^Is there really that much dirt on anyone? Do you really think that Obama has skeletons in his closet of this magnitude, but the intelligence agencies turned a blind eye for whatever reason? You say it like it's impossible to avoid having scandal-worthy baggage as a president. I think Occam's Razor would hold in this case that Obama simply was a less corrupt politician, and that is why he managed to avoid scandal during his eight years in office despite intense opposition.
I'm sure there's adequate dirt on anyone. Obama is certainly a war criminal in the Bush II league, for one. Rahm Emmanuel was certainly dirty, filthy dirty. As far as political dirt on Obama he was not in significant politics long, nor business, and had that Messianic glow abut him, and the immunity of charges o "das rayciss" against anything being said against him, not to mention the environment after 8 years of GW Bush, he was untouchable, but yet still, I'm sure something could easily have been dug up or manufactured if the deep state wished it so. Afterwards I have no doubt he, above and beyond the evils and broken promises committed in the public eye, was in some kind of shit, but it didn't matter, because he kept the deep state, the CIA and so on, that's who I'm talking about here anyway, not the press or anyone with a real interest in the truth; Nixon was stabbed in the back by Felt, ultimately, anyway, and Comey certainly had a curious impact on the election as regards Hilary. But Obama was a reliable subservient of the MICC and defense contractors and the deep state what with surveillance and drones at all. Was he personally as dirty as Nixon or JFK or WJ Clinton or anyone else? Was Reagan? Was Carter? Probably not. Does it matter?
SKL has been sipping the kool aid again.
Care to actually refute anything I actually said?
i tend to agree.
so far, it seems trump apologists will excuse him and his people for pretty much anything to this point.
there's a solid argument that he's already in violation of the constitution - the supreme law he swore to preserve, protect and defend - and people who support him don't give a shit. it's an absolute american tragedy.
alasdair
Firs off I'm no apologist, really, although I do think a lot of what's said about him is partisan bullshit, as was of course the case with stuff said against Hilary or anyone else, and I don't mind pointing that; I don't care about Trump at all, especially since if [when] he's impeached, we'll still get solidly right-wing Supreme Court nominees. I just liked the movement that put him into office. I care far, far more about the salience of the Russia issues (and have far more admiration for Putin than I do for Obama, HR Clinton, or Trump), how they're being used, and what this means for the American system and the dominance of the deep state and the spook, than I do Trump. He's a buffoon, to use language I've used on this forum for quite a while.
The real tragedy is, though, believing in American institutions; we've got an out-of-control deep state which is doing in the President and those around him, like him or not; we're an international laughingstock when not creating international terror, and we're playing with fire and dangerous double standards in Russia with as I said encircling them with nukes; any attempt at rapprochement has the MICC in histrionics which is why you are really seeing what is happening to Trump happen now, and so quickly; of course, nuclear buildup has of course been going on for a long time, but imagine it from the other side. Imagine the disaster that Hilary Clinton would have been, although many of those waiting in the wings of the Trump administration won't be much better, in terms of a threat to Russia, imagine the Warsaw pact in Mexico, as
Noam Chomsky spoke of recently in an interview I think everyone interested in the whole Trump/Russia/or Trump presidency whatever issues. And remember, this is me suggesting you read Chomsky. We have an ascendant Russia and using Cold-War scare tactics (hence, I think, the reference to McCarthyism, although a very ill-informed one) with Russia as a bogeyman, well, just makes the American people and press look stupid for buying into. There's plenty of other reasons to go after Trump.
I don't know which is worse: Trump creating a smokescreen or Trump not knowing the difference between McCarthyism and Watergate.
"The Russian collusion"
is the Watergate; only it's Trump who's Nixon. The McCarthyism is the Russophobia. He's conflating these things and sounding dumb (although who doesn't <140 characters at least some of the time? I was a major Twitter user for a while, I certainly said some dumb things by virtue of the medium from time to time, and sometimes had to make account for that; and yeah, I think Trump's Twitter use is downright imbecilic), but both (Watergate on both ends, and McCarthyism) of them do have some value in terms of comparison to what we have today.
I would be very surprised if there
were not wiretaps involved; in fact, it's obvious they were; whether Obama ordered them or not is immaterial.
Again, this is another IC coup. I don't even really care for Trump; I just like his supporters, and it was essential that a Republican be elected for SCOTUS nominations or else we'd be in a real disaster
Did Obama
personally order wiretaps? Is "Obama" just a metonym for his administration and the forces of which he was a creature who then rapidly turned against Trump? Who knows? Who cares? Are wiretaps being used by dark, unaccountable forces within our government to take down a sitting President and his administration? Is there any question about that?
Everyone's looking at the wrong direction, lead by their noses, and enabled by the spooks, by a press that hates Trump as much as he hates them. The rabbit is getting stuffed in the hat over
there, people.
