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.

 

Kellyanne Conway suggests even wider surveillance of Trump campaign

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

A victim?

LOL.

Keep telling yourself that.

You've run from every discussion you've had with me, usually because it becomes obvious that you've run out of buzzwords and have been confronted with the very obvious limitations of your arguments.

Let me know when you can hold up your end of the debate for more than a few responses before crying "I know you are but what am I!" and stomping off.

Pfft.
edit on 14-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

The first tip-off to her brilliance is that she got the Donald elected! Well, she and Hillary together got it done.

Your smug dismal of that intellect means you will refuse to learn from it. That's a slippery slope you're on.


She got Trump elected, eh? Well, gosh I would have thought he might have had something to do with it.

My "smug dismissal"??? I'm asking the Kelly advocates for evidence of this brilliance I keep hearing about, and so far ... nothing.



She's the first female to run a successful presidential campaign. And she did it with a non-politician! Do you really think that is something a sack of rocks could accomplish? It doesn't make one bit of difference what her IQ might be---her accomplishment is brilliant. To deny that is to deny reality.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Gryphon66

The first tip-off to her brilliance is that she got the Donald elected! Well, she and Hillary together got it done.

Your smug dismal of that intellect means you will refuse to learn from it. That's a slippery slope you're on.


She got Trump elected, eh? Well, gosh I would have thought he might have had something to do with it.

My "smug dismissal"??? I'm asking the Kelly advocates for evidence of this brilliance I keep hearing about, and so far ... nothing.



She's the first female to run a successful presidential campaign. And she did it with a non-politician! Do you really think that is something a sack of rocks could accomplish? It doesn't make one bit of difference what her IQ might be---her accomplishment is brilliant. To deny that is to deny reality.


Have I ever called Kelly Ann a "sack of rocks"? Not even close. Strawman argument.

It doesn't matter what her IQ is ... she's brilliant anyway?

So you're defining brilliant to be "something I like"?

Fair enough, it's obvious you like Ms. Conway: therefore to you, she's brilliant.

To me, she's a great PR person because God knows... anyone else would have dumped Trump months ago. She does deserve some recognition as following up Paul Manafort and running Trump's campaign. Absolutely. I'm glad to see you appreciating the accomplishments of women for their own sake.

However my observation remains: if she's pushed off the message she has prepared she says very silly things like "alternative facts" and "microwaves turn into cameras" etc. etc. I wouldn't call that stupid, per se, but it's not helping the credibility of the Administration.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
For clarity:


It doesn't make one bit of difference what her IQ might be---her accomplishment is brilliant.


See where I said her accomplishment was brilliant. People can do brilliant things without having an IQ that goes through the roof. She took a non-politician and did what all the "smart" money said couldn't be done.
I understand that you and the msm don't like her because you don't like smart women who disagree with you and win.
Because she's smarter than most of the people reporting on her, they don't like her. They make fools of themselves by calling her foolish for knowing more about microwaves than they do. It began when she got her man in office against all odds. That broke their hearts and made them mad.
And she's easy on the eyes to boot.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Indrasweb

That just shows that the WH is getting the evidence for its defense from the media.
Where was this high tech argument prior to Wikileaks release of similar technology?

Last week it was old school James Bond wire tapping. And Kellyannes response was that the president has access to information we do not have.
Fine.
But suddenly oh we have a bit more info. Which just happens to echo the latest Wikileaks release.
I don't know it all seems just a bit convenient. I raised three boys and I can tell when I'm being fed a story when details emerge with subsequent telling.


Yeah, I can see how it may look that way. That did cross my mind also. It does seem like a convenient coincidence and i can see how that might cast doubt in your mind.
However, as I said previously, perhaps it's better to wait and see what proof is presented, if any, before arriving at a conclusion.

I guess it just comes down to personal perspective; I generally prefer to wait and see. I file the vast majority of things under "don't know" until there's sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Others prefer to go with their gut feeling on things most of the time, which can also have it's merits.

