Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Knowing more about ISIS (whatever Trump means by that) doe not mean he knows how to create a military plan to defeat it. He did appoint two generals as National Security Adviser. Must not have as low regard for generals as you claim he does. Were you lying again?

So where did I lie?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So where did I lie?

If we apply the standard for lying that you apply to Trump, I do not know where to begin.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Were you lying again?

Originally Posted by detbuch

If we apply the standard for lying that you apply to Trump, I do not know where to begin.

So let's give it a try. I have 45 min. until I leave for the day.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He said "I know more about ISIS than the generals do". Why would he put our soldiers at risk by letting someone who knows less then he does develop a plan?

Marine Biologists know more about fish than fishermen do...but yet we let the fishermen catch them.

[wdmso]

I love it Trump accuses Obama of a crime and the right line up behind him like sheep ..... the name Obama fires something off something in the brain of his supporter that completely shut of the part that deal with reason and Facts ..

They require hard evidence against Trump but no such standard exist . when it come to Trump makes claims ????? just add Obama in the statement and it becomes Truth

Speaking about Truth and Facts :

Can the POTUS single - handedly order the surveillance of an American citizen

Trump supporters : YES

The law and everyone else : NO

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch
OK. You said "He has stated he has low regard for the Generals, so why would he want to see their plans?" And then you said "He said 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do'. PaulS: Those are his words, not mine.Why would he put our soldiers at risk by letting someone who knows less then he does develop a plan?'

You quoted some of his words which you claim show low regard for the generals. His words did not show low regard for them. They show that he knew something better than them. And his actions show that he had high regard for them. By using the standard for lying which you apply to Trump, you lied.

I stipulated that we apply the standard for lying that you apply to Trump. Since he appointed two generals to National Security Adviser, and since he asks the generals to come up with a plan, it is obvious that he does not have a low regard for them PaulS: Yet he clearly demonstrated that by insulting them..

He did not insult them, as I pointed out above, and his actions actually praised them. Again, you lie.

And since, as has been pointed out in a couple of posts above, knowing more about ISIS doesn't mean knowing best on how to create a plan to defeat it. Nor that he wouldn't or shouldn't ask the generals to do it.

Now, I may kind of know what you are trying to say, or trying to twist PaulS: not trying to twist anything - Trump said those things.,

You twisted what he said to make it seem he had "low regard"--if Trump did that, you would call it a lie.

but when Trump says something he believes to be true, and actually often is, but it comes out in such a way that it seems contradictory or ambiguous or "not true," then he is accused of lying. You also have done that.

So applying to you that standard for lying which is applied by his opponents to Trump and by you . . . you lied PaulS: That is so weak it is funny. It is nothing more than an insult - something you seem to do well with anyone who disagrees with you or critizes Trump. .


That's your opinion. An insulting one at that.

That is the "lie" I referred to in this instance. I pointed out other of your Trump like "lies" in the post you could not finish or even read more than two sentences of it I tried reading that but it was so discombolated it was next to impossible to finish..

That doesn't change the fact that you "lie" in the same way that you say Trump lies.

And there have been other posts where I have pointed out the same kind of "lies" by you. Of course, you may not have read those either. So what difference does it make?

Some say ignorance is bliss. Stay happy.
And you end with another insult.

If you didn't read my post, that rendered you ignorant of what was in it. If the truth of your ignorance is an insult to you, then you have a problem with the truth. In the same manner that you appear to think Trump has a problem with it. And if wishing you to stay happy is an insult, then I apologize and retract that wish.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Originally Posted by detbuch
OK. You said "He has stated he has low regard for the Generals, so why would he want to see their plans?" And then you said "He said 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do'. PaulS: Those are his words, not mine.Why would he put our soldiers at risk by letting someone who knows less then he does develop a plan?'

You quoted some of his words which you claim show low regard for the generals. His words did not show low regard for them. They show that he knew something better than them. And his actions show that he had high regard for them. By using the standard for lying which you apply to Trump, you lied.

I stipulated that we apply the standard for lying that you apply to Trump. Since he appointed two generals to National Security Adviser, and since he asks the generals to come up with a plan, it is obvious that he does not have a low regard for them PaulS: Yet he clearly demonstrated that by insulting them..

He did not insult them, as I pointed out above, and his actions actually praised them. Again, you lie.

And since, as has been pointed out in a couple of posts above, knowing more about ISIS doesn't mean knowing best on how to create a plan to defeat it. Nor that he wouldn't or shouldn't ask the generals to do it.

Now, I may kind of know what you are trying to say, or trying to twist PaulS: not trying to twist anything - Trump said those things.,

You twisted what he said to make it seem he had "low regard"--if Trump did that, you would call it a lie.

but when Trump says something he believes to be true, and actually often is, but it comes out in such a way that it seems contradictory or ambiguous or "not true," then he is accused of lying. You also have done that.

