FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along" The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"? 
I think this story has legs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along" .   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs."in what way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?"don't encourage her, she will be back reading the bbc then adding to the above | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
don't encourage her, she will be back reading the bbc then adding to the above " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
don't encourage her, she will be back reading the bbc then adding to the above
"she is trying so hard not to reply with a smart comment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
don't encourage her, she will be back reading the bbc then adding to the above
"You guys troll hard pathetic really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?"Because it technically would be illegal if it is proven that he did what it is said that he did because we only have one president at a time.... The reason why a lot of people despise Flynn is that was originally brought in by Obama and was sacked by Obama after being found to have kept emails on unsecured servers... sound familiar?? Anyway after he was sacked he turned on that administration....the Muslim ban is one of Flynns babies, so is extreme vetting and a Muslim registry | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
Because it technically would be illegal if it is proven that he did what it is said that he did because we only have one president at a time....
The reason why a lot of people despise Flynn is that was originally brought in by Obama and was sacked by Obama after being found to have kept emails on unsecured servers... sound familiar??
Anyway after he was sacked he turned on that administration....the Muslim ban is one of Flynns babies, so is extreme vetting and a Muslim registry "And karma might be about to bite him on the arse... remember him leading the 'Lock her up!' chants about Hilary? -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"America is in an unprecedented situation. How bad is it that the Intelligence services are holding things back from their President because they don't trust the information getting into Russian hands. That has repercussions for us too." I can't believe that he dealt with North Korea's missile launch in the public area of a golf resort with members of the golf club taking selfies with the guy carrying the nuclear football  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And karma might be about to bite him on the arse... remember him leading the 'Lock her up!' chants about Hilary? -Matt" That was mentioned at the time... the trump administration didn't see the irony in it The fact the VP was dragged into this made it a lot worse The only saving grace I see is that he was probably the most hawkish person in the trump administration... so we may now a dialling back in some of the confrontational language | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?"House and Senate investigations into it will give it legs. I'm sure the transcripts, or even the recording of the calls will come out eventually. As a former director of the Defence Intelligence Agency he was foolish and naive in the extreme to believe that others wouldn't be listening in to the calls. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was suggested before that Gen Petraeus might get a spot in Trump's team, and it seems that name is floating around again now. But as he pled guilty to charges of unauthorised disclosure of classified information, would Trump be able to hire him given the stick he gave Clinton and she was never even charged with a crime? Personally I think Gen Petraeus would be a good choice. " You are British I am sure you cannot possibly know the best man or woman for the job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was suggested before that Gen Petraeus might get a spot in Trump's team, and it seems that name is floating around again now. But as he pled guilty to charges of unauthorised disclosure of classified information, would Trump be able to hire him given the stick he gave Clinton and she was never even charged with a crime? Personally I think Gen Petraeus would be a good choice. You are British I am sure you cannot possibly know the best man or woman for the job." My opinion is invalid because of my nationality? That's a bit xenophobic.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs."'Centipede runs marathon'- that story would have legs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot!" Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was suggested before that Gen Petraeus might get a spot in Trump's team, and it seems that name is floating around again now. But as he pled guilty to charges of unauthorised disclosure of classified information, would Trump be able to hire him given the stick he gave Clinton and she was never even charged with a crime? Personally I think Gen Petraeus would be a good choice. You are British I am sure you cannot possibly know the best man or woman for the job. My opinion is invalid because of my nationality? That's a bit xenophobic. "This nation of ours is allways sticking its nose in other peoples business time we knew better lets get Britain right first. We have enough problems of our own,I believe this is the beginning of the end of Trump but the Americans must sort it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?..... "The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?.....
The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk."As it's been headline news across multiple UK media outlets I would say that you are in a minority if you believe that. If the media thought it was a non-story they wouldn't have lead with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do wonder how someone who claims to have the best judgement and know all the right people could do such a bad job at picking people to advise him as President. The problem with this whole story goes deeper than Flynn himself. Yes, he has been fired and may have criminal proceedings brought against him. But more interestingly, there are people in the military who are loyal to him - people who like him. Have they now been alienated in a way that could have been avoided had he never held the position to begin with? How about the rifts in the intelligence community? Or the serious questions this raises about Russia's influence in the white house? How about the fact that Trump clearly doesn't listen to the advice and warnings of the Justice Department or his intelligence briefings? Trump kept saying what he lacked in experience he'd make up for in judgement and "know[ing] the best people." Huh. "He has limited the pool of "best people" he can choose from. His style and opinions being what they are he cannot choose from the best the country has to offer, he can choose from those who are willing to work with him in the feudal style that he appears to expect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA..." He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? " He won't last four years at this rate. The Flynn repercussions are only just starting and will completely rock his Administration.... Hence his morning tweet saying that "leaks" are in fact an intentional and systematic "illegal"? Release of secrets to the media. He can't cope without having absolute control and absolute power and he is too volatile to act in a way that the Press will not keep finding enough shit that one day he will be buried in it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? " Good question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? He won't last four years at this rate. The Flynn repercussions are only just starting and will completely rock his Administration.... Hence his morning tweet saying that "leaks" are in fact an intentional and systematic "illegal"? Release of secrets to the media. He can't cope without having absolute control and absolute power and he is too volatile to act in a way that the Press will not keep finding enough shit that one day he will be buried in it." What matters more is this effects the behaviour of the administration now. Does it learn and start to act in a less cavalier manner or does it become even more combative? It was clear that Trump is an autocrat and was going to try to run the country in the same way as his companies. He has never run publicly listed companies, only privately owned ones which are his own kingdom. He has insulted and threatened every branch of government, in particular the intelligence services. He's not made the next few years easy for himself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? Good question. "There is a real possibility that he wont step down. How many books and movies have there been during the cold war and after, about Russia either gaining control/influence over a US President, or getting their own sleeper agent elected? Now it looks at though it has happened for real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? Good question.
There is a real possibility that he wont step down.