I personally feel that instinct or 'gut feeling' is useful in face to face human interactions and evaluating immediate situations. I think the nature of the unconscious mind and the ability of the brain to evaluate huge amounts of hidden or subtle information, environmental cues, body language etc without the conscious mind fully apprehending it is very powerful indeed. However, it is of very limited use when dealing with matters such as this, where you're removed from the situation and only have access to very limited information, variables etc. In that case I find the objective evaluation method to yield more reliable results.

To each his own of course



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Obama requested the Trump data through GCHQ (British CIA/NSA equiv.) to keep the American NSA/CIA/FBI/DIA fingerprints off the data stream. This is the international data sharing cooperation agreement in conjunction with the Patriot Act (and other crap) to "combat terrorism".



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

So, as I said, you've defined the word "brilliant" for yourself.

The member that I was responding to, stated clearly, that brilliant was describing Conways' IQ.

I don't want to take anything away from Ms. Conways achievement, but just for the record, she became affiliated with the campaign on July 1, 2016, by which time he had already won the primaries and the nomination. Before that, she had supported Ted Cruz. She wasn't made campaign manager until August 19. and she was the third one. She directed the campaign for 10 weeks. (Reference

You're making silly statements when you say that I don't like smart women. Now you're contradicting yourself that "brilliant" has to do with intellect. You think she's "smarter than most of the people reporting on her."

So when you figure out whether you think she's brilliant because of her achievements or because of her intellect, let me know.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The Russians did it all. Kellyanne was window dressing.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: tkwasny

Oh REAAAAALLLY?

Then why is it that Sean Spicer recently told reporters that Mr Trump did not mean that Mr Obama had ordered a wire tap specifically, but was instead referring to the Obama administration in general, and surveillance techniques in general? I mean, is Sean Spicer wrong?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I just dove into this thread after hearing the Conway quote on the radio for the first time. The first thing that came to my mind after hearing her quote was the XBOX Kinect, you know that thing that many people have in their family room.

It is essentially a microwave camera that is connected to the internet. She never said microwave ovens, come on people.

I doubt she even knew herself and was just regurgitating something a source told her. But to twist this into her being insane thinking that microwave ovens are watching us is just uninformed ignorance.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I am SO sorry! Completely missed this one.




...She's just too cute. Really.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

She won! She did what all the intellectuals said couldn't possibly be done. You can minimize it all you like, in the end she won and I for one don't think the Russians had anything to do with it.

It's apparent you don't like smart women who win---your passive/aggressive isn't fooling anybody. It is also obvious that she knows things that the people reporting on her didn't know so they made fools of themselves. It is rather amusing to see them wither and die on the vine so to speak because they couldn't be bothered to use the Google function on their smart device.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




She won!

Huh.
I though Trump won. It was all Kellyanne?


edit on 3/15/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
So here is a microwave camera brought to you by MIT, looks to me like it's not useful for much in the context Conway implied.
spectrum.ieee.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Conway said "microwaves that turn into cameras", not "microwave cameras."



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I know, I know..just being charitable.
What did she really mean?..who knows, I figure she knows just enough to be dangerous.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Perhaps she meant (and I paraphrase), "Oh crap. He did it again. Now I have to sound stupider than him. Again."



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

She took one for the team..again



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nope. Someone misinformed you. She won too! She ran the winning campaign so she gets to claim the victory. Now I'll be the first to admit that she has tons of help from the opposition. But in the end she won and he won and a lot of others won as well. She won a campaign against the Democrats and the msm. And still the non-thinkers and low-information folk call her stupid. I think it's probably jealousy and fear that drives them to spout such foolishness.

I know---it sounds crazy, eh? The msm and Dems made sure we heard how horribly stupid the candidate was and what a bimbo he'd hired to run his campaign. Now they're being shown to be ...less than reliable in their assessments. And if tonight's display on msm is any indication, it would seem they are finally going over the edge.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Idiots think the electronics in a microwave oven is what Conway was talking about.

Microwave pencil beams are sent through a window on to a metal surface. That metal surface vibrates with every sound in the room. The minute variations in the metal target are detected in the ultra stable frequency microwave are de-modulated back at the klystron microwave receiver. These de-modulated variations in vibration and converted into the exact, same sound that was in the room.

Ancient surveillance technology back to 1970's but it works far better with today's hardware and software.
edit on 15-3-2017 by tkwasny because: Typo fix




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join