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: 279
158
<< 276  277  278    280  281  282 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.





posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


And now you resort to ridiculous ad hominem regarding me. Is your argument really that weak?


Seems you are unable to take what you dish out. Maybe it's time for you to have a break?


I've pointed out the flaws in your argument. You're reacting with parroted, emotion-laden (and irrational) statements.

No, I think I'll stay.

The argument here, nearly 6000 comments later, is a repetition of Trump's claim that President Obama ordered unlawful surveillance of Trump and his residence. There is not one shred of proof for that.


Well we can at least agree that there is no proof to support Trump's claim as yet.
Similar to no proof of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians from any such wire tap (or through any other means) and also no proof the Russians influenced the election.

So hundreds of pages later the only logical assumptions we can make are that Obama is innocent, Trump is innocent and his campaign team are innocent. Any evidence provided will serve to alter those views, or not.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No one needs clearance to see something that doesn't exist.
He tweeted this. Thereby de-classifying the entire operation such as it is.
He also opened the door for even more scrutiny.
Be careful what you wish for.
edit on 3122017 by Sillyolme because: Kindle auto correct.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.
When you question the validity of the President as you did, whilst really meaning the validity of his statement, I think it important to help fellow posters offer some clarification.

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



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

How does it follow that having clearance to see this alleged evidence mean that they "would go look them up"? Look "them" up where?

That's just not the way investigations work. Someone who makes a claim backs it up. That's, like, 101.

The President made an extraordinary claim, and your claim is ... a lot of pro-Trump worship.

If the evidence is being used in another official investigation, it can still be discussed in Congress, or have you forgotten the sideshow with the "investigations" of Hillary Clinton?

So ... your idea is that the President tweeted to destabilize the government and cause chaos? I can't disagree with that.


Are you kidding? Do you know how this works? The only reason they wouldn't be able to get these documents on their own is because they are classified above their level of clearance.

LOL...so you think tweets can now destabilize government? You have very little faith in Obama's people as those would be the ones that would be destabilized by the accusation....it isn't like Trump would be destabilizing his own people so it would have to be those left over.

Sure..evidence can be discussed...havent seen any call for that, just that he release it all to them...i don't know what is in the documents, which obviously exist as they have been requested and are known to exist. The fact requests were made to tap Trump tower has never been denied...

Anywho...i have time to wait for it...



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Obama had so much time between golfing and destroying the world that he wire tapped Trumps personal space. Just like a leftie!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.


Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

See?
Just what I'm talking about.
I'm out this isn't a forum it's a playpen.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Neith
Obama had so much time between golfing and destroying the world that he wire tapped Trumps personal space. Just like a leftie!


Golfing? How many times has President Trump been golfing or retired from Washington in the last 2.5 months?

I'm not sure that even comes close to a reasonable argument, Neith. Can you expand your thought?

Thx.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

See?
Just what I'm talking about.
I'm out this isn't a forum it's a playpen.


I genuinely never know what you are talking about.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.


Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.


I just think when you question the President's validity as you did...



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.


...it's important to give you the chance to clarify.
edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No one needs clearance to see something that doesn't exist.
He tweeted this. Thereby de-classifying the entire operation such as it is.
He also opened the door for even more scrutiny.
Be careful what you wish for.


Guessing you have no idea how classification works. And your argument is funny. You first deny anything exists then say he declassified it by tweeting about it then say be careful what you wish for.

So which is It? They exist but are over the clearance of those inquiring, or they don't exist and they are inquiring solely for fun? That the requests exist for tapping has never been denied, it is the scope of the tap being denied...so they definitely exist, just what's in them is what is in question.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Please spare me the comments desperately trying to imply that I don't know something.

Let's focus on what you don't know, eh?

You don't know what, if any, evidence President Trump has to back up his extreme claims.

You don't have any idea of the level of classification of said evidence.

And you just implied in your previous statement that the evidence is available and the heads of the Intelligence Committees should "go look it up."

/shrug

Tweets have harmed companies by causing their stock prices to tumble and accompanied civil unrest around the world.