How many books and movies have there been during the cold war and after, about Russia either gaining control/influence over a US President, or getting their own sleeper agent elected?
Now it looks at though it has happened for real."I'm not concerned with him stepping down. No individual President has the power to remain in office when he isn't meant to. I'm more concerned with the possible instability he could incite in the general population with his aggressive rhetoric and careless attitude. Things are really tense between ordinary Americans now. If Trump loses in four years and continues, under the authority of the oval office, so assert baseless voter fraud and call the election into question, unrest in the general population could be serious. And it could (along with this debacle of accused Russian interference) draw shadows over the stability of US elections more generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"^^ feudal style ^^ Sort of sums it up... Who was the last feudal leader to voluntarily give up power? This does not bode well for the USA... He won the electoral college and still complained about voter fraud. What is he going to say if he loses in 4 years time? Good question.
There is a real possibility that he wont step down.
How many books and movies have there been during the cold war and after, about Russia either gaining control/influence over a US President, or getting their own sleeper agent elected?
Now it looks at though it has happened for real."The main one (non fiction) is the blueprint for Russian resurgence, written by Alexander Dugin; " The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia". It's the basic textbook for the Russian military and government. The whole script is there. They are following it exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?.....
The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk."Agree. Bush had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the global recession by American banks. America does not affect the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so apparently trump knew... but the vice president didn't.... the republicans who were for quick going after clinton and her emails, are now trying to slow down any investigation over this... they are saying that flynn is an innoncent victim because you are not allowed to wiretap your own citizens.... forgetting then fact it wasn't his phone that was being bugged, it was the russian ambassadors..... all the trump and russia allegations are going up again... and i am wondering if more republicans are going to break with Mccain and Graham and want an investigation... i think it is more interesting that the leaders paul ryan and mitch mcconnell have basically gone into radio silence....." Correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from that ethics oversight thing, Trump hasn't had to really go head to head with Congress yet. Once he does, and he starts trying to throw his weight around, I think they will be less likely to support him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?.....
The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk.
Agree. Bush had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the global recession by American banks. America does not affect the UK."Well we did build a moat to keep America out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?.....
The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk.
Agree. Bush had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the global recession by American banks. America does not affect the UK.
Well we did build a moat to keep America out! "Keep America out. I hope people understand sarcasm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well we did build a moat to keep America out! " I think we need a bigger moat! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well we did build a moat to keep America out! I think we need a bigger moat! "We need an "America Last" video  . Did you see the "Netherlands Second" video? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?"In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign. "It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here". What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe."Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years"You mean since he started invading other countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
You mean since he started invading other countries? "Err no. Oooh the bogey man...he's behind you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years"Its almost like he hasnt been a pacifist until he got hit in the head last week to become aggressive all of a sudden. Imagine that?
So to answer my question, why are you so at ease with Russia rising when they are working against UK interests and want the UK weakened and isolated so theyre less of a threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
Its almost like he hasnt been a pacifist until he got hit in the head last week to become aggressive all of a sudden. Imagine that?
So to answer my question, why are you so at ease with Russia rising when they are working against UK interests and want the UK weakened and isolated so theyre less of a threat?"Who says I am? But why wouldn't they? Would you like to see Russia weakened and less of a threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
You mean since he started invading other countries?
Err no. Oooh the bogey man...he's behind you "He is obviously a threat as he keeps on invading other countries. Isn't that obvious? Why are you such a Putin apologist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
You mean since he started invading other countries?
Err no. Oooh the bogey man...he's behind you
He is obviously a threat as he keeps on invading other countries. Isn't that obvious? Why are you such a Putin apologist? "How many times do we have to go over this when you don't know what you're talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Oh, hang on, we've tried that one. How did that go? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not a Russia sympathiser. But didn't it break down when the US and UK pushed for bombing Libya? A Russian ally. That's when it went downhill. I think the UK and USA? are causing the threat. Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Russia we're not involved in those countries." Initially | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
You mean since he started invading other countries?
Err no. Oooh the bogey man...he's behind you
He is obviously a threat as he keeps on invading other countries. Isn't that obvious? Why are you such a Putin apologist?
How many times do we have to go over this when you don't know what you're talking about?"Well you keep on denying that he has invaded other countries, which I can't quite understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
Its almost like he hasnt been a pacifist until he got hit in the head last week to become aggressive all of a sudden. Imagine that?
So to answer my question, why are you so at ease with Russia rising when they are working against UK interests and want the UK weakened and isolated so theyre less of a threat?"I dont think to need to work hard for that mate the UK seems pretty good at wanting to isolate itself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Russia we're not involved in those countries." Now, remind me where Al Quaieda originated from again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm......." Immunity don't stop them bumping him off for shouting his mouth off!!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm....... Immunity don't stop them bumping him off for shouting his mouth off!!! "How many Russian diplomats have met mysterious ends recently?
-Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm....... Immunity don't stop them bumping him off for shouting his mouth off!!!
How many Russian diplomats have met mysterious ends recently?
-Matt".I dont know, How many? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
in what way?
In the way that the FBI director just confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into Russian influence over the Trump campaign.
It reminds me of that scene from Naked Gun when several vehicles crash into a fireworks factory with armed police rushing in to make arrests with the place burning down and fireworks going off in all directions and Drebins standing in front "Nothing to see here, move along folks, nothing to see here".
What I dont understand is why the right in America and Britain are so at ease with Putins rising influence especially at a time when hes flexing his military muscle in Europe.
Is he really? The media in the west have been accusing him of 'flexing his military muscle' for at least the last ten years
You mean since he started invading other countries?
Err no. Oooh the bogey man...he's behind you
He is obviously a threat as he keeps on invading other countries. Isn't that obvious? Why are you such a Putin apologist? ". There scared, scared that once the media create the enemy you all need youll stop looking at your own leaders?. Its not an either or thing for me, i happen to think Putin is bad and trump is bad and Clinton was bad, Obama wasnt exactly great either he just looked good in between two cunts. Russia and the US have played this game since ww2 they both feed off each other and crucially they both need each other to blame the other side to allow them to be utter knob ends in front of their own electorate. Putins a clever cold blooded ruthless killer, trumps the same but hes also an idiot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm....... Immunity don't stop them bumping him off for shouting his mouth off!!!
