(03-04-2017 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

'Perhaps' the Obama administration has/had a serious bug up their a-- about a potential Trump administration. Facts (as incomplete as they are on both sides) fit that just as well. That is the problem with the 'perhaps' conjectures --- something I learned from laughing at the ancient alien astronaut series.

You're right - the Obama line of thinking is also plausible as you state. So why get so angry when the other side of the coin is considered?

To be blunt, the statement relating to the standard on the FISA struck me as being fairly misleading --- but one has to accept that in any political discussion I guess. Tired of smoke being passed as valid news and that met the test.

As I said, lets get the facts out. This is smokescreen.

But given your very overt anti-Trump bias, I guess this is as good as it gets or will get. So be it. Apologies for the bluntness, and no ill will should be read into the last two sentences, but I understand if it is.

By the way, to be absolutely honest, you really don't 'put things out for consideration' == you push them with a big bias slant. At least be honest and call it for what it is.... and it explains why the urgency to minimize the FISA rejection with the string of 'perhaps' and 'what ifs'. I'm just calling out the obvious alternatives that seems to consistently escape your consideration or inclusion. Not meaning to be an explicit d--k with that characterization, but it may be implicitly. Apologies in advance for that.

Quote:And by the way, way to be a d*** about an autocorrect of the word probable. My goodness.

Apologies for the snark. But you *were* making a serious issue of how stringent the standard was, and that *was* just a tad of an avenue to leverage that the Vox-points may not be as watertight as one might think. Needless though, and apologies again.