{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by The Cellar Door:
3/7/2017 1:48:00 PM
13
Your logic is all over the place.
This wiretapping shit is true because a news organization which you don't trust anyways reported something which you then take as true in order to support your point?
No. It's fake news. The lot of it. Read the NYT article more carefully. You can try to spin it anyway you like, it's a big fat distraction from all the shit that's actually going wrong with the administration. That's the entirety of the campaign and the administration, to shift focus on other people being bad, regardless of whether or not that is true. When this shifting of focus is called into question, devalue that news organization.
If Trump says it, we support it. Doesn't matter if he kills someone, it's okay, right?
English
-
So the New York Times talking about wire tapping and then when trump brings it up the NYT says there's no evidence of wiretapping? They contradicted their whole story. They reported on the agencies that were investigating and now clapper denies knowing anything about it. Someone is lying. Either it's the people now or it was the NYT in the first place and that would literally be fake news.
-
[quote]So the New York Times talking about wire tapping and then when trump brings it up the NYT says there's no evidence of wiretapping? They contradicted their whole story. They reported on the agencies that were investigating and now clapper denies knowing anything about it. Someone is lying. Either it's the people now or it was the NYT in the first place and that would literally be fake news.[/quote] [quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] Was going to say this, but he beat me to the punch. Moreover, your original quote only says intercepted communications were [i]provided[/i] to the White House, not taken from the White House.
-
Edited by Def_Man: 3/7/2017 3:33:24 PM[quote][quote]So the New York Times talking about wire tapping and then when trump brings it up the NYT says there's no evidence of wiretapping? They contradicted their whole story. They reported on the agencies that were investigating and now clapper denies knowing anything about it. Someone is lying. Either it's the people now or it was the NYT in the first place and that would literally be fake news.[/quote] [quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] Was going to say this, but he beat me to the punch. Moreover, your original quote only says intercepted communications were [i]provided[/i] to the White House, not taken from the White House.[/quote] Yes. I tried to make sure I said TRUMP CAMPAIGN. Not trump personally. The article that I can't seem to find, I can only find a pic of the front page, may specify trump. It's the article from Inauguration Day. The point is the NYT said something happened and then said it didn't. I went to the pic and zoomed in. The next day the NYT CONFIRMED they were looking into the trump campaign. First and second paragraph.
-
[quote][quote][quote]So the New York Times talking about wire tapping and then when trump brings it up the NYT says there's no evidence of wiretapping? They contradicted their whole story. They reported on the agencies that were investigating and now clapper denies knowing anything about it. Someone is lying. Either it's the people now or it was the NYT in the first place and that would literally be fake news.[/quote] [quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] Was going to say this, but he beat me to the punch. Moreover, your original quote only says intercepted communications were [i]provided[/i] to the White House, not taken from the White House.[/quote] Yes. I tried to make sure I said TRUMP CAMPAIGN. Not trump personally. The article that I can't seem to find, I can only find a pic of the front page, may specify trump. It's the article from Inauguration Day. The point is the NYT said something happened and then said it didn't. I went to the pic and zoomed in. The next day the NYT CONFIRMED they were looking into the trump campaign. First and second paragraph.[/quote] Trump is saying that Obama ordered that his phones at the Trump tower (or whatever... I can't remember if that's he exact location he's claiming) be wire tapped. That's the groundless claim. If you're trying to say that people from Trump's campaign were being investigated for Russian connections and that's the bad thing, that's a different story entirely. Don't worry, Trump will come out in a week and say he was being sarcastic anyway. Then you can say "5D chess!" And call him brilliant.
