• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trump just made the media start trashing their own reports

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/trump-ends-innuendo-game-dealing/

Trump Ends the Wiretapping Innuendo Game by Dealing Himself In

It’s possible one reason Trump issued his explosive tweets on surveillance was to make everyone put up or shut up. That might already be working, as some of the more aggressive dealers in unsubstantiated innuendo are suddenly admitting they don’t have any actual evidence. There can’tbe any hard evidence if Trump is super-duper wrong about Obama administration surveillance:

Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that allkindsof wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.




One of the best and most even-handed observers of the wiretapping drama is Andy McCarthy, who writes for the decidedly non-Trumpian National Review. McCarthy’s Sunday post on the matter is well worth reading in full. His key point is that some highly unusual FISA requests for surveillance on the Trump campaign were made and were denied by the court, as very few such requests are. The Obama administration was persistent and eventually obtained the authorization it wanted, but there is reason to suspect it was not entirely candid with the FISA court on its final, successful request.

McCarthy points out that if Obama believed half of what the Democrats tout as sacred truth about the Russians working with Trump’s campaign, he would have been negligent not to authorize the kind of surveillance Trump is angry about, and there is “a less than zero chance” surveillance could have been imposed “without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.”
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm loving it! Trump should write another book..."The art of the Game". The left wingers want to play the "he said she said" but no evidence game against Trump, then use it against them.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It does seem to appear Trump is in full command of the news cycle. This is one reason I wanted Trump in there rather than a Jeb or Marco. The left knows how to destroy pacifists like the Bushes. It's not use to being hit back, let alone by brawler like Trump.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/trump-ends-innuendo-game-dealing/

Trump Ends the Wiretapping Innuendo Game by Dealing Himself In

It’s possible one reason Trump issued his explosive tweets on surveillance was to make everyone put up or shut up. That might already be working, as some of the more aggressive dealers in unsubstantiated innuendo are suddenly admitting they don’t have any actual evidence. There can’tbe any hard evidence if Trump is super-duper wrong about Obama administration surveillance:

This is intriguing...

Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that allkindsof wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.

LOL. Yeah, I don't remember the media and Democrats alleging "all kinds of wiretaping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign".


His key point is that some highly unusual FISA requests for surveillance on the Trump campaign were made and were denied by the court, as very few such requests are. The Obama administration was persistent and eventually obtained the authorization it wanted, but there is reason to suspect it was not entirely candid with the FISA court on its final, successful request.

Pure speculation.

McCarthy points out that if Obama believed half of what the Democrats tout as sacred truth about the Russians working with Trump’s campaign, he would have been negligent not to authorize the kind of surveillance Trump is angry about, and there is “a less than zero chance” surveillance could have been imposed “without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.”

Yeah, so? Did the FBI and other intelligence agencies conduct an investigation into the Trump/Russian connection? Yes. Was the wiretapping of certain Trump aides a part of this? Yes. Was a warrant obtained for this? Yes.

Just what is the big scandal here?
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just an observation, but notice ITL will always side with Democrats even though he claims to be anti Hillary and anti democrat. With enemies like him, who needs friends?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just an observation, but notice ITL will always side with Democrats even though he claims to be anti Hillary and anti democrat. With enemies like him, who needs friends?

Notice you attack me rather than address my post. Typical of you.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How did I attack you?

False witness. You know I don't like Democrats. You know I don't like Hillary. You know I didn't vote for her.

I judge things on their merit and form an opinion. Republicans are not always correct; Democrats are not always wrong, but in my experience that is how it usually shakes out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...-the-modern-church.103745/page-7#post-2294695

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/to-those-who-hate-trump.103671/#post-2291290
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How did you address my post?

I didn't address your post, I merely made an observation—one I stand by. You are in the tank for liberal democrats. You always have been.

That that in and of itself is not an attack, but it does contradict how you've represented yourself.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I didn't address your post, I merely made an observation—one I stand by. You are in the tank for liberal democrats. You always have been.

That that in and of itself is not an attack, but it does contradict how you've represented yourself.

Posts of mine from the last couple of weeks:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...-the-modern-church.103745/page-7#post-2294695
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/to-those-who-hate-trump.103671/#post-2291290
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...9-in-third-quarter.101971/page-2#post-2270269
 
Last edited:

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

And yet during the election you did everything you could to lift up Hillary and undermine Trump. You may not have liked Bengazi, but a lot of democrats didn't. To me, that's what exposes you. You'll give lip service, but when it comes down to it, you're a liberal democrat through and though. That's the politics you identify with.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
And yet during the election you did everything you could to lift up Hillary and undermine Trump. You may not have liked Bengazi, but a lot of democrats didn't. To me, that's what exposes you. You'll give lip service, but when it comes down to it, you're a liberal democrat through and though. That's the politics you identify with.

I voted for Marco Rubio at the Minnesota REPUBLICAN caucus. Ergo, I voted for a Republican. That is Caluminian's definition of lip service, I guess.

I have voted for every Republican presidential candidate since I was able to vote (except for Trump, this year.)

When Rubio was eliminated I supported Ted Cruz.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Caluminian's definition of a liberal democrat "through and through"--voting Republican and supporting Ted Cruz.

You have the attention span of a fevered gnat.

Into the killfile with thee...
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I voted for Marco Rubio at the Minnesota REPUBLICAN caucus. Ergo, I voted for a Republican. That is Caluminian's definition of lip service, I guess.

I have voted for every Republican presidential candidate since I was able to vote (except for Trump, this year.)

When Rubio was eliminated I supported Ted Cruz.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Caluminian's definition of a liberal democrat "through and through."

You have the attention span of a fevered gnat.

Into the killfile with thee...

These are your words. I don't believe you. My evidence is the issues you've argued for on this board, which are not only against Trump, but also Cruz and Rubio. Those candidates you say you support, actually support Trump. So even if they were in and doing the same things Trump is doing, you'd fight agains them.
 

Calminian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So you are flat out calling me a liar?...

No, because you could also be self-deluded. But no, I don't take your words at face value. Nor do I believe you are a conservative republican. You want me to call you a liar, but I'll refrain.

I think you would like to think of yourself as conservative, but the truth is, you are not. You are much more in line with liberal politicians.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, because you could also be self-deluded. But no, I don't take your words at face value. Nor do I believe you are a conservative republican. You want me to call you a liar, but I'll refrain.

Much better to call me self-deluded! LOL!

I think you would like to think of yourself as conservative, but the truth is, you are not. You are much more in line with liberal politicians.

So you say, with no evidence at all, except your 'making stuff up in your head' imagination.

Done with you.
 
Top