Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

You shouldn't reply with Yes or No when someone asks you why ...

WHY do you consider at this stage that USA still qualifies as 'liberal democracy' ?

I answered why. Re-read what I wrote.

a reply to: DJW001

You consider that the US is a 'libearl democracy' ... you never explained WHY ...



The Transformation of American Democracy to Oligarchy

A Congress that is trusted by only 7 percent of the people is not a parliament of a democratic state. Some may say that the people can vote out those whom they not like. But, the facts are,

One, a large majority of the people does not vote in the Congressional elections.

Two, even if they vote, they must pick either a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, the political structure is such that political power is divided between the two parties forever, and perhaps tens of millions of people have no representative in the political system.

Third, lobbyists and interest groups enjoy considerable influence in such elections.

Fourth, the faith of the people in a Congress that, instead of trying to address their needs and pursuing the true national interests of the United States, serves lobbyists, and interest groups, and the oligarchy, will continue to decline.

It's always more conveniant to blame the loss of faith of US citizens in their political system on the Russian scapegoat than on the flawed system itself.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You consider that the US is a 'libearl democracy' ... you never explained WHY ...

I answered why. Re-read what I wrote.

originally posted by: DJW001

Yes, because the indications are that the abuses of the system will be corrected by the system. Sorry, but your dreamed of Fascist state has been postponed.

Why is the system a liberal democracy, I can't find explanations anywhere ...

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Why is the system a liberal democracy, I can't find explanations anywhere ...

Then put down "Mein Kampf" and look harder.

a reply to: DJW001

Hahahaha !

You are trying to defend the so-called 'liberal democracy' of the US while being unable to provide any form of sensible explanation in order to explain why the US should qualify as such.

Your delusions are now endengered species.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You are trying to defend the so-called 'liberal democracy' of the US while being unable to provide any form of sensible explanation in order to explain why the US should qualify as such.

And you are looking more and more like a bot. The United States holds free elections at several levels. We are guaranteed certain rights. When these rights are violated, the abuser can be brought before a court of law*. This is not the case in Russia, where the leader chooses regional governors personally and can imprison anyone on trumped up charges. I know you hate America and everything it stands for: a land where Jews and Blacks can walk the streets freely.

*The United scandal is a good illustration of this. A major corporation is going to be sued by an individual, and popular opinion will probably do more damage to that corporation than the financial settlement. That is what democracy is about: the people deciding what is right and just, even if it falls outside the mechanisms of government.

a reply to: DJW001

I won't reply to any ad hominem attacks since this is not the mud pit and the mods (should theoritically) be doing their jobs.

Your illusions about the blacks ...



... and Jews ...

Trump implies that recent anti-Semitism were false flags

... are for the least, as I said earlier, delusional.

You insist on questioning people about WHY Obama would order surveillance of Trump. Which is stupid given that the only one who could provide an acurate answer is Obama himself. On the other hand when I ask you why you consider something ... you avoid any clear answer.

Here a 100% Kosher individual - that should prevent reductio ad Hitlerum arguments and antisemtic name-calling - explaining why - as of him - the US is more like an oligarchy than a 'liberal democracy' :

Chomsky explains how concentrated wealth creates concentrated power, which legislates further concentration of wealth, which then concentrates more power in a vicious cycle. He lists and elaborates on 10 principles of the concentration of wealth and power -- principles that the wealthy of the United States have acted intensely on for 40 years or more.

1. Reduce Democracy. Chomsky finds this acted on by the very "founding fathers" of the United States, in the creation of the U.S. Senate, and in James Madison's statement during debate over the U.S. Constitution that the new government would need to protect the wealthy from too much democracy. Chomsky finds the same theme in Aristotle but with Aristotle proposing to reduce inequality, while Madison proposed to reduce democracy. The burst of activism and democracy in the United States in the 1960s scared the protectors of wealth and privilege, and Chomsky admits that he did not anticipate the strength of the backlash through which we have been suffering since.

2. Shape Ideology. The Powell Memo from the corporate right, and the Trilateral Commission's first ever report, called "The Crisis of Democracy," are cited by Chomsky as roadmaps for the backlash. That report referred to an "excess of democracy," the over engagement of young people with civic life, and the view that young people were just not receiving proper "indoctrination." Well, there's a problem that's been fixed, huh?

3. Redesign the Economy. Since the 1970s the United States has been moved toward an ever larger role for financial institutions. By 2007 they "earned" 40% of corporate profits. Deregulation has produced wealth concentration and economic crashes, followed by anti-capitalist bailouts making for more wealth concentration. Offshore production has reduced workers' pay. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress about the benefits of promoting "job insecurity" -- something those Europeans in Michael Moore's film don't know about and might find it hard to appreciate.

4. Shift the Burden. The American Dream in the 1950s and 60s was partly real. Both the rich and the poor got richer. Since then, we've seen the steady advance of what Chomsky calls the plutonomy and the precariat, that is the wealthy few who run the show and get all the new wealth, and the precarious proletariat. Back then, taxes were quite high on corporations, dividends, and wealth. Not anymore.

5. Attack Solidarity. To go after Social Security and public education, Chomsky says, you have to drive the normal emotion of caring about others out of people's heads. The U.S. of the 1950s was able to make college essentially free with the G.I. Bill and other public funding. Now a much wealthier United States is full of "serious" experts who claim that such a thing is impossible (and who must strictly avoid watching Michael Moore).

