BREAKING! Obama Allegedly Wiretapped Trump during Campaign

[Dooom35796821595]

Oh man, this will be delicious if it turns out to be true.

It's more likely that aliens ordered wiretapping of Trump's thoughts.

No need, it's all availiable on twitter.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is coming from a pathological liar in the middle of a deflective social media meltdown.

So... yeah, this is a bunch of malarkey until further notice.

*Sigh*

"Mr Trump is right on this issue too! Our intelligence agencies have always historically gone after those who threaten the status quo. They went after MLK, for example. Us Democrats are happy to work with him and Republicans who value freedom to reverse the surveillance state and depower the intelligence agencies ability to conduct surveillance on our citizens. We're glad Trump has come out in favor of this issue, it shows strength of character and foresight, the best foresight. presumably he will join us in a campaign to repeal the patriot act to ensure that this doesn't happen again, even if it means him once again taking on the corrupt establishment republicans he beat so savagely just months ago."

----

"Trump bad!"

Fractal ineptness.
Inept at every level of resolution.
Yet it's the narrative.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Not saying you're wrong... but Infowars is not a reliable source.

Just because the clips/coverage of these attacks are hosted on Infowars does not mean they're not valid.

Not to mention, this ''reliable source'' stuff gets into a huge slippery-slope, with people just condemning all media that goes contrary to their views as ''unreliable''.

That is intrinsically false though. Some sources are provably incorrect and full of lies/bias more so than others. Yes, all media has a slant. But some report absolute lies, blatantly.

[Seangoli]

I can't argue with the fact that Trump has inspired people. That's great; he's given them something to believe in. My issue with that lies in the fact that his rhetoric often is very aggressive and extreme. Second, out of curiosity, I haven't heard of any attacks on Trump supporters; is there a link to a source you could provide? Thanks.

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

It has not "been shown" that Clinton paid violent protesters. It's been stated by crackpots and conspiracy theorists, but it has not been shown in the slightest. Once again, these claims are both laughable and pathetic and lack any sort of substance.

[Thermodolia]

It's more likely that aliens ordered wiretapping of Trump's thoughts.

No need, it's all availiable on twitter.

So Trump's an idiot and insane great!

[Christo Pax]

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

It has not "been shown" that Clinton paid violent protesters. It's been stated by crackpots and conspiracy theorists, but it has not been shown in the slightest. Once again, these claims are both laughable and pathetic and lack any sort of substance.

I can send some articles if you like...

[Bressen]

Just because the clips/coverage of these attacks are hosted on Infowars does not mean they're not valid.

Not to mention, this ''reliable source'' stuff gets into a huge slippery-slope, with people just condemning all media that goes contrary to their views as ''unreliable''.

That is intrinsically false though. Some sources are provably incorrect and full of lies/bias more so than others. Yes, all media has a slant. But some report absolute lies, blatantly.

I'm not doubting that some sources are going to be incorrect, or that some sources (arguably, most sources) are going to have bias. However, my point was that just because one article on a media platform is proven to be false or biased, does not mean that all articles on that platform should be viewed as false or bias.

You can argue that it's ''the boy who cried wolf'' or that certain media outlets have lied too much on the topic already, but I still think every single article/subject needs to be APPROACHED (keyword) from the rationale that it COULD be true or it COULD be false, rather than it IS false or it IS true based solely on what platform the article is hosted on.

[Thermodolia]

I can't argue with the fact that Trump has inspired people. That's great; he's given them something to believe in. My issue with that lies in the fact that his rhetoric often is very aggressive and extreme. Second, out of curiosity, I haven't heard of any attacks on Trump supporters; is there a link to a source you could provide? Thanks.

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

Could you please put some line breaks in your block O' text?

Anyway no that was false the Clinton Campaign did not pay anyone to do any protesting. Just because people don't like someone doesn't mean that they are paid off.

[Seangoli]

It has not "been shown" that Clinton paid violent protesters. It's been stated by crackpots and conspiracy theorists, but it has not been shown in the slightest. Once again, these claims are both laughable and pathetic and lack any sort of substance.

I can send some articles if you like...

You could have sourced your claims in the original post, but I'll take what I can get.

[Slopuba]

Just because the clips/coverage of these attacks are hosted on Infowars does not mean they're not valid.

Not to mention, this ''reliable source'' stuff gets into a huge slippery-slope, with people just condemning all media that goes contrary to their views as ''unreliable''.

That is intrinsically false though. Some sources are provably incorrect and full of lies/bias more so than others. Yes, all media has a slant. But some report absolute lies, blatantly.

Well, I believe that (Whatever you are watching) your News are false.

