"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[Stanyon]

But, that is not what Trump said. He didn't say that he would have to destroy their capability to attack. He specifically said that he would have to "totally destroy North Korea". You can't totally destroy a country like that with conventional weapons.

I'm pretty sure that with all the technology we have that every single target of importance that we know of with regards to communications,infrastructure, government, etc. already has a grid coordinate locked in and a missile ready to be launched or a bomber waiting to drop it's load if that is what it comes to so yes I'd say it is very likely we are capable of totally destroying North Korea.

 

[columbus]

Trump threatens to "totally destroy" N Korea...but what concerns his
critics is that he accused Obama of wiretapping him before the election.
I guess we each have different concerns.

This thread was started before Trump said that.

But my concern is that Trump and his top officials have a history of both Russian connections and lying about them(and almost everything else) . But neither Republicans on Capitol Hill nor Trump supporters generally are willing to hold him accountable in any way. Why did he lie about Obama is the real question in this thread. And nobody that matters is willing to look at the obvious answer. He and his top people were engaged in some pretty suspicious activities even before the campaign. Now he wants to spin that as political persecution by the Democrats. But his supporters are too partisan to be willing to hold him accountable for much of anything, not even treason.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

This thread was started before Trump said that.

But my concern is that Trump and his top officials have a history of both Russian connections and lying about them(and almost everything else) . But neither Republicans on Capitol Hill nor Trump supporters generally are willing to hold him accountable in any way. Why did he lie about Obama is the real question in this thread. And nobody that matters is willing to look at the obvious answer. He and his top people were engaged in some pretty suspicious activities even before the campaign. Now he wants to spin that as political persecution by the Democrats. But his supporters are too partisan to be willing to hold him accountable for much of anything, not even treason.
Tom

You're worried that a politician is lying and playing dishonest political games?
What a wide eyed innocent you are!

 

[columbus]

You're worried that a politician is lying and playing dishonest political games?
What a wide eyed innocent you are!

This is a good example of your favorite fallacy.
Yes, the system requires politicians to lie. Some more than others, but all of them do it.
Trump could be committing high treason, selling out USA security to a foreign power far more dangerous than North Korea, and his behavior strongly suggests that he is. But his supporters and Republicans seem more interested in partisan BS than getting straight answers to the questions.
And that's a huge danger to this country. If "Make America Great Again " was as much of a lie as "I will release my tax returns before the election ", and he is really going to help make Russia Great Again because it will benefit him personally, it would be entirely in character for him, the evidence points to that, and he will likely get away with it due to partisanship.
That is not remotely comparable to run of the mill politics and lies.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a good example of your favorite fallacy.
Yes, the system requires politicians to lie.

What is it with liberals & the misuse of the term "fallacy"?
I don't say the system requires lying.
It's just useful & common.

Trump could be committing high treason, selling out USA security to a foreign power....

He could also be the bast@rd love child of Buckminster Fuller & a gray alien voluptuary.
But with proof for neither, tis best to not make the claim.

But his supporters and Republicans seem more interested in partisan BS than getting straight answers to the questions.
And that's a huge danger to this country. If "Make America Great Again " was as much of a lie as "I will release my tax returns before the election ", and he is really going to help make Russia Great Again because it will benefit him personally, it would be entirely in character for him, the evidence points to that, and he will likely get away with it due to partisanship.
That is not remotely comparable to run of the mill politics and lies.
Tom

Trump's reckless claim about Obama wiretapping him send
you to fearing the country will be handed to the Russians?
Oh, dear.

 

[columbus]

What is it with liberals & the misuse of the term "fallacy"?
I don't say the system requires lying.
It's just useful & common.

I say it's required. Politicians commonly know things that can't or shouldn't be made public, but people want to know. Lying, dissembling, and deflecting are necessary.

He could also be the bast@rd love child of Buckminster Fuller & a gray alien voluptuary.
But with proof for neither, tis best to not make the claim.

But there is strong evidence about his parentage. There is also strong evidence concerning potential treason. Not just rumors and innuendo, things he has personally said and done. Writing that off as "Not yet proven to my satisfaction " is incredibly short sighted and naive.

Trump's reckless claim about Obama wiretapping him send
you to fearing the country will be handed to the Russians?
Oh, dear.

That is not what I said! I didn't even mention it in the paragraph. It's his whole history and character. That particular lie is just more evidence that he is hiding his relationship to Putin and Russia.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I say it's required. Politicians commonly know things that can't or shouldn't be made public, but people want to know. Lying, dissembling, and deflecting are necessary.

