Turns out Trump was right. obama witetapped his campaign

[hater]

A shady pro-Russian lobbyist/stooge got tapped? Who gives a ? If Trump landed on some of those taps that's the price you pay for consorting with pieces of . Who in the hires a guy like Manafort for campaign manager anyway?

A shady democrat re gets wiretapped at the Watergate hotel who give a - Nixon supporter

[DarrinS]

Everyone is wiretapped.

-NSA

[DMX7]

Trump wasn't running for President in 2014 nor was he the GOP nominee in 2014, dip . Nor was Manafort Trump's campaign chair in 2014.

LMAO, Spurtacular is ridiculous. Russell's teapot analogy essentially forming here. Prove Trump wasn't wire tapped.

[Spurtacular]

LMAO, Spurtacular is ridiculous. Russell's teapot analogy essentially forming here. Prove Trump wasn't wire tapped.

It's not about proof; it's about not being a naive . That might be quite the challenge for you.

[Spurtacular]

The "shtick" is asking a relevant and reasonable question.

Do you think that's what he meant by "schtick," or might you put for a more "relevant and reasonable" guess?

[DMX7]

Do you think that's what he meant by "schtick," or might you put for a more "relevant and reasonable" guess?

That's exactly what he meant. ChumpDumper's questioning (criticized by the dolts of the board) was little more than the Socratic method in action. There's nothing wrong with that.

[djohn2oo8]

So, you do pretend that govt. players don't proactively protect their power.

So you can't answer a simple yes or no question?

[djohn2oo8]

LMAO, Spurtacular is ridiculous. Russell's teapot analogy essentially forming here. Prove Trump wasn't wire tapped.

Manafort was under surveillance in 2014 due to his Ukrainian deals. Somehow Spurtacular thinks the government knew Trump would run for president and pick Manafort as his campaign chair which is why they decided to pick on Manafort because manafort didn't do anything illegal.

[djohn2oo8]

This Chumpdumper schtick seems to be catching some traction. Blake, Philo and now Dijon mus is trying it.

Its a simple yes or no question.

[Spurtacular]

So you can't answer a simple yes or no question?

I regarded the erroneous implication of your question, obviously.

So, you do pretend that govt. players don't proactively protect their power?

[Spurtacular]

That's exactly what he meant. ChumpDumper's questioning (criticized by the dolts of the board) was little more than the Socratic method in action. There's nothing wrong with that.

Socratic method

You saying Socrates was a troll?

[Spurtacular]

Manafort was under surveillance in 2014 due to his Ukrainian deals. Somehow Spurtacular thinks the government knew Trump would run for president and pick Manafort as his campaign chair which is why they decided to pick on Manafort because manafort didn't do anything illegal.

Trump running for president was not a well-kept secret, dude. "Somehow," you think that government spying hasn't become common place.

[Pavlov]

Hey, another conspiracy theory.

[djohn2oo8]

I regarded the erroneous implication of your question, obviously.

So, you do pretend that govt. players don't proactively protect their power?

So you can't answer the question.

[djohn2oo8]

Trump running for president was not a well-kept secret, dude. "Somehow," you think that government spying hasn't become common place.

You keep avoiding the fact Manafort was not Trump's campaign manager in 2014. He was under surveillance for reasons completely unrelated to trump im which that surveillance was set to expire in 2016. Dumbass.

[Spurtacular]

So you can't answer the question.

There's a a factual, readily accessible answer to your question. Are you telling me that I did not already regard the implication of your question?

Whereas, this question checks for critical thinking / outlook:

So, you do pretend that govt. players don't proactively protect their power?

[Spurtacular]

You keep avoiding the fact Manafort was not Trump's campaign manager in 2014. He was under surveillance for reasons completely unrelated to trump im which that surveillance was set to expire in 2016. Dumbass.

I haven't avoided it; I've dismissed it. There's a difference. I could answer it if you insist, but it wouldn't change the scope of this conversation.

Do you pretend that the government is morally upright?

[TSA]

[Pavlov]

what's your theory again, tsa?

[djohn2oo8]

I haven't avoided it; I've dismissed it. There's a difference. I could answer it if you insist, but it wouldn't change the scope of this conversation.

Do you pretend that the government is morally upright?

The scope of this conversation? That Manafort was under surveillance before the campaign? Yeah you keep missing that.

[Spurtacular]

The scope of this conversation? That Manafort was under surveillance before the campaign? Yeah you keep missing that.

So, you don't believe in the prevalence of ulterior motives?

[Blake]

This Chumpdumper schtick seems to be catching some traction. Blake, Philo and now Dijon mus is trying it.

I like how you think asking simple clarification questions is a shtick.

[Pavlov]

So, you don't believe in the prevalence of ulterior motives?

Psychic surveillance? Explain how they foretold the future of manafort.

[Blake]

So, you don't believe in the prevalence of ulterior motives?

Oh cool. Conspiracy time. Tell us the ulterior motive story here.

[djohn2oo8]

So, you don't believe in the prevalence of ulterior motives?

I believe the FBI was interested in the deals with Russians and money laundering ways of Manafort before 2016. And I am right. So you are telling me that the government wiretapped Manafort to get to Trump who no one thought would actually win much less win the GOP nomination at a time when no one knew Trump was even considering running? Sure.