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: 290
158
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

There is a claim that Trump's server was monitored as well as the FISA request for monitoring the Russians that swept up some people in his campaign (and some others).



There was also a claim that Jim Comey directed the DOJ to refute Trump's accusations. So, are you cherry picking your 'claims'?



I am hoping the investigation - which seems like it will progress as a public hearing - will provide the answers as to exactly what went on both from the aspect of the surveillance and what was found.


Sure you are.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

There is a claim that Trump's server was monitored as well as the FISA request for monitoring the Russians that swept up some people in his campaign (and some others).



There was also a claim that Jim Comey directed the DOJ to refute Trump's accusations. So, are you cherry picking your 'claims'?



I am hoping the investigation - which seems like it will progress as a public hearing - will provide the answers as to exactly what went on both from the aspect of the surveillance and what was found.


Sure you are.


Actually no. I have not refuted that there is a CLAIM that Comey asked the DoJ to refute Trumps accusation against Obama. In fact, I posted some links to it.
Claims are one thing, assuming they are true is another.
I think you may have jumped a little there without thinking it through.

edit on 13/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Thankfully, we only have to wait another seven days to hear what Mr. Comey has to say. I wonder, if it is revealed that he did ask DOJ to refute the Trump claim ... will our friends take back all the nasty things they've said about CNN and NYT?

Surely folks who are as obsessed the the exact letter of truth in all things will come back here and recant all their false claims, right?

No, I'm not holding my breath either.

And, in fairness, if Obama is revealed to be the dark mastermind of a heinous plot to listen in on Mr. Trump's ... what, masterful campaign strategies? I'll certainly come back here and admit that I was wrong.

I guess as we keep saying "we'll see."



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: alphabetaone

Thankfully, we only have to wait another seven days to hear what Mr. Comey has to say. I wonder, if it is revealed that he did ask DOJ to refute the Trump claim ... will our friends take back all the nasty things they've said about CNN and NYT?

Surely folks who are as obsessed the the exact letter of truth in all things will come back here and recant all their false claims, right?

No, I'm not holding my breath either.

And, in fairness, if Obama is revealed to be the dark mastermind of a heinous plot to listen in on Mr. Trump's ... what, masterful campaign strategies? I'll certainly come back here and admit that I was wrong.

I guess as we keep saying "we'll see."


Likewise if Comey does not say he asked the DoJ to refute Trumps claims, I'll expect you to admit CNN are fake news.
As for Obama, he is one element of this issue.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Why would I admit that CNN is "fake news"?

If they got a story wrong, if their source lied, etc. I'll certainly admit that.

The wholesale BS you guys do with classifying everything CNN (or NYT or WaPo) does as "fake news" doesn't cut the mustard.

It's BS, fairly garden-variety argumentation.

I'll be glad to come back and admit that the story was wrong if it is. I believe the claims made in the article, you don't.

Difference of opinion.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Why would I admit that CNN is "fake news"?

If they got a story wrong, if their source lied, etc. I'll certainly admit that.

The wholesale BS you guys do with classifying everything CNN (or NYT or WaPo) does as "fake news" doesn't cut the mustard.

It's BS, fairly garden-variety argumentation.

I'll be glad to come back and admit that the story was wrong if it is. I believe the claims made in the article, you don't.

Difference of opinion.


So then, by the same token, I will admit they got the story right.
That won't change my opinion of them though. They are a propaganda channel.

So yes a big difference of opinion when it comes to CNN.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



I don't disagree.
edit on 13/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



Getting more belligerent by the hour I see.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



I don't disagree.


Well that's just typical of ....

What?

You don't disagree???

Gosh.

I'm not sure of what to do now....




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



Getting more belligerent by the hour I see.



Always in with a timely meaningless comment, Xuench. I know many of those independent blogs have a "special" place in your heart ... so don't take it personally.

Belligerent? Nope.

Truthful. Yep.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

CNN is no more of a "propaganda channel" than Fox, and in fact, is not as "left biased" as say MSNBC or Huffington Post.

Breitbart is propganda. Democratic Underground is propaganda. Any of the interminable Echo Chamber blogs that repeat each others every utterance approaches propaganda, merely because of the mindless repetition of unsubstantiated horse-pucks.



I don't disagree.


Well that's just typical of ....

What?

You don't disagree???

Gosh.

I'm not sure of what to do now....



There is always something to agree on, however small.
When it happens let's just call it a Black Swan event.

edit on 13/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think that an acknowledgement that the major American media sources aren't all fake is minor, UK.