6. Run the Regulators. The 1970s saw enormous growth in lobbying. It is now routine for the interests being regulated to control the regulators, which makes things much easier on the regulated.

7. Engineer Elections. Thus we've seen the creation of corporate personhood, the equation of money with speech, and the lifting of all limits under Citizens United.

8. Keep the Rabble in Line. Here Chomsky focuses on attacks on organized labor, including the Taft Hartley Act, but one could imagine further expansions on the theme.

9. Manufacture Consent. Obsessive consumers are not born, they're molded by advertising. The goal of directing people to superficial consumption as a means of keeping people in their place was explicit and has been reached. In a market economy, Chomsky says, informative advertisements would result in rational decisions. But actual advertisements provide no information and promote irrational choices. Here Chomsky is talking about, not just ads for automobiles and soap, but also election campaigns for candidates.

10. Marginalize the Population. This seems as much a result as a tactic, but it certainly has been achieved. What the public wants does not typically impact what the U.S. government does.

Source

In order to back his claims, you choose to defend individuals like Soros and the corporations behind the MSM ...

a reply to: DJW001

I saw just last night that the CIA had picked up on the Russian activity as early as 2015.
And foreign intelligence agencies have picked up activity involving trump in their routine surveillance of Russian operatives and have provided their information to our CIA agents.

It's not just our guys who have captured this. Other intelligence agencies across Europe have captured them too.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

What could they possibly have been told?

No really. You say they spied and gave info to Clinton's campaign. What did they learn?
What did Clinton's campaign use from this alleged information?
That's total bull. Why would you even repeat that nonsense? I think you just made that up right here right now.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You insist on questioning people about WHY Obama would order surveillance of Trump. Which is stupid given that the only one who could provide an acurate answer is Obama himself.

Don't be so disingenuous. Asking why an action was taken is at the heart of analysis. Why would Putin invade Crimea? Russia needs a year-round port, which Crimea offers. Get it? The motive explains why the action was taken. There is reason to believe that Trump associates were dealing with foreign agents; this explains why they were legally surveilled.

On the other hand when I ask you why you consider something ... you avoid any clear answer.

I always give you a concise answer. It is not my fault if you pretend not to understand it.

Noam Chomsky was wrong about language, and that's the only thing he is qualified to comment about.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Wrong.
The intelligence briefings for both were identical. To the point that if one asked a question the other didn't ask the question and it's answer were made part of the report and they were both provided the answer.
You're making things up. This was all outlined during the campaign.

originally posted by: DJW001

Don't be so disingenuous. Asking why an action was taken is at the heart of analysis. Why would Putin invade Crimea? Russia needs a year-round port, which Crimea offers. Get it? The motive explains why the action was taken. There is reason to believe that Trump associates were dealing with foreign agents; this explains why they were legally surveilled.

This aren't explanation but a copy/paste of your unproven opinions.
People of Crimea voted to join Russia because they had their reasons to do so, not because Putin needed a port.

originally posted by: DJW001

I always give you a concise answer. It is not my fault if you pretend not to understand it.

It's not that I don't understand your arguments, it's that I don't see them anywhere.

originally posted by: DJW001
Noam Chomsky was wrong about language, and that's the only thing he is qualified to comment about.

What credentials do you have to use fallacies against someone ?
He gave 10 points demonstrating the oligarchy in the US, and in case you skipped it, you have a former US president doing exactly the same.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

People of Crimea voted to join Russia because they had their reasons to do so, not because Putin needed a port.

The people of Crimea had nothing to do with it. Russian troops appeared in the streets and forced the Ukrainian military to surrender. Once the territory was occupied, Russia held "elections" to ratify their conquest. It is very telling that you do not understand how actual democracy functions.

a reply to: DJW001

That would be just like you supporting Calexit only if it suit your needs ...
The fact that Crimeans are massively in favour of Russia over Ukraine raises questions but the Crimeans should answer themselves :

One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev

The U.S and European Union may want to save Crimeans from themselves. But the Crimeans are happy right where they are. One year after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black Sea, poll after poll shows that the locals there -- be they Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or Tatars are mostly all in agreement: life with Russia is better than life with Ukraine. Little has changed over the last 12 months.
Despite huge efforts on the part of Kiev, Brussels, Washington and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the bulk of humanity living on the Black Sea peninsula believe the referendum to secede from Ukraine was legit.

Back to where we were :

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
What credentials do you have to use fallacies against someone ?
He gave 10 points demonstrating the oligarchy in the US, and in case you skipped it, you have a former US president doing exactly the same.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Noam Chomsky was a professor of linguistics. His theories about language are now universally discredited. I don't see why his political analysis should be any better. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm a linguist myself.)

a reply to: DJW001

So ...

What's wrong/innacurate with that particular statement of his ? Or with Carter ?



A paper from Princeton university on the topic as well :

PDF Link

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Rolls eyes and walks away shaking head.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Rolls eyes and walks away shaking head.

If Trump was the Kremlin's pick and puppet, why are their relations worsening ?

Kremlin: Putin outlined causes of worsening Russia-US ties at meeting with Tillerson