
Donald Trump accuses Obama of 'wire-tapping' his office before election - secfirstmd
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/donald-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-his-office-before-election
======
tyingq
I don't usually comment on the political stories here, but...

 _" How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred
election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"_

It's just surreal to me that we've descended to the point where our President
is communicating in this fashion. Not just the typos. The crazy hyperbole,
lack of decorum, and the venue.

I worry what might happen if he uses this same approach with foreign
relations. Sounds alarmist, but could the next war be started via Twitter?

Edit: A relatively good summary of the events that led here:
[https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/838010340579426304](https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/838010340579426304)

~~~
DaUR
It's weird to see so many people utterly obsessed with appearances (which all
of the above count as) as if the President's job was to be an actor.

Prediction: Trump's style will not make it more or less likely for him to
declare war than if he had the style of a polished actor.

~~~
tyingq
Is it that weird that there's an expectation that the US president should
think about things before communicating them?

There's a difference between "polished actor" and "careful diplomacy".

You don't think his communication style might have been risky during the Cuban
missle crisis, for example?

~~~
DaUR
> Is it that weird that there's an expectation

What's weird is that you attribute any importance to appearances, and prefer
one type of appearances over another.

You know what they say: judge people by what they do, solely by what they do.
Never by what they say. This isn't even caring about what he says, but caring
about the way he says it, even worse.

> You don't think his communication style might have been risky during the
> Cuban missle crisis, for example?

During that same Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets sent two letters. One that
appeared ranting and almost drunkenlike, and one that appeared diplomatic,
reasoned and moderate. The first was probably sent by Khrushchev, so he could
seem tough, and the other by his advisors, who didn't have as much to prove.
Yet the Cuban crisis went fine, because the US expected Khrushchev to behave
like that, and weren't surprised by it.

Same with Trump, who's just as predictable as any other politician (I would
say more so) if you follow him enough.

You care about appearances (which never matter) when what matters is
expectations and consistency.

~~~
tyingq
It's not so much that I care about appearances. It's more that I understand
that other people, like foreign leaders, might care about something Trump says
off the cuff.

Your example of Khrushchev might have worked out differently with blowhards on
both sides.

~~~
DaUR
> Your example of Khrushchev might have worked out differently with blowhards
> on both sides.

Which there were (on the US side, some in the admin wanted to bomb Cuba to
shreds), but were overridden. Because leaders have skin in the game in a way
advisors don't. It's something to call for total destruction as an advisor,
and another thing to be the man in charge, where the decision, responsibility,
and blame all lie on you. Human psychology saves the day.

~~~
tyingq
Your position is basically that poor diplomacy never has consequences.

~~~
DaUR
I'm arguing that this isn't "bad diplomacy", and only is if you judge it by
its appearances.

Geopolitics is driven by constraints. Nobody will declare war against Trump
because his tie is too long.

~~~
tyingq
You're equating the power of speech and communication with a tie being too
long. Speech can, and does, incite action, not always the intended action
either.

~~~
DaUR
> Speech can, and does, incite action

Action is the sole responsibility of the one committing the action. I don't
buy the premises of the fascist "speech is violence" crowd, and thank God that
world leaders are not as immature as them.

------
travmatt
notable in this story is trumps confirmation of the fisa surveillance order
against him. I'd suggest someone should explain to trump that his taking the
time to confirm stories such as these that he is declassifying their existence
and enabling people to leak more information, but on the whole it seems that
his incompetence is helping to blunt the impact of his treason, so it's
probably a net benefit.

~~~
joezydeco
If it's declassified now, is it available by FOIA request?

~~~
travmatt
I don't assume there is a relationship between the two, given that information
in the public sphere still gets denied in the foia process.

Even better than a foia, Ben Sasse is calling for the release of the warrant.
A member of the senate judiciary committee is harder to ignore than a foia
request.

------
69mlgsniperdad
These top comments are blowing my mind! Surreal that we've descended to the
point where the president is tweeting? Indeed, I suppose, that the media
refuses to publish the truth. How are you not in utter shock, that the
president wire-tapped the opposing campaign and pushed a story about Russia
they knew was false. This is the biggest political event in my lifetime by a
long shot.

~~~
tyingq
The comment was more nuanced than "the president is tweeting".

------
joshontheweb
Why does he think he's so special? Didn't Bush followed by Obama tap ALL of
our communications via The NSA? Are physical wiretaps even a thing anymore at
that high a level?

Edit: punctuation.

