Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The White House has tried to soothe an angry Britain after suggesting that President Barack Obama used London’s spy agency to conduct secret surveillance on President Trump while he was a candidate last year.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said on Friday that “we’ve received assurances from the White House that these allegations would not be repeated.”

The GCHQ quickly and vehemently denied the contention in a rare statement issued by the spy agency on Thursday, calling the assertions “nonsense” and “utterly ridiculous.”

"Nothing they (the media) did was illegal".

There is an amazing tendency of liberals, when backed into a corner, of answering a question that bears no resemblance to what was asked. I didn't ask if it was illegal. It was not illegal for CNN to get debate questions ahead of time to Hilary. But if when that story breaks, all you care about is how it broke, and you could care less about the ethics of what was done, that shows blatant bias. If the election was influenced by the email release, the blame doesn't lie with who revealed the truth, the blame lies with the folks who acted in a way that would offend portion of the electorate. Don't blame the messenger.

"They thought she had a better chance".

So who cares if a majority of registered democrats wanted someone else? That's the difference between the 2 sides. No one in the GOP thought Trump had the best chance. That didn't motivate us to rig the primary against him. When the leaders of your side put their thumbs on the scales to get the candidate they want, regardless of what the citizens want, please tell me how that's different from fascism?

"They are not saying that so don't lie".

Hyperbole for laughs Paul. Is the media hellbent on connecting Trump to the Russians, despite the fact that there is zero evidence? How is that any different than Trump claiming that Obama wiretapped him, without evidence? Instead of taking my exaggeration literally, perhaps you could respond to the point that you well knew I was making?

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1118910
"They are not saying that so don't lie".

Hyperbole for laughs Paul. Is the media hellbent on connecting Trump to the Russians, despite the fact that there is zero evidence? How is that any different than Trump claiming that Obama wiretapped him, without evidence? Instead of taking my exaggeration literally, perhaps you could respond to the point that you well knew I was making?[/QUOTE]

There is a certain consistency in the big lie. If Trump is framed as a liar when he exaggerates, your hyperbole must also be called a lie. This is one of the many techniques that spymasters use. Also a technique of Alnskyites--i.e., current Democrats.

[scottw]

funny that when Clinton's/Obama's said things...on video...we were constantly told they didn't actually mean what they said...on video....repeatedly... if it came off in a bad light...and now...when someone tweets...which is the most difficult form of communication to judge tone and tenor....we're supposed to hold tweeters accountable for every word tweeted....

we appear to hold artful liars in much higher esteem than the bumbling variety....

you shouldn't put much stock in anything you read in tweets...particularly if the tweeter is orange and has funny hair

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

funny that when Clinton's/Obama's said things...on video...we were constantly told they didn't actually mean what they said...on video....repeatedly... if it came off in a bad light...and now...when someone tweets...which is the most difficult form of communication to judge tone and tenor....we're supposed to hold tweeters accountable for every word tweeted....

we appear to hold artful liars in much higher esteem than the bumbling variety....

you shouldn't put much stock in anything you read in tweets...particularly if the tweeter is orange and has funny hair

"when someone tweets...which is the most difficult form of communication to judge tone and tenor....we're supposed to hold tweeters accountable for every word tweeted"

Which is exactly why someone should tell Trump to back off.

I'll give him some benefit of the doubt on tone sometimes, for the reasons you stated. But when he flies off the handle that Obama personally went all Jack Bauer on him, snuck into Trump Tower like a ninja, and installed wiretaps...and there is zero evidence of that...then you can assign any tone you want to that, it makes Trump look ridiculous. If he wants to whine about being treated unfairly, he can make a compelling case (at least in regards to the media) without making stuff up. he has plenty of facts on his side.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it makes Trump look ridiculous.

maybe you have not noticed but this appears to be his recipe for success and for frustrating his detractors

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

maybe you have not noticed but this appears to be his recipe for success and for frustrating his detractors

I have noticed. But what gives him high ratings as host of 'The Apprentice', isn't translating into approval ratings as POTUS. And the stakes are a wee bit higher in his role as POTUS. He wasn't the leader of the free world as the host of 'The Apprentice', he was essentially a clown.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But what gives him high ratings as host of 'The Apprentice', isn't translating into approval ratings as POTUS.

with the constant media and left barrage and his missteps or calculated landmines placed to cause reactions(no one seems to be able to figure out which) and the general divide in the country...I wouldn't anticipate he'll ever enjoy high approval ratings

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Nothing they (the media) did was illegal".

There is an amazing tendency of liberals, when backed into a corner, of answering a question that bears no resemblance to what was asked. You don't think the RNC. had some of the same type of emails about Trump? Breitbart just leaked a tape of Ryan saying he won't support Trump so why wouldn't he had sent the same message in an email? What makes you think the Reps. during the primaries didn't favor someone else? I didn't ask if it was illegal. It was not illegal for CNN to get debate questions ahead of time to Hilary. But if when that story breaks, all you care about is how it broke, and you could care less about the ethics of what was done, that shows blatant bias. If the election was influenced by the email release, the blame doesn't lie with who revealed the truth, the blame lies with the folks who acted in a way that would offend portion of the electorate. Don't blame the messenger.So you are saying the Russians are blamless?

"They thought she had a better chance".

So who cares if a majority of registered democrats wanted someone else? That's the difference between the 2 sides. No one in the GOP thought Trump had the best chance. That didn't motivate us to rig the primary against him. You have no way of knowing - bc the Russians choose to hack the DNC and not the RNC. When the leaders of your side put their thumbs on the scales to get the candidate they want, regardless of what the citizens want, please tell me how that's different from fascism?

