Trump on wiretapping

[John B.]

Asked by on Face the Nation if he stood by his
claim that Obama wiretapped his office, he said:

"I don't stand by anything. I just-- you can take
it the way you want. I think our side's been proven
very strongly. And everybody's talking about it.
And frankly it should be discussed. I think that
is a very big surveillance of our citizens.
I think it's a very big topic. And it's a topic
that should be number one. And we should find out
what the hell is going on."

Brilliant! Absolutely fucking brilliant!

[Alan Baker]

Hilarious.

How can anyone still support this clown.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

His first sentence cleared everything up.

[John B.]

I forgot to note that he found the question so
offensive that he terminated the interview and
walked out.

[Alan Baker]

Awww... ...the poor snowflake...

:-(

[Dene]

Good for Trump. It's a stupid question. The so-called "reporter" got
exactly what he deserved.

[Alan Baker]

WHY was it stupid, Greg?

:-)

[Carbon]

It was a perfectly reasonable question followed by an incredibly stupid
answer. Your president is incapable of rational thought. Congratulations.

[Alan Baker]

I'm just fascinated by the levels to which our wingnuts will carry their
rationalizations.

:-)

[Carbon]

Greg isn't stupid. He knows just as well as we do that his boy is a
half-wit.

[Alan Baker]

Frankly, that makes him look worse.

:-(

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-01 4:25 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Clearly there was "wire tapping" of Trump.
>

No.

On the evidence available, there was not.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 18:25:22 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>Clearly there was "wire tapping" of Trump.

CLEARLY? Clearly you're full of shit.!!!!!

[Carbon]

Hey man, this is Usenet. Trolling is a time-honored practice ;-)

[Alan Baker]

True... ...so true.

:-D

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:50:39 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-05-01 4:49 PM, Carbon wrote:

<clip>

>>>> Greg isn't stupid. He knows just as well as we do that his boy is a
>>>> half-wit.
>>>
>>> Frankly, that makes him look worse.
>>>
>>> :-(
>>
>> Hey man, this is Usenet. Trolling is a time-honored practice ;-)
>
>True... ...so true.
>

Troll or not I really like Greg. He's been a good friend and helped me
personally. For that reason I just will not read his posts any more.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:00:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>According to Nunes, who saw the evidence of wire taps, there was.
> We know it was widely distributed as well.

No he didn't that must be something that you found on one of your far
right sites.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-01 5:00 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> According to Nunes, who saw the evidence of wire taps, there was.

1. Nunes is a partisan hack.

2. No. What was found is that the intelligence community was monitoring
Russians and Trump's people were talking to them.

[Alan Baker]

I respect your right to your opinion of him, but based on his way of
using people and then acting like a complete asshole, I'll have to agree
to disagree.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:00:21 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>According to Nunes, who saw the evidence of wire taps, there was.

> We know it was widely distributed as well.

It was also widely distributed that Nunes backed off and maintained
that he didn't "actually" say that. For heaven's sake, that was March
23rd. You are really so far behind its pitiful.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:21:41 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

wrote:

>On 2017-05-01 5:09 PM, Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:50:39 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-05-01 4:49 PM, Carbon wrote:
>> <clip>
>>>>>> Greg isn't stupid. He knows just as well as we do that his boy is a
>>>>>> half-wit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, that makes him look worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-(
>>>>
>>>> Hey man, this is Usenet. Trolling is a time-honored practice ;-)
>>>
>>> True... ...so true.
>>>
>> Troll or not I really like Greg. He's been a good friend and helped me
>> personally. For that reason I just will not read his posts any more.
>>
>
>I respect your right to your opinion of him, but based on his way of
>using people and then acting like a complete asshole, I'll have to agree
>to disagree.

No Alan, you don't.

[Alan Baker]

What is that supposed to mean?

[John B.]

Wow, you're really headed for the deep end,
aren't you?

[John B.]

It wasn't stupid at all. The answer was
beyond stupid.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-01 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
> It wasn't stupid at all. The answer was
> beyond stupid.
>

That's clear, John...

...and Greg is too cowardly to try and rebut anyway.

