Our President is insane. Obama wire tapped him?

This topic has 30 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by Utesbyfive.

Viewing 8 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 03/04/2017 at 10:40 AM #29571
  12 5
  
  Utah
  Participant
  
  Crazy pills.
  
  What is even crazier is if you take a step back and consider what this really means:
  
  Either:
  
  1. He really was witetapped and it’s because the FBI has so much dirt on him that a federal judge issued a warrant via FISA to wiretap trump. Which means he’s in deep ****.
  
  Or
  
  2. Trump is once again blowing **** out of his ass, like bowling green and Sweden thereby showing once again how paranoid, stupid, and idiotic he is. I thought we were past “small trivial matters?”
  
  Which is worse?
- 03/04/2017 at 11:23 AM #29572
  8 6
  
  User Suspended
  Member
  
  Reports are saying trump pulled this information from the Mark Levin show. Yes, you read this correctly.
  
  These Alt right conspiracy theory shock jocks ( including Hannity and Rush) have been making sh*t up for decades…. now they have a nut job president who is listening.
  
  The wire tapping insinuations will be proven false fantasy immediately. But that wont stop the Alt right from making up more lies to push their psychotic agenda.
- 03/04/2017 at 11:54 AM #29576
  5 9
  
  Utahute72
  Participant
  
  Unless he really was wire tapped.
  - 03/04/2017 at 11:55 AM #29578
    11 2
    
    SkinyUte
    Participant
    
    In which case a federal judge found probable cause.
    - 03/04/2017 at 11:57 AM #29580
      3 3
      
      Utah
      Participant
      
      Or this. If a federal judge found cause for Trump to be wire tapped, I’d head to Russia and join Snowden if I were Trump.
    - 03/04/2017 at 12:56 PM #29590
      2 5
      
      zeous
      Participant
      
      Probably. Or was acting politically. Too much influence on the line for people to play fairly these days.
      - 03/04/2017 at 1:05 PM #29594
        2 1
        
        SkinyUte
        Participant
        
        This article (from the co-chair of the Hoover Institution’s Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law) had 10 very good questions for Trump regarding his claim.
        
        1. Are you making the allegation that President Obama conducted electronic surveillance of Trump Tower in your capacity as President of the United States based on intelligence or law enforcement information available to you in that capacity?
        2. If so—that is, if you have executive branch information validating that either a FISA wiretap or a Title III wiretap took place—have you reviewed the applications for the surveillance and have you or your lawyers concluded that they lack merit?
        3. If you know that a FISA wiretap took place, are you or were you at the time of the application, an agent of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA?
        4. Was anyone else working in Trump Tower an agent of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA?
        5. If you know that a Title III wiretap took place, are you or were you at the time of the application engaged in criminal activity that would support a Title III wiretap or might you have previously engaged in criminal activity that might legitimately be the subject of a Title III wiretap?
        6. Was anyone else working in Trump Tower engaged in criminal activity that would support a Title III wiretap or might another person have previously engaged in criminal activity that might legitimately be the subject of a Title III wiretap?
        7. If you were tweeting not based on knowledge received as chief executive of the United States, were you tweeting in your capacity as a reader of Breitbart or a listener of Mark Levin’s radio show?
        8. If so, on what basis are you confident the stories and allegations in these august outlets are true and accurate vis a vis the activity of the government you, in fact, now head?
        9. If you learned of this alleged surveillance from media outlets, did you or anyone on your staff check with any responsible law enforcement or intelligence officials or agencies before making public allegations against your own government?
        10. What exactly does any of this have to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger?
        
        I LOL’d at the last one.
        
        03/04/2017 at 1:12 PM #29597
        2 1
        
        zeous
        Participant
        
        Yeah, good questions. Other than the last one. Calm discussion with actual evidence supporting claims would be a refreshing approach. However that hasn’t been the modus operandi for years in American political theater. Something else serious is probably happening quietly while the world is distracted with this latest sideshow.
  - 03/04/2017 at 11:57 AM #29579
    7 5
    
    Utah
    Participant
    
    Very true. If he was wired tapped, this would be very serious indeed. Almost traitorish. If that were the case, do you think the state department and Trump’s lawyers would advise him to go to Twitter with this information?
    
