More Never Trumpers waking up to the Russia collusion farce, when will you?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

So now you are claiming Obama helped Trump get elected?

well in the sense he was such a crappy president that people voted for trump, you are right.

But if you are claiming he used his adminstartion to intentionaly help Trump, you are so delusional its absurd.

Lets remember what your initial claim was again.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

There is no spin needed, you are the one spinning trying to argue semantics about the word spy.

Obamas fbi sent a spy to trumps team to get info on people in his campaign.

Period.

I’m not spinning anything, actually quite the opposite. I’m asking for evidence that is valid without being spun. Objective, clear evidence of what you are accusing.

I just believe this is where our source of disconnect over this subject is. I don’t start off with the idea that the leaders of the two parties are at war with each other, because what’s the point? The other side will be back in power in 4-8 years. I don’t follow the media (any media) so I see this whole notion of some battle between the parties as an invented farce.

Believe whatever you want. I just need actual evidence that Obama worked behind the scenes to mess up Trumps chances at winning. Because what actually happened, speaks to the opposite of that.

There will be no proof good enough for you, no matter what.

You believe that Obama wanted trump to win and helped him, which is surreal and there is no evidence at all for.

As a result, when evidence of Obamas admin placing a spy to report on trumps team comes up, you assume this couldnt be the case because Obama wanted trump to win.

And this you spin the definition of the word spy and say this was just an informant.

Again, please point me to evidence. Not your interpretation of an article that you claim as evidence.

Real evidence stands up by itself without you having to interpret it for everyone. Either you have irrefutable evidence, or you don’t.

It’s simple. And doesn’t require page upon page of you trying to discredit me.

Still waiting.

I dont know what is so hard for you to understand.

I you asked for evidence that the Obama admin put spies on the trump campaign

I provided you evidence that they sent a man in in secret, to get info on trumps campaign, and report back to them.

You say "Well thats not spying"

And you then have the nerve to say I am spinning stuff.

Forgetting about how the NYT article you keep throwing up doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say, let’s try with a simple yes or no question.

Do you have unrefutable, clear evidence that spells out with no room for doubt that Obama sent spies in to Trumps campaign? Not an article. Not your interpretation of events.

Clear concise evidence that incriminates Obama in directing people to spy on Trump?

Yes or no?

(The only actual evidence is the evidence that leaves no room for doubt. Unless you have that, you only have a partisan opinion. If you’re into that, have at it. But I’m seeing it’s a lost cause trying to get you to understand another point of view besides your own.)

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

So now you are claiming Obama helped Trump get elected?

well in the sense he was such a crappy president that people voted for trump, you are right.

But if you are claiming he used his adminstartion to intentionaly help Trump, you are so delusional its absurd.

Lets remember what your initial claim was again.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

There is no spin needed, you are the one spinning trying to argue semantics about the word spy.

Obamas fbi sent a spy to trumps team to get info on people in his campaign.

Period.

I’m not spinning anything, actually quite the opposite. I’m asking for evidence that is valid without being spun. Objective, clear evidence of what you are accusing.

I just believe this is where our source of disconnect over this subject is. I don’t start off with the idea that the leaders of the two parties are at war with each other, because what’s the point? The other side will be back in power in 4-8 years. I don’t follow the media (any media) so I see this whole notion of some battle between the parties as an invented farce.

Believe whatever you want. I just need actual evidence that Obama worked behind the scenes to mess up Trumps chances at winning. Because what actually happened, speaks to the opposite of that.

There will be no proof good enough for you, no matter what.

You believe that Obama wanted trump to win and helped him, which is surreal and there is no evidence at all for.

As a result, when evidence of Obamas admin placing a spy to report on trumps team comes up, you assume this couldnt be the case because Obama wanted trump to win.

And this you spin the definition of the word spy and say this was just an informant.

Again, please point me to evidence. Not your interpretation of an article that you claim as evidence.

Real evidence stands up by itself without you having to interpret it for everyone. Either you have irrefutable evidence, or you don’t.

It’s simple. And doesn’t require page upon page of you trying to discredit me.

Still waiting.

I dont know what is so hard for you to understand.

I you asked for evidence that the Obama admin put spies on the trump campaign

I provided you evidence that they sent a man in in secret, to get info on trumps campaign, and report back to them.

You say "Well thats not spying"

And you then have the nerve to say I am spinning stuff.

Forgetting about how the NYT article you keep throwing up doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say, let’s try with a simple yes or no question.

Do you have unrefutable, clear evidence that spells out with no room for doubt that Obama sent spies in to Trumps campaign? Not an article. Not your interpretation of events.