So applying to you that standard for lying which is applied by his opponents to Trump and by you . . . you lied PaulS: That is so weak it is funny. It is nothing more than an insult - something you seem to do well with anyone who disagrees with you or critizes Trump. .


That's your opinion. An insulting one at that.

That is the "lie" I referred to in this instance. I pointed out other of your Trump like "lies" in the post you could not finish or even read more than two sentences of it I tried reading that but it was so discombolated it was next to impossible to finish..

That doesn't change the fact that you "lie" in the same way that you say Trump lies.

And there have been other posts where I have pointed out the same kind of "lies" by you. Of course, you may not have read those either. So what difference does it make?

Some say ignorance is bliss. Stay happy.
And you end with another insult.

If you didn't read my post, that rendered you ignorant of what was in it. If the truth of your ignorance is an insult to you, then you have a problem with the truth. In the same manner that you appear to think Trump has a problem with it. And if wishing you to stay happy is an insult, then I apologize and retract that wish.

I think you two need to book a room, either make love or kick the political crap out of one another.

[wdmso]

More help from the Russians and their pet Snowden for Trump to assist with his Baseless wire tap claim or just Coincidence

[wdmso]

Trump Loved Snowden as did several people here when the emails were about Clinton.. he was providing a great service exposing Her

Are they still looking Snowden in the same Light ???? with the CIA leaks

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump Loved Snowden as did several people here when the emails were about Clinton.. he was providing a great service exposing Her

Are they still looking Snowden in the same Light ???? with the CIA leaks

Now that you bring up leaks, through what light are you looking at the classified leaks being used to imply that Trump colluded with the Russians? Should we find out who the leakers are and prosecute them?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by wdmso

More help from the Russians and their pet Snowden for Trump to assist with his Baseless wire tap claim or just Coincidence

Seems they have taken hold of the Snowden life ring

Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway says she doesn’t have any evidence to support President Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phone lines during the election.

Instead, Conway is pointing to recent revelations about other government surveillance to suggest it was possible Obama used a different technique.


She explained on USA Today: “What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other.

“You can surveil someone through their phones, certainly through their television sets — any number of ways.”

The advisor then claimed monitoring could be done with “microwaves that turn into cameras”, adding: “We know this is a fact of modern life.”

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think you two need to book a room, either make love or kick the political crap out of one another.

Go back and look at whenever I post, he almost always responds to me. I think it is infatuation.

[PaulS]

More insults. So where did I claim Trump lied in this tread in releations to the comments he made that I posted? You are the one who tried to claim I said he lied here - which I never said. He certainly did state his low regard for the generals (and POWs). His appointing Generals does not show high regard for Generals

A Trump lie would be like how he claimed w/o evidence that 0000s of people of people were bused across states lines to vote.

Good ahead throw out more insults.

Are you gonna send me another apology like the last one?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

More insults.

Good ahead throw out more insults.

Are you gonna send me another apology like the last one?

reminded me of this

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

Snowden is charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of government property.

So you are saying those currently within our government leaking info should be charged similarly ....right?

I couldn't get him, (or PaulS) to answer that question. Maybe you can.

He accuses others of "verbal gymnastics, yet he regularly does the verbal jumps and flips. He accuses others of the "chicken little" ploy, yet he regularly warns of the dangers of Trump.

So it's no surprise that he'll evade a simple question by playing the equivalency card. After all, the leaks and contacts with Russians IMPLY (as wdmso said) that Trump and his people colluded with the Russians, even though there is no evidence that they did (nor any reason to imply so unless we just want to).

Can't remember, but it seems the leaks re Hillary and the Dems were specific, not mere implications. And the contents of the leaks were provided, not implied. One wonders, if the leaks re Trump had actual content that showed collusion, why was that content not revealed? Oh well, that only leaves us room to imply. And demand investigations to satisfy concocted implications. Gee, I wonder if I'm doing verbal gymnastics.

Not sure, but isn't there a far greater national security threat when our own security agencies leak stuff about us than when the Russians do it? Naahh . . . the implication of each must be equivalent. Even so, it's the Russian stuff that should worry us and must be investigated.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I couldn't get him, (or PaulS) to answer that question. Maybe you can.

He accuses others of "verbal gymnastics, yet he regularly does the verbal jumps and flips. He accuses others of the "chicken little" ploy, yet he regularly warns of the dangers of Trump.

So it's no surprise that he'll evade a simple question by playing the equivalency card. After all, the leaks and contacts with Russians IMPLY (as wdmso said) that Trump and his people colluded with the Russians, even though there is no evidence that they did (nor any reason to imply so unless we just want to).

