*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #860 on: March 06, 2017, 08:00:21 PM »
Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.
January, actually.
But not of trump tower, just trump associates communications.  But it would be odd to not include Trump tower in that.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #861 on: March 06, 2017, 08:03:08 PM »
Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.
January, actually.
But not of trump tower, just trump associates communications.  But it would be odd to not include Trump tower in that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Quote
F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.

To me, FBI officials examining data from that server implies that they were monitoring it. That was in November.

Re: Trump
« Reply #862 on: March 06, 2017, 08:18:06 PM »
Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

There is plenty of evidence of wiretapping taking place. Who actually ordered it on the other hand is pretty ambiguous. If Loretta "Meet me on the Tarmac" Lynch was involved with it, what are the odds she kept it completely secret from the administration?

And on the flipside, still absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #863 on: March 06, 2017, 08:34:22 PM »
He's been enacting his policy just fine (except for the parts that turned out to be illegal lol)
Scratch that, the travel ban is back, baby!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #864 on: March 07, 2017, 04:38:11 AM »
Shitposting is the only thing that brought the issue to the limelight.

What are you talking about? This was reported in the New York Times last year.

They were so happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon,

I would think everyone would be happy to jump on the "no evidence" bandwagon given that there is no evidence. What is the other option? To blindly trust the God Emperor when he rants on Twitter about political opponents? No thanks.

There is plenty of evidence of wiretapping taking place. Who actually ordered it on the other hand is pretty ambiguous. If Loretta "Meet me on the Tarmac" Lynch was involved with it, what are the odds she kept it completely secret from the administration?

[/size]And on the flipside, still absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing or Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.


Depends on what Jeff "I met with Russian Ambassadors during the campaign" Sessions spoke about, doesn't it?

Though again, the evidence of wiretapping Trump Tower isn't there.  You sure as hell haven't presented anything.  Why not start there?[/quote]
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #865 on: March 07, 2017, 05:05:57 PM »
Though again, the evidence of wiretapping Trump Tower isn't there.  You sure as hell haven't presented anything.  Why not start there?

Trump hater Jake Tapper suggesting reports

New York Times talking about intercepted communications

Guardian Article with this following excerpt buried deep inside:
Quote
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

Then there's this reporting that pretty much expands on what the Guardian said.

Quote
Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia. Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.


*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #866 on: March 07, 2017, 05:50:22 PM »
Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #867 on: March 07, 2017, 06:13:13 PM »
Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #868 on: March 07, 2017, 06:19:18 PM »
Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?
Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #869 on: March 07, 2017, 06:45:03 PM »
Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?
Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.

The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.

Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.

The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #870 on: March 07, 2017, 06:52:44 PM »
The FBI does not answer to the whitehouse.  If they have legitimate law enforcement concerns they can pursue them with or without POTUS's approval.  I doubt they even need the AG's approval to do what they did, just a courtesy call informing them of their actions.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #871 on: March 07, 2017, 07:22:22 PM »
Yep.

So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"?  Cause that's the issue.  We've known for months that his people were being monitored.  HE's known!

Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?
Because that's what Trump blew up over. 
He didn't care that his people were being monitored.  He cared that HE was being monitored.  Or more accurately, his tower.

The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant.  Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.

So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.

Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.

MY wires, MY phones.  Nothing about his campaign surrogates or managers or staff.  I also checked and this was the first time he's mentioned it despite, as you so very happily pointed out, the information is much older.  So it's very likely he JUST saw a fox news article on it and tweeted about it.


Quote
The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.
Wait... wait wait... so you give me those articles, point to them as a reliable source, and think "Trump" is somehow indicating that it's got nefarious purposes?  That "Trump" can't mean 'trump campaign'?  You do realize that the other two articles basically said the FBI had enough evidence to show a probable link of Donald and Russia, right?  That they feel, based on the evidence, that Donald was being helped by the Russians?

Also, are you suggesting that the FBI shouldn't have probed Hillary Clinton about her e-mails?  Cause, you know... that happened while she was campaigning.  Or is it ok cause she's the one you hated?

Personally, I think that if there's evidence ANY politician has been compromised by a foreign government, it should be investigated.  Obviously you don't think that ways because Trump won.  Had he lost, you'd be speaking a different story with different points, trying to justify that Russia made Trump lose so weak Hillary would be in power.  Or if Hillary had the "Russia" problems, you'd be demanding the same thing.

Sorry, but your pure hypocrisy is showing.