:-)

[Dene]

I call it like I see it. Always have...always will. My best golfing
buddy is further left than anybody in this room. Our friendship
transcends our differing views. If you cannot exercise similar
tolerance, then by all means, ignore my posts.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-01 6:00 PM, Dene wrote:
> On 5/1/2017 5:09 PM, Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:50:39 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-05-01 4:49 PM, Carbon wrote:
>> <clip>
>>>>>> Greg isn't stupid. He knows just as well as we do that his boy is a
>>>>>> half-wit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, that makes him look worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-(
>>>>
>>>> Hey man, this is Usenet. Trolling is a time-honored practice ;-)
>>>
>>> True... ...so true.
>>>
>> Troll or not I really like Greg. He's been a good friend and helped me
>> personally. For that reason I just will not read his posts any more.
>
> I call it like I see it. Always have...always will.

LOL!

> My best golfing
> buddy is further left than anybody in this room. Our friendship
> transcends our differing views. If you cannot exercise similar
> tolerance, then by all means, ignore my posts.

You are utterly full of shit.

[Dene]

Unlike the troll in this room, I offer opinions. IT asserts nothing.
IT is here to be an asshole. Nothing more.

[Dene]

This half-wit beat two Dems and 12 Republicans. Regardless of his 4th
grade venacular, there is nothing half wit about the Republican agenda,
especially when it's compared to the Dem vision, which is virtually
non-existent.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

[Alan Baker]

Which explains why more people still voted for the Dem than voted for him...

[Carbon]

I like Greg too. I'm not sure what to make of his sudden bout of Trumpism.
I'm pretty sure he knows better.

[Bob...@onramp.net]

That's why it is hard for me to see.

[Carbon]

Trump used to claim to be a Democrat with equal sincerity. He doesn't know
or care about the Republican agenda. The extent of his concerns are
celebrity, titties and money. There is nothing else.

[Alan Baker]

Maybe it should be cause to re-evaluate what you believe about him...

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:07:52 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

wrote:

>On 2017-05-01 6:59 PM, Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 21:55:59 -0400, Carbon
>> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/01/2017 08:09 PM, Bob...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:50:39 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-05-01 4:49 PM, Carbon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <clip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg isn't stupid. He knows just as well as we do that his boy is a
>>>>>>>> half-wit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly, that makes him look worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey man, this is Usenet. Trolling is a time-honored practice ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> True... ...so true.
>>>>>
>>>> Troll or not I really like Greg. He's been a good friend and helped me
>>>> personally. For that reason I just will not read his posts any more.
>>>
>>> I like Greg too. I'm not sure what to make of his sudden bout of Trumpism.
>>> I'm pretty sure he knows better.
>>
>> That's why it is hard for me to see.
>>
>
>Maybe it should be cause to re-evaluate what you believe about him...

That's what I meant when I said "no you don't"
to your offer to agree to disagree.
I don't need any input on this from you.
I would say the same to Greg.
You two have a relationship that I want no part of.

[Alan Baker]

Sorry. Still don't see what you're driving at.

> I don't need any input on this from you.

Great. Don't accept it.

But don't make a federal case out of it either.

:-)

> I would say the same to Greg.
> You two have a relationship that I want no part of.

And yet, you couldn't just let it lie, could you?

:-)_

[Dene]

Thanks BK...perfect response. You have Baker figured out.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

He has you figured out too...

[Dene]

He's a dealmaker. He just made a deal with the budget that gives
fundamentalist Republicans little to cheer about, yet I applaud it
because he put the needs of the country ahead of ideology. Can you at
least do the same....or would you have preferred a govt. shutdown?

[Dene]

Then I will repeat my view of Trump. He is a signatory to an agenda I
applaud. Does he make me cringe...sure. It's like Richard Sherman of
the Seahawks. Is the guy an asshole...yep...but he's my asshole. Right
now...we need an asshole in the executive branch. An outsider who has
the stones to get some essential stuff done.

That is 90% why I defend him so far. Other 10% is to keep you libs
honest. Mikey is barely here. DL does a once in a month cannonball,
drenching all of you, then disappearing. That leaves Mods n me. You
really want the room to be full of libs, nyms, and one lying troll?

One final unrelated comment. I finally created a twitter account and
have only one follow. Guess who. You know what surprised me. How much
the vast majority of his posts are unreported and perfectly normal,
proving that the presstitutes do not tell us the whole story.

[Alan Baker]

You mean like hire the very worst people to oversee various roles in
government? That's essential, is it?