Can't remember, but it seems the leaks re Hillary and the Dems were specific, not mere implications. And the contents of the leaks were provided, not implied. One wonders, if the leaks re Trump had actual content that showed collusion, why was that content not revealed? Oh well, that only leaves us room to imply. And demand investigations to satisfy concocted implications. Gee, I wonder if I'm doing verbal gymnastics.

Not sure, but isn't there a far greater national security threat when our own security agencies leak stuff about us than when the Russians do it? Naahh . . . the implication of each must be equivalent. Even so, it's the Russian stuff that should worry us and must be investigated.

your to funny looking for answers based on implication of each must be equivalent .. then say I am using the playing the equivalency card.

please show me.... you and Scott are playing that Hand not I

I warned of the pitfalls of the right supporting the Snowden leaks against Hillary and the DNC .. and how the right would react when the barrel of the same gun was pointing at them ... And true to form now they play the victim demanding evidence of wrong doing or its a witch hunt .. burn the leakers at the stake it very telling..

And yes Trump is dangerous

but one must ask are the leaks against Trump Treason if they expose treason ...(we'll find out after the investigation concludes ) then we can move on to prosecution of leakers.. if warranted I love how The right dont like due process

What should happen to Trump if his claim is found to be false
"even though there is no evidence that they did" Tap his phones ??

thats Statement you used to defend Trump about collusion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your to funny looking for answers based on implication of each must be equivalent .. then say I am using the playing the equivalency card.

please show me.... you and Scott are playing that Hand not I

Please clarify.

I warned of the pitfalls of the right supporting the Snowden leaks against Hillary and the DNC .. and how the right would react when the barrel of the same gun was pointing at them ... And true to form now they play the victim demanding evidence of wrong doing or its a witch hunt .. burn the leakers at the stake it very telling..

Who the Hades are you talking about? Who is DEMANDING evidence? I am saying what is being said--there is no evidence. That is not a demand for evidence. I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

And yes Trump is dangerous

Because you say so? OK . . . that's an opening for you to come up with another of your chicken little accusations.

but one must ask are the leaks against Trump Treason if they expose treason ...(we'll find out after the investigation concludes )

Why must one ask if the leaks are treason? It is illegal to pass classified information to those not authorized to receive it. The investigation does not have to conclude in order to know that classified information has been leaked to unauthorized persons. That it was leaked is the only evidence that a crime has been committed--the leaks.

The leaks, as they are, show NO treason by Trump. If there had been something treasonous discovered by surveilling Trump, why was that not leaked? Why was only innocuous stuff leaked (ILLEGALLY) and not the real supposedly treasonous stuff? And why was the not treasonous stuff, the kind of thing that has happened before even by Democrats, a reason for "implication" and investigation?

then we can move on to prosecution of leakers.. if warranted I love how The right dont like due process

It is not due process to investigate a crime if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. That is the opposite of due process.

What should happen to Trump if his claim is found to be false
"even though there is no evidence that they did" Tap his phones ??

thats Statement you used to defend Trump about collusion

I don't recall defending Trump if his claim is false. I don't know if he should be prosecuted because a claim of his is false. I don't think someone can be prosecuted for making a false claim unless he is under oath at the time, and actually knew that the claim is false.

I don't know if his claim is passing on classified information. Maybe the investigation will show that his claim has revealed classified information. If so, then, like the leakers against Trump, he and they should be prosecuted.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't recall defending Trump if his claim is false.

me either

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know if he should be prosecuted because a claim of his is false.

almost never happens in Washington

[wdmso]

I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

Ask Trump he made the claim: Trump Administration Asks For More Time To Provide Proof That Obama Wiretapped Trump Talk about move the goal posts

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

answer the question yourself...you continually bring it up here and it's the "frenzied" leftist media and democrats that "fuss" about it on a daily basis

for Trump...it's like throwing a steak to the guard dog while you do whatever you want

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

answer the question yourself...you continually bring it up here and it's the "frenzied" leftist media and democrats that "fuss" about it on a daily basis

for Trump...it's like throwing a steak to the guard dog while you do whatever you want

that was detbuch quote not mine

and now we have the same old same old now they are again telling us what Trump ment ..

Sean Spicer said Mr Trump had broadly meant "surveillance and other activities" when he made the allegation in a tweet earlier this month.
He also suggested the president was not accusing his predecessor specifically.

I understand it must get getting old to have to defend or excuse trumps comments day in and day out ... heres an Idea maybe he can stop lying every time he opens his mouth or shoots off a Tweet

[wdmso]

why are the media and the Dems making such a frenzied fuss over something for which there is no evidence? Can you answer that? Doubt that you will.

I have.. there is evidence Trumps people spoke to the russians and denied it some have resigned over it whats not Clear or (evidence) what those conversations were about... hence the investigation to see if there was collusion....




