.”
Nothing that comes out of this bad (or sick) guy's mouth surprises or shocks me. Whatever he sees on Fox and whatever Steve Bannon tells him is the headline on Breitbart is what he believes. Obama tapped Trump's phone prior to the election? Then why didn't he drop the dirt he dug up on Donald before the election?
Whatever comes out of Trump's filthy sewer is a damned lie. He is a complete psychopath.
Nothing I accept about myself can be used against me to diminish me. Audre Lorde
Human beings cannot be willed and molded into non-existence. Angela Davis
I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do. James A. Baldwin
Even if Trump's allegation were true (and I do not for one second believe it is), it is simply NOT something you allege without offering evidence of it. ESPECIALLY not the current president -- and ESPECIALLY about the president who just left office. Let's take aside the "bad" "sick" name-calling -- illegal wiretapping is a major fucking accusation.
This can't just slide. He either needs to put up his basis for this shit, or he needs to admit all he's got is Breitbart. And assuming it's the latter, he needs his ass raked over the coals.
We can't have this shit in the oval office. This is not the goddamn Jerry Springer show.
ETA:
The fact that he followed it up with a petty tweet about The Apprentice adds an extra level of grotesqueness. To him, this is all just another staged reality TV show.
I don't particularly rate the Democrats running around shouting 'Russians!' at everything that moves, so I'm not going to get into that.
However, I can accept that Putin did want Donald Trump in the White House. Not because he wanted a puppet there. Putin is smart enough to know that it's impossible to control a much larger country like that. Unlike Donald Trump, he's not dumb. The first thing a competent Trump would do is to call Putin and say "You're my puppet now or we'll screw Russia up good."
Putin is also not the Übermanipulator that people want to paint him as. He's a good tactician but a lousy strategist. He's good at positioning to win single encounters, but he's lousy about winning in the long-term.
Case in point, Ukraine. He was adept enough to wrest Crimea out of Ukraine, as a short term win. However that earned him sanctions, a failing economy, and a need to feed the churn of Russian revanchism by winning wars. Otherwise there would have been unrest. So he got stuck in Syria, and that's turning out badly for him too.
Now he may have contributed to putting Trump in the White House, and I think that may be his most sound achievement, because what a chaotic USA will mean is that USA will be busy with in-fighting and won't interfere with Russian operations abroad. All Russia needed was a fool in the White House; a fool that would bring the Republic into disrepute and into chaos. As long as chaos reigns in Washington, there's one less worry for Putin on the world stage, and maybe he can extricate himself from his own strategic blunders elsewhere.
Yeah, he is, Vince. But think on this. Once Trump is impeached and the US returns to normal, what then for US and Russian relations? What happens when the GOP will pivot to try to get out of the shadow of a Trump White House, and they'll have to defend their seats against Americans' fury about the perception that GOP and Trump made the US into a Russian puppet? I'm not saying that the US is, but that may be the perception.
It's another tactical win for Putin with a long-tail of strategic disasters.
Last Edit: Mar 5, 2017 7:51:34 GMT -5 by maxinquaye
Oh I agree, we're in a bad position. We were no matter who won, as Obama didn't treat Putin as a serious threat until he hacked John Podesta's email. Had Clinton won, she would probably have been just as bad, but no worse. (Maybe a little better.) However, she wouldn't be a lapdog.