OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

No evidence for number 4 so I take this as a concession too.

Take it how you will, the article flat out says it in simple English.

Hell, you can take 2+2=67, dig in, and never concede it isn't. It doesn't make it true.

I'll never get you to concede it. That's not possible and we all know it.

This debate was done for those on the fence. They can see who presented source citations, and who resorted to obfuscation, repeated fallacy, and then declaring himself a winner.

[siablo14]

I'll spell it out one last time, so others not ******ed can understand.

1. There was tapping done, as per the New York Times story in January.

2. The NYT said they did not know if Trump himself was tapped or not.

3. Trump charged he was wiretapped.

4. The NYT then said in March there was no evidence of Trump being tapped, despite the fact they themselves did not exclude Trump as a target of the tapping in their January story.

That's the key part. They went from saying 'we cant exclude Mr Trump as a target' to 'there is no evidence Trump was a target'.

Um, the January article they wrote is the proof it's POSSIBLE. If you say something is possible, then you say it's not true, you're contradicting yourself.

The green is conjecture, mi lad.

[siablo14]

Take it how you will, the article flat out says it in simple English.

Hell, you can take 2+2=67, dig in, and never concede it isn't. It doesn't make it true.

I'll never get you to concede it. That's not possible and we all know it.

This debate was done for those on the fence. They can see who presented source citations, and who resorted to obfuscation, repeated fallacy, and then declaring himself a winner.

Putting on the running spikes, I see, but before you run post the part of the article that you say states that.

[1bad65]

You're hung up on the 'Obama ordered it' part, but you cant accept that I did not make that claim.

Instead of admitting what I actually did write is true, you jam a strawman in there and demand I prove that instead.

[1bad65]

The green is conjecture, mi lad.

"It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself."

Try again, SafeSpace

[1bad65]

Putting on the running spikes, I see, but before you run post the part of the article that you say states that.

I told you to claim your e-victory and move on still the undefeated e-debate champion of BoxingScene.

what gives???

[siablo14]

"It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself."

Try again, SafeSpace

May have, it is not clear, it's possible. All conjecture, mi lad, but we are dealing with facts which none of those are.

[siablo14]

I told you to claim your e-victory and move on still the undefeated e-debate champion of BoxingScene.

what gives???

It ain't no victory man. All I am saying NYT did not contradict itself in that shoddy link that you posted. I am not saying NYT is always perfect. Do you see that no contradiction occurred?

[1bad65]

May have, it is not clear, it's possible.

Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!

I said based on the January NYT article it was POSSIBLE he was a target.

Hell, I even put the word in all caps and italicized it. And you still missed it!!!

Thank you.

Jesus Christ, was it that damn hard???

[siablo14]

Which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!



Hell, I even put the word in all caps and italicized it. And you still missed it!!!

Thank you.

Jesus Christ, was it that damn hard???

That's conjecture. We deal with evidence we have if front of us. If we go down that "possible" path, many other things are possible such as Russia helping Trump to win but as you know we don't deal in such things.