Trump is on another Twitterrampage! Now Obama had his "wires tapped" before the election

[Old_SD_Dude]

17 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I'm of two minds. Solid journalism for sure, but don't/didn't you perceive a shift. if even ever so slightly, following Murdoch's acquisition?

He's never ran away from using his media channels to promote his POV, even having bragged about it with regards to FOX.

IMO opinion there may have been a slight shift, but nothing like I was expecting.

[SharkTanked]

18 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I'm of two minds. Solid journalism for sure, but don't/didn't you perceive a shift. if even ever so slightly, following Murdoch's acquisition?

He's never ran away from using his media channels to promote his POV, even having bragged about it with regards to FOX.

Another example close to home is Adelson's purchase of the Las Vegas Review Journal (and his trying to hide his ownership of it initially). The change in day to day operations and staff turnover since the acquisition has been eye opening.

[TheSanDiegan]

2 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

IMO opinion there may have been a slight shift, but nothing like I was expecting.

That's my impression as well.

1 minute ago, SharkTanked said:

Another example close to home is Adelson's purchase of the Las Vegas Review Journal (and his trying to hide his ownership of it initially). The change in day to day operations and staff turnover since the acquisition has been eye opening.

Same thing pretty much happened here when Baron Manchester purchased the U-T from Copley.

[jackmormon]

Here in Utah, The Huntsman family bought the Salt Lake Tribune. They seem to have done for purely philanthropic purposes so the the LDS church owned Deseret News wasn't the only Statewide newspaper.

[mugtang]

13 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Awesome. I may need to sign up for twitter to relentless try to get Trump to respond about Roswell and JFK.

 

[thelawlorfaithful]

1 hour ago, SharkTanked said:

This seems to be about the fairest reporting on the subject I have seen. From Bloomberg...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/what-trump-should-have-tweeted-about-obama-and-eavesdropping?cmpid=yhoo.headline&yptr=yahoo

Good article, thanks for posting it. 

[Old_SD_Dude]

It just gets wackier:

Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, told the New York Times on Tuesday that he believes in the existence of a “deep state” attempting to undermine President Trump’s administration.

“We are talking about the emergence of a deep state led by Barack Obama, and that is something that we should prevent,” King told the Times. “The person who understands this best is Steve Bannon, and I would think that he’s advocating to make some moves to fix it.”

The term “deep state,” which is relatively new to American politics, has been used to describe a permanent military, intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracy manipulating government policies in secret.

King added that Trump “needs to purge the leftists within the administration that are holdovers from the Obama administration, because it appears that they are undermining his administration and his chances of success.”

King’s remarks echoed a previous statement made on his Twitter account, where he wrote the president “needs to purge Leftists from executive branch before disloyal, illegal & treasonist [sic] acts sink us.”

The monkeys are in charge of the zoo.

[NVGiant]

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I'm of two minds. Solid journalism for sure, but don't/didn't you perceive a shift, if even ever so slightly, following Murdoch's acquisition?

He's never ran away from using his media channels to promote his POV, even having bragged about it with regards to FOX.

I don't get that sense. I'm not a huge fan of Murdoch, but from all I've heard he has mostly respected the sanctity of newsroom separation. Furthermore, WSJ has done some interesting things to monetize its website, most notably its hard pay wall, which has helped preserve its news gathering resources.

I loathe Fox News, but I can honestly say that I think Murdoch has done right by the WSJ. I would have lost money on that bet a few years ago.

[SharkTanked]

50 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

It just gets wackier:

Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, told the New York Times on Tuesday that he believes in the existence of a “deep state” attempting to undermine President Trump’s administration.

“We are talking about the emergence of a deep state led by Barack Obama, and that is something that we should prevent,” King told the Times. “The person who understands this best is Steve Bannon, and I would think that he’s advocating to make some moves to fix it.”

The term “deep state,” which is relatively new to American politics, has been used to describe a permanent military, intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracy manipulating government policies in secret.

King added that Trump “needs to purge the leftists within the administration that are holdovers from the Obama administration, because it appears that they are undermining his administration and his chances of success.”

King’s remarks echoed a previous statement made on his Twitter account, where he wrote the president “needs to purge Leftists from executive branch before disloyal, illegal & treasonist [sic] acts sink us.”

The monkeys are in charge of the zoo.

Not to lend credence to such wackadoo nonsense, but for the sake of boredom...

If such a deep state exists, and it is described as "permanent," how could it be led by Obama? Obama has not been nor is he permanently in power. Or is this just permanent as of 9 years ago? If so didn't the same "Deep State" exist under every two term President, led by said two term President? Was the "Deep State" started by a former President (Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush), and if so, transcends political party? And if so, would it even make sense for a President (sitting or former) to be in charge of this?

Sounds to me like bizarre paranoia has taken over this country for no reason.

[TheSanDiegan]

36 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I don't get that sense. I'm not a huge fan of Murdoch, but from all I've heard he has mostly respected the sanctity of newsroom separation. Furthermore, WSJ has done some interesting things to monetize its website, most notably its hard pay wall, which has helped preserve its news gathering resources.

