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: 377
158
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Gotta make sure my high standards of evidence are met


Expecting a bare minimum of rational thinking expected of a grade-schooler is not high standards..

Do not encourage the normalization of stupidity and lies..



edit on 23-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Gotta make sure my high standards of evidence are met


Expecting a bare minimum of rational thinking expected of a grade-schooler is not high standards..

Do not encourage the normalization of stupidity and lies..




If the drivel you post day in day out is your view of 'high standards of evidence' then anyone can literally post whatever they hear as fact and perfectly meet your standards.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Good luck with that, but if your list includes anything referring to Nunes release from yesterday then you are on the wrong track. Incidental collection is 100% legal.

Also, please skip anything dealing with trying to paint Obama as a serial wiretapper. I only want to see evidence that DIRECTLY implicates Obama in wiretapping Trump in 2016. Otherwise you are just gaslighting.

Gotta make sure my high standards of evidence are met because after reading your earlier standards of evidence I'm not confident that the information you provide me will meet my standards. I feel like it will be partisan biased and full of your opinions. Thus I want to explain to you now what I want so you can't accuse me of deflecting.


To be honest, if this existed I think we would have no reason to keep FISA around. I mean, if you and I were given access, instead of "I cannot comment"....

In other words: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not that we shouldn't rely on probability. Which is the rub here: everybody has their own probability formula that they filter information through. On the one hand, the heads of our law enforcement state clearly there was no illegal wiretaps on Trump, nor were there any taps on Trump Tower during the election (I think is the gist of it). On the other hand....1 year ago none of us trusted either of these 2 agencies.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Gotta make sure my high standards of evidence are met


Expecting a bare minimum of rational thinking expected of a grade-schooler is not high standards..

Do not encourage the normalization of stupidity and lies..



Merely just giving him the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I did. One of the beauties of government compartmentalization is that you can distrust them one day while being mostly confident about something else they say elsewhere. I may have considered them not entirely on the level or somewhat sneaky at times, but I certainly trusted them when they make official statements.

People often make the mistake of thinking that the government is all working in concert to deprive rights from us. That's a lie. The government is filled with people like you and I. With the same biases and desires. It may not always be truthful, but the way it is designed makes it at the very least, trustworthy.
edit on 23-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You are a consistent propagandist and liar..

That's not personal..It's observation.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Well, Bobby Woodward says there will be people arrested due to unmasking.
I am not going to debate his statement simply because when he makes a statement such as this, he is a messenger to those who are smart enough to listen.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Buck
edit on 23-3-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71




Well, Bobby Woodward says there will be people arrested due to unmasking.

You know, there is a difference between "will be arrested" and what he actually said.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: flatbush71




Well, Bobby Woodward says there will be people arrested due to unmasking.

You know, there is a difference between "will be arrested" and what he actually said.

What did he actually say?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

The poster provided a link.
Read it.
edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

You are a consistent propagandist and liar..

That's not personal..It's observation.



Awww.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
You guys can glad-hand all round about Mr. Trump's win, and without a doubt based on the facts we have before us, he is the President of the United States.

However, of the last four Presidents, his Electoral College "win" is only higher than GW Bush's two "wins" which were among the most narrow in history.

He received 45% of the vote from those who voted, which means that 55% didn't vote for him.

And as pointed out, when the American population as a whole is considered, there is simply no basis to claim at any point that "the American People want Trump."

That's just patently untrue.

I believed Mr. Trump on Election Night when he claimed he wanted to be the President "for all Americans."

However, every single action he's officially and unofficially taken have disproved that claim.

All those who lamented about Obama's "divisiveness" should be screaming at the top of their lungs about Trump's ... interestingly, the reverse is true.

Not surprisingly, you might note.

The American people are not happy with Trump. Those of you who are at various stages of "Trump love" can continue to kid yourselves if you wish ... and complain about "fake news" while you're quoting Fox and Breitbart ... but that's a fairly obvious fact.

Those of you who thought Obama was "a tyrant" for using EOs are mute on Trump's.

Given these things, are you really surprised that so many who are politically Moderate and/or Independent speak out against this ... travesty?



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

Good luck with that, but if your list includes anything referring to Nunes release from yesterday then you are on the wrong track. Incidental collection is 100% legal.

Also, please skip anything dealing with trying to paint Obama as a serial wiretapper. I only want to see evidence that DIRECTLY implicates Obama in wiretapping Trump in 2016. Otherwise you are just gaslighting.

Gotta make sure my high standards of evidence are met because after reading your earlier standards of evidence I'm not confident that the information you provide me will meet my standards. I feel like it will be partisan biased and full of your opinions. Thus I want to explain to you now what I want so you can't accuse me of deflecting.


So, I get back from lunch, scan the thread, see your post, and bust out laughing.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that was this a joke. YOU set the standards of evidence for ME?

No thanks. Regardless of what you might think, you're not smarter than me. If you were, I'd let you know.

