hes still more objective than you.
CNN = Very Fake News
- Thread starter wct097
- Start date
I understand that, but when the media is heavily invested in pushing the Trump-Russia narrative and latches onto anything and everything they can to keep that narrative alive, how could he go about resolving that issue at hand without taking it directly to the people? I can think of a couple of ways, but every single one would be spun by the media in a way to cast him in a poor light.
Get this through your fawking heads, the main stream media is an arm of the Democratic party for fawks sake. They are doing whatever they can to undermine Trump. This means that he is being trolled by the msm and he is trolling them back, this will go on forever and makes the msm look worse because they don't do it to the Dems like this ever. Take the fawking pill already.
I disagree. On one side you have a narrative that doesn't have a basis in reality. On the other, you have a narrative that is based in reality though the allegations aren't proven.because you want to wonder, neither side has offered very compelling evidence of anything on any of the russia/surveillance issue. Without evidence did you ever wonder if the russian connection was something to be concerned with? is it coincidence that hyperbole from your side is the hyperbole you choose to wonder about? This bias is why everything is fake
The Trump-Russia thing seemed fake from the beginning as the Dems were loudly proclaiming that "Russia hacked the election" which, despite being preposterous, morphed into Trump colluding with Russia based on a rehashing of the joke about Putin finding Hillary's lost emails. The very foundation of that narrative was born out of politics and, to date, hasn't appeared to have anything more than that as a basis.
The Trump wiretapping on the other hand came out of the leaked information and has a basis in, at very least, the campaign to oust Flynn. That alone proved that there was surveillance and unmasking. It was also leaked and used politically. That's not in question at this point. The only thing in question is "who leaked" it, "why was the surveillance done", and "were any laws broken".
IMHO, you just re-enforced my previous point.
How so? Is there anything other than conjecture with the Trump-Russia claim? If not, it's clearly different from the Trump surveillance claim. We know there was surveillance info on team Trump that was unmasked and leaked.IMHO, you just re-enforced my previous point.
I don't like him because yankee, but anyone who attempts to label him as stupid is a partisan fool.
jesus does not approve
what evidence do you have about trump survelliance
Details of the contents of Michael Flynn's calls were published in the news. Widespread leaks of the surveillance Intel.
To clarify, I'm saying there is indisputable evidence that the surveillance picked up their comms and that those s were leaked. That's not proof that they were targeted or directly wiretapped.
Last edited:
and the Russian influence on the election is BS?
I'm not questioning if Russia tried to interfere. I assume they do in all elections. We certainly do. Hell, Obama funded groups to work against Bibi in the Jewish elections.
What I'm saying is baseless is the allegations that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere in our elections.
Serious question. If you look at all of that objectively, is there anything other than conjecture that points to collusion to influence the election or something more nefarious or could it simply be that Trump's team was doing what any serious contender for the POTUS would do: start establishing communications with other world leaders so that you're ready to go after the election?
Hillary's team had some of the same connections. That in itself doesn't inherently point to something improper. Leaked intel regarding Mike Flynn's comms, on the other hand is not being disputed. His comms were caught by surveillance. His name was unmasked. The comms were widely disseminated. The comms were leaked. At bare minimum, you have incidental collection, questionable unmasking, and illegal leaking. That's teh definition of "where there is smoke, there is fire". With the Trump-Russia allegations, they're claiming his joke about Putin having her emails is the "smoke" in addition to every expected communication or meeting being part of it.
To date, there has been nothing released that actually draws a line between the elections and anything Russia did illegally and nothing connecting to Trump. The only plausible base for even claiming that Russia interfered is the DNC email hacking, where none of the "evidence" has been released for public review.
fake news source