yes, and which economic system supports creators of alternative media and incentivizes them to create content that people turn to because they are tired of fake news? There are plenty of alternative media sources that are less bias than fox or cnn if that is what you want, thanks to capitalism.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jan 18 2018 07:54am

Most of what we know from all the media insight into Russia-Trump and all that jazz comes from the same credibility of sources as the claim that the FISA warrant used the Steele dossier. There are multiple journalists reporting that "sources" have explicitly confirmed that the dossier was cited as one element among others in the FISA application. There has been no proof provided- we don't have the actual paperwork- but B-tier journalists have been staking this position. Hannity has Sara Carter saying she has spoken to unnamed 'senior law enforcement officials' in the DoJ and elsewhere that confirmed it, and Fox News has staked itself on that claim. CNN reported it back in April a year ago citing "US officials briefed on the investigation":
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html
Now, does that mean we know 100% for sure that the Steele Dossier was indeed actually used in the FISA application? No. But we can reasonably figure thats the case based on the general agreement between opposed sides and the lack of pushback.
We can only know it so far as we know any other detail, like all the leaks over Flynn or Trump Jr. And when false information was leaked, it was repudiated. This claim hasn't been contested.



You say it makes no sense, but then you make a case that it makes partial sense.
Even if Obama himself wasn't personally involved, its still the Obama administration wiretapping Trump's campaign. That makes Trump's language imprecise and misleading at worst, but not nonsensical, which is what his critics were claiming when he made the explosive allegation. Its a far cry from suggesting that Trump is off his rocker and is making up pure bullshit about wiretaps, to learning that senior Obama administration officials were involved in wiretapping Trump, involved in unmasking those wiretapped transcripts and leaking them, and then putting in the caveat that we can't put the big cheese's fingerprints on it.

But then there's the other possibility, that Obama was indeed involved in the process.
we're talking about high level officials who report to the president and are already known as politically corrupt partisan actors who can't be trusted to act independently- look at what Comey had to say about Loretta Lynch- and everyone in the democratic party fell in line under Obama and/or Clinton. Can we really contend that Obama's entourage and their dubious reputation were acting completely independent and keeping Obama in the dark while they conducted some of the most extremely sensitive and politically volatile intelligence gathering in the entire history of America by spying on their political opponent during an election? The suggestion that all this could occur without Obama's involvement is stretching credulity. It requires a presumption that everyone was acting in good faith and being ethical professionals. But we already have proof they weren't, because these wiretaps were leaked to destroy michael flynn.

And when we examine it from the cynical lens, with presumption of bad faith, then everything about this story stinks and doesn't pass the smell test.
No seasoned political bureau heads could possibly look at the prospect of literally wiretapping trump tower during the campaign and not set off any red flags. These guys were around for watergate, they aren't idiots. When we've got figures like Comey who are making political calculations as to sensitivities concerning the Clinton email case and breaking FBI protocols to make public statements before the election, how can we simultaneously pretend that they were able to conduct some clandestine intelligence gathering on the republican presidential candidates campaign manager and somehow completely divorce their operation from political consideration? I like to imagine that in a world run by people acting in good faith and without ulterior motive, the natural reaction to such a request for wiretapping would be that you'd need to have incontrovertible, ironclad slam-dunk evidence to justify such an operation. Given the potential fallout and perception and optics, no reasonable bureau chief would sign off on such an idea unless they had a smoking gun. And I think we can safely say at this point there was no smoking gun, given the past year.

To illustrate that point more colorfully, imagine the "I think the Queen has been replaced by a reptilian space alien" scenario. If your spies want to take a peek up the skirts of the queen of england to find out whether she's got the usual womans parts or has a frilled cloaca, you better have some pretty damn convincing evidence she's a space monster before you try it. Because it makes for an international incident if you get caught. And then, there's the implausibility of the scenario to discount the accusation- space monsters don't exist, and Donald Trump has been an American business mogul and personality for decades and the suggestion that he's suddenly doing Putin's bidding is fucking ludicrous.

Of course, all this hinges upon one more consideration- we wouldn't know any of this if Hillary had won. And those Obama administration officials would know that they could have kept this operation secret, if Hillary had won.
If they were indeed corrupt and spying on Trump for political gain and she won, they'd have gotten away with it.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 18 2018 08:29am

Yeah yeah commie he only lowered your taxes and business taxes which leads to stuff like this:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/18/578794272/apple-plans-to-create-20-000-jobs-and-build-new-campus



but youre too busy crying about the fact young minorities and women are no longer forced by the government to purchase a product they may not want or need. racist scum like you thinks the government should force women and minorities to do things they dont want.

silly commie wants the same system that killed 100mm people last century tried again here. scumstain

oh the govt is shutting down because lefties like you and (D) politicians want to prioritize the needs of illegal immigrants over legal immigrants, women, and minorities of the USA. Great job commie!!!!

This post was edited by excellence on Jan 18 2018 09:18am

They will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into prosperity.

#winning

seriously though, companies like apple bringing money and jobs back is huge

what our leftist "drumpf is lowering taxes for the rich!!!!!" guys here do not want to understand is simple mathematics
when these jobs/companies are not in the country you get nothing, zero dollars
bringing them back with lower taxes will generate many billions of tax revenue

but hey, thats too simple i guess

This post was edited by ampoo on Jan 18 2018 10:16am

I hate republicans being successful it ruins my narrative reeeeeeeee

yes, but that pov has some merit... all those companies announcing that they will create new jobs in the U.S. and would ramp up their investment is nice and cheap PR for themselves, scores some cheap points with the current administration and republican lawmakers in general, and is cheap PR for a tax bill which is advantageous to those companies, but disliked by the public.

yes, the tax bill is having a larger effect on the economy and jobs than liberal media and pundits want to admit. but no, it's effect is not as large and great as trump and conservative media want you to believe either. and above all, it's absolutely not clear whether the tax bill will truly be the causefor jobs and tax revenue increases which offset the massive tax cuts. despite the nice news in recent days, this still seems unlikely...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 18 2018 12:28pm

its indeed unclear, but the real question should be: does that necessarily need to happen?

there is no problem with tax revenue, there is a problem with expenses that are simply too high
lower taxes and a state that concentrates on its core duties will the us a better country for everyone and providing jobs+income for people is more important than "a few bucks" in the treasury

of course its not going to happen without touching the holy military budget

exactly, and since I seriously doubt that the US will cut their military budget by enough, the cuts will have to come from areas where they really hurt.


you have to keep in mind that the US already have a much smaller welfare state than us europeans. here in germany, government spending is indeed way out of hand and there is a lot of unnecessary bulk to cut down. but in the US? not so much (outside of the military) if you ask me.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 18 2018 01:37pm