I loathe Fox News, but I can honestly say that I think Murdoch has done right by the WSJ. I would have lost money on that bet a few years ago.

I appreciate your particularly qualified perspective on the subject. Thanks.

[Rebelbacker]

1 hour ago, SharkTanked said:

Not to lend credence to such wackadoo nonsense, but for the sake of boredom...

If such a deep state exists, and it is described as "permanent," how could it be led by Obama? Obama has not been nor is he permanently in power. Or is this just permanent as of 9 years ago? If so didn't the same "Deep State" exist under every two term President, led by said two term President? Was the "Deep State" started by a former President (Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush), and if so, transcends political party? And if so, would it even make sense for a President (sitting or former) to be in charge of this?

Sounds to me like bizarre paranoia has taken over this country for no reason.

I don't think this is new. Eisenhower warned against the 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address. IMO that is the same as the deep state, just a different name.

IMO, this isn't about past presidents controlling it. I think these are defense contractors, think tanks, business interests, intelligence officers and career government staffers that try and control things behind the scenes to further a like cause or agenda. Presidents and Congressmen are temporary in their jobs. Government career officials aren't. They know how the sausage is made. I don't think it is absurd to think they not only know how to influence decisions but aren't involved with other people that have a vested interest to change policy to benefit themselves financially or a cause.  

[SharkTanked]

Just now, Rebelbacker said:

I don't think this is new. Eisenhower warned against the 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address. IMO that is the same as the deep state, just a different name.

IMO, this isn't about past presidents controlling it. I think these are defense contractors, think tanks, business interests, intelligence officers and career government staffers that try and control things behind the scenes to further a like cause or agenda. Presidents and Congressmen are temporary in their jobs. Government career officials aren't. They know how the sausage is made. I don't think it is absurd to think they not only know how to influence decisions but aren't involved with other people that have a vested interest to change policy to benefit themselves financially or a cause.  

I can agree with the existence of the military-industrial complex (its why I think we are in a permanent state of war). I just don' see them as trying to bring down a President. That's a very public fight to be undertaken by a system that wants to remain in the shadows. I absolutely think they sometimes try to manipulate decisions to bend it towards their agenda, but I don't think that everytime the Trump Admin fuks something up, that some shadow administration is behind it, nor do I think everytime something is leaked to the press it is because of the same organization. Nor do I think such an organization is really that organized. It is more of a bunch of large companies looking out for their best interests, and sometimes those interests may align, but not often enough to establish itself as a "deep state" or some kind of shadow administration. Such a title implies a level of organization and shared vision that I don't think exists here.

[Old_SD_Dude]

19 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

I can agree with the existence of the military-industrial complex (its why I think we are in a permanent state of war). I just don' see them as trying to bring down a President. That's a very public fight to be undertaken by a system that wants to remain in the shadows. I absolutely think they sometimes try to manipulate decisions to bend it towards their agenda, but I don't think that everytime the Trump Admin fuks something up, that some shadow administration is behind it, nor do I think everytime something is leaked to the press it is because of the same organization. Nor do I think such an organization is really that organized. It is more of a bunch of large companies looking out for their best interests, and sometimes those interests may align, but not often enough to establish itself as a "deep state" or some kind of shadow administration. Such a title implies a level of organization and shared vision that I don't think exists here.

And even if there was such a thing, how the hell would you keep it secret in this day and age. 

[aztech]

2 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

Not to lend credence to such wackadoo nonsense, but for the sake of boredom...

If such a deep state exists, and it is described as "permanent," how could it be led by Obama? Obama has not been nor is he permanently in power. Or is this just permanent as of 9 years ago? If so didn't the same "Deep State" exist under every two term President, led by said two term President? Was the "Deep State" started by a former President (Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush), and if so, transcends political party? And if so, would it even make sense for a President (sitting or former) to be in charge of this?

Sounds to me like bizarre paranoia has taken over this country for no reason.

Don't forget about that Tri-Lateral Commission nonsense under the first Bush.

[pokebball]

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-03-07/nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-says-trump-is-absolutely-right-about-wiretap-claims

Ex NSA employee and whistleblower thinks Trump was correct.  Didn't say it right but believes he was tapped.  Pretty much discounts FISA as others here have.

[thelawlorfaithful]

[jackmormon]

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-03-07/nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-says-trump-is-absolutely-right-about-wiretap-claims

Ex NSA employee and whistleblower thinks Trump was correct.  Didn't say it right but believes he was tapped.  Pretty much discounts FISA as others here have.

He hasn't been with the NSA since 2001.

[pokebball]

Just now, jackmormon said:

He hasn't been with the NSA since 2001.

Yeah, that's in the article I linked.  He quit after the NSA started doing shyt like this.

[DestinFlPackfan]

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Yeah, that's in the article I linked.  He quit after the NSA started doing shyt like this.

Since the Homeland Security Act in 2002 - we've all been under more surveillance than in previous years. 

[NVGiant]

18 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

Another example close to home is Adelson's purchase of the Las Vegas Review Journal (and his trying to hide his ownership of it initially). The change in day to day operations and staff turnover since the acquisition has been eye opening.

That's a whole other example. What's happened at the RJ is concerning.