BTW here are a couple of articles from the super centrist and trustworthy news outlets McNasty posted:
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NMcNasty United States. Mar 07 2017 04:54. Posts 2039
^Not really a contradiction in the NYT articles. You can put foreign (Russian) officials under surveillance without a court order who might be in contact with Trump aides. That Trump himself (an American citizen), was wiretapped by Obama (who doesn't have the authority to order it) is something there is "no evidence for", which is the nicest way to say its a complete fabrication.
On March 07 2017 03:54 NMcNasty wrote:
^Not really a contradiction in the NYT articles. You can put foreign (Russian) officials under surveillance without a court order who might be in contact with Trump aides. That Trump himself (an American citizen), was wiretapped by Obama (who doesn't have the authority to order it) is something there is "no evidence for", which is the nicest way to say its a complete fabrication.
- The NYT just changed the note published, probably trying to save some face.
- The NYT had the exact same amount of evidence when they decided to write about the Trump dossier, and that time they didnt print "no evidence" in the title, not even in the article.
- True or not, these allegations obviously not imply that Obama did this in a legal way so claiming he doesn't have authority isn't even a point.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NMcNasty United States. Mar 07 2017 07:14. Posts 2039
On March 07 2017 04:43 Baalim wrote:
- The NYT had the exact same amount of evidence when they decided to write about the Trump dossier, and that time they didnt print "no evidence" in the title, not even in the article.
Every news organization, and even Buzzfeed, went out of their way to say that the dossier was uncorroborated. NYT knew about it but didn't report on it till it became a major story.
- True or not, these allegations obviously not imply that Obama did this in a legal way so claiming he doesn't have authority isn't even a point.
Point is we're not just dealing with accusations of an inappropriate wire tap, we're talking full blown government conspiracy between several intelligence agencies.
On March 07 2017 04:43 Baalim wrote:
- The NYT had the exact same amount of evidence when they decided to write about the Trump dossier, and that time they didnt print "no evidence" in the title, not even in the article.
Every news organization, and even Buzzfeed, went out of their way to say that the dossier was uncorroborated. NYT knew about it but didn't report on it till it became a major story.
- True or not, these allegations obviously not imply that Obama did this in a legal way so claiming he doesn't have authority isn't even a point.
Point is we're not just dealing with accusations of an inappropriate wire tap, we're talking full blown government conspiracy between several intelligence agencies.
Uncorroborated inside or the article is very different than writing "no evidence" in the title, the bias is extremely obvious and you cant reasonably deny that.
Yeah it is a big accusation, but not as big as accusing an elected president of treason and being in bed with another nuclear-super power, which under US law it can carry death penalty... so I think democrats were making way more dangerous accusations without solid evidence.
You make it sound like Obama being involved in illegal wiretapping and intelligence agencies is such a crazy acusation yet his administration was exposed doing so at an international scale even on allies, and did he face any kind of repercussion about it? No... Did the mass surveillance stopped? no.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Mar 07 2017 11:47. Posts 3093
I don't see any problems with the NYT headlines. Trump offers no evidence of Obama wiretapping him, and the second headline does not say that Obama wiretapped him. Honestly this issue is one of Trump's more clownish affairs. Guy claims to uncover watergate 2.0 and then 30 minutes later tweets about the apprentice ratings? He's the president, he could just ask the intelligence community, but appears to have read an article from a questionable source and then tweeted about it. Before trying to uncover whether it's true or not. It's absolutely ridiculous.
On March 07 2017 14:08 Spitfiree wrote:
I keep forcing myself to think he s just playing his cards well to cause chaos, but a part of me strongly believes he is just an idiot.
He's just an idiot. That video on Hillary not supporting gay marriage for so long was good info. I didn't know that and I'm glad it was posted. At the same time though I don't consider changing one viewpoint into another over time flip-flopping. Let's call her that when she goes back to her original point of view again. For someone who's born in 1947 and had a religious upbringing I'm just happy that she changed her mind at all. Per U.S. standards Sanders is a special individual. It's an absolute shame he didn't make it.
You almost twin-caracked his AK - JonnyCosmo
1
NMcNasty United States. Mar 07 2017 17:57. Posts 2039
On March 07 2017 07:45 Baalim wrote:
Uncorroborated inside or the article is very different than writing "no evidence" in the title, the bias is extremely obvious and you cant reasonably deny that.
The dossier wasn't a public accusation its a leaked intelligence file. Intelligence agencies have to deal with hundreds of rumors every day. A sitting president accusing a former president of a vast conspiracy is a lot different.
Yeah it is a big accusation, but not as big as accusing an elected president of treason and being in bed with another nuclear-super power, which under US law it can carry death penalty... so I think democrats were making way more dangerous accusations without solid evidence.
Except they (as in high ranking democrats) never actually made that accusation. "Needs to be investigated" is a lot different than "just learned".