How many Russian diplomats have met mysterious ends recently?
-Matt.I dont know,
How many?"7 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm....... Immunity don't stop them bumping him off for shouting his mouth off!!!
How many Russian diplomats have met mysterious ends recently?
-Matt.I dont know,
How many?
7"Finding reliable news sources to corroborate reports is a nightmare these days with all the shite out there but this appears to be correct...between 4 and 9 depending on the timescales you use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Flynn now wants immunity in exchange for testifying.... Why would he want that if he has done nothing wrong or illegal? Hmmmmmmmmm......." There is no guaranty he hasn't done anything wrong or illegal , or even questionable , but on that level of power, very little , if anything can actually be done by following all the rules ! If you believe that , that you believe in Santa Claus as well! 
It might be the case that he is just doing it as a strategic move to get ahead of events !
A intelligent play by him if you ask me!
In situations like this its normal that the first to cooperate gets the best deal !
Also by having immunity , he has a lot more freedom to delve into issues like "classified" info on surveillance !
Questions like : Who was doing it ?
Why ? And who ordered it?
But specially , who leaked it , Why , to whom, and who ordered the leak !
Also , confirmation of surveillance by Obama admin, and its leaking, was just confirmed by a former Obama White house member .
This went unnoticed and unreported by
the media....mmmm you just need to watch the first 14 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsv9tykhR4
So.... the plot thickens.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And all of this matters to the UK......how? Not one jot! Really? American foreign affairs have never had any reprocussions in the UK at all?.....
The name on the office door won't change the policy any...it's a non-story for the uk.
As it's been headline news across multiple UK media outlets I would say that you are in a minority if you believe that. If the media thought it was a non-story they wouldn't have lead with it."They've led with plenty non-stories before...and they will again. All they look for is a good headline.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tony, you are really scraping the barrel when you start posting links to fox news to give yourself credibility. Why not just go the whole hog and copy the Donalds tweets?" Seriously Will ! Is that the best you can do ? Its not about my credibility ; I have no stake in the matter ! 
Its about trying to get as much info and angles on the subject !
Its seems Will, you are falling into the trap of the pro , or anti Trump , dispute !
How about some unbiased honest analysis for a change ?
Also, you are either being dishonest, openly biased , or worse ! You didn't even bother to see the piece as soon as you saw Fox News on it !
The piece merely reproduces something from MSNBC and CNBC !
Unless you think those are pro Trump !
Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, you are either being dishonest, openly biased , or worse ! You didn't even bother to see the piece as soon as you saw Fox News on it ! The piece merely reproduces something from MSNBC and CNBC ! Unless you think those are pro Trump ! Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting "Really Tony? Firstly, no I did not watch the clip, I saw it was Fox News and I binned it. I don't need to read The Sport or Sunday Sport to know they are garbage, and I dont need to read the right wing filth in the vile or scum to know they really should be made fully accountable for the hatred and lies they print in the guise of news. If as you say Fox was just rebroadcasting a story that had been aired on other networks you should have posted links to those stories, then your claim would have had much more weight. However considering copy-write and how litigious the US is I expect that your (or Fox's) claim that they were rebroadcasting another networks property is like most of Fox's produce nothing more than shit to feed the fears and prejudices of its red neck audience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, you are either being dishonest, openly biased , or worse ! You didn't even bother to see the piece as soon as you saw Fox News on it ! The piece merely reproduces something from MSNBC and CNBC ! Unless you think those are pro Trump ! Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
Really Tony?
Firstly, no I did not watch the clip, I saw it was Fox News and I binned it. I don't need to read The Sport or Sunday Sport to know they are garbage, and I dont need to read the right wing filth in the vile or scum to know they really should be made fully accountable for the hatred and lies they print in the guise of news.
If as you say Fox was just rebroadcasting a story that had been aired on other networks you should have posted links to those stories, then your claim would have had much more weight. However considering copy-write and how litigious the US is I expect that your (or Fox's) claim that they were rebroadcasting another networks property is like most of Fox's produce nothing more than shit to feed the fears and prejudices of its red neck audience. "Will ...sorry to say that is beneath you! You rejection of the clip outright , is a sad indication that you are not interested in facts or the truth ! Oh ...Please your copy right excuse is ..... BS ! There are no issues as long as they quote and show the original broadcaster, an embarrassing statement of yours easily avoided had you actually seen the clip ! Its sad to realise that you are revealing an extremist facet that only contributes to furthering radical views and positions that only serve to make this world a worse place ! So while I you rather prefer that you have the guts to actually see the clip , I will give you one more chance and provide clips that do not originate on Fox : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhb3XfvqrCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yuk48pIFEo Are you going to ignore these too ! ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So while I you rather prefer that you have the guts to actually see the clip , I will give you one more chance and provide clips that do not originate on Fox : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhb3XfvqrCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yuk48pIFEo Are you going to ignore these too ! ? "Well, the first one manages to be MSNBC for a whole minute before reverting to Fox, and the title of the video is dishonest. The second video contains content from MSNBC but is basically a Republican spin on what this Farkas person said. The fact is that she did comment on MSNBC about intelligence gathering. However, it's not an admission of spying on Trump. The context is the Obama administration surveilling Russian officials. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/us/politics/sean-spicer-evelyn-farkas-trump-wiretapping.html?_r=0 There's also a good article on the Slate website. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting "and thats where you lose all credibility... sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis.... if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tony, are you aware that there have been academic studies that have found tha Fox viewers are not just less informed than people who watch other news channels, but they are less informed than people who don't watch the news? That means Fox aren't just doing a poor job, they are actively misinforming people. They are not a news organisation but a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party. That is pretty much acknowledged even by them at least in terms of bias. They are very good at what they do. However, a degree of bias is one thing, not reporting stories at all or reporting stories with a 180 degree slant on the truth has led America to when it is now. What started with employing people with like minded opinions which would lead to unconscious spin, turned into actively trying to spin, to eventually a disconnect from the truth altogether. That is the mechanism. Ratings were a huge driver. They were giving people what they want in the guise of a news organisation rather than giving them what they needed to hear, no matter how uncomfortable. The danger has materialised now in its most dangerous form. It was hugely dangerous that they held such traction, sway and influence over the electorate, a disgruntled electorate who they had stirred up into this disgruntlement but with much misdirection as to where the blame should proportionately lie, much of the time. However it is led to an even worse situation than that because they have been so effective the candidate they managed to get elected is one of those who has been so effectively brainwashed he takes anything they say as fact over and above any mainstream sources, but even worse, his own intelligence services, the judiciary, the state department and acknowledged independent experts in a field. I appreciate the idea of an open mind. I understand that bias is inevitable and everywhere to some degree. However you must be open to conspiracy where evidence begins to be credible. In trumps case, the evidence that suggests you need to be open to this starts with the own words of the Trump team members themselves. If they have done no wrong, if they are not corrupt then fine, but it is their own fault, their own casual acquaintance with the truth, because there have not been consequences for this in the past, that they have at least condemned themselves to scrutiny. "
I totally agree ......with most of your post ...but .... !