Clear concise evidence that incriminates Obama in directing people to spy on Trump?

Yes or no?

(The only actual evidence is the evidence that leaves no room for doubt. Unless you have that, you only have a partisan opinion. If you’re into that, have at it. But I’m seeing it’s a lost cause trying to get you to understand another point of view besides your own.)

So articles arent evidence, even when just aboput all news sources have reported on it, and none disagreed?


SO what would count as evidence? A video with me and Obama and him yucking it up that he is spying on Trump?

Please.

Like you dont have opinions on things citing articles.

But fine, I will remember thart every single time you say something.

YTou have no proof for any of your opinions on most things then.

And yes, the NYT article does say exactly what I quoted it as saying, that the FBI had an informant get info about meetings with trump and report back to them.

You have proven that you are in fact not interested in "changing your mind" as I knew you would, and is evident by your constant goal post chaninging in this thread.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree if there was corruption in the FBI then that would be worth worrying about. However, my point of view is that conservatives are desperately painting a picture that isn’t real. I am against disinformation like what has been coming out of conservative news outlets because I think they are trying to use it as illegitimate ammo to end the investigation unjustly, or even worse, ammunition to do a partisan attack on Democrats and the Justice Department.

I am going to sit back and try and unravel the web of lies conservatives are weaving these days. I admit I have a lot to look at, although what I’ve looked at so far supports my theory. It will be quite a project.

a reply to: face23785

I agree with your assessment about the Russia investigation here. Let it finish so it’s findings are legitimate and then we will have a clear picture of what happened. My view is that Trump and friends did a few things wrong out of arrogance but not to the point of colluding with Russia 100%.

Dp

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Grambler

I agree if there was corruption in the FBI then that would be worth worrying about. However, my point of view is that conservatives are desperately painting a picture that isn’t real. I am against disinformation like what has been coming out of conservative news outlets because I think they are trying to use it as illegitimate ammo to end the investigation unjustly, or even worse, ammunition to do a partisan attack on Democrats and the Justice Department.

I am going to sit back and try and unravel the web of lies conservatives are weaving these days. I admit I have a lot to look at, although what I’ve looked at so far supports my theory. It will be quite a project.

Is the NYT a conservtive oputlet? How about the washington post?

How about jimmy dore, Trump hating, bernie and jill stein supporting progressive?



How about the Intercept, ed snowden friend and progressive, trump hating publication?

Over the past several weeks, House Republicans have been claiming that the FBI during the 2016 election used an operative to spy on the Trump campaign, and they triggered outrage within the FBI by trying to learn his identity. The controversy escalated when President Trump joined the fray on Friday morning. “Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” Trump tweeted, adding: “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true – all time biggest political scandal!”

In response, the DOJ and the FBI’s various media spokespeople did not deny the core accusation, but quibbled with the language (the FBI used an “informant,” not a “spy”), and then began using increasingly strident language to warn that exposing his name would jeopardize his life and those of others, and also put American national security at grave risk.

...

To begin with, the New York Times reported in December of last year that the FBI investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia began when George Papadopoulos drunkenly boasted to an Australian diplomat about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was the disclosure of this episode by the Australians that “led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired,” the NYT claimed.

But it now seems clear that Halper’s attempts to gather information for the FBI began before that.

...

Equally strange are the semantic games which journalists are playing in order to claim that this revelation disproves, rather than proves, Trump’s allegation that the FBI “spied” on his campaign. This bizarre exchange between CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski and the New York Times’ Trip Gabriel vividly illustrates the strange machinations used by journalists to justify how all of this is being characterized:

...

Whatever else is true, the CIA operative and FBI informant used to gather information on the Trump campaign in the 2016 campaign has, for weeks, been falsely depicted as a sensitive intelligence asset rather than what he actually is: a long-time CIA operative with extensive links to the Bush family who was responsible for a dirty and likely illegal spying operation in the 1980 presidential election. For that reason, it’s easy to understand why many people in Washington were so desperate to conceal his identity, but that desperation had nothing to do with the lofty and noble concerns for national security they claimed were motivating them.

theintercept.com... ential-election/

These people hate trump[ and are as left as you can get, and they are calling this out.

So its not just conservative outlets lying.

a reply to: darkbake

you can wait for the IG report. That should spell things out pretty clear I'd say.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: face23785

I now see this as an illegal attempted coup of a sitting president.

It would be difficult to reconcile the past 2 years without taking this into consideration - they stacked the deck in their(her) favour, then further attempted to rig the game right up until November, having all the TVs spouting the likes of '93% chance of winning' crap in all directions hoping it would stick.

Then on November 9th, suddenly the Russians were front page - weird!