-
[quote][quote][quote][quote]So the New York Times talking about wire tapping and then when trump brings it up the NYT says there's no evidence of wiretapping? They contradicted their whole story. They reported on the agencies that were investigating and now clapper denies knowing anything about it. Someone is lying. Either it's the people now or it was the NYT in the first place and that would literally be fake news.[/quote] [quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] Was going to say this, but he beat me to the punch. Moreover, your original quote only says intercepted communications were [i]provided[/i] to the White House, not taken from the White House.[/quote] Yes. I tried to make sure I said TRUMP CAMPAIGN. Not trump personally. The article that I can't seem to find, I can only find a pic of the front page, may specify trump. It's the article from Inauguration Day. The point is the NYT said something happened and then said it didn't. I went to the pic and zoomed in. The next day the NYT CONFIRMED they were looking into the trump campaign. First and second paragraph.[/quote] Trump is saying that Obama ordered that his phones at the Trump tower (or whatever... I can't remember if that's he exact location he's claiming) be wire tapped. That's the groundless claim. If you're trying to say that people from Trump's campaign were being investigated for Russian connections and that's the bad thing, that's a different story entirely. Don't worry, Trump will come out in a week and say he was being sarcastic anyway. Then you can say "5D chess!" And call him brilliant.[/quote] No I didn't believe trump when he said obama ordered it. What I find compelling is the info from the newspapers, the FISA requests, and the denial that any of that occurred.
-
[quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....
-
[quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] The second source I linked. The picture of the front page paper. First and second paragraph. The next day the NYT confirmed the trump campaign was being looked into.
-
[quote]First and second paragraph[/quote] Lol, so you didn't read the whole thing? What I just quoted was from that article. Big shocker here; sometimes you have to read the entire article to understand what it's saying!
-
[quote][quote]First and second paragraph[/quote] Lol, so you didn't read the whole thing? What I just quoted was from that article. Big shocker here; sometimes you have to read the entire article to understand what it's saying![/quote] Again the article contradicts itself. It says the FBI is investigating links between trump associates and campaign staff. And then says it cannot confirm if it's for the trump campaign. Well which is it. I'm the one that read it all in the first place. You're just the one catching up.
-
Nope, you're extrapolating the rhetoric you want out of it, not what it actually says. It clearly says that they did not have knowledge of whether or not there was a connection, and the following article determines that there wasn't a connection. There is no contradiction. Perhaps stop reading articles which are surrounded by obviously opposing bias if you wish to actually understand and logically criticize the bias that exists in the original document. Your view point is the result of you getting your information from a secondary source, not from the original article itself.
-
[quote]Nope, you're extrapolating the rhetoric you want out of it, not what it actually says. It clearly says that they did not have knowledge of whether or not there was a connection, and the following article determines that there wasn't a connection. There is no contradiction. Perhaps stop reading articles which are surrounded by obviously opposing bias if you wish to actually understand and logically criticize the bias that exists in the original document. Your view point is the result of you getting your information from a secondary source, not from the original article itself.[/quote] I'm not saying that it happened or didn't happen and I didn't just source those 2 articles. There's many more that support my claim that they are contradicting themselves. The FBI only denied the obama ordered it. Clapper denies that it happened at all. Both of the articles we've talked about are the same thing. It's the articles posted now that contradict January's. nevermind contradicting themselves paragraph to paragraph. I get that you don't get it and that you're always right because "stars" and intelligence. I just put it out because I've waited to see and now I think someone is lying. I'm not for one side or the other.
-
But they don't contradict themselves...lol... If the investigations were not carried out on Trump or his campaign, which is what the NYT affirmed in the article they posted following the article about wiretaps (the one where they said they could not confirm whether or not they had been about Trump & campaign), then there is no contradiction. Clappers statements are true, even if intelligence organizations investigated Trump's associates. Do you not see the discrepancy between investigating someone who works with a person and investigating that person themselves? Furthermore, an agency investigating information that has been provided to them is different from that agency ascertaining that information themselves. This is convoluted hysteria. I don't believe I am more intelligent than anyone else, I'm trying to elucidate the fact that these supposed "contradictions" are not actually so. It is not obvious that this isn't a contradiction, because of the manner it has been presented to you.
-
[quote][quote]It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself[/quote] In the article you claim to be affirming the wiretapping....[/quote] You're missing the point here. Actually you all are. It's not that "was trump witetapped?" It's evolved past there to wiretapping in general because people that were reported to be involved are denying it now. So which is it? Is the media lying now or then?
