Trump Tower Bugged by BHO?

[C-Mag]

The big issue that I hope to come out of this is that fact that all Americans have their communications tapped.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Well, the way I figure it, since StA's favorite blog, Breitbart, and Rossiya Segodnya agree that Obama tapped Trump, it is basically true... since we have jettisoned all other media.

Perception makes reality, will is the only law.

I agree, Perception is Reality. There is perception that the 4th Amendment exists, therefore it is considered reality.

Makes, not is. I have a hard time with is... as do most people these days, but makes is ever shifting sand.

Leaving that aside, it would be nice to have more information than a blog and Russian Government Radio, which I have a hard time believing is more biased towards truth than other sources.

Yeah... um... perhaps these sources would be more convincing (this has been posted before, but with Lent and all, perhaps some people gave up following the thread, or the news.) Go ahead, fill yer boots.

[ssu]

Well, the way I figure it, since StA's favorite blog, Breitbart, and Rossiya Segodnya agree that Obama tapped Trump, it is basically true... since we have jettisoned all other media.

Perception makes reality, will is the only law.

Still finding it odd that the POTUS gets his info about events just like some average Joe-Sixpack, reading the sites he follows in the net. Then he tweets about them and then the Whitehouse spokespersons have to go on air to tell what exactly it meant.

Guess it's a Trump thing. But the distraction works. At least for now.

Likely after four years there will be lesser interest just on what Trump tweets.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

The big issue that I hope to come out of this is that fact that all Americans have their communications tapped.

I sort of hope that's true--only because I want the transcripts!

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

Still finding it odd that the POTUS gets his info about events just like some average Joe-Sixpack, reading the sites he follows in the net.

Of course he doesn't--that's Obama's line.

[C-Mag]

Joe Six-Pack, pfft............ classic Progressive attack meant to demean and delegitimize anything the opposition says as unintelligent. Get with it. As the above video shows Presidents do this to insulate themselves because it is illegal for them to comment on information from intelligence sources, but they are free to comment on news stories.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Yeah... um... perhaps these sources would be more convincing (this has been posted before, but with Lent and all, perhaps some people gave up following the thread, or the news.) Go ahead, fill yer boots.

That is all the same information. Intelligence agencies looking into connections between political candidates and foreign agents isn't exactly a shocker. If you want to view it through a partisan lens, well, follow your bliss, perception makes reality.

Levin is making a case, Breitbart and Russian Government Radio think it is a big deal... spying on Russians is sort of the intelligence communities whole bag though, so color me unimpressed.

If American citizens are more comfortable with Russia than their own intelligence agencies, who am I to judge?

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

That is all the same information. Intelligence agencies looking into connections between political candidates and foreign agents isn't exactly a shocker. If you want to view it through a partisan lens, well, follow your bliss, perception makes reality.

Levin is making a case, Breitbart and Russian Government Radio think it is a big deal... spying on Russians is sort of the intelligence communities whole bag though, so color me unimpressed.

If American citizens are more comfortable with Russia than their own intelligence agencies, who am I to judge?

Not even Nixon employed US intelligence agencies against the opposition party--it is a shocker! I'm fine with the alphabet soup spying on Russia, because that's they're job, but if that information is leaked to WaPo and NYT--that's BAD SPYING!--good spies don't advertise. However that's not the point--the FISA effort was aimed at THE OPPOSITION PARTY! Get it? The alphabet soup of intelligence agencies aimed at Americans--and at ONE in particular. Get it? That's all kinds of wrong.
But you wanted other sources--there they are--you're welcome.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That is all the same information. Intelligence agencies looking into connections between political candidates and foreign agents isn't exactly a shocker. If you want to view it through a partisan lens, well, follow your bliss, perception makes reality.

Levin is making a case, Breitbart and Russian Government Radio think it is a big deal... spying on Russians is sort of the intelligence communities whole bag though, so color me unimpressed.

If American citizens are more comfortable with Russia than their own intelligence agencies, who am I to judge?

Not even Nixon employed US intelligence agencies against the opposition party--it is a shocker! I'm fine with the alphabet soup spying on Russia, because that's they're job, but if that information is leaked to WaPo and NYT--that's BAD SPYING!--good spies don't advertise. However that's not the point--the FISA effort was aimed at THE OPPOSITION PARTY! Get it? The alphabet soup of intelligence agencies aimed at Americans--and at ONE in particular. Get it? That's all kinds of wrong.
But you wanted other sources--there they are--you're welcome.

I get your point.

But, humor me... if alphabet soup is aimed at Russia, and the opposition party gets caught in the net, is that the same thing as spying on the opposition party? Or is that the sort of due diligence we would hope the spooks brought to the table?

Then, if the opposition party wins, but the men in black have important information, how do we, the people, get a hold of it. The balance of transparency and its value to an open civil society is often in conflict with the needs of an intelligence branch of a modern state. If the spooks are spying on citizens, I would like to know. If the administration is in Putin's pocket, I would like to know. As such, leaks don't bother me.

What bothers me is that the blog-pretending-to-be-news-when-it-suits-them-Breitbart, and Russian Government Radio can be presented as reliable without comment, but any other news agency or take on the events is deemed unforgivably compromised.

[de officiis]

It seems to me that the critical thinking process involved in reading the news helps us to discern what is reliable from what is not most of the time, and with most of the news sites. Is it really healthy for a democracy to have large blocks of the population, divided by political orientation, to declare "the other side's" news sites untrustworthy, and categorically exclude them as a source of information? I think that just worsens the notion that truth is relative leads to greater polarization.