As for Trump's fuss over something for which there is no evidence, I am sure you will incessantly have something to say about that

you need to catch up I have all ready been pointing that out from the start of this thread

and now we have the same old same old now they are again telling us what Trump ment ..

Sean Spicer said Mr Trump had broadly meant "surveillance and other activities" when he made the allegation in a tweet earlier this month.

That's an answer to a question. Something you mostly avoid doing. Your choice if you don't want to believe it. His answer sounds reasonable to me.

WOW thats amazing the POTUS comments cary no weight when spoken.. but the explanation a week later sound reasonable when he press Sec says it??

He also suggested the president was not accusing his predecessor specifically.

Here are the actual Tweets how is this not accusing his predecessor specifically???

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I have.. there is evidence Trumps people spoke to the russians and denied it some have resigned over it whats not Clear or (evidence) what those conversations were about... hence the investigation to see if there was collusion

Speaking to the Russians, which has been done for years by members of both parties, is not evidence of collusion. No evidence was found.

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

You're right, it does sound like he was specifically suggesting Obama had him wire tapped.

[wdmso]

There are "no indications" that Trump Tower was under surveillance by the US government before or after the election, a Senate committee has said.

But White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Mr Trump maintains his claims.

The press secretary refused to accept the Senate Intelligence Committee report, saying "they're not findings".
Mr Spicer quoted at length from an unproven Fox News report suggesting Mr Obama had dodged US restrictions by asking Britain's GCHQ electronic surveillance agency to monitor Mr Trump, an allegation already dismissed as "utterly ridiculous" by the Cheltenham-based complex.

[Got Stripers]

Spicer has a miserable job, can't imagine how he sleeps at night, wondering what Tweet he has to translate at the next press conference. At times as we have seen, he can't even keep a straight face, hard to do that when you know the POTUS quote (er meaning) of the day you are about to relay to the core is total BS.

So ironic that with all Trumps bitching and moaning about fake news, that he is now back peddling on his wire tapping accusation; hey folks I was just relaying whats been reported on several outlets. The POTUS should not be reacting to anything he reads without someone spending some time checking out the source. Clearly he needs to choose his words more clearly, really dumb to accuse the former president personally of an illegal activity if you didn't really mean it. Where is all the extreme feting, due some fact checking before you open your big mouth and say exactly what you mean; you are POTUS for crying out loud.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Clearly he needs to choose his words more clearly, really dumb to accuse the former president personally of an illegal activity if you didn't really mean it. .

THAT is an understatement. He's not a reality TV personality anymore for Gods sake. Who is advising this guy on these tweets?

I think he has the potential to be one of the most productive presidents of the last 40 years, but he needs to start acting a little bit more maturely and responsibly.

That being said, someone leaked the Flynn conversation, and someone leaked his income taxes. There are some circles in the government that are working against him. And the media...I don't even know what to say. He could stop at a red light, and MSNBC would spend 15 minutes speculating on what his sinister intentions were for stopping at the light. They are treating him like a cartoon villain.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Spicer has a miserable job, can't imagine how he sleeps at night, wondering what Tweet he has to translate at the next press conference. At times as we have seen, he can't even keep a straight face, hard to do that when you know the POTUS quote (er meaning) of the day you are about to relay to the core is total BS.

So ironic that with all Trumps bitching and moaning about fake news, that he is now back peddling on his wire tapping accusation; hey folks I was just relaying whats been reported on several outlets. The POTUS should not be reacting to anything he reads without someone spending some time checking out the source. Clearly he needs to choose his words more clearly, really dumb to accuse the former president personally of an illegal activity if you didn't really mean it. Where is all the extreme feting, due some fact checking before you open your big mouth and say exactly what you mean; you are POTUS for crying out loud.

My brother graduated from Connecticut College in 1993 with Sean Spicer (very small school), knew him well. It was a liberal place, my brother tried to start a conservative club and was denied school funding. Spicer, who was a member of the student senate, basically forced the school to give my brother the funding, saying they couldn't give money to liberal clubs and deny money to a conservative club. In response to that, the school newspaper started referring to Sean Spicer as "Sean Sphincter". Very mature. The media picked that up recently, they thought it was great that a student newspaper gave him a derogatory nickname 25 years ago. Ah, those tolerant liberals. The Hartford Courant thought this was "news".

http://www.courant.com/politics/capi...ege-story.html

[detbuch]

It's amazing how we believe what spy agencies tell us.

[detbuch]

Part of the big lie is to establish an air of equivalency. If the other side would have done the same thing that we are doing, then we are absolved. The only time when it was wrong was when they were, or would have been, doing it. We, of course, are blameless. We are merely doing what they did, or would have done. So it is perfectly right and good that we are now allowed, by precedent, or presupposed example of precedent, to carry on as we do. You cannot question our integrity in doing what you would have done. And you would not have been right in doing it if you had done it, because you have bad intentions.