/shrug

However it is you that worshipfully suggested that Mr. Trump has some master plan to smoke out his perceived enemies with a tweet ... so, I'm not sure why you'd make such a basically asinine statement in return.
edit on 12-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.


Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.


I just think when you question the President's validity as you did...



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.


...it's important to give you the chance to clarify.


Are you going to draw this kind of irrelevance out page after page again?

You asked for help, I gave it to you.

What are you trying to argue here?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course as you wish your highness. You see... Trump owns his own turf. And He unlike Obama, gets the damn job done, doesn't play 'Lets Spy on America'.

Unlike the last President in Thief, he also isn't taking a wage courtesy of the American Public Tax Corporation.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Neith
a reply to: Gryphon66

Of course as you wish your highness. You see... Trump owns his own turf. And He unlike Obama, gets the damn job done, doesn't play 'Lets Spy on America'.

Unlike the last President in Thief, he also isn't taking a wage courtesy of the American Public Tax Corporation.


To my knowledge, my pedigree doesn't require such a formal address, although I thank you for the courtesy.

I see ... your comments are purely emotion-laced and off-topic. You're not making a serious argument.

Carry on.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

How can I when you're not asking a serious Question?
edit on 12-3-2017 by Neith because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.


No they aren't demanding anything and actually can't demand it. .


You're right, they can't. But a court can if Obama decides to file suit. Also the House Ethics can certainly force his hand as well.

But leaving all that aside, if Trump believes he doesn't have to, or if he decides to withhold evidence, as much as the sycophantic demographic (some of which may be among us) wouldn't want to believe this, the majority of Americans including a large degree of staunch Trump supporters will suddenly abandon him.


I wouldn't hold my breath for Obama to file a suit. If what Trump said is false, where is that suit?



Neither would I as he probably respects the institution of the Presidency a bit more than Trump would.




Not releasing them could simply be a clearance issue with another ongoing investigation depending on how broad a net Obama cast with his request.

Could be..



The requests Obama put in for tapping have so far not been denied by them....so is it the position of the opposition that he just put the requests in for fun or to see if he could get them? What was it...3 times?


FFS and you believe this is behavior of Presidential timber? "just for fun to see if he could get them"....it's refreshing to know that some people regard playing games with the USA and her people so lightly.
edit on 12-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.


Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.


I just think when you question the President's validity as you did...



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.


...it's important to give you the chance to clarify.


Are you going to draw this kind of irrelevance out page after page again?

You asked for help, I gave it to you.

What are you trying to argue here?


Ok, fine. That is the last time I help you get out of your ludicrous statements. Next time, I won't offer you the chance for clarification.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

You said 're-establish his credibility', not the validity of his statement.
Perhaps you should have been more clear.


You can't even get my statement right.

The meaning is completely clear. This thread is referring to a statement that Mr. Trump made. One wonders why you are so desperate to muddy the water of this discussion with logical fallacies and mistakes/dishonesty.


They were your words. Your referred to the person, not his statement.
I asked for clarification on what you meant, and you have now removed the mud from the waters by clarifying what you meant. Great.


Is semantic nit-picking already all your argument has left?

I'm glad that my repeating the obvious helped you understand.



Glad I helped you out, before you dug yourself another hole.


Oh my. You clearly didn't help me out. You just thanked ME for helping YOU understand the obvious.

Are you already trying to spin that now into ANOTHER POINTLESS COMMENT about me?

Could we possibly stay on the topic for once? Please?

Thanks.


I just think when you question the President's validity as you did...



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.


...it's important to give you the chance to clarify.


Are you going to draw this kind of irrelevance out page after page again?

You asked for help, I gave it to you.

What are you trying to argue here?


Ok, fine. That is the last time I help you get out of your ludicrous statements. Next time, I won't offer you the chance for clarification.


You thanked me for my help, which I am glad to give at any time, and now you claim to be helping me.

That's most odd.

Again, what is your argument here? Are you saying something about the topic?




top topics



 
158
<< 276  277  278    280  281  282 >>

log in

join