    I don’t.
    
    His actions are crazy. They have always been this way. He has consistently said things that are just blatently false. This actually fits in quite well with the rest of his narrative, which, summed up nicely, is “I’m bat s**t crazy.”
    
    Until there is actual proof, I’ll stick with what our government and Obama are saying. They’ve earned that respect, unlike Trump.
- 03/04/2017 at 12:10 PM #29583
  6 5
  
  Utah
  Participant
  
  So, I read Levin’s theory, which can be found here:
  
  Bat S**t Crazy #1
  
  He claims that Obama DID wiretap Trump, saying:
  
  The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes.
  
  In that quote, he says that Obama not only had wiretaps, but continued using them. His source? Andrew McCarthy. Let’s see what McCarthy says:
  
  A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later;
  
  Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
  
  So he says, and I quote, “MAY HAVE BEEN GRANTED”.
  
  So, where does Levin get his information from that says that Obama WAS DEFINITELY WIRE TAPPING TRUMP?
  
  It wasn’t McCarthy.
  
  Fact people. Use your god given (or in some of your cases, your god damned) minds. Follow facts, not this rhetoric bulls**t.
  - 03/04/2017 at 12:11 PM #29584
    4 3
    
    Utah
    Participant
    
    In true capitalistic fashion, McCarthy has blocked half my quote so you have to go to his website to see the whole quote. lol.
    - 03/04/2017 at 12:27 PM #29586
      6 5
      
      Utah
      Participant
      
      For those who have thumbs downed me, I’m curious as to why? Did I make a mistake here? Were my quotes taken out of context? Was I misleading?
      
      Or is it that your s**t is just that. Bulls**t?
      - 03/04/2017 at 6:33 PM #29641
        2 6
        
        Anonymous
        Inactive
        
        Or maybe it’s because you are one of those people who think you know everything and are a dick when you respond to people who think different than you.
- 03/04/2017 at 12:49 PM #29588
  2
  
  zeous
  Participant
  
  How do you know? Supposedly a FISA warrant was issued, but I can’t find evidence other than hearsay by a tv actor. So how do you know what you’re claiming?
  - 03/04/2017 at 1:02 PM #29592
    6 5
    
    Utah
    Participant
    
    Supposedly? What the hell does that mean? Supposedly I nailed Charlize Theron last night. Who cares?
    
    Was a warrant issued? Levin says yes, and quotes McCarthy as his source. McCarthy says “may have”.
    
    Maybe/may have is bulls**t. Maybe is useless. Maybe is what someone says who has nothing.
    
    Now, if a warrant was issued, show me where and why. And we can go from there. If it wasn’t, or you don’t have sources or maybe Obama is doing something and maybe I’m screwing 10 girls a night. If that’s the case, you have nothing and need to be quiet.
    - 03/04/2017 at 1:06 PM #29595
      4 4
      
      zeous
      Participant
      
      Dude. Get a grip. Calm down. Emotion is the opposite of reason. If you were in thinking mode instead of emoting mode, you’d realize I said I “can’t” (as in can not, am unable to, do not) find evidence that a FISA warrant was issued. Therefore, your rant? It just repeats what I already said.
      
      My question to you was about how do you know anything you claim? And don’t ever tell me to be quiet again. I will speak when and where I wish.
      - 03/04/2017 at 1:18 PM #29598
        2 5
        
        Utah
        Participant
        
        Where is your proof? If you don’t have proof, then be quiet. You have nothing. I’ve shown you one source of this “information” and it’s nothing.
        
        What proof do you have?
        
        Or, are you just going to go on some tangent about emotion and reason?
        
        I asked you a simple question, that it appears you have no answer to.
        
        You said, “supposedly a warrant was issued”. Where did that come from? Hopefully not Levin, because we all know that Levin is full of crap, as I have shown.
        
        I’ll ask it again:
        
        Where/when did the FISA issue a warrant?
        
        I’ll hang up and listen for your answer.
        