"But your news are false. They did it many times!"

Come on, don't you see the hypocrisy?

[Vassenor]

Not saying you're wrong... but Infowars is not a reliable source.

Just because the clips/coverage of these attacks are hosted on Infowars does not mean they're not valid.

Not to mention, this ''reliable source'' stuff gets into a huge slippery-slope, with people just condemning all media that goes contrary to their views as ''unreliable''.

Infowars is pretty high on the Wingnuttery scale though.

[The first Galactic Republic]

Given Trump lies more than he tells the truth, his claiming such makes it less believable, not more.

It's a matter of statistics.

Not by much.

[Christo Pax]

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

Could you please put some line breaks in your block O' text?

Anyway no that was false the Clinton Campaign did not pay anyone to do any protesting. Just because people don't like someone doesn't mean that they are paid off.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/trump-rally-disrupter-was-once-on-clinton-campaigns-payroll/
I'll send some more. And forgive me, the Clinton operatives do have a dirty mouth.

[Uxupox]

Given Trump lies more than he tells the truth, his claiming such makes it less believable, not more.

It's a matter of statistics.

Not by much.

very interesting.

I particularly like the 129th lets see if he actually does it.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

That is intrinsically false though. Some sources are provably incorrect and full of lies/bias more so than others. Yes, all media has a slant. But some report absolute lies, blatantly.

I'm not doubting that some sources are going to be incorrect, or that some sources (arguably, most sources) are going to have bias. However, my point was that just because one article on a media platform is proven to be false or biased, does not mean that all articles on that platform should be viewed as false or bias.

You can argue that it's ''the boy who cried wolf'' or that certain media outlets have lied too much on the topic already, but I still think every single article/subject needs to be APPROACHED (keyword) from the rationale that it COULD be true or it COULD be false, rather than it IS false or it IS true based solely on what platform the article is hosted on.

Unless infowars is reporting sports scores or the weather, then I'm sorry, every article it posts (most likely) is going to have a bias, and should be viewed with suspicion, especially since they are well-known (this is fact, not opinion) for posting falsehoods. Sites such as Reuters, the Associated Press do not go out of their way to post falsehoods.

[Liriena]

This is coming from a pathological liar in the middle of a deflective social media meltdown.

So... yeah, this is a bunch of malarkey until further notice.

*Sigh*

"Mr Trump is right on this issue too! Our intelligence agencies have always historically gone after those who threaten the status quo. They went after MLK, for example. Us Democrats are happy to work with him and Republicans who value freedom to reverse the surveillance state and depower the intelligence agencies ability to conduct surveillance on our citizens. We're glad Trump has come out in favor of this issue, it shows strength of character and foresight, the best foresight. presumably he will join us in a campaign to repeal the patriot act to ensure that this doesn't happen again, even if it means once again taking on the corrupt establishment republicans."

----

"Trump bad!"

1. Don't equate Trump with MLK. Trump was only ever a superficial "threat" to the status quo, as demonstrated by the fact that so far he has been enjoying a very merry honeymoon with the corrupt establishment republicans. If the only thing that makes you anti-establishment is that you shamelessly lie about your own platform, that's a far cry from being MLK.
2. He only seems to care about the surveillance state when it supposedly affects him, so let's not give him undeserved credit and treat him like some sort of anti-surveillance hero. Snowden he ain't.
3. Yes, "Trump bad!". As far as I'm concerned, he is a despicable politician and a horrible human being, and I can't wait to see the day when he and the entire republican party get their just deserts.

[Proctopeo]

Just because the clips/coverage of these attacks are hosted on Infowars does not mean they're not valid.

Not to mention, this ''reliable source'' stuff gets into a huge slippery-slope, with people just condemning all media that goes contrary to their views as ''unreliable''.

Infowars is pretty high on the Wingnuttery scale though.

>rationalwiki
Well, I guess it takes one to know one.

[Thermodolia]

Given Trump lies more than he tells the truth, his claiming such makes it less believable, not more.

It's a matter of statistics.

Not by much.

Those only count promises kept not if he's actually lied about things.
This ones better

[Liriena]

Infowars is pretty high on the Wingnuttery scale though.

>rationalwiki
Well, I guess it takes one to know one.

Yeah, yeah, but rationalwiki is right for once. Infowars is infamous for peddling all manner of insane conspiracy theories.

[Thermodolia]

Could you please put some line breaks in your block O' text?

Anyway no that was false the Clinton Campaign did not pay anyone to do any protesting. Just because people don't like someone doesn't mean that they are paid off.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/trump-rally-disrupter-was-once-on-clinton-campaigns-payroll/
I'll send some more.