Quote
Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.
Pfft.
Yes, because the ONLY explanation is evil and nefarious purposes to make Trump lose and not because people actually saw evidence of interference.  Nope, that just doesn't fit your view, does it?  Get your head out of Trump's ass.  You're only bitching cause this might mean Trump did something illegal or at the very least didn't win on his own merit and you just can't stand the idea that maybe, just maybe, Trump wasn't as great as he claimed.

Quote
The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.
I'm not sure how to take this.
Yes, but also no.
I mean, defunding Obama care and Planned Parenthood is weaponization of Bureaucracy.  Tax laws are weaponized bureaucracy.  Hell, any regulation is weaponized bureaucracy.  The government is attacking an industry and their practices such as lead paint, child labor, air pollution, and unsafe coal mines.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #872 on: March 07, 2017, 10:01:22 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Re: Trump
« Reply #873 on: March 07, 2017, 10:28:21 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about? I mean, I'm not sure which one is worse, or if they aren't just the same thing, I'd rather not be naive. I don't assume that either political party is the moral authority, they are equally corrupt through and through. If there is something I'm unaware of please enlighten me instead of assuming my opinions and convictions are just an elaborate ruse for the amusement of the internet.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #874 on: March 07, 2017, 10:41:27 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help

Yes, that's been clear for years. Unfortunately I'm not a qualified psychiatric professional so I don't think I could be much help.  :(
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #875 on: March 07, 2017, 10:46:50 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about? I mean, I'm not sure which one is worse, or if they aren't just the same thing, I'd rather not be naive. I don't assume that either political party is the moral authority, they are equally corrupt through and through. If there is something I'm unaware of please enlighten me instead of assuming my opinions and convictions are just an elaborate ruse for the amusement of the internet.

Sure. Why do you insist on insisting Obama must have "authorized" all of this when the FBI doesn't answer to the White House? This keeps being presented to you and you keep brushing it off.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Re: Trump
« Reply #876 on: March 07, 2017, 10:48:36 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help

Yes, that's been clear for years. Unfortunately I'm not a qualified psychiatric professional so I don't think I could be much help.  :(

Are you sure there's nothing you can do? Couldn't you just google a list of logical fallacies and biases and just shout them all at me? If there was only a way that you could let me know I'm wrong while simultaneously assuming the moral high ground to protect yourself from any criticism, that'd be great.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #877 on: March 07, 2017, 11:51:34 PM »
It's sad. Normally I would assume TTIOH was trolling but it's become maddeningly clear that his gullibility represents more than forty percent of the country. *Sigh*

Well obviously I need help, can you please show me exactly what I'm gullible about?

In a word, Trump. Every point you've tried to argue in this thread stems from your own faith and personal trust in Trump, despite the growing evidence every single day of his flagrant dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, and general lack of fitness for the job. How much longer are you going to stay loyal to him? How many more scandals will it take before you admit that he shouldn't have been elected president?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #878 on: March 08, 2017, 03:07:06 AM »
What the goose said.  You have no reason to trust Trump, in fact have been given reason after reason after reason not to trust Trump, but your faith in him is secure.  Dave is probably right about you and at this point I would imagine a great deal of his other supporters (mostly the ones who aren't racist pieces of shit and actually voted for him because of his economic policies or whatnot); it's willful ignorance likely caused by a strong desire not to be proven wrong.

You sidestep, sidestep, sidestep when presented with something you don't want to face.  Again, I'd think you were trolling if you weren't doing the same thing most of his other followers are doing (indeed, what Trump himself has been doing since he took office).  It's just sad that 42% of the country is just as unwilling to face fact (actual fact, as opposed to the alternative variety the Trump camp loves) as you are.  And thanks to your blind obedience we have a madman dictating policy in the highest office in this country, and there's nothing that can be done about it because the sackless, ethics-challenged Republicans in Congress are fine looking the other way because so many people like you think he's doing a swell job and take everything he says at face value.

It literally (I mean literally) makes me sick.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 03:10:15 AM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Re: Trump
« Reply #879 on: March 08, 2017, 03:49:22 AM »
Every point you've tried to argue in this thread stems from your own faith and personal trust in Trump, despite the growing evidence every single day of his flagrant dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, and general lack of fitness for the job. How much longer are you going to stay loyal to him? How many more scandals will it take before you admit that he shouldn't have been elected president?

Another reason not to trust trump, from earlier today: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/839084268991229952

"122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!"  -- Trump

This is factually incorrect. Most of those were released by Bush, not Obama. Once again, Trump saw something on the news, misunderstood it, didn't bother to verify it, then tweeted about it as if it were a fact.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/07/spicer-tries-to-clarify-trump-tweet-about-former-gitmo-prisoners.html

Lol, Spicer. Poor guy is going to have a mental breakdown before this is all over.