When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

but I do agree that American politics seem to be promoting conflict with Russia (and vice versa). It's the same old brinksmanship that the world suffered through during the cold-war era.

The cold war was safer though because both sides worked to reduce tensions and build trust.

Nowadays the opposite is happening: you have the US constantly deliberately ramping up tensions and provocations.

During the cold war there were numerous false alarms. Moments when someone could've pushed the button. But common sense prevailed because there was not a climate of distrust.

False alarms are inevitable. They can be caused by something as small as a faulty chip. The only difference is now the western media have manufactured a climate of fear and anti-russian hysteria in the west.  ie nonsense propaganda 'Putin is the new Hitler, Russia is invading, Russia is about to invade' etc etc. Simultaneously nonstop western victimization of Russia as well as nato troop buildups along Russian borders are sending the message that Washington wants war. So if there is a false alarm, people are now more likely to assume it is real.

The potential for accidents and misunderstandings has increased: there are no longer all those channels of communication between Washington and Moscow that operated in the 50's and 60's. The neocons have done everything to shut down communication with Russia. All that exists is Washington fabricating lies and provocations.

The cold war was safer though because both sides worked to reduce tensions and build trust.

Nowadays the opposite is hapenning: you have the US constantly deliberately ramping up tensions and provocations.

I'm not sure if it was safer. I think it was an explosively (pun!) dangerous situation that was managed and ultimately reduced through vast amounts of effort. The whole capitalist/communist war of ideologies was pretty viscous -- true believers are always the most dangerous.

     Sure, nowadays we're heading back to conflict, but I feel that it's a conflict driven more by the desire for wealth, influence, and power. While I agree that the world isn't exactly in a safe place with Russia and the States back at each other's throats, I feel that there is more potential for a non-violent resolution for a conflict driven by greed than for one driven by ideology.

 The players might be the same (ish), but their roles have changed: they're now merchants, not fundamentalists.

While the governments of many European countries have their own issues (they can be pretty bloated), at least they have something that approximates real democracy: one can honestly pick and choose from a smorgasbord of platforms.

Not every Democrat is the same. Not every Republican is the same. Some are centrists. Some are mavericks. They are all over the political spectrum.

White House is now confirming that there is no evidence of any wiretapping of Trump.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/politics/white-house-trump-wiretap-obama.html

I guess the usual Trumptrolls will no be claiming that Trump himself and Shawn Spicy are "fake news" so they don't have to explain why they were disagreeing with reality.

Not every Democrat is the same. Not every Republican is the same. Some are centrists. Some are mavericks. They are all over the political spectrum.

True, but you're still stuck with only 2 platforms come election time. Take this last election: How many Americans would have voted for either Hilary or Trump had there been 5 other parties, each with a realistic chance of being voted in?

I understand that this is almost reductio ad absurdum, but the current system needs work. A lot of work.

White House is now confirming that there is no evidence of any wiretapping of Trump.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/politics/white-house-trump-wiretap-obama.html

No dude. The NYT is NOT a credible source of information. These are the innuendo-crew who said there was a Trump wire tap. Now they say there was no wire tap. Thus proving themselves fake news. The end.

True, but you're still stuck with only 2 platforms come election time.

Trump/Bannon are alt right.

The "two" parties morph over time to take any shape they want. This isn't "republican", a weird third party gained support and actually got in.

True, but you're still stuck with only 2 platforms come election time.

Trump/Bannon are alt right.

The "two" parties morph over time to take any shape they want. This isn't "republican", a weird third party gained support and actually got in.

Yep.
And yet, when you get down to it, Duverger's Law states that almost all first-past-the-post plurality-rule voting systems essentially lead to a two-party system.
This is definitely the case in the US: it was "Hilary or Trump", not "Hilary, Trump, or-that-other-bloke-who-seems-comparatively-reasonable". 

If I were Russia I'd largely be doing what they are doing now which is to defend their core interests, develop cost effective and asymmetric threats and counters, and try and do something about this NeoConNeoLib wave that wants to crush all before it because its clear that the Bush-Clintonites want to bring Russia to its knees.

A break up of the EU and NATO would break the power of the neo-con-lib-nwo-elites in Washington.

The EU is their puppet, it acts as a cover legitimising Washington's wars. Hence all these 'coalitions of the willing' they round up everytime they want to take over some poor country.

Maybe EU member states will realize the slavery they are in and vote to get out.

This is definitely the case in the US: it was "Hilary or Trump", not "Hilary, Trump, or-that-other-bloke-who-seems-comparatively-reasonable". 

Hilary = much better than Trump...just as Gore = much better than George W. Bush. To say both candidates are equally bad is foolish.

Clinton is highly intelligent, very sane, and slow to act rash. The Russian propaganda slandered her and you guys fell for it though.

This is definitely the case in the US: it was "Hilary or Trump", not "Hilary, Trump, or-that-other-bloke-who-seems-comparatively-reasonable". 