The key word here is "Was" which means they where not paid by the Clinton campaign to protest. The campaign let them go and stopped paying them.

[Empire of Cats]

I can't argue with the fact that Trump has inspired people. That's great; he's given them something to believe in. My issue with that lies in the fact that his rhetoric often is very aggressive and extreme. Second, out of curiosity, I haven't heard of any attacks on Trump supporters; is there a link to a source you could provide? Thanks.

http://www.infowars.com/austin-communists-arrested-for-attacking-trump-supporters/
http://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-mob-surrounds-attacks-trump-supporter-for-wearing-maga-hat/
http://www.infowars.com/video-high-school-girl-viciously-attacked-for-supporting-donald-trump/

These are but a few.

I can't argue with the fact that Trump has inspired people. That's great; he's given them something to believe in. My issue with that lies in the fact that his rhetoric often is very aggressive and extreme. Second, out of curiosity, I haven't heard of any attacks on Trump supporters; is there a link to a source you could provide? Thanks.

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

Thanks. Geez, people are taking this too far.

Not that this excuses it, but there are also cases where the opposite has proven true, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-muslim-hate-trump-supporters_us_57fbcd79e4b0e655eab66379
http://time.com/4651432/trump-muslim-woman-jfk-airport/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/17/disturbing-video-of-trump-supporter-attacking-starbucks-employee/21608393/
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/06/trump-supporters-pepper-spray-non-violent-protesters-video/
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/violence-committed-against-women-by-trump-supporters.html

Again, but a few. they may not be the most reliable, but still.

It's truly sad to see people from BOTH sides act like we're in a Balkanized country...what on Earth ever happened to the idea of "One Nation, Indivisible"?

[Bressen]

I'm not doubting that some sources are going to be incorrect, or that some sources (arguably, most sources) are going to have bias. However, my point was that just because one article on a media platform is proven to be false or biased, does not mean that all articles on that platform should be viewed as false or bias.

You can argue that it's ''the boy who cried wolf'' or that certain media outlets have lied too much on the topic already, but I still think every single article/subject needs to be APPROACHED (keyword) from the rationale that it COULD be true or it COULD be false, rather than it IS false or it IS true based solely on what platform the article is hosted on.

Unless infowars is reporting sports scores or the weather, then I'm sorry, every article it posts (most likely) is going to have a bias, and should be viewed with suspicion, especially since they are well-known (this is fact, not opinion) for posting falsehoods. Sites such as Reuters, the Associated Press do not go out of their way to post falsehoods.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that all articles should be approached with an open mind regardless of what platform they're hosted on.

I'm not saying blindly believe everything you see, or blindly dismiss everything you see. I'm saying approach every claim with an open yet sceptical mind, irrespective of the reputation the platform has.

Also, the vast majority of platforms have a political bias, so there's no use basing validity on bias because the slippery-slope of ''reliable sources'' gets even more slippery.

[Thermodolia]

Not by much.

very interesting.

I particularly like the 129th lets see if he actually does it.

Though it only covers campaign promises and not actual lies he's said, which is what Gallo's comment was going at.

[Uxupox]

http://www.infowars.com/austin-communists-arrested-for-attacking-trump-supporters/
http://www.infowars.com/video-black-lives-matter-mob-surrounds-attacks-trump-supporter-for-wearing-maga-hat/
http://www.infowars.com/video-high-school-girl-viciously-attacked-for-supporting-donald-trump/

These are but a few.

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies. And for the violence, it has been seen in many places, including universities. One video at Berkeley showed a woman wearing a Trump hat being pepper sprayed by protesters and a man getting attacked on a subway. I actually have had a personal experience with a violent, anti-Trump protester after a Trump rally I attended, where two people had to hold back that man from running up to me, who was about to engage in a fist fight.

Thanks. Geez, people are taking this too far.

Not that this excuses it, but there are also cases where the opposite has proven true, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-muslim-hate-trump-supporters_us_57fbcd79e4b0e655eab66379
http://time.com/4651432/trump-muslim-woman-jfk-airport/
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/17/disturbing-video-of-trump-supporter-attacking-starbucks-employee/21608393/
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/06/trump-supporters-pepper-spray-non-violent-protesters-video/
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/violence-committed-against-women-by-trump-supporters.html

Again, but a few. they may not be the most reliable, but still.

It's truly sad to see people from BOTH sides act like we're in a Balkanized country...what on Earth ever happened to the idea of "One Nation, Indivisible"?

Yea its' sad to see that shitty political violence being done by both sides.

[Liriena]

It has been shown that the Clinton Campaign had paid violent protesters to attend Trump rallies.

Says who?