It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump has just directly accused Obama of wiretapping Trump residence.

page: 277
158
<< 274  275  276    278  279  280 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Just heard on the news. They are giving trump until tomorrow morning to show the evidence he has.
LOL.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good thing he's not the only one collecting that evidence then huh?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Just heard on the news. They are giving trump until tomorrow morning to show the evidence he has.
LOL.


Who are 'they'.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Seeing they were wrong?
I don't think so. You're just listening to the wrong people.

House intel has given the Whitehouse a deadline of tomorrow to show their evidence.
But what happens next in this put up or shut up situation?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

No thanks.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I find it odd that you left out this part of Mr. Kucinich's statement:


President Trump’s assertion that his phones at Trump Tower were tapped last year has been treated as hilarious—and in some circles as beyond contempt. But I can vouch for the fact that extracurricular surveillance does occur, regardless of whether it is officially approved.




The reporters did not say, nor did I ask, who had made the tape. But the paper’s stories referenced “secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.” I have only my suspicions about their true provenance. The quality of the recordings was excellent on both ends of the call.


Cherry-picking now Grambler?

Mr. Kucinich stated clearly that he doesn't know who made the recording or when. Just that it happened.

Only in the mind of a believer would this require an "admission that this is an egregious abuse of power by Obama administration [sic]?"

edit on 12-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


I just read about the request.
The House Intelligence Committee is seeking evidence, which is what they are supposed to be doing.
I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


I just read about the request.
The House Intelligence Committee is seeking evidence, which is what they are supposed to be doing.
I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


That's just a pathetic ad hominem statement. It does nothing for the argument.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Seeing they were wrong?
I don't think so. You're just listening to the wrong people.

House intel has given the Whitehouse a deadline of tomorrow to show their evidence.
But what happens next in this put up or shut up situation?


LOL...so Nunes and Schiff asked for him to produce it by tomorrow. There's no deadline and no reason he has to give them anything. But yeah...lets make up a story that it is a deadline to make it appear these guys are doing a real job....

I think they are going to be sadly disappointed when he gives them nothing. But I have no doubt it will come out soon...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why wouldn't the President provide proof for his rather extraordinary statement?

Seems like he'd want to get that out of the way quickly and re-establish his validity.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


I just read about the request.
The House Intelligence Committee is seeking evidence, which is what they are supposed to be doing.
I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


That's just a pathetic ad hominem statement. It does nothing for the argument.


The 'argument' was that:

we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


Anyone who thinks that will be the conclusion if Trump does not provide evidence on Monday is being overly emotional and showing signs of mental instability.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


I just read about the request.
The House Intelligence Committee is seeking evidence, which is what they are supposed to be doing.
I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


That's just a pathetic ad hominem statement. It does nothing for the argument.


The 'argument' was that:

we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


Anyone who thinks that will be the conclusion if Trump does not provide evidence on Monday is being overly emotional and showing signs of mental instability.


The ad homeinem fallacy was this:



I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


Totally unnecessary to your point and invalidates your argument. Once again.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why wouldn't the President provide proof for his rather extraordinary statement?

Seems like he'd want to get that out of the way quickly and re-establish his validity.


Re establish his validity? Are you saying he is not currently a valid President?
One would think that evidence is being requested from several parties.
edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Stop it.
I won't play your stupid games .
The house intel committee investigating this lie that trump tweeted is demanding he prove it.
Put up or shut up.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Why wouldn't the President provide proof for his rather extraordinary statement?

Seems like he'd want to get that out of the way quickly and re-establish his validity.


Re establish is validity? Are you saying he is not currently a valid President?
One would think that evidence is being requested from several parties.


Why would you interpret that statement in that way? Does a President stop being a President because he makes an invalid statement?

I am saying that the statement he made is not backed up by anything, and he has provided zero evidence to support what he said at this point. Thus the validity of what he said is in question.

Why must you always attempt to insert words into or misconstrue what others post? That also weakens your arguments.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Or we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


I just read about the request.
The House Intelligence Committee is seeking evidence, which is what they are supposed to be doing.
I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


That's just a pathetic ad hominem statement. It does nothing for the argument.


The 'argument' was that:

we will confirm that no such thing ever happened, that trump is a pathological liar, that he got his info from a fake news source and that he is severely handicapped by mental paranoia.


Anyone who thinks that will be the conclusion if Trump does not provide evidence on Monday is being overly emotional and showing signs of mental instability.


The ad homeinem fallacy was this:



I doubt the conclusion will be anything like your over emotional and mentally unstable conclusion.


Totally unnecessary to your point and invalidates your argument. Once again.


Once again?

Sounds like you are still smarting from you difficult time on this thread, what with your ridiculous statements being disproved repeatedly.
Still, whatever... carry on.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Guess we will see.
Over emotional huh?
You don't even live here but spend practically 24/7 debating American politics.
Who's overly invested emotionally by this?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Stop it.
I won't play your stupid games .
The house intel committee investigating this lie that trump tweeted is demanding he prove it.
Put up or shut up.


Silly, you pointed out to me yesterday that I should stay on topic (correctly) and avoid spurious argument.

Perhaps a break is in order?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Guess we will see.
Over emotional huh?
You don't even live here but spend practically 24/7 debating American politics.
Who's overly invested emotionally by this?


Emotional investment is all good.
Over emotional and extreme conclusions that have no basis in reality - not so much.




top topics



 
158
<< 274  275  276    278  279  280 >>

log in

join