Hilary = much better than Trump...just as Gore = much better than George W. Bush. To say both candidates are equally bad is foolish.

Clinton is highly intelligent, very sane, and slow to act rash. The Russian propaganda slandered her and you guys fell for it though.

Saying she is better than a crazy person isn't a compliment.  The problem with Hillary is that she is a corporate shill for big business.  The US needs people like Bernie. 

Are you kidding me? Clinton is less of a corporate shill for big business than Trump is. You think she would have pushed to cut the Environmental Protection Agency and increase military spending by 10% and build more nukes? And cut taxes on the upper 1%?

Remember, Sanders endorsed Clinton over Trump.

So if you are a Sanders fan, Clinton more closely aligns with your values than Trump.

Bernie Sanders: It is important to keep calling Donald Trump a liar

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-liar-important-vermont-democrat-senator-us-president-a7618871.html

This is definitely the case in the US: it was "Hilary or Trump", not "Hilary, Trump, or-that-other-bloke-who-seems-comparatively-reasonable". 

Hilary = much better than Trump...just as Gore = much better than George W. Bush. To say both candidates are equally bad is foolish.

Clinton is highly intelligent, very sane, and slow to act rash. The Russian propaganda slandered her and you guys fell for it though.

Her support for NAFTA, TPP, the Iraq War, Syrian intervention, and drone strikes was Russian propaganda?

Her mediocre and unaccomplished record in the Senate was a plus? How about her middling SecState record? What did she accomplish?

As far as temperment her covering up her health issues, her refusal to concede on election night and speak to supporters, and her stubborn refusal to listen to Bill and take Trump seriously says plenty.

Trump for all his bluster identified lines of attack that proved succesful, even when doubted, he changed managers when it was the right time, got better results with less money, ran to win rather than be popular, and carved out an electoral map that experts laughed at and is set to give the Republicans an electoral map edge even if they lose Arizona or Georgia next time around (offest by the Rust Belt+Minnesota, Maine, NH). He knew when to listen to Conway and Bannon.

Give him the Johnson vote and Clinton tge Stein vote and he takes NV, NH, MN, ME this year and VA, CO, and NM dont get called for Clinton till Wed. Nov. 9th.

Clinton is less of a corporate shill for big business than Trump is.

The US needs people like Bernie.

Listen up kids, cause you need schooling. Bernie and Warren are wussies who talk about change, but can't make it happen. Hillary didn't even bother talking about change, as she knew it was impossible. Republicans are wussies. Libertarians are wussies.

Zero change is possible in the USA, because the country is under corporate control. Maximize profits okay, but anything else you want to do, the answer is no. You got to come with BIG GUNS READY FOR WAR if you want something done, and you will probably lose (which is why nobody has ever tried it).

Trump/Bannon are the only people to have tried it, and so far lived to tell about it. The mob demanded some stuff done on immigration, and anti-PC culture, and these things are actually very anti-profits. Now we see what happens when you do what the citizens want, you get attacked from all sides by the establishment. Corporate money moves to eliminated these guys, so it can continue forward with globalism, progressivism thought police, income inequality, majority group hate, and mass media brainwashing.

Dystopian liberal corporate hell. Please buy a clue!

White House is now confirming that there is no evidence of any wiretapping of Trump.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/politics/white-house-trump-wiretap-obama.html

I guess the usual Trumptrolls will no be claiming that Trump himself and Shawn Spicy are "fake news" so they don't have to explain why they were disagreeing with reality.

I didn’t think I would come back to read this thread, but now that I did…….. 

First, the link posted by SaintsCanada is an excellent read.  If you haven’t already read it, you should. 

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/leading-putin-critic-warns-of-xenophobic-conspiracy-theories-drowning-u-s-discourse-and-helping-trump/

Second, as you read everything below remember we are talking about wiretapping in Trump Tower.  Here is a quote from Trump’s first Tweet at 6:35 on 4 March,

  “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower.” 
  http://www.businessinsider.com/r-trump-alleges-wire-tapping-by-obama-during-campaign-2017-3             

Does anyone believe that Trump does not think that all of Trump Tower is his?

Where does this mobile NY Times story state that the White House says there was no wiretapping at Trump Tower?  This is what I found it said.

  https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/politics/white-house-trump-wiretap-obama.html

WASHINGTON — White House officials declared on Wednesday that President Trump was not the target of an investigation, five days after Mr. Trump himself raised the prospect with an unsubstantiated claim that his predecessor ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower.

But after an aide slipped Mr. Spicer a note, he circled back to clarify that “there is no reason to believe there is any type of investigation with respect to the Department of Justice.”                   

For those that feel they have all the answers regarding wiretaps and Trump Tower because you have read the NY Times or Washington Post, I have some questions for which I cannot find all the answers.  If you have all the answers to the following questions, please post the links to your sources:

1.  Did General Flynn - formal National Security Advisor to President Trump - work at/in Trump Tower at any time during the campaign?