Actually, I'm not sure that anything "on the Left" compares to Breitbart.

It's unique.

ETA: LOL.

No, not a black swan. We probably agree on many things.
edit on 13-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Note



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think that an acknowledgement that the major American media sources aren't all fake is minor, UK.

Actually, I'm not sure that anything "on the Left" compares to Breitbart.

It's unique.


Breitbart is Trump's media outlet, so it's obviously going to be very biased.
I don't really care about the source because they are all untrustworthy, I want to actually hear people (guests) and also pay attention to properly quoted people in articles. Even all these biased news outlets have information that can be trusted as long as they are not opinion pieces twisting words or events to make them mean something they don't.
edit on 13/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think that an acknowledgement that the major American media sources aren't all fake is minor, UK.

Actually, I'm not sure that anything "on the Left" compares to Breitbart.

It's unique.


Breitbart is Trump's media outlet, so it's obviously going to be very biased.
I don't really care about the source, I want to actually hear people (guests) and also pay attention to properly quoted people in articles. Even all these biased news outlets have information that can be trusted as long as they are not opinion pieces twisting words or events to make them mean something they don't.


I told you we agree on stuff.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Spying on Trump. When you say that, is that a collective reference for anyone associated with him or his businesses or his campaign?

Because, based on what I know, there hasn't been any indication that Trump HIMSELF was surveilled.

As far as Trump Tower goes ... that's 54 stories of mixed use space including residences. Many people live there.

To say that "Trump Tower was surveilled" is so vague and general is to be basically meaningless.

But, not for nothing, Paul Manafort did live there during the campaign.


Both Trump and his campaign.
There is a claim that Trump's server was monitored as well as the FISA request for monitoring the Russians that swept up some people in his campaign (and some others).

I am hoping the investigation - which seems like it will progress as a public hearing - will provide the answers as to exactly what went on both from the aspect of the surveillance and what was found.



Wait, they got a FISA warrant for TT in the hope that a Russian would call?

Is that their thinking?




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Here's an interesting question to ponder ... several in the discussion have complained about Obama's late EO that changed the rules for sharing sensitive information ...

... anyone noticed that Trump hasn't done anything about that?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Spying on Trump. When you say that, is that a collective reference for anyone associated with him or his businesses or his campaign?

Because, based on what I know, there hasn't been any indication that Trump HIMSELF was surveilled.

As far as Trump Tower goes ... that's 54 stories of mixed use space including residences. Many people live there.

To say that "Trump Tower was surveilled" is so vague and general is to be basically meaningless.

But, not for nothing, Paul Manafort did live there during the campaign.


Both Trump and his campaign.
There is a claim that Trump's server was monitored as well as the FISA request for monitoring the Russians that swept up some people in his campaign (and some others).

I am hoping the investigation - which seems like it will progress as a public hearing - will provide the answers as to exactly what went on both from the aspect of the surveillance and what was found.



Wait, they got a FISA warrant for TT in the hope that a Russian would call?

Is that their thinking?



IMHO they were desperate to avoid a Trump Administration because all of them have legal issues and would inevitably be targets of investigations -- especially Bill Clinton's wife.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

There is a claim that Trump's server was monitored as well as the FISA request for monitoring the Russians that swept up some people in his campaign (and some others).



There was also a claim that Jim Comey directed the DOJ to refute Trump's accusations. So, are you cherry picking your 'claims'?



I am hoping the investigation - which seems like it will progress as a public hearing - will provide the answers as to exactly what went on both from the aspect of the surveillance and what was found.


Sure you are.


Actually no. I have not refuted that there is a CLAIM that Comey asked the DoJ to refute Trumps accusation against Obama. In fact, I posted some links to it.
Claims are one thing, assuming they are true is another.
I think you may have jumped a little there without thinking it through.


I agree completely. Assuming they are true are absolutely another thing. So the argument here is that Trump is 100% telling the truth because he made claims, but professional journalists are lying or fabricating because they have reported on a claim. This has been a central theme throughout this entire thread has it not?

So again I ask, which cherry-picked claims are the ones that should be given validity and which should be tossed away?
I thought it through just fine.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

And, in fairness, if Obama is revealed to be the dark mastermind of a heinous plot to listen in on Mr. Trump's ... what, masterful campaign strategies? I'll certainly come back here and admit that I was wrong.



And I would be right there with you to help tie the noose....if Obama actually DID, it turns out, order wiretapping on a civilian, he should pay the maximum penalty for that...as we've maintained from the start.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 287  288  289    291  292  293 >>

log in

join