Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

Unusually watchable & mostly objective bit of happy news from Vice & HBO :).

 

[video=youtube;af6dPAbOxP8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af6dPAbOxP8

 

 

I think this is fucking awesome!  

 

Take note America.  If you associate with a gang, A GANG!, that kill, and steel, sell/use drugs, and have no reguard for anything or anyone, you go directly to jail.  Fuck you.  We are not giving you a chance to do any of the bull shit that America allowed you do to.  Fuck you. Die.

 

Fuck you, die.

  • Like 5
Link to comment

I'm for it and I'm going to play devils advocate here. Do we have enough room in our prison system? We are having an issue right now where we are running out of room.

Deathmatch the lifers! at least then the loser gets a reduced sentance xD that or go full roman and have platoons of convicts fighting for a pardon of their crimes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Yup. The commander in chief tapped the phones of a campaign manager who was closely tied to Russian money and government tied business'. Militarily seems responsible and prudent. And judging by the warrant granted, I'd say there is more than the news can report. Perhaps he resigned coincidentally. Perhaps the pressure was too much. Whether there was involvement or not, finding out is responsible, if carried out legally and constitutionally.

 

 

Trump stated that he was tapped no? That is what was denied I believe. Why phone tap the pawn?

How much more info do you need to to believe Trump's claim of being wiretapped is true ? I had doubts about his claim and thought it was either paranoia or just a jab at the left and Obama.turns out he was right all along.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

How much more info do you need to to believe Trump's claim of being wiretapped is true ? I had doubts about his claim and thought it was either paranoia or just a jab at the left and Obama.turns out he was right all along.

Any would be helpful.  All I have is a claim by trump.  That said, It wouldn't surprise me given the extent of the investigation that was underway.  Also, I would not be at all surprised to find out that every phone conversation we have is recorded.  Yours, mine, even foreigners.  Storage is cheap, data is retrievable, information is valuable.  All that matters these days is what the court issued as usable evidence.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Any would be helpful.  All I have is a claim by trump.  That said, It wouldn't surprise me given the extent of the investigation that was underway.  Also, I would not be at all surprised to find out that every phone conversation we have is recorded.  Yours, mine, even foreigners.  Storage is cheap, data is retrievable, information is valuable.  All that matters these days is what the court issued as usable evidence.  

Try watching the news,or reading it.I know you have internet service on that island,you're on ratsun.net aren't you ? this isn't a claim by Trump anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Try watching the news,or reading it.I know you have internet service on that island,you're on ratsun.net aren't you ? this isn't a claim by Trump anymore.

I'm not going to buy cable for you so no on watching. But I just spent some time online reading for you. Really trying to find anything beyond what I'd already read. Don't see anything pointing to Donald Trumps phones being tapped. But I do see a shit ton more on Manaforts work lobbying with the Kremlin in 2014. That and more leading to a court ordered wire tap on Manaforts phones. This still appears to be all there is to skew in support of Donald's claims.

 

Based on your stark comment, I presume you know more than google so please do educate me. Otherwise I'll presume, that you presumed based on Twitter headlines and the like.

Link to comment

I'm not going to buy cable for you so no on watching. But I just spent some time online reading for you. Really trying to find anything beyond what I'd already read. Don't see anything pointing to Donald Trumps phones being tapped. But I do see a shit ton more on Manaforts work lobbying with the Kremlin in 2014. That and more leading to a court ordered wire tap on Manaforts phones. This still appears to be all there is to skew in support of Donald's claims.

 

Based on your stark comment, I presume you know more than google so please do educate me. Otherwise I'll presume, that you presumed based on Twitter headlines and the like.

 

So you consider bugging Manaforts side of a telephone line when he talks to Trump, you know while Manafort works for his campaign so he would be talking to Trump, in Trump tower not to be "wire tapping" Trumps line?

 

Really? Are you fucking kidding me? 

 

Because to me if I'm talking on a telephone that the government is listening in on I would consider that wire tapping as would any reasonable person even if the tap is on the other persons line and especially if it was in a building I WAS FUCKING LIVING IN at the time!

  • Like 4
Link to comment

So when one gets a subpoena to tap someone's phone, they should actually get a subpoena for everyone that person could possibly speak with? Remember, Manafort had his phones tapped long before he was on the Trump campaign. Every phone that is tapped is de facto listening to the tapped phone and anyone who is also speaking. Kinda the point of wiretapping. And if you had this opinion, why would you not have brought it up decades ago. Only now is it an issue?

 

This is phone tapping 101. A president can't order it. A senator can't order it. A general can't order it. It is a court order ruled upon by a judge after review. Manafort was dirty enough to warrant this, twice in fact. And frankly, an advisor suspected of collusion should be checked out.

 

But I've gone off track. Trump stated that his line was tapped. There is no proof suggesting that, and you've both agreed without liking it. If I called Manafort that month and claimed the government tapped my lines, I highly doubt you'd agree with me. If I appeared in a photo of Manafort while he was spied on, I would claim I was being spied on. Facts, not suggestions. That's what you guys always refer to right?

 

Any inference that the only reason Manafort was tapped was to listen to Trump is only that. And frankly it's unlikely because most who think Russia was involved don't think Trump was involved. His cabinet could be dirty, but Trump needs plausible deniability so he would logically be left out. But that's all still an if in my mind.

Link to comment

So when one gets a subpoena to tap someone's phone, they should actually get a subpoena for everyone that person could possibly speak with? Remember, Manafort had his phones tapped long before he was on the Trump campaign. Every phone that is tapped is de facto listening to the tapped phone and anyone who is also speaking. Kinda the point of wiretapping. And if you had this opinion, why would you not have brought it up decades ago. Only now is it an issue?

 

This is phone tapping 101. A president can't order it. A senator can't order it. A general can't order it. It is a court order ruled upon by a judge after review. Manafort was dirty enough to warrant this, twice in fact. And frankly, an advisor suspected of collusion should be checked out.

 

But I've gone off track. Trump stated that his line was tapped. There is no proof suggesting that, and you've both agreed without liking it. If I called Manafort that month and claimed the government tapped my lines, I highly doubt you'd agree with me. If I appeared in a photo of Manafort while he was spied on, I would claim I was being spied on. Facts, not suggestions. That's what you guys always refer to right?

 

Any inference that the only reason Manafort was tapped was to listen to Trump is only that. And frankly it's unlikely because most who think Russia was involved don't think Trump was involved. His cabinet could be dirty, but Trump needs plausible deniability so he would logically be left out. But that's all still an if in my mind.

 

If you want to be very pedantic phone lines in Trump tower were tapped, Trump owns Trump tower, therefore Trump's phone lines were tapped as he owns the Tower the phone lines exist in and therefore the phone lines. But that is being nitpicky.

 

The government tapped the lines of a campaign manager for a presidential candidate. It would be expected he would often being speaking to Trump, you know the guy he works for and lives in the same building as. If you can't see that as an end run around to record private conversations held with Trump they you are willfully being ignorant. How is that inference at all? Campaign managers tend to talk to the people whose campaign they are running.

 

And yes if you called Manafort that month, the government tapped that line, and as every child knows the line is shared during a phone call, you would have every right to say the government tapped your line. 

 

Your other analogies of a photo is weak. If I take a picture of someone doing something and other people are in the background then yes I take a picture of them too.

 

Also you state "Manafort was dirty enough to warrant this, twice in fact." No he was important enough/of interest to warrant a warrant, you have no actual evidence he was dirty, the warrant is to gather evidence, and are often used in "bad faith" especially, I don't know, to gather political information (second time around)?

 

Remember, we have not seen evidence of anything dirty. Also, he was wiretapped before, right? About Ukrainian interests, which is a separate country from Russia and not on the best of terms with them. So if nothing came of that it would seem the tapping did NOT result in evidence of WRONG DOING. Now is he dirty, I don't know, we haven't seen any actual facts come out about that yet. But, the second wiretapping was supposedly due to the "Russian interaction", which was based on shitty make believe bullshit (dossier). If you'll note the Russia narrative has fallen apart at this point (name me any ACTUAL evidence of direct vote manipulation or collusion... you can't, but I can show you evidence of HRC interacting with Russia in some super shady ass deals).

 

I think for Trump to say that his lines were tapped, of someone he speaks to over tapped lines on a regular basis, in the building he owns and lives in is a reasonable assertion. If someone was listening on conversations I had with someone else, on a regular basis, even if they were the identified "target", I would feel saying my lines were tapped is a very reasonable statement.

 

Also, we only know of tapping of Manafort at this point, we don't know what else make shake out of the tree. But of course that is conjecture, not facts.

 

Here is an example with a simple YES or NO answer:

 

Lets say we tap the line of your wife/SO but NOT your line (assuming 2 different cell phones). When you call her to talk would you consider your line to be tapped? YES or NO answer.

 

If you answer NO your line is not tapped, would you share private/intimate information a third party might intercept? Why not? You just stated your line isn't tapped.

If you answer YES, then well this is a congruent situation and you agree with Trump stating his lines were tapped, within the context of talking to Manafort.

 

So tell me YES or NO?

  • Like 4
Link to comment

I'm not going to buy cable for you so no on watching. But I just spent some time online reading for you. Really trying to find anything beyond what I'd already read. Don't see anything pointing to Donald Trumps phones being tapped. But I do see a shit ton more on Manaforts work lobbying with the Kremlin in 2014. That and more leading to a court ordered wire tap on Manaforts phones. This still appears to be all there is to skew in support of Donald's claims.

 

Based on your stark comment, I presume you know more than google so please do educate me. Otherwise I'll presume, that you presumed based on Twitter headlines and the like.

Here's that denial thing again.What does having cable have to do with it ?  maybe try a newspaper ? SMH

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Dguy. If my wife's phone was tapped, then no. I would not say my phone was tapped. Simply because it wasn't. Our conversations were recorded, but my phone was not tapped as no calls I made were listened to unless I call a phone that is tapped. This is really quite simple. Trump made an assertion with legal implication, so yes semantics count here. And Trump Tower is his. But within any typical building, units are individually owned. If not owned, then leased. Any services distributed would be contracted to owners or tennants. So that falls flat too. Trump would not own the service contracts for phone lines.

Link to comment

Dguy. If my wife's phone was tapped, then no. I would not say my phone was tapped. Simply because it wasn't. Our conversations were recorded, but my phone was not tapped as no calls I made were listened to unless I call a phone that is tapped. This is really quite simple. Trump made an assertion with legal implication, so yes semantics count here. And Trump Tower is his. But within any typical building, units are individually owned. If not owned, then leased. Any services distributed would be contracted to owners or tennants. So that falls flat too. Trump would not own the service contracts for phone lines.

That is a very weak argument.Jesus.Are just trolling us ?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.