Truth.

As an Independent who votes all over the political spectrum (Ross Perot...TWICE!) I watch as an outsider, always.

Not even the right went this far with the whole birth certificate thing. There was never a special council appointed to decide if Obama was a citizen, there was never a look into his potentially shady dealings whatsoever. There was a bunch of citizens who said it, but in the end, so what? Their words never amounted to anything. I personally did not once question anything about him, but his policies.

However, the left has taken it to new heights, and it's actually bordering on treasonous. There are actually people who believe Trump personally colluded with Putin.

Fact : The Russians played both sides against each other looking for discord. They got it. The left are far more emotional, and therefore gullible, and they fell for it.

I was rather amused at first, but I'm getting to the point where that's turning to anger. I'm not the only one. When you've lost the Independents, you've lost your chance.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Hillary and Obama colluded with the media to sway an election.


And no one says a word.

The media that gave Trump Billions of dollars of free air time?

The media that didnt stop talking about Clinton Emails?

The media that cut from a Sanders speech to an empty Trump podium?

Yes, someone totally colluded with the media... but it wasnt who you keep harping on.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don’t know how anyone but the most desperate can still entertain it.

I don't know how anyone but the most desperate can still so willingly dismiss it.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sillyolme

"She won the popular vote."

Seems like the apt reply here as it is muttered whenever an opening presents itself.

We repeat that because Trump and his supporters like to claim he is the most popular president ever with the biggest electoral win in ages (both of which are flat wrong).

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Hillary and Obama colluded with the media to sway an election.


And no one says a word.

Including Burney. What a shmuck. He caught them red-handed working against him and then became a supporter. Makes me wonder what kind of deal he made since I'm sure he too thought Hillary was bound to win. He probably had a cabinet position lined up.

Sec State, that's how it works, right?

Obama and his Intel heads knew about russian "meddling" long before Trump ran.

He told putin to "cut it out"

Hillary most likely knew also as SoS and given her paid oppo from steel and the russians was the pivot.

The DNC "hack," Podesta's emails, a hundred other little things they try to tie together through the MSM and useful idiots, no matter how tenuous.

Spies, unmasking and FISA warrants.

So most of the con was already set up before Mueller came on. "(insurance policy)"

Fairly well orchestrated but missing a crime for actual legitimacy.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

Don’t accuse me of being all over the place because I’m trying to hit the goalposts you are constantly dragging everywhere.

Informant doesn’t mean spy in this context. I know you don’t want to face that, because that’s the one thing this entire theory hangs on. But that’s what it is. It takes some nebulous definition of “spy” to make this even halfway work. Which is why I call crap on it.

Nebolous definition of spy?

What are you talking about?

from googles dictionary, number one entry.

spy

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

www.google.com...=spy

from dictionary.com

spy

noun, plural spies.

a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs.
a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:

www.dictionary.com...

Webster

Definition of spy
plural spies
1 : one that spies:
a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information
b : a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; also : a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another

www.merriam-webster.com...

Please post the definition you are using.

In all three of these definitions, what the FBI did meets the criteria easily.

The FBI sent in a person to gather information in secret against their bosses (Obama) competitor.

Again, this argument is so stupid.

By your definition then, Trump should be allowed to place "informants" into any Democrats team he wants, because he wouldnt be spying.

Now what is the LEGAL definition of informant and spy?

If you look into those you might find the answer.

originally posted by: RickinVa
People who hate Trump will do anything and justify any means necessary to try and remove him from office.

Nothing will change their minds, it is pointless to even try.

People who are stuck up his MAGA ass will do anything to turn a blind eye to the abundance of evidence throughout the campaign that is increasingly coming to light, because they keep moving the goalposts and changing the narrative to keep it in their favor.

It's pretty sad.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: face23785
Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

Remember, Trumps words aren’t worth the air used to say them, so you’re going to have to do better than his statements and the theories of the right wing echo chamber that are based off of them.

Well, the NYT and Washington post articles pretty much admitted that the FBI sent a spy to get info from trump team members.

And I havent seen that disputed in any credible way, only the claim it was an "informant" not spy, which is laughable.

Bit I dont mind people being skeptical.

So you are saying if it does come out that the FBI sent Stefan Halper to get info on people like Page Papadopoulos and others, then you will change your mind?

Links to those articles that say without a doubt that the FBI sent spies into the Trump campaign?

I have already told you, the articles use the term "informant" which is just a clever way to try to differentiate this from the word spy.

But yes the articles exist showing that.

Many of them.

Here is the first one from the NYT.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.