        03/04/2017 at 1:27 PM #29603
        5 5
        
        zeous
        Participant
        
        Uh… Utah? I’m worried about you, man. Let me repeat my original statement here, in hopes that the dots connect in your mind that I did NOT agree that a FISA warrant had been issued, because I could NOT find evidence.
        
        Supposedly a FISA warrant was issued, but I can’t find evidence other than hearsay by a tv actor.
        
        For your own good, please take three deep breaths and ponder your internal state. Highly emotionally agitated state of being blocks the mind from processing thought very well. I’m not trying to insult you here, I’m trying to point out that you aren’t capturing what I’ve said three posts in a row now. Take three breaths and re-read from the beginning, and I think you’ll see that. Then, perhaps you’ll realize that my question about how do you know what you claim, was directed at everything else from the post I responded to. You said a lot of things and I wanted to know how you knew.
    - 03/04/2017 at 2:20 PM #29614
      3 2
      
      PorterRockwell
      Participant
      
      Impossible. Charlize helped me christen my new to me 4Runner.
- 03/04/2017 at 12:55 PM #29589
  12 2
  
  SkinyUte
  Participant
  
  Trump is employing the exact same strategy we’ve been laughing at Zoobs using for years now.
  
  1. Completely fabricate or greatly embellish a claim about the other side. The more outrageous, the better. Zoobs = pushing old ladies in wheelchairs down the stairs at RES, Trump = Obama tapped my phones.
  2. Since your supporters are pre-programmed to assume the worst, they automatically believe it. Actual facts and proof are completely irrelevant.
  3. Repeat the lie as loudly and as often as possible.
  4. It becomes “fact” in the eyes of the faithful, while anyone outside that group shakes their head at the absurdity of it all.
  
  Repeating this cycle for months (or years, in the Zoob’s case) perpetually reinforces the “other side is bad” mentality without ever having to actually prove a single thing. And on and on it goes…
  - 03/04/2017 at 1:02 PM #29593
    6 3
    
    zeous
    Participant
    
    True, Skiny. What you fail to recognize, however, is that it applies to the broad base of both parties. And usually the drama is over things that aren’t really all that important. Meanwhile, the really serious stuff happens quietly and easily as officials in both parties act as one.
    
    A curious phenomenon.
    - 03/04/2017 at 1:07 PM #29596
      3
      
      SkinyUte
      Participant
      
      Agreed, and I didn’t mean to imply this is solely a conservative phenomenon.
      
      It’s just interesting to see it employed so brazenly this morning.
      - 03/04/2017 at 1:20 PM #29599
        1
        
        zeous
        Participant
        
        Yeah, though it happens close to non-stop on most points of argument. Did you see the video of the latest shout down by students the other day, this time of Charles Murray? I think your described pattern applies in that situation as well. Yes, some of Murray’s published findings are controversial and perhaps difficult material, but they are peer reviewed and stand up under scrutiny.
        
        Anyway, at this point anytime these dramatic flareups happen, I start looking for what else might be going on that is meant to be happening quietly. Sad, but oh well, seems to be a pattern.
        
        03/04/2017 at 1:29 PM #29604
        2 1
        
        SkinyUte
        Participant
        
        “Controversial and perhaps difficult”? That’s certainly an…interesting way to describe white nationalism. That’s probably a topic for another time though.
        
        I don’t have much issue with the students turning their backs en masse and chanting over his speech, but I do agree with you that the ensuing violence was completely unacceptable.
        
        03/04/2017 at 1:44 PM #29606
        1 1
        
        zeous
        Participant
        
        Well that’s a good example, actually. Where is the evidence that Murray is a “white nationalist”? That’s an allegation that the students (and apparently you) take as truth. But based on what?
        
        I’ve listened to a couple of his lectures, but haven’t read his books. I didn’t hear any calls for a white-only nation in anything he said, nor anything remotely close to that. So if you have evidence of things he’s said or done that show that he advocates for a whites-only nation, please share them. (I am assuming that is what the label ‘white nationalist’ means, but is there an actual definition?)
        
