• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 51.7%
  • No

    Votes: 17 29.3%
  • Unsure/Don't Know

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • I was told there would be cake?

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    58
He probably won't IF we lay off and let him run his country. I doubt he wants to die but if he sees it as preeminent, I promise he'll take as many as possible with him. Everything in this world is contingent upon others actions and the US is becoming awful pro-deterrent, which can lead to definite retaliatory actions.


wow, that is pretty bad; I never knew it was Trump's country

I guess there are about 323 million folks that need exit visas now; when are you leaving Poncho?
 
Oh BS, For the last 40 years Trump has been a flamboyant celebrity millionaire. He has super deep pockets, a public reputation to worry about and no real power outside his own company. This make him the perfect easy target for sexual assault/harassment lawsuits. Yet prior to him running for President as a Republican there was never the slightest hint of any of complaints mad against him.

The 1,500 lawsuits filed against him would say otherwise...

Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee
 
It was an obvious lie from a habitual liar who is known for his conspiracy theories. Trump has a long history of defaming Obama to rile up his base. This is a distraction because he knows his supporters are so poorly educated that they'll accept anything he tweets, no questions asked, no evidence required. This is what happens when you let a country's education system crumble into disrepair. SAD.

SAD! haha, I see what you did there. :lamo BAD!

The implications in the content of your post do truly deserve the SAD engraving though :(.
 
Last edited:
And where did he say the opinion he expressed was 'news?'

It's in the title.

Fox News fair and balanced. We report. You decide.

It's straightforward.

I'm a fan. I like shep. I just don't like it when he distracts from the news with his personal opinions. I'm sure someone likes it but I was just trying to listen to the news.

Simple.
 
The Russia scandal has had a slow drip of evidence over months, alongside reports from over a dozen intelligence agencies. Multiple people from the Trump campaign have had to resign or recuse themselves for contacts with Russia. It's absolutely not proven yet, but to claim it's the same as Trump pulling a conspiracy theory out of his ass with exactly zero evidence of any kind, even circumstantial, is silly. An equivalent situation would be if the only source of the Trump-Russia connection was Barack Obama's twitter account.




What is the actual evidence?
 
There is a .0000000000000000001% chance that Trump has a legitimate source for his claim. However, seeing as the White House has gone into shut-down mode and let Fox and Friends fight it out for him, even that percentage is extremely generous. But so long as even that .0000000000000000001% exists, then "appears to" is the reasonably honest way to phrase it.

But since you don't like that kind of talk and prefer Wrestlemania-absolutes instead, I will communicate in your language just for you: yes, it is wholesale libel. Happy?

You wish, seems to me the White House is full steam ahead. And now your statement that Trump is wholesale libel, shows you continue to make wrong assumptions and predictions as always.
 
You wish, seems to me the White House is full steam ahead. And now your statement that Trump is wholesale libel, shows you continue to make wrong assumptions and predictions as always.

Would you like to make another post, this time with some substance involved?
 
I'm very well versed on the Crowdstrike information.
I'll ask you this and thus far, no one has been able to give me a good answer.

Why was the DNC allowed to decline the FBI doing forensics on the DNC's server?
If this is supposed to be an issue of national security, why was it even allowed?
We usually don't let potentially biased third parties conduct the investigations of crimes, why was it allowed now?

There are other things that undermine the credibility of this report, but this is the most glaring.

I don't have the answers to why the DNC did what it did. I do not trust them any more than you. I am not a Democrat and last year's primary was the first time I ever voted for a Democrat (Bernie Sanders). I know you would probably like to go along with Trump's claim that there may not have been any hack at all, but why leak all the emails relating to debate questions and how to undermine the Sanders Campaign? That seems pretty counterproductive. Anyways, I don't trust people like Clapper, but I trust Trump and his minions even less.

"the attribution of the DNC hack to Russia has been extensively vetted by multiple agencies within the US intelligence community as well as the civilian infosec community. Even given healthy skepticism, the overall consensus from both groups is that Russia orchestrated and executed the hacking campaigns."
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/


The primary military threats to the US are China and Russia.
Thus far, I've yet to see any serious saber rattling towards either.

Trump has done plenty of saber-rattling towards China with talks of currency-manipulation. However, I do not see him going after China too hard because of the money he owes to Chinese banks. He won't attack Russia because he admires autocrats like Putin and he has many investments in the country (whether he is being blackmailed by the Kremlin is a matter of speculation but there is some evidence pointing in that direction).
 
It's in the title.

Fox News fair and balanced. We report. You decide.

It's straightforward.

I'm a fan. I like shep. I just don't like it when he distracts from the news with his personal opinions. I'm sure someone likes it but I was just trying to listen to the news.

Simple.