So why complain about lying per se?

But there is strong evidence about his parentage.

Could've been fabricated.

There is also strong evidence concerning potential treason.

Note that the use of "strong" is at odds with "potential".
Either there's evidence it happened, or there isn't.
If he committed treason, & it's provable, why so little call for impeachment?
I'll tell you why....
It's not "evidence" in the sense of being presentable in court.
Tis merely suspicious conduct which would warrant investigation.

Not just rumors and innuendo, things he has personally said and done. Writing that off as "Not yet proven to my satisfaction " is incredibly short sighted and naive.

If the evidence is so overwhelming that you are certain, then let's return to the question about why there's no consensus about impeaching him?
I'll tell you why....
Because your "evidence" isn't.
It's just bias confirmation.

That is not what I said! I didn't even mention it in the paragraph.

Look at the thread's title....it's what we're discussing.

It's his whole history and character. That particular lie is just more evidence that he is hiding his relationship to Putin and Russia.
Tom

Do you notice that your using a claimed lie about something unrelated
as evidence of collusion with Russia? Essentially, you say that lying
about one thing is proof of a crime regarding a different thing. Geeze,
Louise, that's a reckless standard.

How is the Trump-Russian connection investigation going?
Are any responsible authorities claiming what you do, ie,
certainty that Trump is selling the country out to Russia?

 

[leibowde84]

Now I know I will get considerable about of grief about the following but I'm still saying it.

Do you think that the Obama should have been held accountable for what he said?

Yes.

 

[columbus]

Essentially, you say that lying
about one thing is proof of a crime regarding a different thing. Geeze,
Louise, that's a reckless standard.

No, that isn't what I said either.
There is a bunch of evidence that Trump & Co have colluded with the Russians, lied about it, obstructed investigation into it, and deflected away from the issue.
And that an ambitious foreign enemy helped get him in office.

You change the subject to "proof". You compare it to a courtroom standard, when I am saying it reaches grand jury level of evidence. And, unfortunately for the USA, the president is very experienced at manipulation of the legal system as well as the media. He is in a position to obstruct the investigation like nobody else in the world.

You are missing the forest for the trees. And the epic denial of Trump supporters and Capitol Hill are what is enabling him. The partisanship is a big threat to this country.
Tom

 

[esmith]

What did Obama say? And yes, all presidents and elected officials should be held accountable for what they say.

Well let see

 

[columbus]

Well let see

Do you not remember the outrage?
The fact is that had Obama qualified the statement with "if the insurance meets regulations" it would have been accurate. He should have done that, definitely. But he didn't. But the complete information was easily available to everybody.
This is completely different from Trump telling selfserving lies and then obstructing investigation into the truth. Far far different.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Are any responsible authorities claiming what you do, ie,
certainty that Trump is selling the country out to Russia?

Here's another mistake you are making.

I am not absolutely certain that Trump is colluding with Putin to undermine USA interests. It's just the most plausible explanation for the facts and information that we currently have( in total) , in my opinion. To return to the OP itself: Trump posted a Tweet about Obama that wasn't true. The most plausible explanation(imo) for the Tweet about Obama, which has been investigated and demonstrated wrong, is this. Trump found out, as president, that his staff were the subject of a legitimate investigation by USA security. Without knowing for sure what they found, he knew that damaging and possibly actionable things had been done. Because he was orchestrating them. So he tried to get out in front of the potential disaster by making a spurious accusation against Obama, thereby spinning yet more evidence of his collusion into a narrative of his being persecuted by his second favorite villain Obama.

Now, maybe I am wrong. Feel free to give me another explanation for the facts and we can discuss our interpretations of events, and compare their relative plausibility. OK?
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

Well let see

I kept my doctor, plan and saved money in the process. Not sure who you're referring to. The majority did. The ACA has no effect on you, so why do you care?

I'll note your corporate agenda as usual.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that isn't what I said either.

You offered it as evidence.

And that an ambitious foreign enemy helped get him in office.

So you say.
This isn't a fact...it's an opinion.
It could even be correct.

You change the subject to "proof". You compare it to a courtroom standard, when I am saying it reaches grand jury level of evidence.

No, you've changed your position to something more reasonable than certainty, albeit still
below the claimed standard. I say it warrants investigation. When that's concluded, a
grand jury could weigh in.