Most of what you state is equally applicable to others such as: Washington post NY Times , ABC , NBC CBS MSNBC , CNN !
Now ,just replace the "pro" Trump narrative with the names Obama and Clinton , and you have a perfect match ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fox news is like fox entertainment, the travesty is that they give it a different channel, its just entertainment, however there is a genuine point to the fox/RT debate. Ive been watching the Paris riots on RT for days now, wheres the BBC coverage, they covered the Moscow protests and following government arrests with great detail but the French ones, hardly to be seen, in fact i mentioned this to somebody who was going to Paris this weekend for a holiday, he didnt even know there had been riots, now given the fact that far more people in the UK visit Paris to Moscow surely it would have been on higher up the schedule?. It didnt even make CNN or CBS news at all. It did make fox however" That is precisely the point ! While we have never had so many "information outlets" , 24 seven , they more then ever the mouth piece of either governments or certain political interests ! If one wants to get some sort of proper notion of what is going on , it requires a lot of watching/reading different sources , and trying to get some sort of conclusion ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
"The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That only works if you have a half a brain and are sensible enough to through the chaff of nonsense? Without just seeing it on TV so it must be true" Lol... its curious ... while I usually disagree with you , on this one I agree!
And that is precisely why its not very wise, when anyone refuses to check out a link or vid , just because its the "wrong" paper or channel !
Its a form of denial , cause what matters is one´s own pre conceived notion !
And since its no use dealing with a closed mind , that in its self says a lot about the person in question ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt"Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt
Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
"No Tony, I do see it. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough above. The last half dozen or so videos I've watched of theirs in which they refer to the mainstream media they refer to it as though they are not a part of it. If you don't see this then maybe listen a bit harder next time. -Matt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That only works if you have a half a brain and are sensible enough to through the chaff of nonsense? Without just seeing it on TV so it must be true Lol... its curious ... while I usually disagree with you , on this one I agree!
And that is precisely why its not very wise, when anyone refuses to check out a link or vid , just because its the "wrong" paper or channel !
Its a form of denial , cause what matters is one´s own pre conceived notion !
And since its no use dealing with a closed mind , that in its self says a lot about the person in question ! ". Funnily enough i agree also that you rarely agree with me or i with you but that we agree that we agree here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs."It has legs in the US. Not here..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That only works if you have a half a brain and are sensible enough to through the chaff of nonsense? Without just seeing it on TV so it must be true" Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL when I read that on the BBC this morning I thought, bet you cannot wait to post on this uneventful move along The National Security Advisor illegally having spoken to a foreign power, then lying about it, making the VP lie about it, and having to resign less than 4 weeks into a new presidency is "uneventful"?
I think this story has legs.
It has legs in the US. Not here..... "The Telegraph, the BBC and the Guardian have all covered it to name just 3, I'm sure lots of other UK media outlets have also covered it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt
Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
No Tony, I do see it. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough above. The last half dozen or so videos I've watched of theirs in which they refer to the mainstream media they refer to it as though they are not a part of it. If you don't see this then maybe listen a bit harder next time.
-Matt"Did I refute that statement anywhere in my post ? What proves you don't see it is your statement : " or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying." This implies they are totally biased , and don't criticise Trump, and support unconditionally !.... which they don't
There is a difference between an editorial position , spin , and lying , and having, or trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that !
Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too !
Even The lefty Washington Post cant escape that fact !!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/?utm_term=.7f3b01bd6c8e
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-named-most-trusted-news-network-in-america-10097035.html
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-cnn-earns-title-of-least-trusted-cable-news-network/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/rasmussen-poll-cnn-least-trusted-cable-news-network
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that ! Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too !" All that means is that more gullible people watch Fox than watch any other network. I bet The Sun probably scores highly for trustworthiness amobg its readership. And putting "fair and balanced" in the same sentence as Fox network automatically disqualifies ypu from being taken seriously about media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt
Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
No Tony, I do see it. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough above. The last half dozen or so videos I've watched of theirs in which they refer to the mainstream media they refer to it as though they are not a part of it. If you don't see this then maybe listen a bit harder next time.
-Matt
Did I refute that statement anywhere in my post ?
What proves you don't see it is your statement :
" or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying."
This implies they are totally biased , and don't criticise Trump, and support unconditionally !.... which they don't
There is a difference between an editorial position , spin , and lying , and having, or trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that !
Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too !