        Yeah, the violence was unacceptable, yet again, but predictable. When people don’t talk to each other calmly and listen to different points of view, violence is often the outcome. I’d be fine with them turning their backs and even holding signs, but to silence him entirely is, well, fascist.
        
        Using the means of intolerance supposedly in the cause of tolerance can not possibly lead to the end of tolerance.
        
        03/04/2017 at 2:00 PM #29608
        
        SkinyUte
        Participant
        
        You’re correct, that was a bad choice of words on my part.
        
        I read his book “The Bell Curve” ages ago, and was very turned off by his underlying assertion that white people are genetically superior to black people in regards to overall intelligence. Especially given the specious and misleading data it provided to support that assertion.
        
        I realize that there have been a million different support and rebuttal arguments since, so folks can form their own opinions. The wiki on the book is actually a good place to start, if one is so inclined.
        
        I haven’t paid much attention to him since, to be honest, as my initial exposure left me with such a negative view.
        
        03/04/2017 at 2:36 PM #29618
        
        zeous
        Participant
        
        I see. I need to read it eventually, once I churn through everything else on my book list.
        
        He spoke of that in what I listened to, but perhaps phrased it or approached it a different way, I don’t know. Regardless, that is what I meant by controversial or difficult. “Genetically superior” is a phrase I don’t recall him using, and it certainly isn’t one I would use. However, “genetically different” is one that doesn’t have to be threatening, and seems accurate.
        
        This being a sports board, we are all well aware that African Americans, on average, have genetic advantages athletically over European, Asian, Jewish and Latino Americans, on average. I doubt anyone would dispute that because it’s so obvious. And it’s non-threatening for the most part, so it’s not a difficult thing to talk about. Obviously, there are European, Asian, Jewish and Latino American individuals that are at the far end of the bell curve that can compete athletically and make it to the professional ranks, but as evidenced by the NFL & NBA, more African American individuals are at that level athetically. So it could be argued that African Americans are, on average, “genetically superior” athletically to European, Asian, Jewish and Latino Americans… but that word “superior” is inflammatory and does no good, especially when people don’t know about or comprehend what a bell curve is and how attributes have distrubutions in all populations, nor what “on average” means in that context, etc etc etc.
        
        So yeah, college is supposed to be the place where difficult topics can be discussed, and different viewpoints can be shared on difficult topics. Silencing other viewpoints is immature and history has shown how it tends to lead toward broader violence. It is very important to talk and listen to each other calmly, in my opinion.
    - 03/04/2017 at 1:22 PM #29600
      2
      
      SkinyUte
      Participant
      
      It’s also what bugs me the most about this whole episode.
      
      1. Mark Levin muses/imagines Obama bugged Trump tower.
      2. Breitbart reports that as “news”.
      3. It gets repeated as “fact” by the POTUS.
      
      That’s a rather disturbing chain to follow.
      
      And while this instance isn’t like to ultimately have any significant impact (outside of Trump looking foolish/paranoid, but that’s not exactly news to anyone), what happens when that chain of derp starts to devolve into issues that DO actually impact national security?
- 03/04/2017 at 4:42 PM #29634
  4 3
  
  ladyinred
  Participant
  
  What we’re witnessing seems to be a bizarre feedback loop between Trump and Fox News/breitbart. They report something that is favorable toward him/a narrative that fits, and he repeats it, which they repeat and so on. We might as well call it state run media, which it is quickly evolving toward, as soon as the gears click and Trump realizes he can really just tell them what to report.
  
  This is all just secondary to the terrifying fact that our president hurls out such accusations via twitter while sitting on the s**tter at 6 am on a Saturday. Unreal.
- 03/05/2017 at 8:32 AM #29676
  1
  
  SkinyUte
  Participant
  
  And now our tax dollars are going to be spent to investigate Breitbart bulls**t. Awesome.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/white-house-spicer-congress-2016/index.html
- 03/08/2017 at 2:55 PM #30135
  1
  
  Utesbyfive
  Participant
  
  Note the top of column 2.
  
  NYT 1/20/2017
Author

Posts