Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him before election
usatoday.com
usatoday.com
Apparently a FISA request was made to wiretap Trump or people from his campaign. It was denied the first time, but a second one which narrowed the scope of surveillance got accepted.
After searching everywhere for rules, or anyone anywhere mentioning that hn shadow-bans dissent, or shadow-bans anything for that matter; I emailed hn. I received a reply saying that I was indeed shadow-banned, however, it was in response to a comment I made 300 days prior. In summary I comment with facts and sources in a respectful passive manner in response to a fallacious top comment, get up-voted, and then shadow-banned 15 minutes later for that comment, and everything subsequent, but because of a comment I made 300 days prior. #FreeSpeech
Edit: r/the_donald might be the place for you. Although, some aren't yet mentally equipped to make such a leap in just a single stride.
It doesn't take a very balanced approach to politics... much like hn sometimes.
It will work as long as there are 63 million true believers blindingly accepting everything he says.
It will take a very long time (maybe 8 years), but eventually reality always break through and the trick looks stale and obvious.
a) not assume that the guy you like is always telling the truth, and
b) not assume that the guy you don't like is always lying
My favorite (recent) reference to how to evaluate a politician's claims is this article[1] from Popehat.
As a politically aware member of neither party, I've found the in many cases, diligence has been the only thing that enabled me to understand the point a political adversary was trying to make, instead of simply parroting whatever clichéd soundbite I read from whichever website that broke the news.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be skeptical of a politician's claims. Indeed, I would prefer that more people were more skeptical of the claims of every politician, but that means not giving a free pass to the politicians they like, and being perfectly willing to call bullshit on your favorite political agents, even if you agree with them in other areas, and even if you agree with them on the claim they're making now.
Allowing our politicians the luxury of getting away unchecked with lies is dangerous, but it seems that most Americans are happy to do so if they're okay with the agenda the lie is made in support of. I really hope that changes.
[1] - https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-s...
From what I've gathered so far, the number of true believers is incredibly small, and they're exactly the type of people you'd expect to be susceptible to the words and actions of an abusive narcissist.
lol constitution wut
If Obama did directly order wire taps of Trump campaign personnel, his ass will be covered 6 ways to Sunday.
I'm anti-Trump but let's acknowledge Obama was a shady figure
So he was either lying about what he could do, ignorant of the presidential pardon power or purposefully manipulative in his word choice.
There is a meaning of this sentence that implies a malfunctioning or misguided proximity-based home security system, probably using Bluetooth. But every time you've heard someone say something like this, they haven't meant it that way.
"I can't eat peanuts."
There is a meaning of this sentence that implies a sophisticated and unbypassable filtration system in front of the speaker's mouth. But every time you've heard someone say something like this, they haven't meant it that way.
Obama's statement isn't unambiguous, but not using phrasing such as "lack the power to" or "Constitutionally prohibited from" carries inferential weight, too.
In your examples, logically they are both lies. But, the meaning that is being transmitted is something more akin to: there some obvious, if unmentioned, reason why an action would be undesirable. And, this meaning is pretty clear to an average person in both cases.
Obama has logically lied. There is no question about that. But of course, we aren't talking about whether he lied, but whether he implied something untrue.
Given his response, "I can't pardon somebody who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves", it's pretty obvious that an average modern American would at least assume the implied meaning is that something outside of his control is preventing him.
Therefore, your contention that he could have been implying "I can't because I choose not to", could not be correct, since he knew who his audience was, and having decades of practice as a career politician communicating with that audience, knew very well the meaning they would take from that.
> Or Obama was making the moral point that he couldn't pardon Snowden before he stood in court and faced justice.
http://www.bookforum.com/booklist/17438
The era of Obama is over. Now the majority of Americans may see it clearly for the first time. Over the past eight years, it has become apparent that President Obama's presence in office was a distortion. His calm demeanor and steady optimism seduced liberals into thinking that they were living in good—if occasionally dull—days, at war with an intransigent Congressional GOP, but blind to the breadth and power of the reaction brewing below. Liberals were often frustrated by the slow progress under Obama, even offended by the indifference and injustice that persisted in the practice of American power, but the White House and its boosters in the respectable media always had their rebuke: Don't worry. We're getting there. Trust the process.
That calm is over and for many, the sudden chaos of the political situation comes as a shock. What happened? When did the country become so precarious again? But there is no "again." None of this is sudden. It is only that, in the absence of President Obama, every cruelty that persisted or grew under his stewardship has come fully out into the open. Some of this was the former president's doing. Some of it was not. But none of our problems are concealed by the veneer of steady progress anymore.
Obama was a bad president, Clinton was a bad candidate, and the Democrats are the main group to blame, since their failure gave an odious Trump the presidency, no matter how much saber-rattling tries to pin it on Russia.
What we do know is that under the Obama administration the IRS was used to target and undermine conservative groups, and this practice went on for years with very little outrage. Therefore it's not totally uncharacteristic behavior.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/5/irs-reveals-lis...
There are indications that the IRS did target the groups, there's no documentation of the motivation or whether it was directed by someone with political ties to the Whitehouse.
(For example: a mid level manager could have done it to be capricious. Or because they had experience with people exploiting energized political movements to obtain fraudulent tax exemptions.)
Which completely irrelevant, because of this https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/10/provi...
I'm not sure which order your first point is in reference to, but please point it out - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/president... - none of this is a secret.
The bigger point is that you seem not to know how to process the fact that Obama issued a lot of EOs on his way out. Process this by understanding that he did not invent the "midnight regulation." I, like you, also believe that Obama's an incredibly smart man, but I do not grant him literal prescience in predicting the actions of the Trump administration in the recent weeks.