Even The lefty Washington Post cant escape that fact !!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/?utm_term=.7f3b01bd6c8e
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-named-most-trusted-news-network-in-america-10097035.html
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-cnn-earns-title-of-least-trusted-cable-news-network/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/rasmussen-poll-cnn-least-trusted-cable-news-network
"Hi Tony.Its faux news not Fox news . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that ! Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too ! All that means is that more gullible people watch Fox than watch any other network. I bet The Sun probably scores highly for trustworthiness amobg its readership. And putting "fair and balanced" in the same sentence as Fox network automatically disqualifies ypu from being taken seriously about media. " Lol..... if arrogance and presumption was music, you would be a symphony orchestra ! Obviously You know better then all those ignorant Americans don't you ?
If only you could spell..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt
Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
No Tony, I do see it. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough above. The last half dozen or so videos I've watched of theirs in which they refer to the mainstream media they refer to it as though they are not a part of it. If you don't see this then maybe listen a bit harder next time.
-Matt
Did I refute that statement anywhere in my post ?
What proves you don't see it is your statement :
" or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying."
This implies they are totally biased , and don't criticise Trump, and support unconditionally !.... which they don't
There is a difference between an editorial position , spin , and lying , and having, or trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that !
Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too !
Even The lefty Washington Post cant escape that fact !!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/?utm_term=.7f3b01bd6c8e
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-named-most-trusted-news-network-in-america-10097035.html
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-cnn-earns-title-of-least-trusted-cable-news-network/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/rasmussen-poll-cnn-least-trusted-cable-news-network
Hi Tony.Its faux news not Fox news . "Lol Is that with a French accent ?
Reminds me me O Allo Allo ! had it been officer Crabtree , he would have called it " Fucks News " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Fox News is the only broadcaster in the US that is not completely leftist ,And tries to be balanced in its reporting
and thats where you lose all credibility...
sorry.... fox news is what i watch for comedy, only because they cause international incidents on a fairly regular basis....
if like last week the "news division" has to seperate itself from its "opinion division" was priceless....
The thing I find amazing about Fox News is the way they refer to the 'mainstream media' in the 3rd person. They think they are not part of it. Which is either because they admit they are entertainment and not news, or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying.
-Matt
Utter BS !
Its proves you spout on about Fox but you don't see it!
Cause if you did, you would realise that the they don't go with Trumps "mantra" as you call it !
So in fact its you, as a fanatical anti Trump zealot that is distorting the narrative, by assuming Fox will be as dishonest and biased as you personally are !
"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." Wayne Dyer
No Tony, I do see it. Maybe I wasn't explicit enough above. The last half dozen or so videos I've watched of theirs in which they refer to the mainstream media they refer to it as though they are not a part of it. If you don't see this then maybe listen a bit harder next time.
-Matt
Did I refute that statement anywhere in my post ?
What proves you don't see it is your statement :
" or because they somehow think they are above it all and just going with Trumps current mantra that all other news outlets are lying."
This implies they are totally biased , and don't criticise Trump, and support unconditionally !.... which they don't
There is a difference between an editorial position , spin , and lying , and having, or trying to have a fair balance view and Fox has that !
Reality is Fox is not only the cable network with the highest ratings , but also the most trusted one too !
Even The lefty Washington Post cant escape that fact !!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/?utm_term=.7f3b01bd6c8e
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2017/cable_news_viewers_still_turn_to_fox_first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-named-most-trusted-news-network-in-america-10097035.html
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-cnn-earns-title-of-least-trusted-cable-news-network/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/rasmussen-poll-cnn-least-trusted-cable-news-network
Hi Tony.Its faux news not Fox news .
Lol Is that with a French accent ?
Reminds me me O Allo Allo ! had it been officer Crabtree , he would have called it " Fucks News " "Allo Allo was funny .Camp nazis in little tanks always brings a smile. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417 "Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ? "Dare I ask what your latest ill-thought out, half baked, xenophobic theory is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
Dare I ask what your latest ill-thought out, half baked, xenophobic theory is?"Jesus ! where did that diatribe come from ?
Have you been drinking or smoking something?
And who are you to call me A xenophobe ?
Do you know me ? Or are you just projecting and talking about yourself ?
Had you actually read the article in the link , you "might" have understood what I meant , but I suppose I am expecting more than your apparent feeble mind is capable of !
You are probably the type that just reads the headline ! Deeper analysis is not your forte is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ? "What questions does it raise about Obama? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
What questions does it raise about Obama?"If you are asking , it means you didn't read the full article of the link YOU posted !
I am not surprised !
I suggest you read it ALL again , and if you don't get what I mean , get back to me !
I will explain ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
What questions does it raise about Obama?
If you are asking , it means you didn't read the full article of the link YOU posted !
I am not surprised !
I suggest you read it ALL again , and if you don't get what I mean , get back to me !
I will explain ! "I read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
What questions does it raise about Obama?
If you are asking , it means you didn't read the full article of the link YOU posted !
I am not surprised !
I suggest you read it ALL again , and if you don't get what I mean , get back to me !
I will explain !
I read it."And.... ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
What questions does it raise about Obama?
If you are asking , it means you didn't read the full article of the link YOU posted !
I am not surprised !
I suggest you read it ALL again , and if you don't get what I mean , get back to me !
I will explain !
I read it.
And.... ? "And it doesn't raise questions about Obama. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now its come out that Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn and he ignored that advice! Senate hearing are scheduled for Monday on the issue. So I guess this story did have legs after all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39847417
Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
What questions does it raise about Obama?
If you are asking , it means you didn't read the full article of the link YOU posted !
I am not surprised !
I suggest you read it ALL again , and if you don't get what I mean , get back to me !
I will explain !
I read it.
And.... ?
