Random Politics & Religion #20

Then what is your stance?

Did Russia and Trump collude together to win the presidency? Even though there has been no evidence that states it?

If so, then does that mean that Obama's Admin wiretapped Trump and his campaign in hopes of channeling Nixon finding something to help Clinton win her election and/or something to take down a very outspoken political opponent who is not shy about dismantling everything that Obama has worked for.

Remember, you can only answer "Yes" or "No," and there can only be one answer (if you say "Yes" to the Russia-Trump collusion, then you have to say "Yes" to the Obama wiretap accusation, because both of which has equable evidence presented to the public).

You cannot say "Yes" to one and "No" to the other, that would counter your own arguments for both.

And that's really the brilliance of the whole tweet. I mean he's almost single handedly dismantled the Russian hacking story because in order for one to believe it, one has to believe obama could have wiretapped him in order to get that information.

I mean it's like I'm watching "The Matrix" and Trump is becoming "The One" right before my eyes.

In a surprising twist, even the liberal media is admitting that.

It's funny when you guys think you have something. The intelligence report released on Russia's interference (you know the one's that both of you denied as evidence) explicitly said that they intended to disrupt the election not get any specific candidate elected. Accepting that does not mean it's equally likely Obama wiretapped Trump communications. I don't even know how someone's mind can come to that ridiculous conclu--oh

So all the media hub is because Trump has secret connections to the Russian so that he could have helped them not get any particular candidate elected?

Tell me please how that 12-D chess move works out.

You're conflating the DNC email phishing and propoganda/facts I don't like dispersal with the general concern of unethical ties to Russian government and Russian financial interests. Investigations on the latter are still ongoing so we're just waiting.

*Reminisces about all the top news stories lately*

If that's what you call waiting, I'd hate to see what action looks like.

The top news stories that reported unethical behavior between two Trump appointees and Russian government that culminated in a resignation and a recusal? Those aren't accusations. They're documented events that actually happened.

So, we go from Russia colluding with Trump to help him win the election to Russia disrupting the election with no particular winner in mind, although all the disruption just happens to be against Clinton, which indirectly helps Trump.

I know you like grasping at straws, but man, do you make it a sport (and science)!

You have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that the entire argument has been since November 9th that Russia hacked the election per Trump's orders (or some iteration thereof).

Also, it doesn't help when liberal media publishes this in efforts to delegitimize a presidency. Especially on Inauguration Day.



No, that's what you are trying to direct the deflections into.

We already know that CIA has wiretapped Trump's aides. Flynn is the prime example of that. It is also highly likely that what Trump was wiretapped prior to the election. Because, Obama has had a long history of using his office to intimidate and/or silence political opponents.

IRS says hi.
So does the FBI.
And CIA.
And DOJ.
Hell, even the EPA was involved at one point.

Uh oh someone is linking Opinion Editorials and calling it news...must be Donald himself.

And how did they find out again?

Oh right, by being wiretapped. Some of them prior to the election, some of them after the election, but before Inauguration Day.

Which proves the point that Obama and his admin is willing to flaunt the law if it means attacking/silencing their political opponents.

Flaunt and/or outright break.

I kindof hope that there is evidence that signifies Obama's fingerprints all over this. But we all know that it wouldn't lead to his arrest. God forbid the bad press it would lead for a president's administration arresting, charging, and convicting a former president of law breaking. Plus it would set the precedent on future arrests for political gain.

Flynn was busted because the ambassador he was talking to was being monitored (something he should have known but oopsie-doodle).

As for the rest, you're still trying to argue against a point I never made so have fun with that.

Session's meetings were not tapped so no idea where you're getting this information.

Yet the weakened Democratic Party still managed to discredit two appointees causing one to resign and limit the abilities of the more important one?

Interesting especially in light of the GOP having full control of Executive and Legislative branches.

Here's another stellar theory presented today:

The CIA hacked the DNC emails left Russian fingerprints, sent the data to Wikileaks's so as to damage the public opinion of one candidate. Bolstering the chances of the underdog candidate and retaining the ability to delegitimize them as soon as they win...

I mean when you put it that way guys....

That's because, despite many attempts of it otherwise, you don't even make points.

You just come here and attacking everything and anything you can. Even though you yourself haven't committed to stances other than what you attack on.

You are as bad as Flavin in that regard.

You mean when he was meeting with the Russian Ambassador while on the Senate Committee discussing state activity, and not about Trump's campaign that was was mostly not involved with?

They're just not the points you want to argue against.
Yes? A wiretap wasn't needed to find this out. It was also business as usual so there was no need to not divulge that info during the official hearings.

Sure, if the question was asked about meeting with Russians to discuss State business.

Instead, we get a question about meeting Russians regarding Trump's campaign. Which he answered truthfully.

Or are you saying he didn't?

Sessions lied under oath, then turns around and has his assistant announce he lied. Then recuses himself from DoJ (which he is the head of) and intelligence agencies investigations into the Russia-Trump connection.

That happened there isn't a biased narrative on that summary.

This begs the question who confronted him and with what? Cause wow.

Ok Vic.

Don't forget he did so against Trumps urging which implies it's something the office of the President can't legally shield.

Must be hard when the defense on the subject is something of a joke to everyone else in the world.

Something he also should have known was the policy of minimization of such communications, which should have never even had his name disclosed before they were leaked. Regardless, context apparently never applies when a Republican "lies".

How about the CIA hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians had done it to cover for the hacking that had already occurred without a trace.

If we say it three times; it becomes real.

This thread is terrible without me...sorry I had to say it !

This is a *** fest the likes of which are only comparable to the women's march on DC....