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

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Strzok's texts with Page seem to indicate something funky with regards to intent.

Those two people speak for the Left? And which texts prove the intent of the Left as whole, in regards to this new aspect?

Please provide a source.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

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

Which assumption is that?

The assumption that the Left, the media, etc, has fallen back on specific responses because of the "revelation" the Trump campaign has been spied on.

That assumes to know the intent behind their actions and assumes their actions are based on those new "revelations", which are not revelations. They are, in fact, conspiracy theories itself.

The source itself seems to rely on unfounded conspiracy and assumptions.

Crossfire Hurricane and the admission of an "informant (see spy)" in the Trump campaign are not conspiracy theories or assumption.

What world do you live on?

I live in this world and informant is not the same as a spy.

That sums it up right there.

This stupidity is epic.

Yes, the FBI sending someone to clandestinely gather info agianst the trump team and report back to them is a spy.

But I assume you would have no problem with Trump placing Infromants, NOT SPIES mind you, but informants into all of the dmeocrats teams and reporting back to him.

They would just be infomrants you see, not spies!

Hahaha!

How far you have fallen!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Strzok's texts with Page seem to indicate something funky with regards to intent.

Those two people speak for the Left? And which texts prove the intent of the Left as whole, in regards to this new aspect?

Please provide a source.

Left as a whole?

You didnt even want an investigation into the investigators like Strzok and Page!

You said only right wing nut bags wanted that.

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.

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.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

Even a Republican, one who sits on the intel committee, came out and said they were not being spied on.

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?

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

If this wasnt spying and the campaign wasnt the focus, why didnt the FBI tell the trump campaign they were worried about russian influence, and just question these members like Page instead of sending an "informant" (spy) to gather info without telling them?

The reason is because the team members were the target.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Reasonable request.

At this point, it appears to say it was "spying" is a disingenuous and wrong. The campaign was not the focus of the investigation. It was people they were surrounding themselves with that were.

Exactly. I doubt I’ll get any sort of actual evidence because, well there isn’t any.

This whole spy business is based off a disingenuous tweet by the president that people jumped to validate, using anything they could. You don’t get to the truth by starting with a conclusion and then searching for evidence to fit it. That’s what religious nuts do to try to make sense of things, and it seems Trump cultists do it too.

a reply to: underwerks

Kinda like that whole russian thing eh?

After the meeting last week McConnell was satisfied that the evidence for this investigation exists. Guilliani all but said that the arguments they are putting forth are only to influence the eventual decision to impeach or not impeach, which means it is pretty certain they have found impeachable material. Now it is all about releasing the name of the informant which all parties know cannot be done at this time. The Republicans know you are all so stuck in your persuasion that you will believe anything. You have all proven it. I just hope that once the truth registers in your brains, you decide to never be led around by a leash again.

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?

a reply to: Grambler

 (which seems very likely at this point) t

No it doesn't seem very likely. He is lying to you!

What is likely is he and his whole campaign colluded with Russia. It's not just likely it's obvious.
That's what everything is pointing to.
Secret meetings in NY Secret meetings in Russia, in Prague, in the middle of the Indian ocean that I bet they never thought Mueller would find out about.
It's over. He is done.
Payoffs and LLCs to handle them. The corruption is unprecedented.

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...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

 (which seems very likely at this point) t

No it doesn't seem very likely. He is lying to you!

What is likely is he and his whole campaign colluded with Russia. It's not just likely it's obvious.
That's what everything is pointing to.
Secret meetings in NY Secret meetings in Russia, in Prague, in the middle of the Indian ocean that I bet they never thought Mueller would find out about.
It's over. He is done.
Payoffs and LLCs to handle them. The corruption is unprecedented.

Its so obvious that you can provide no evidence at all of this collusion!

Secret meetings is proof?

Bill clinton had a secret meeting with Putin, and then got half a million from a russian state bank a week later, so I guess this is proof for you that Russia colluded with Hillary, right?

It does appear that there may be an unprecedented level of corruption, that is for sure.

And that is the intel agencies under Obama spying on his political adversary, while covering up crimes of hillary.

a reply to: face23785

I don't believe there is a collusion but you'd be an idiot to believe that both sides aren't going full Machiavelli.

Anyone has read The Prince would know both sides employ his tactics-installing fear into the voters like a wolf among sheep, believing we are too stupid to think for ourselves. I think Machiavelli should be banned from schools because it promotes dastardly schemes, or perhaps it should be taught to show us the error of our ways.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

Kinda like that whole russian thing eh?

If that’s the political lens you choose to view it through. The reality is that these people who were under surveillance had been on the FBI’s radar for years. For a variety of reasons.

How you extrapolate spies were being sent in to spy on Trump from that is beyond me. All it is, is the president trying to point the narrative in the direction he wants. Which is suspect in itself. If there was no wrong doing, let the investigation finish, and then rub it in everyone’s face that you were right.

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.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: face23785

Odd characterization by the author of groups that people fall into. I know there are others like myself who believe that Trump's campaign eagerly sought information from the Russians and that the Russians were all too willing to spy on both parties to get in favor with whoever won. The Democrats turned them away, but eager novices like DJT Jr hopped to the bait.

And I think there's enough evidence for that stance.

No, not really. In fact the evidence points in the other direction to your stance. The Hillary campaign were actively engaged in seeking information from the Russians and paid for it. It doesn't excuse them that they used a foreigner from a different country to do the legwork. The Trump/ Russian collusion conspiracy theory is dead and trying to hang on to it wreaks of an attempt to justify your own mental weakness at falling for the propaganda.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Yeah? Ask me. You won't get any but but but.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

Bull#

If we could only conclude and end all disagreement with such a phrase.