2.  Did Flynn use any telephones at Trump Tower?

3.  Which U.S. government agency wiretapped and recorded Flynn’s conversations? 

4. Was this U.S. government agency only recording the conversations of the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., and recorded Flynn unintentionally only during those conversations that took place in December 2016 - and decided to leak it anyways because such agency wants to hurt Trump? 

5.  Were there other conversations that were tapped and recorded prior to December 2016?  My understanding is that the information that was publically released covered conversations conducted in December 2016; however, was there surveillance before December, and if so, when this this surveillance begin?

6.  Did this U.S. government agency have legal authority to tap and record these conversations?   
 
7.  Did this U.S. government agency have the legal authority to release the information it collected to the U.S. media; such as to the Washington Post?

8. Did this U.S. government agency release all the information it collected, or has it only released the information that it believes could be used to hurt Trump?

9.  Whether it was Flynn or the Russian Ambassador who was being wiretapped, who signed off on the Flynn and/or Russian Ambassador wiretap?

10.  Before Trump sent his Tweets about the wiretap could Flynn have told Trump that he did use phones in the Trump Tower during the campaign?

From what I have read, the Flynn conversations that were released were made in December 2016.  I do know who was President at such time.

P.S.  For the real conspiracy buffs: Was it the Russian Ambassador/Putin who recorded the conversations and released the information??????

This is definitely the case in the US: it was "Hilary or Trump", not "Hilary, Trump, or-that-other-bloke-who-seems-comparatively-reasonable". 

Hilary = much better than Trump...just as Gore = much better than George W. Bush. To say both candidates are equally bad is foolish.
Clinton is highly intelligent, very sane, and slow to act rash. The Russian propaganda slandered her and you guys fell for it though.

I didn't say they were equally bad. Just that they were both bad.
What's the old axiom?
'Whether the bear beats the wolf or the wolf beats the bear, the rabbit always loses.'

When factoring in NATO, whatever marginal (and it is very marginal) edge Russia may or may not have with tanks or artillery, is more than made up for by the combined weight of the U.S., France, Spain, Britain, Italy, Germany, the Dutch, and Poland.

But you overlook that..

Because defense is easier than attack, most attacking military forces require a 3:1 superiority ratio to have a reasonable shot at victory. The current ratio in the Baltics is more than 4:1, and NATO forces on the ground field considerably less firepower than their Russian counterparts.

The Russian military could defeat NATO forces in the Baltics in just 60 hours
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21344/us-claims-russia-could-defeat-nato-in-60-hours/

Russia Defeats America in Every NATO War Game Scenario

Since mid-2014 the Pentagon has run all manner of war games – as many as 16 times, under different scenarios – pitting NATO against Russia. All scenarios were favorable to NATO. All simulations yielded the same victor: Russia.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2015/12/russia-defeats-america-in-every-nato-war-game-scenario-2459562.html

You don't seem to realize that Russia has massively rebuilt its military in the past decade due to Washington's threats.

I'm not sure if it was safer. I think it was an explosively (pun!) dangerous situation that was managed and ultimately reduced through vast amounts of effort. The whole capitalist/communist war of ideologies was pretty viscous -- true believers are always the most dangerous.

     Sure, nowadays we're heading back to conflict, but I feel that it's a conflict driven more by the desire for wealth, influence, and power. While I agree that the world isn't exactly in a safe place with Russia and the States back at each other's throats, I feel that there is more potential for a non-violent resolution for a conflict driven by greed than for one driven by ideology.

 The players might be the same (ish), but their roles have changed: they're now merchants, not fundamentalists.

I think you have it the wrong way round.

Russia dropped the ideology. Communism is dead: the former driver of Marxist expansionism that characterized the wars of the 1970's and 80's has gone. Russia is pursuing the free market, it's priority is simply to build its economy.
When The US and its nato/ media puppets try to portray Russia as an expansionist imperialistic force, they are projecting.

 
Washington, on the other hand, is now gripped by a new ideology that has dictated all its foreign policy since the Clinton administration. That ideology is of American global hegemony. It makes naziism look tame. A globalist "new world order" with the American elite at the helm is what they have been working toward. This ideology is spelt out plainly in the Wolfowitz doctrine.

After the fall of the USSR, the neocons suddenly saw America as having the manifest destiny to dominate the world. The "indispensable people". Their aim became to increase their influence throughout the globe by whatever means necessary, to eliminate nation states and borders, to create more lebensraum for their corporations.

By this ideology, any country able to counter American domination is an enemy. Any country that wants to pursue its own national interest ahead of American interests, is an enemy. Any country that is not a vassal of Washington, is an enemy. And enemies are to have their governments overthrown by colour revolutions or their leaders framed by fake accusations...and replaced with US puppet governments. Or if that fails, simply invade them or destabilize them via proxy wars.

Maybe americans are beginning to realize the lies and greed that is at the heart of Washingtons neo-con ambitions. Theirs is a country now owned by the elite and their corporations, their neo-con partners in government: the globalists, the banksters and all their secret societies.