Running Gator Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.73 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, hmbld said: Newcomer or not in your eyes, I think it would be naive of me to think this country monitors countless citizens, private conversations of foreign government leaders, etc. etc. has all been proven, yet they didn't think to monitor presidential candidates? New comer to the thread, was my meaning of the use of that phrase. I think that the government monitors every single citizen, but not in the specific, targeted way that Trump claims happened to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmbld Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,491 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 1,457 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/23/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1971 Share Posted March 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: New comer to the thread, was my meaning of the use of that phrase. I think that the government monitors every single citizen, but not in the specific, targeted way that Trump claims happened to him. I guess I could have stated that I read the whole thread plus others and other sources of material before posting, instead of repeating you words, but yes, I understand what you mean. Can I ask why you think our surveillance would overlook any presidential candidate and not obtain info through direct or indirect means? Leaders of other nations need to be monitored but not candidates of POTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.73 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, hmbld said: I guess I could have stated that I read the whole thread plus others and other sources of material before posting, instead of repeating you words, but yes, I understand what you mean. Can I ask why you think our surveillance would overlook any presidential candidate and not obtain info through direct or indirect means? Leaders of other nations need to be monitored but not candidates of POTUS? I do not believe they would be a specific target because one of the political fallout if it were proven and because of the detente between the GOP and DNC on these actions. They have colluded very well together to give the Executive branch almost unlimited power, but they are not going to turn that power on each other, it is reserved for the non-ruling class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmbld Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,491 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 1,457 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/23/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1971 Share Posted March 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: I do not believe they would be a specific target because one of the political fallout if it were proven and because of the detente between the GOP and DNC on these actions. They have colluded very well together to give the Executive branch almost unlimited power, but they are not going to turn that power on each other, it is reserved for the non-ruling class. How is it any different than when it came out we monitor the leaders of other countries? I simply can't believe the intelligence community would be so inept as to not monitor any and all candidates for president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.73 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, hmbld said: How is it any different than when it came out we monitor the leaders of other countries? I simply can't believe the intelligence community would be so inept as to not monitor any and all candidates for president. World leaders are not part of the the US political elite. I do not think it is a matter of being inept as much as it is a matter of them being told not to do such things by the powers that be. I believe they would not give the executive branch that much power without making sure they could keep themselves out of the cross-hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmbld Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,491 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 1,457 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/23/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1971 Share Posted March 23, 2017 30 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: World leaders are not part of the the US political elite. I do not think it is a matter of being inept as much as it is a matter of them being told not to do such things by the powers that be. I believe they would not give the executive branch that much power without making sure they could keep themselves out of the cross-hairs. You could be right, I am very skeptical in that our government has been shown to do a great many things that either are illegal or should be illegal. I would doubt anybody is off limits. The full scope of what is under surveillance may not be legal, or revealed to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.14 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 10 hours ago, WorthyNewsBot said: (Worthy News) - The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday he has confirmed that the intelligence community incidentally collected information about people associated with the Trump transition and that the information collection may have extended to the president himself. The disclosure by Rep. Devin Nunes of California instantly revived weeks of controversy that began when President Donald Trump claimed on Twitter that his New York City offices had been wiretapped by his predecessor. Broadly dismissed by most Republicans as well as Democrats, Nunes was asked if the new information meant that Trump's claim was correct. "It is possible," he said. [ Source ] View the full article This just tells ME what I believed all along; of course they were surveilled and, incidentally, so was the Clinton campaign. It's the way our country works these days; I don't like it but reality has to set in at some point. Both campaigns had contacts with Russians and othe foreign persons but note that the MSM ONLY concentrates on the Trump campaign. Vile hypocrisy but a failing agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.73 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 Just now, hmbld said: You could be right, I am very skeptical in that our government has been shown to do a great many things that either are illegal or should be illegal. I would doubt anybody is off limits. The full scope of what is under surveillance may not be legal, or revealed to the public. I agree the lines between legal and illegal are almost non-existent. Congress is very good about passing laws they are not subject to (ObamaCare comes to mind as the most recent). The move to grant the executive branch more and more power happened by design and over an extend period of time, it was not by accident. It was done slowly to have the frog in the boiling pot affect. It is my opinion that those in congress would not grant such powers freely if they did not have some assurance that they would not be turned back on them and their leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmbld Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,491 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 1,457 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/23/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1971 Share Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said: I agree the lines between legal and illegal are almost non-existent. Congress is very good about passing laws they are not subject to (ObamaCare comes to mind as the most recent). The move to grant the executive branch more and more power happened by design and over an extend period of time, it was not by accident. It was done slowly to have the frog in the boiling pot affect. It is my opinion that those in congress would not grant such powers freely if they did not have some assurance that they would not be turned back on them and their leaders. Of course, in the interest of national security, can any of us even know what powers have been granted, and even if they have not been granted, who would keep all top secret info and surveillance completely legal? In the interest of national security, I'm sure there are many who are above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant_Owl Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 299 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 178 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2017 "Incidental surveillance" must be Comey's new wiggle worm out-word. Paper trails! Love 'em. GCHQ! Obama went outside of the normal chain of command. Watch this. Trey Gowdy WE FOUND IT !! James Comey "PAPER EVIDENCE !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts