**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Can someone tell me how Trump's claim of being wire-tapped by the Obama administration has been "debunked", "torpedoed", "discredited", "denied", "unfounded", and "false" but the claim that Trump colluded with Russia is none of those things?

Does it matter that the amount of evidence supporting each of those claims is exactly the same?

There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.

[Poopadoop]

There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.

It seems you've been misinformed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.a9ca85eddaa1

Also, I heard the leaks on Flynn came from the fact the Russian guy was being surveiled.

[BananaStand]

It seems you've been misinformed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.a9ca85eddaa1

What article are you reading? The Flynn stuff came from "wiretapped" data. There's no denying that exact headline appears in the NY Times. The article you linked says that Trump is wrong to claim its a report of Obama ordering it, or that the surveillance took place specifically at Trump tower. However, wuf made neither of those assertions.

Wuf's point, I believe, echoes mine, which is that SOMEBODY wiretapped Flynn, at the very least.

Also, I heard the leaks on Flynn came from the fact the Russian guy was being surveiled.

Cute play there, using the word "fact" to describe something that is purely speculative and not supported by a single shred of evidence.

In a lot of ways, it's worse for America if Obama was really wiretapping a foreign ambassador rather than a domestic political opponent.

And in either case, it's extra-bad that Flynn's name got leaked in the first place.

[Poopadoop]

What post are you reading?

There is quite good evidence of Trump getting wiretapped. NYT and others reported it months ago and the leaks on Flynn came from them.

is what Wuf said.

The link I posted just showed that statement was false.

Where did I say all this other shit you're talking about? Fuck, you must really have a hole in your brain if you can't read something and actually understand what the words mean and respond to that rather than turn it into something different you can attack. You fucking idiot.

[BananaStand]

The link I posted just showed that statement was false.

No, it didn't you contemptuous retard

The NYT reported that the Flynn leaks were the result of conversations that were wire-tapped. That's a true statement confirmed by the article that you linked.

[Poopadoop]

No, it didn't you contemptuous retard

Lol. Good argument.

So first, you can't actually take what someone says and argue against it, so you change their meaning into something that you can yell at them for.

Then second, when you called a fucking idiot (which you are), your response is to say 'no i'm not you are'. Fucking hilarious. It's like arguing with a six year old.

[BananaStand]

Where did I say all this other shit you're talking about?

Pay attention ignoramus

The article you linked says that Trump is wrong to claim its a report of Obama ordering it, or that the surveillance took place specifically at Trump tower.

Is your name 'article you linked'?