And it doesn't raise questions about Obama. "Really ? I am not surprised you didn't get it ! What do you say to this: "But on Monday, Mr Spicer questioned the former president's objections to Mr Flynn. "If Mr Obama was truly concerned about General Flynn," the White House press secretary told reporters, "why didn't he suspend General Flynn's security clearance, which they had just reapproved months earlier? "Additionally, why did the Obama administration let Flynn go to Russia for a paid speaking engagement and receive a fee?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ? "No... It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power. Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!"Will you are missing the point here ! This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security! The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn ! Dont you see the problem ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ? "So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security! The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn ! Dont you see the problem ? " actually... no tony, you see... since you said that it was a matter of national security, if the man on the way out says to the man on the way in "you may want to keep an eye on "x" i've dealt with him and he's as shifty as fuck....." and burnt me when i took a chance on him and the man on the way in instead of listening in fact sticks his fingers in his ears and not only goes la la la i am not listening.... but also sends out his number 2 to defend the shifty fucker..... then the man on the way in has no one to blame but himself....
you say its not left or right... its national security...well, obama warned him and he decided not to listen, yates warned him and he decided not to listen.... if it had been really partisan, neither of them would have said a word to try and warn him.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?"Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security! The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn ! Dont you see the problem ? actually... no tony, you see... since you said that it was a matter of national security, if the man on the way out says to the man on the way in "you may want to keep an eye on "x" i've dealt with him and he's as shifty as fuck....." and burnt me when i took a chance on him and the man on the way in instead of listening in fact sticks his fingers in his ears and not only goes la la la i am not listening.... but also sends out his number 2 to defend the shifty fucker..... then the man on the way in has no one to blame but himself....
you say its not left or right... its national security...well, obama warned him and he decided not to listen, yates warned him and he decided not to listen.... if it had been really partisan, neither of them would have said a word to try and warn him...."Come Fabio ....Think a bit ! Seems you cant read either....or think beyond your Anti Trump prejudice ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"using the logic of the revisionist, alex jones loving, tin foil hat wearing weirdos everyone should be calling flynn a go'damn commy pinko son of a bitch because he's been talking to the soviets "Lol.... You are referring to yourself aren't you ?
Please... spare us from your personal projections and rants !
They bring no coherent contribution to the debate ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up ! "No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"no ... i'm refering to the revisionist, alex jones loving, tin foil hat wearing weirdos "Ok ! thanks for confirming my previous statement on your post ! Cant say I am surprised you have nothing valid to say ......
That takes actual brains .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it. "What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"alex jones talks a lot of shit to suck the money out of the weak minded .... the by-product of his scam being that the weak minded re-gurgitate that fetid revisionist vomit back up into society and then get angry when people rightly ridicule them .... it's comedy gold "Ok !..... so what has that got to do with this thread ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting......"
Interesting indeed !.....
But no great loss ..... This guy screwed up major...and managed to piss of everybody ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ? "He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting......" Haha, I called that one before the election, both Trump and Clinton hate him, he was screwed whoever won! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security! The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn ! Dont you see the problem ? actually... no tony, you see... since you said that it was a matter of national security, if the man on the way out says to the man on the way in "you may want to keep an eye on "x" i've dealt with him and he's as shifty as fuck....." and burnt me when i took a chance on him and the man on the way in instead of listening in fact sticks his fingers in his ears and not only goes la la la i am not listening.... but also sends out his number 2 to defend the shifty fucker..... then the man on the way in has no one to blame but himself....
you say its not left or right... its national security...well, obama warned him and he decided not to listen, yates warned him and he decided not to listen.... if it had been really partisan, neither of them would have said a word to try and warn him....
Come Fabio ....Think a bit !
Seems you cant read either....or think beyond your Anti Trump prejudice ! "It's not prejudice if it's based on clear and repeated evidence that the man is a buffoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting......" In a statement Trump said "The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected organisations and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement." The FBI are still looking into claims about Trumps links to Russia and earlier today or maybe yesterday he tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this tax-payer funded charade end?"
Make your mind up donald! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it? "Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 ! This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance ! What happened under Trump is another matter ! But you seem to be confusing the two | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting...... In a statement Trump said "The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected organisations and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement." The FBI are still looking into claims about Trumps links to Russia and earlier today or maybe yesterday he tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this tax-payer funded charade end?"
Make your mind up donald!"About what ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two "He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting...... In a statement Trump said "The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected organisations and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement." The FBI are still looking into claims about Trumps links to Russia and earlier today or maybe yesterday he tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this tax-payer funded charade end?"
Make your mind up donald!
About what ? "Well how are they highly respected if he is accusing them of a tax-payer funded charade? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"and now to make this more murky.... Trump now fires FBI Director Comey..... the senate hearings are now going to get very interesting...... In a statement Trump said "The FBI is one of our nation's most cherished and respected organisations and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement." The FBI are still looking into claims about Trumps links to Russia and earlier today or maybe yesterday he tweeted "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this tax-payer funded charade end?"
Make your mind up donald!
About what ?
Well how are they highly respected if he is accusing them of a tax-payer funded charade?"And why does one exclude the other ? A respected institution is not exempt from a screw up ! Is it ? Or being misused ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about."Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Todays tweet from tangerine idiot. James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Everything that's said in the oval office is recorded, so it depends where they had the conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether ! "Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen? "Why do you keep pretending to know what you are talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen?
Why do you keep pretending to know what you are talking about?"Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen?
Why do you keep pretending to know what you are talking about?
Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs? "What story? How does this affect you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs?
What story? How does this affect you?"The Flynn story (the one the thread is about!).
And the story doesnt have to affect anyone to be a discussion topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs?
What story? How does this affect you?
The Flynn story (the one the thread is about!).
And the story doesnt have to affect anyone to be a discussion topic. "True. Shall we talk about the price of carrots? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs?
What story? How does this affect you?
The Flynn story (the one the thread is about!).