And, unfortunately for the USA, the president is very experienced at manipulation of the legal system as well as the media. He is in a position to obstruct the investigation like nobody else in the world.

That is indeed a problem.

You are missing the forest for the trees. And the epic denial of Trump supporters and Capitol Hill are what is enabling him. The partisanship is a big threat to this country.
Tom

No, I'm looking at the big picture.
There are things which matter.....
- Tax reform
- Health care reform
- Avoiding war
- Regulatory reform
There are things which don't matter....
- Trump's reckless accusation that Obama wiretapped him/his associatres
- Russia possibly helping Trump get elected.
The big reason that this is insignificant is that the supposed Russian sourced revelations haven't been
debunked. Democrats are objecting to airing of cromulent information which supposedly hurt Hillary.
If information is her enemy, it raises the issue of her trying to get elected by stealthy skulduggery.

Certainly, no Democrat objects to VOA (Voice Of America), our propaganda arm which disseminated
the truth (as we saw it) to people trapped in communist regimes. But those bent on clandestine
Machiavellian methods really dislike their dirty laundry being aired.

 

[metis]

I am not absolutely certain that Trump is colluding with Putin to undermine USA interests. It's just the most plausible explanation for the facts and information that we currently have( in total) , in my opinion.

When we look at the actions of the Trump camp, what other direction could we possible lean towards?

Why the constant denials that are later proven correct? Why the many attempts to stop all investigations? Why the discussions with the Russians that they repeatedly denied? Why won't Trump criticize Putin but does so to some of our own allies? Why did Trump fire Comey and then fabricating an excuse that we know is not true because he spilled the beans on himself? Why has his camp questioned Mueller's integrity? Why are they still withholding documents that have been requested? Why won't Trump volunteer his tax returns? Etc.

If I'm innocent, I don't need to stop investigations, repeatedly lie, deny meetings that took place, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's another mistake you are making.

If you are indeed uncertain, then I was mistaken.

I am not absolutely certain that Trump is colluding with Putin to undermine USA interests. It's just the most plausible explanation for the facts and information that we currently have( in total) , in my opinion. To return to the OP itself: Trump posted a Tweet about Obama that wasn't true. The most plausible explanation(imo) for the Tweet about Obama, which has been investigated and demonstrated wrong, is this. Trump found out, as president, that his staff were the subject of a legitimate investigation by USA security. Without knowing for sure what they found, he knew that damaging and possibly actionable things had been done. Because he was orchestrating them. So he tried to get out in front of the potential disaster by making a spurious accusation against Obama, thereby spinning yet more evidence of his collusion into a narrative of his being persecuted by his second favorite villain Obama.

Now, maybe I am wrong. Feel free to give me another explanation for the facts and we can discuss our interpretations of events, and compare their relative plausibility. OK?
Tom

The tweet is best explained by collusion with Russians?
Nah, there are others (as good or better).....
- Trump believed it or thought it was likely.
- Trump made it up to enhance his outsider credibility.
- Trump hates Obama, & sought to attack him.

I just have a better imagination than you do.

 

[columbus]

If you are indeed uncertain, then I was mistaken.

You sound like a Creationist.
I cannot be more than 90% certain, so I should keep an open mind concerning their, rather less plausible, assertions.
I am every bit of 90% certain that Trump has colluded with the Russians as well as lied about that. The question is "Why"? Ignoring that and dismissing it as less important than your tax rates seems like epic denial to me.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

You sound like a Creationist.

So that's how it's to be?
Well, you sound like a homophobe!

My insult wins with greater irony.

I cannot be more than 90% certain, so I should keep an open mind concerning their, rather less plausible, assertions.
I am every bit of 90% certain that Trump has colluded with the Russians as well as lied about that. The question is "Why"? Ignoring that and dismissing it as less important than your tax rates seems like epic denial to me.
Tom

I dismiss the crappy evidence you offered, eg, Trump's accusation that Obama wiretapped'm.

 

[columbus]

The tweet is best explained by collusion with Russians?
Nah, there are others (as good or better).....
- Trump believed it or thought it was likely.
- Trump made it up to enhance his outsider credibility.
- Trump hates Obama, & sought to attack him.

These would be better, if there were no investigation. Since there was, I think it's because he was hiding things.
Big Yuge damaging things.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

These would be better, if there were no investigation. Since there was, I think it's because he was hiding things.
Big Yuge damaging things.
Tom

Are the things he's hiding (& therefore not known) also evidence?