And as far as impugning my "earlier standards of evidence" (whatever that means) -- again, a truly ignorant statement. This is ATS, not the Supreme Court. The evidence presented is always going to be a news report, third party, or anecdotal. Usually a combination of the three.

I'm not the FBI. I don't have the investigative ability your standard of evidence would demand.

Neither do you.

Which almost makes me think you established this practically unattainable and narrow standard of evidence because you don't want to know the truth.



edit on 23-3-2017 by SBMcG because: Bill Clinton's wife lost the popular vote too!



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You guys can glad-hand all round about Mr. Trump's win, and without a doubt based on the facts we have before us, he is the President of the United States.

However, of the last four Presidents, his Electoral College "win" is only higher than GW Bush's two "wins" which were among the most narrow in history.



Honestly Gryph... He's our Potus..I agree with the right wing hordes on that one..No mandate...by a historically ridiculous margin..without the popular vote etc...but our potus all the same.

I am more interested in the erupting mountain of evidence that Trump and his associates worked with a foreign power to corrupt our free elections.

What we have in the public sphere alone right now makes Watergate look quaint.

Trump's short term survival is contingent on him earning the GOPs protection in congress..And his long term survival is not viable.

Short term...he has delivered a giant lump of fail thus far...with the greatest exhibit being a failed healthcare repeal..

There is no win there for the GOP..Vote for it? Pay in 2018..Fail to pass a repeal ..Pay in 2018..

It's a whole lot of suck in Trump world right now..

The GOP are running out of reasons to shelter a traitor..
edit on 23-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Expecting a bare minimum of rational thinking expected of a grade-schooler is not high standards..

Do not encourage the normalization of stupidity and lies..



I doubt you could read most of the words on my resume, sport.

A lot of folks on ATS are well-educated, a few probably more so than me, but you aren't one of them.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Indigo5

Expecting a bare minimum of rational thinking expected of a grade-schooler is not high standards..

Do not encourage the normalization of stupidity and lies..



I doubt you could read most of the words on my resume, sport.

A lot of folks on ATS are well-educated, a few probably more so than me, but you aren't one of them.


You keep saying that kind of nonsense...Part of my world is screening and recruiting research scientists...

You have failed in past posts on basic math..

I do appreciate that you compensate for whatever is going on your own existence with a fantasy world...everybody needs a construct to get up in the morning..but the sell that you are somehow brilliant is disproved by your own posts consistently...




edit on 23-3-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Stormdancer777

You might like this piece as it brings into question Crowdstrike

Crowdstrike had based its numbers for "excessive losses" of Ukrainian artillery units on statistics collected by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The IISS now says that its statistic do not provide what Crowdstrike claimed. There were no "excessive losses" of Ukrainian artillery. VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn’t reached out beforehand for comment or clarification. In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.

It seems that the whole "Ukrainian artillery hack" claims by Crowdstrike was simply made up. There was no "hack" and the claimed damage from the "hack" did not occur at all. Crowdstrike evidently found a "crime" and "Russian hacking" where none had happened. In the case of the DNC hacking Crowdstrike also alleged a "crime" and "Russian hacking". No hard evidence was ever provided for that claim, no competent police force ever investigated the crime scene and serious security researchers found that the Crowdstrike claims were likely taken from hot air.
Fool Me Once ... DNC Ally Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases Of "Russian Hacking" - One At Least Was Fake www.moonofalabama.org...


Thank you, I
need to read over a few times,along with the last link I posted



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Fact Check: Four Major Holes In Rep. Adam Schiff’s Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory

www.breitbart.com...


Sorry..."Fact Check" and Bannons Briebart together in one sentence is ridiculous ...


Only time will tell,

When I post something acceptable will you let me know, I am going to go over this again and fact check it myself,



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I agree, that's why my first statement was "He's the President."

The office itself is owed a certain amount of respect, regardless of the man occupying it.

However, in Trump's case he has pursued a ridiculously extremist agenda, and has for the most part, failed at every turn. Failed (face-first) on the Muslim Travel Ban, failed on Repeal and Replace today, has caused one crisis after another both internationally and domestically, etc. etc.

There was no pivot toward the center where most Americans are ... not even a tiny one. If ANYTHING, he has become more ludicrous in his fringe-based beliefs.

I don't know what will happen, although I have some strong beliefs as I've stated earlier in this thread ... but ... even if he is resigns, or is impeached or tried and convicted, etc. that's not going to resolve America's biggest problem ...

We are a nation divided against ourselves.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Fact Check: Four Major Holes In Rep. Adam Schiff’s Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory

www.breitbart.com...


Sorry..."Fact Check" and Bannons Briebart together in one sentence is ridiculous ...


Only time will tell,

When I post something acceptable will you let me know, I am going to go over this again and fact check it myself,


Not that I didn't read it all the same...but it was nonsense as I expected.



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 374  375  376    378  379  380 >>

log in

join