And the story doesnt have to affect anyone to be a discussion topic. "They know what the thread is about, they are just playing dumb because they said that the story didn't have legs, when it's pretty obvious that the US NSA being compromised by their strategic enemy of 70 years is pretty big news. However they like to disagree with me what ever I write, so perhaps they are going to try to claim they are not playing dumb, and are actually dumb! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen? "Why ? You either dont have a clue , or you are just trying to confuse things, or both ! So I will spell it out for you ! Its not the rank that dictates what security clearance you have ! Its the position or job you have ! You can be a simple captain , but as a result of your job , your security clearance is higher then than a general! Flynn´s Security clearance was dew to his appointment as head of the DIA ! Obama fired him from that position , not because of his competence or any security breach , but because of criticism by Flynn of Obamas foreign policies! That is where the contradiction and failure by the Obama admin is evident ! As a matter of principle his clearance should have been revoked , as he was no longer holding the job that came with it ! Also , "if" he was a security risk, or even in a questionable relationship with the Russians , then more reason to revoke it ! Failure to do so would/could constitute a breach of national security by the Obama Admin ! (nothing new when one considers Hllary´s email breach) So .... do you get it now ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"trump ... go'damn liberal pinko son of a bitch making out with the go'damn soviets ... go'damn commie "Good accent.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a crazy world when a president can fire the man investigating him for potentially treasonous acts." No Bob ! Not crazy at all it is, and always has been within the presidents powers ! Also , treasonous acts ! You are assuming something based on rumours and speculation ! Besides... are you forgetting Commeys blunders and incompetence ? But by your logic , would you also apply the same criteria when Obama fired Flynn , because he didn't agree with Obama´s foreign policy stance ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a crazy world when a president can fire the man investigating him for potentially treasonous acts. No Bob ! Not crazy at all it is, and always has been within the presidents powers ! Also , treasonous acts ! You are assuming something based on rumours and speculation ! Besides... are you forgetting Commeys blunders and incompetence ? But by your logic , would you also apply the same criteria when Obama fired Flynn , because he didn't agree with Obama´s foreign policy stance ? "Tony by sacking the man who is investigating you look guilty. It was a bad move if he is innocent of treason it was a bad move if hes guilty of treason .Hes created an unnecessary situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen?
Why ?
You either dont have a clue , or you are just trying to confuse things, or both !
So I will spell it out for you !
Its not the rank that dictates what security clearance you have ! Its the position or job you have !
You can be a simple captain , but as a result of your job , your security clearance is higher then than a general!
Flynn´s Security clearance was dew to his appointment as head of the DIA !
Obama fired him from that position , not because of his competence or any security breach , but because of criticism by Flynn of Obamas foreign policies!
That is where the contradiction and failure by the Obama admin is evident !
As a matter of principle his clearance should have been revoked , as he was no longer holding the job that came with it !
Also , "if" he was a security risk, or even in a questionable relationship with the Russians , then more reason to revoke it !
Failure to do so would/could constitute a breach of national security by the Obama Admin ! (nothing new when one considers Hllary´s email breach)
So .... do you get it now ? "You are right, security clearance can be dependent on position. However you are now placing the responsibility to decide on the security clearance of every member of the military, 2,100,000 active and reserve personal on the shoulders of who? Obama personally, or just his administration? How about the security services too? Is Obama responsible for their individual security clearances? CIA, NSA, FBI, etc etc, estimated to be another 850,000 people. Over 3 million people, who's individual security clearance is to be determined by the President? Sorry tony, that argument sounds like bullshit to me. I would say however that ultimately the responsibility for who is or isn't fit to be National Security Advisor is the President. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Come on CandM, still want to say this story has no legs?
What story? How does this affect you?
The Flynn story (the one the thread is about!).
And the story doesnt have to affect anyone to be a discussion topic.
True. Shall we talk about the price of carrots?"Sure you can if you like. Just hit that button to start a new topic and discuss till your little hearts content. But in here we're discussing how the mistake in appointing Flynn and continuing to employ him after warnings from the previous administration and intelligence services reflect on Trump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obama fired mattis as well and Trump hired him. Just sayin -Matt" I don't think he did, but I could be wrong. He should however have been subject to an article 32 hearing at the minimum for undue command influence. Also he shouldn't have been allowed to become secretary of state for defence for another 4 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obama fired mattis as well and Trump hired him. Just sayin -Matt I don't think he did, but I could be wrong. He should however have been subject to an article 32 hearing at the minimum for undue command influence. Also he shouldn't have been allowed to become secretary of state for defence for another 4 years." you are right... mattis wasn't fired, but he was seen as more of a "hawk" than a "dove".......which kinda went against a lot of the obama administration.... mattis retired before he was pushed, but there was not real energy in forcing him out.... the reason why he got the waiver is that he is well respected on all sides of the aisle... and probably him and general kelly are the only big heavyweights in the trump administration who would actually tell the president no!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its a crazy world when a president can fire the man investigating him for potentially treasonous acts. No Bob ! Not crazy at all it is, and always has been within the presidents powers ! Also , treasonous acts ! You are assuming something based on rumours and speculation ! Besides... are you forgetting Commeys blunders and incompetence ? But by your logic , would you also apply the same criteria when Obama fired Flynn , because he didn't agree with Obama´s foreign policy stance ? Tony by sacking the man who is investigating you look guilty.
It was a bad move if he is innocent of treason it was a bad move if hes guilty of treason .Hes created an unnecessary situation."It might.....make him look guilty , but if we were talking about a respected and competent director of The FBI ; I would agree ! But that is not the case ! Thus it is a bigger risk for all to keep someone that has proven unfit ! And Bob..... I am sure that simplistic answers dont suffice on this level of power . Fact is there are seldom ideal simple and easy solutions ! Seeming guilty is the least of anyone's worries ! Keeping Comey would have been a worse move ! And why do you keep throwing around words like treason ? Stop speculating based on political bias ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe it did/does, but it raises a lot of questions about Obama as well doesn't it ?
No...
It would raise many questions if the President of the USA was not being informed by the security services of questionable meetings between a former general and high ranking officials of a hostile foreign power, and even more questions if an outgoing president did not warn an incoming president that one of his potential defence team was a security risk because of meetings he was having with a hostile foreign power.