>
> That is 90% why I defend him so far. Other 10% is to keep you libs
> honest. Mikey is barely here. DL does a once in a month cannonball,
> drenching all of you, then disappearing. That leaves Mods n me. You
> really want the room to be full of libs, nyms, and one lying troll?

What has he done that's worth defending?

>
> One final unrelated comment. I finally created a twitter account and
> have only one follow. Guess who. You know what surprised me. How much
> the vast majority of his posts are unreported and perfectly normal,
> proving that the presstitutes do not tell us the whole story.

Trump followed you?

I notice you don't provide any links to support what you're vaguely
alluding to...

[Bob...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:32:02 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

You were the first to make a post to me about this. I didn't ask you
and I have only responded. You're not letting it lie. There will be
more from you undoubtedly.

[Dene]

Undoubtedly.

[Carbon]

Mikey is barely here at the best of times, and immoderate is even worse.
DL is as unstable as KenPitts. You're the only member of the Trumpean
NeoFascist movement who's even remotely capable of reason, so I can only
assume this is a some sort of joke. There's nothing more to Trump than
avarice and an unrelenting hunger for attention.

[Carbon]

Greg. Please. Republicans control the House, Senate and White House. We
can accept as given that the budgetary crap is going to pass, just as it
would if the Democrats were in charge of everything.

But to your point about Trump being some sort of master dealmaker: If that
were the case and if he was really and worth as much as he's claimed, he'd
commission a ticker-tape parade and would be throwing copies of his tax
returns into the air like so much confetti. You know this is true.

But the real truth is that as soon as Trump got his hands on Daddy's money
in the early 90's he bought airlines, football teams, and a lot of other
stupid crap and almost immediately went bust. He has since narrowed his
scope to mostly selling his brand to suckers.

In fact, Trump has been so radioactive to legitimate US banks over the
years that he has had to secure his many loans from a colorful and
interesting band of offshore financial institutions, the details of which
I am sure would go a long way towards explaining his continuing cowardice
about releasing his taxes.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 12:18:04 AM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 10:42 PM, Dene wrote:
> > On 5/1/2017 7:02 PM, Carbon wrote:

> >> [...]

> >>
> >> Trump used to claim to be a Democrat with equal sincerity. He doesn't
> >> know or care about the Republican agenda. The extent of his concerns
> >> are celebrity, titties and money. There is nothing else.
> >
> > He's a dealmaker. He just made a deal with the budget that gives
> > fundamentalist Republicans little to cheer about, yet I applaud it
> > because he put the needs of the country ahead of ideology. Can you at
> > least do the same....or would you have preferred a govt. shutdown?
>
> Greg. Please. Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
> We can accept as given that the budgetary crap is going to pass, just as
> it would if the Democrats were in charge of everything.
>
> But to your point about Trump being some sort of master dealmaker: If that
> were the case and if he was really and worth as much as he's claimed, he'd
> commission a ticker-tape parade and would be throwing copies of his tax
> returns into the air like so much confetti. You know this is true.
>
> But the real truth is that as soon as Trump got his hands on Daddy's money
> in the early 90's he bought airlines, football teams, and a lot of other
> stupid crap and almost immediately went bust. He has since narrowed his
> scope to mostly selling his brand to suckers.
>
> In fact, Trump has been so radioactive to legitimate US banks over the
> years that he has had to secure his many loans from a colorful and
> interesting band of offshore financial institutions, the details of which
> I am sure would go a long way towards explaining his continuing cowardice
> about releasing his taxes.

Not where I was expecting you to go, but also a point to note.

My "But..." would have been:

But to your point about Trump being some sort of master dealmaker, other
than the lowest of bars being that a shutdown was averted, just what
specifically did he "win" on this budget that gives himself or *any* part
of his base something to cheer about?

And therein lies the rub: it is hard to claim (with a straight face) that
because NIH getting a +$2B plus-up instead of a -$1.2B directed cut
that this is now a "Win" in the "Boost Infrastructure Investments" promise.
Ditto for how there's +$12B in congressionally directed additional spending
to DoD: YMMV if they were pure old school earmarks, in direct contradiction
to the ban which started in FY11 by Republicans. In any event, earmarks
are now "back" (FYI, the FY18 submission deadline already has passed):

<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/republicans-earmarks-congress/508328/>


-hh

[John B.]

Well, you're making progress, Greg. There may be hope for you yet.

[Dene]

I'm not joking about any of these views I've presented or affirmed.

[John B.]

Nobody said you were.