Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 17 2018 04:22pm)
How much did Trump know? What slowly, and I must emphasize slowly, trickled out over the course of 2017 was that Trump's campaign manager and other officials were wiretapped, probably at Trump tower, that it was authorized by Obama administration officials using intel created by DNC/Obama/Hillary funded oppo as part of the justification, and then that this intel was unmasked and weaponized to bring down Michael Flynn. You can't act like the FISA wiretaps were proper or quarantined from political machinations when the leaks were what brought down Flynn in the first place, exposing him in a lie he could have safely told without being exposed by anything less than wiretaps. Not necessarily exploited for political gain during the campaign, that shoe hasn't dropped, not yet anyway. But that's quite the far cry from a year ago when the media was acting as if Trump was off his rocker for the mere suggestion that 'Obama wiretapped him'. Given what we know now, its quite probably that Obama was indeed involved in that decision making process, something that politically volatile and high profile during a campaign? We've seen how little insulation there actually was between the wiretapping and political intrigue.
For Trump to stretch that into 'Obama wiretapped me', perhaps thats not accurate, perhaps it is, but either way they weren't tweets that "make no sense, and still make no sense". They were tweets that made no sense, and now do make sense, based on what we know now.
The problem is that foaming at the mouth rabid anti-trumpers are the norm in the media right now. Its not one or two exceptions, its the mainstream, hence his mutual brawl with them, which of course only feeds the resentment on both sides. NYT and WaPo have daggers for Trump and are virulently biased, that's no secret, and a few notable missteps along the way in terms of publishing fake news. I think its remarkable the lengths americans would have to go if they actually want to get unbiased news in this day and age. When all the mainstream networks have taken partisan sides, or at least, everyone but Fox against Trump and Fox shilling away happily, I have to turn to something like BBC or PBS that simply doesn't have enough stake to bother. And even PBS has got a rotten streak of bringing in journalists from those other MSM networks as guest talking heads. But lord knows the right-wing biased niche sites are just as bad or worse. TheHill is at least in the middle, insofar as its more a contested battleground between bitter rivals that both post opinion columns dressed up as news.
But all the well deserved excoriation and pillorying the media deserves for its nonsense, I don't have any expectation the big orange clown will deliver it today. Just honk his nose at them again.
Trump probably didn't know much, which is why he should've kept his mouth shut. So far it's questionable whether the dossier was part of the justification for a FISA warrant. If it was, either the information in the dossier was credible(which is bad for Trump), the other information presented to the judge(besides the dossier) was credible, or the process isn't stringent enough. Either way, I don't see how it has anything to do with Obama. You constantly criticize the lefties on reddit for non-evidence based speculation, why are you engaging in it?
Trump's original claim still makes no sense. I'm not going to cut it into segments or debate whether to take it seriously or literally, he's president, and unless Obama was actually involved in approving the wiretaps somehow, the claim makes no sense. You'd think Trump would have a little bit of respect for his predecessor, and give him the benefit of the doubt before tweeting something for the world to see, but he's insanely erratic.
I think news shows in general are just becoming more infotainment, and hosts feel more free to express their opinions(including outrage). Calling Trump a racist for certain comments isn't an ideological issue, the media has been obsessed with race for quite some time. Again though, you are pretending Trump is the innocent victim here. Since the campaign began, the coverage of him has been mostly negative, and that's almost entirely self-inflicted. He says a bunch of dumb shit all the time, his administration is full of backstabbing leakers, he's had to fire a bunch of high profile people, etc etc. This presidency is not normal.
When you say NYT/WaPo are biased, what exactly do you mean? Who is biased? I don't read every story, just the interesting scoops, and they are always written in an objective way.
This post was edited by IceMage on Jan 18 2018 07:16am
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.