1
NMcNasty United States. Mar 07 2017 18:13. Posts 2039
On March 07 2017 07:49 Baalim wrote:
You make it sound like Obama being involved in illegal wiretapping and intelligence agencies is such a crazy accusation yet his administration was exposed doing so at an international scale even on allies, and did he face any kind of repercussion about it? No... Did the mass surveillance stopped? no.
I mean its plausible that Obama ordered a wiretap that the FBI and DOJ decided to go along with despite being illegal. But it is in fact crazy for a sitting president to accuse a former president of doing so without evidence. This is just one of the long list of lies Trump is apparently able to get away with because the story is at least plausible. Its possible Muslims were dancing in the streets of NJ after 9/11, because you know, Muslims at least danced in the streets of Iraq. Its possible millions of illegals voted Hillary since there are in fact millions of illegals and presumably their political views are closer to Hillary's. In all cases though, there's no actual evidence for his claims.
On March 07 2017 14:08 Spitfiree wrote:
I keep forcing myself to think he s just playing his cards well to cause chaos, but a part of me strongly believes he is just an idiot.
He's just an idiot. That video on Hillary not supporting gay marriage for so long was good info. I didn't know that and I'm glad it was posted. At the same time though I don't consider changing one viewpoint into another over time flip-flopping. Let's call her that when she goes back to her original point of view again. For someone who's born in 1947 and had a religious upbringing I'm just happy that she changed her mind at all. Per U.S. standards Sanders is a special individual. It's an absolute shame he didn't make it.
This really looks like pretty clear double standards. Trump is roughly the same age as Hillary and has been speaking positively on gay marriage since at least the 80's. Also, ever wonder why you didn't know Hillary was against gay marriage until very recently? It's a product of the same MSM bias against Trump that has been a hot topic in this very thread.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
1
NMcNasty United States. Mar 07 2017 19:54. Posts 2039
^ I guess you missed this...
O'REILLY: All right. Gay marriage, favor it?
TRUMP: I'm against it.
O'REILLY: Why?
TRUMP: I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.
If you want to call Clinton a flip flopper that's fine, and probably true, but she clearly flopped to the pro gay marriage position. Trump flopped to a non-answer at best.
On March 07 2017 14:08 Spitfiree wrote:
I keep forcing myself to think he s just playing his cards well to cause chaos, but a part of me strongly believes he is just an idiot.
He's an idiot yes, because he's not very subtle nor very organized in his "strategy" and seems to be more or less vague plan to delegitimize every critic, wether it be press, or federal agencies, like Putin. Though don't think this will last very long, his real supporters are few and his 'winning base" will go back to hating everything politician/wealthy/celebrity (which Trump belongs to all three classes) once they realize their spoon factory still won't come back to them. And unlike Russia, the business entities are fairly independent from the Government, and won't cave to his prehestoric ways of ruling.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On March 07 2017 14:08 Spitfiree wrote:
I keep forcing myself to think he s just playing his cards well to cause chaos, but a part of me strongly believes he is just an idiot.
He's just an idiot. That video on Hillary not supporting gay marriage for so long was good info. I didn't know that and I'm glad it was posted. At the same time though I don't consider changing one viewpoint into another over time flip-flopping. Let's call her that when she goes back to her original point of view again. For someone who's born in 1947 and had a religious upbringing I'm just happy that she changed her mind at all. Per U.S. standards Sanders is a special individual. It's an absolute shame he didn't make it.
He is an idiot, but I also think he is not as stupid as many people think, he certainly isn't interpersonally smart, he is not eloquent and charismatic like Obama is.
I think changing your mind is a great sign of a rational person, but Hillary didn't speak bout changing her mind, she just changed her position and to me it simply feels more like holding a position that is more fashionable with your voting base rather than deep personal growth.
On March 07 2017 18:54 NMcNasty wrote:
^ I guess you missed this...
O'REILLY: All right. Gay marriage, favor it?
TRUMP: I'm against it.
O'REILLY: Why?
TRUMP: I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.
If you want to call Clinton a flip flopper that's fine, and probably true, but she clearly flopped to the pro gay marriage position. Trump flopped to a non-answer at best.
both just saying what their voters want, luckily for hillary his voters have a more sensible opinion on this particular issue, but thanks for the interview I didnt know about Trump saying anti gay marriage things
On March 07 2017 07:45 Baalim wrote:
Uncorroborated inside or the article is very different than writing "no evidence" in the title, the bias is extremely obvious and you cant reasonably deny that.
The dossier wasn't a public accusation its a leaked intelligence file. Intelligence agencies have to deal with hundreds of rumors every day. A sitting president accusing a former president of a vast conspiracy is a lot different.
Yeah it is a big accusation, but not as big as accusing an elected president of treason and being in bed with another nuclear-super power, which under US law it can carry death penalty... so I think democrats were making way more dangerous accusations without solid evidence.
Except they (as in high ranking democrats) never actually made that accusation. "Needs to be investigated" is a lot different than "just learned".
yeah democrats didnt sign their name on their accusation like Trump did but it makes no difference, who do you think is behind the smear campaign about Trump and Russia etc? some random leaks come on.
United States. Mar 07 2017 04:54. Posts 2039