"They are not saying that so don't lie".
Hyperbole for laughs PaulOk I got it. When someone calls you out for a statement you come back and say it was sarcasm or hyperbole. Is the media hellbent on connecting Trump to the Russians, despite the fact that there is zero evidenceBc Trump's cabinet/advisors have had numerous contacts w/the Russians - including getting $ from them or surrogates. When asked, their answers have not fully answered the questions either. How is that any different than Trump claiming that Obama wiretapped him, without evidence? Instead of taking my exaggeration literally, perhaps you could respond to the point that you well knew I was making?

It is not an exaggeration. Look at everythng w/Flynn. Now he is an foreign agent of Turkey and had gotten $ when he was in Trump's cabinet.

You're telling me that if the situation was reversed, the Rep. wouldn't be all over this?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is not an exaggeration. Look at everythng w/Flynn. Now he is an foreign agent of Turkey and had gotten $ when he was in Trump's cabinet.

You're telling me that if the situation was reversed, the Rep. wouldn't be all over this?

"Look at everythng w/Flynn. Now he is an foreign agent of Turkey and had gotten $ when he was in Trump's cabinet. "

And Flynn is also a liar. But we don't know what he discussed with the Russian ambassador, so we can't pretend to know they discussed collusion or influencing the election.

"You're telling me that if the situation was reversed, the Rep. wouldn't be all over this"

I'd be reacting to what I know, sure. I am not in the habit of putting on a tin-foil hat and pontificating wildly about crazy conspiracies. I don't claim that Obama was involved in faking the moon landing. But I think he was a racist who hated the traditional, Judeo-Christian, view of America. I can back that up all day long with irrefutable facts that support my conclusion.

Because the MSNBC release of his tax return actually made Trump look good, Maddow spent 10 minutes speculating that Trump only paid his taxes that one year, and only because Melania was applying for an updated immigration status, and Trump thought that would help if he paid his taxes for once. She had exactly zero evidence of this. Zip. But in her warped, frustrated mind, if he paid his taxes, there has to be a sinister reason behind it. She cannot accept that he might have paid what he owed simply because he had to, which is why everyone else pays their taxes. This is someone who calls herself a journalist, and hosts a prime time show on a network. And she is a lunatic. But considered mainstream within the liberal sphere.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Look at everythng w/Flynn. Now he is an foreign agent of Turkey and had gotten $ when he was in Trump's cabinet. "

And Flynn is also a liar. But we don't know what he discussed with the Russian ambassador, so we can't pretend to know they discussed collusion or influencing the election.No, we don't and that is why they are investigating.

"You're telling me that if the situation was reversed, the Rep. wouldn't be all over this"

I'd be reacting to what I know, sure. I am not in the habit of putting on a tin-foil hat and pontificating wildly about crazy conspiracies. I don't claim that Obama was involved in faking the moon landing. But I think he was a racist who hated the traditional, Judeo-Christian, view of America. I can back that up all day long with irrefutable facts that support my conclusion.

Because the MSNBC release of his tax return actually made Trump look good, Maddow spent 10 minutes speculating that Trump only paid his taxes that one year, and only because Melania was applying for an updated immigration status, and Trump thought that would help if he paid his taxes for once. She had exactly zero evidence of this. Zip. But in her warped, frustrated mind, if he paid his taxes, there has to be a sinister reason behind it. She cannot accept that he might have paid what he owed simply because he had to, which is why everyone else pays their taxes. This is someone who calls herself a journalist, and hosts a prime time show on a network. And she is a lunatic. But considered mainstream within the liberal sphere.

She is not considered mainstream. She is no better than Hannity or a host of the political entertainment division of Fox. Trump seems to say whatever Hannity said the day before (w/o confirming it). In fact, Hannity is prob. considered a moderate to the others Trump seems to follow.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It is not an exaggeration. Look at everythng w/Flynn. Now he is an foreign agent of Turkey and had gotten $ when he was in Trump's cabinet.

You're telling me that if the situation was reversed, the Rep. wouldn't be all over this?

"Breitbart just leaked a tape of Ryan saying he won't support Trump so why wouldn't he had sent the same message in an email?"

The DNC took active steps to rig the primary. Not remotely the same thing as Ryan saying he doesn't support the guy.

"So you are saying the Russians are blameless?"

Again, you are unable to respond to the question that was asked. Here is what I said at 10:20 in this thread, an exact quote...

"Yes, the hacking was wrong and should be investigated"

From that, you infer that I hold the Russians "blameless". That's easier for you to claim (despite the fact that I explicitly said the opposite of what you claim I am saying), than it is for you to admit that I am obviously right, when I say that the majority of the blame lies with the people whose unethical actions were brought to light. If you are pissed that the email leak influenced the election, you should be pissed at the DNC and Hilary for doing things that offended the voters.

When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story, Americans didn't blame 'Deep Throat' (their informant) for revealing things, and ignore Nixon's actions, for God's sake They blamed Nixon, and they were right to do so. Your party has come a long way since then, in terms of determining responsibility. And I don't see it as progress.

"You have no way of knowing (that the RNC didn't tip scales for Trump).

I know this - we don't use 'superdelegates' whose sole purpose, is to make sure that the RNC always gets the candidate they want, despite the will of the voters.

I also know this...the DNC's actions weren't going to be revealed until the Russians did it, because the American media isn't interested in digging up dirt on Democrats. The media, with the exception of Foxnews, doesn't even ask tough questions to liberals.

You are suggesting that the RNC was rigging the election for Trump? Please explain all of the powerful conservatives who spoke against him, and who actively campaigned for any of the other candidates.