MSM has been transitioning away from actual news to opinionated bloviating since Reagan deregulated it in the 80s. But Shep, imo, works differently than Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. When he goes on these rants it is not some partisan left/right hackery talking points. Instead, he tends to stand up against what is false and defends the truth. He doesn't seem to care whether that truth hurts one side or the other. And while I'm aware that he and I would probably disagree on a lot of issues, I have tremendous respect for anyone who defends the truth no matter what.
 
Wrong, there is no evidence. If there was, it would be brought to bear to bring down Trump.

I see. I post third party evidence and you respond with nothing (an unsubstantiated expression based on nothing by feeling -- emotion).

Because you believe something to be true does not make it true. Feeling it to be true or not is all you are qualified to say. You can't say "wrong" as you have no basis (standing nor expertise) to make such a statement. You want to say "wrong" then come up with 3rd party evidence that specifically counters what I posted.

It is general knowledge that the Russians hacked the DNC and fed Wikileaks, which released the information to the American electorate. It is also widely known the Russians attempted to interfere in our elections, which the hacking and release of info did interfere in our elections. It is also widely known that all of this went on without Trump disavowing it.

I again said that what is not known is "....How it all strings together, whether the Trump campaign was complicit and the degree of impact are the questions that remain....

There is a taint on the Trump election. It is his best interest as well as the interest of America to answer these questions as quickly and as completely as possible.
 
Last edited:
I don't have the answers to why the DNC did what it did. I do not trust them any more than you. I am not a Democrat and last year's primary was the first time I ever voted for a Democrat (Bernie Sanders). I know you would probably like to go along with Trump's claim that there may not have been any hack at all, but why leak all the emails relating to debate questions and how to undermine the Sanders Campaign? That seems pretty counterproductive. Anyways, I don't trust people like Clapper, but I trust Trump and his minions even less.

Why would someone leak it?
Because they didn't like it, that seems fairly straight forward.
One does not need to be a state actor to leak materials.

You're presenting a false dilemma, I don't trust Trump either.
Merely our interests align, currently.
(Example: US/Russian alliance during WW2, they were allied because their interests aligned, at that time.)

"the attribution of the DNC hack to Russia has been extensively vetted by multiple agencies within the US intelligence community as well as the civilian infosec community. Even given healthy skepticism, the overall consensus from both groups is that Russia orchestrated and executed the hacking campaigns."
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/

The IC is just not trustworthy, period.
They're not law enforcement and given that they can't do a full review of information, without access to the server logs, to rule out inside leaks, shows me someone is up to some bull****.

Not to mention that the Russians could of hacked the DNC, for internal intelligence, while someone else leaked those emails from the inside.
The DNC could easily commingle those separate events into, "Russia hacked the elections."

There have been multiple IT professionals who have reviewed the information, there are many flaws and holes in the explanation.
IP addresses falsely attributed to Russia, missed metadata, etc.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

Murray claiming her received the leaks

Former British Ambassador Says He, Not Russia, Is the DNC Leak

These are just a couple of the inconsistencies and odd things about this alleged hack.

Trump has done plenty of saber-rattling towards China with talks of currency-manipulation. However, I do not see him going after China too hard because of the money he owes to Chinese banks. He won't attack Russia because he admires autocrats like Putin and he has many investments in the country (whether he is being blackmailed by the Kremlin is a matter of speculation but there is some evidence pointing in that direction).

I think that is fairly silly.
Sure Russia could seize his assets, but that would increase tensions with the West, when Russia is in no position to "defeat" the US.

They have to have an objective to beat us.
Given that no one has found any ties, after a few investigations, I find the whole thing just silly conspiracy theory.
Overall, I think these perceptions are very superficial and naive.
 
MSM has been transitioning away from actual news to opinionated bloviating since Reagan deregulated it in the 80s. But Shep, imo, works differently than Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. When he goes on these rants it is not some partisan left/right hackery talking points. Instead, he tends to stand up against what is false and defends the truth. He doesn't seem to care whether that truth hurts one side or the other. And while I'm aware that he and I would probably disagree on a lot of issues, I have tremendous respect for anyone who defends the truth no matter what.

I just dont believe he is in a position to "know the truth" more than anyone else when takes one of these side streets during a broadcast.

I have to agree he does jump on a bandwagon with all his heart right or wrong.

All Lives Matter.

 
No President Trump didn't libel former President Obama, #.1) Because it is the truth, and you can't be found libel for telling the truth (he has intelligence that we aren't pervey to and I'm sure he wouldn't lie about a thing like that, but as to whether or not President Trump released Top Secret information by stating that in a tweet is a different matter..
#2.) The president can't be found libel.
 
The 1,500 lawsuits filed against him would say otherwise...

Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee

Feel free to show one sexual misconduct lawsuit or even allegation that was filed against Trump prior to him entering politics. There are none, that was the point of my post.

Considering how successful a businessman and how big of a company he owns the number of lawsuits sounds small. Every business entity his size gets thousands of lawsuits like this.

That is who you have to compare Trump to, Not Obama or Clinton who would never have gotten rich without PROFITING from Political Office.
 
Back
Top Bottom