So they were after one of his advisors, and not Trump. Anything saying they were after Trump personally? Or are we making the leap in logic that people Trump surrounds himself with being under surveillance means he, himself was the target?

Those are two different things, which the president is trying to conflate to control the narrative the way he wants.

Now wait, you are now changing what you said.

Allow me to remind you.

Hey I’m willing to change my mind. All you have to do is show me any evidence (ANY) that the Obama administration planted a “spy” in Trumps campaign, and that people in the Trump campaign didn’t just get swept up in surveillance because of the shady people they were communicating with.

You said if it was shown people in trups campaign were spied on, you would change your mind.

That is what this artilce showed.

Now you want proof they were directly after trump?

I think that is not necessary to show abuse. Were the watergate people spying on just directly documents from MCGovern, or were they disgusting and criminal for spying on behavior of the campaign in general?

If the FBI was spying on trumps team, it would have clearly effected trump himself in a very negative way.

And by your own standards of what you said about "Trumps campaign" potentially being spied on, this should change your mind.

The relevant parts for context are the words before the ones you bolded, and the ones after. Picking out two parts of that statement and trying to make it say what you want doesn’t work. And is part of the problem.

Nothing you or the article said leads toward any evidence of the Obama administration planting a spy in Trumps campaign. Which is what this is supposedly about. I mean, that’s what Trump himself said. And it’s what I said I wanted to see evidence of. If there is any.

Man you are all over the place.

SO your last post said basically prove that this spy spied on trump himself.

When I show you that you originally didnt say it had to be on trump himself, but his campaign, you now say this isnt proof of a spy.

So are you another claiming that Halper was only an "informant" and thus not a spy? Or are you denying the FBI ever sent Halper?

Don’t accuse me of being all over the place because I’m trying to hit the goalposts you are constantly dragging everywhere.

Informant doesn’t mean spy in this context. I know you don’t want to face that, because that’s the one thing this entire theory hangs on. But that’s what it is. It takes some nebulous definition of “spy” to make this even halfway work. Which is why I call crap on it.

Nebolous definition of spy?

What are you talking about?

from googles dictionary, number one entry.

spy

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

www.google.com...=spy

from dictionary.com

spy

noun, plural spies.

a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs.
a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.
a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:

www.dictionary.com...

Webster

Definition of spy
plural spies
1 : one that spies:
a : one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information
b : a person employed by one nation to secretly convey classified information of strategic importance to another nation; also : a person who conveys the trade secrets of one company to another

www.merriam-webster.com...

Please post the definition you are using.

In all three of these definitions, what the FBI did meets the criteria easily.

The FBI sent in a person to gather information in secret against their bosses (Obama) competitor.

Again, this argument is so stupid.

By your definition then, Trump should be allowed to place "informants" into any Democrats team he wants, because he wouldnt be spying.

Now what is the LEGAL definition of informant and spy?

If you look into those you might find the answer.

Feel free to post them

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: RickinVa
People who hate Trump will do anything and justify any means necessary to try and remove him from office.

Nothing will change their minds, it is pointless to even try.

People who are stuck up his MAGA ass will do anything to turn a blind eye to the abundance of evidence throughout the campaign that is increasingly coming to light, because they keep moving the goalposts and changing the narrative to keep it in their favor.

It's pretty sad.

Seriously?

Who keeps changing definitions? Spy/informant, gross negligence/extremely careless, investigation/matter.

Talk about changing narratives!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

The semantics are quite comical.

I just want them to admit then that whatever the fbi under Obama did to trumps campaign, I guess we are calling it sending an informant.

That this is the new precedent and is completely acceptable, and trump should also be allowed to send informants from the FBI into all of his opponents.

Thats what they are arguing, that its ok, right?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: RickinVa
People who hate Trump will do anything and justify any means necessary to try and remove him from office.

Nothing will change their minds, it is pointless to even try.

People who are stuck up his MAGA ass will do anything to turn a blind eye to the abundance of evidence throughout the campaign that is increasingly coming to light, because they keep moving the goalposts and changing the narrative to keep it in their favor.

It's pretty sad.

Seriously?

Who keeps changing definitions? Spy/informant, gross negligence/extremely careless, investigation/matter.

Talk about changing narratives!

Thank you for proving my point.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

There you go with the logical fallacies.

Genetic fallacy

Can't refute anything she says, so just whine about the source. Classic you.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Your source is an obvious piece of propaganda and is based on one giant assumption.

There you go with the logical fallacies.

Genetic fallacy

Can't refute anything she says, so just whine about the source. Classic you.

Incorrect. I pointed out the assumptions made.

The fact you are using a propaganda source is secondary to it's employment of actual logical fallacies.