Now I know you and I are from very different ends of the political spectrum. But usually we are very much in accord when it comes to national security and defence with both of us being out with the hawks. So I now have a very simple question for you Tony, are you so wedded to right wing politics that you refuse to see the national security issues continually being raised by President Trumps contacts with Kremlin insiders? Are you not is the slightest bit alarmed? I know I am!
Will you are missing the point here !
This has nothing to do with left or right politics , but national security!
The issue was related to the contradiction of Obamas action in regards to Flynn !
Dont you see the problem ?
So Tony are you saying that a lame-duck President should have revoked the security clearance of a President elect's NSA pick, knowing full well that all classification authority rests with the president and could have been reinstated on the day of inauguration? Also knowing that revoking the clearance may well have interfered with the transition and leaving the president elect without sufficient national security advice?
Not saying anything of the sort ! dont try and interpret What I am saying !
As usual you are getting it all wrong !
Flynn was fired by Obama back in 2014 !
Apparently due to incompatibility with the Obama Admin !
So here is the problem :
Obama fired him , but did not revoke his top level security clearance !
Why ?
At the time as part of his job he was as usual under surveillance , and the Russian contacts were known !
So either he was not doing anything illegal, or that jeopardised national security , or he was !
If he was , and Obama had doubts ,why did he not have his security clearance revoked?
So either there were no improprieties or Obama admin failed to do their job !
Yet..... he warned Trump about his doubts on Flynn .... but he had done nothing about it ? The implication is that for over two years Obama knew , or was told Flynn was something wrong ?
That does not add up !
No Tony, the illegal actions that Flynn took, which he then lied about, thus compromising himself and opening himself up to potential bl@ckmail from the Russians all happened AFTER the election. When Flynn was NSA Elect and Obama was a lame-duck who warned the Trump administration about it.
What illegal actions ?
None have been proved yet !
As I thought....you didn't get it !
Try getting your timing right !
Flynn kept his security clearance during more than two years of the Obama admin along with his Russian contacts !
Unless you consider Obama a "lame duck " president since 2014 ?
He violated the Logan act which stops unathorised people from diplomatic negotiations. That was AFTER the election. At this stage no one is saying that he did anything either illegal, or anything to compromise himself before the election, you are claiming that they are, but no one is saying that. The things he did wrong, and the reason why he was fired, were all about his actions after the election. Get it?
Jesus ! he was first fired BY OBAMA IN 2014 !
This is why it didn't make sense that Obama warned Trump about him ...but had not revoked is security clearance !
What happened under Trump is another matter !
But you seem to be confusing the two
He got fired for leading the DIA for being shit at his job, but that wouldn't get his security clearance pulled. He was still a Lt General in the Army at that point, he was the one who chose to retire from the Army. I'm not confusing the two, I am talking about what happened after the election and you are trying to talk about 2014 which doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about.
Its no use... you keep going round in circles....missing the contradiction altogether !
Why would Obama revoke the security clearance of a serving Lt Gen?
Why ?
You either dont have a clue , or you are just trying to confuse things, or both !
So I will spell it out for you !
Its not the rank that dictates what security clearance you have ! Its the position or job you have !
You can be a simple captain , but as a result of your job , your security clearance is higher then than a general!
Flynn´s Security clearance was dew to his appointment as head of the DIA !
Obama fired him from that position , not because of his competence or any security breach , but because of criticism by Flynn of Obamas foreign policies!
That is where the contradiction and failure by the Obama admin is evident !
As a matter of principle his clearance should have been revoked , as he was no longer holding the job that came with it !
Also , "if" he was a security risk, or even in a questionable relationship with the Russians , then more reason to revoke it !
Failure to do so would/could constitute a breach of national security by the Obama Admin ! (nothing new when one considers Hllary´s email breach)
So .... do you get it now ?
You are right, security clearance can be dependent on position. However you are now placing the responsibility to decide on the security clearance of every member of the military, 2,100,000 active and reserve personal on the shoulders of who? Obama personally, or just his administration?
How about the security services too? Is Obama responsible for their individual security clearances? CIA, NSA, FBI, etc etc, estimated to be another 850,000 people. Over 3 million people whos individual security clearance is to be determined by the President?
Sorry tony, that argument sounds like bullshit to me. I would say however that ultimately the responsibility for who is or isn't fit to be National Security Advisor is the President. "JESUS !
NOT Again !!!
You got a bit..... but no! you didnt get IT !
Why do you discuss subjects you dont know or understand anything about ?
OK Let me explain it like you are a 5 year old !
" You are right, security clearance can be dependent on position. However you are now placing the responsibility to decide on the security clearance of every member of the military, 2,100,000 active and reserve personal on the shoulders of who? Obama personally, or just his administration? "
NO ! Dummy ! Stop quoting stupid numbers !
Security clearances are established by the hierarchy structure of the different government or military services , depending on who is in charge !
In the case of the DIA , its director is nominated by the president and answers to the secretary of defence ;and thus the highest ranking members of an admin , which in Flynns case was Obama !
Here is a better discription :
"The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency is a three-star general or admiral who, upon nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, serves as the nation's highest-ranking military intelligence officer. He is the primary intelligence adviser to the Secretary of Defense and also answers to the Director of National Intelligence. The Director is also the Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, a subordinate command of United States Strategic Command, which is co-located with DIA. Additionally, he chairs the Military Intelligence Board, which coordinates activities of the entire defense intelligence community"
Do you get it now ?
Do you now understand why It was Obama´s responsibility to revoke his security clearance ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it looks like Trump might have personally asked Comey to drop his investigation into Mike Flynn. The shit gets deeper and deeper. "if that is anywhere near true that is obstruction of justice... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it looks like Trump might have personally asked Comey to drop his investigation into Mike Flynn. The shit gets deeper and deeper.
if that is anywhere near true that is obstruction of justice..."Comeys the one who leaked it through "a friend". Its highly unlikely he'd do this without wanting to back it up. Either Comeys looking for something from Trump or he's going to expose him. Good thing this Flynn story doesnt have legs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
