That’s a nice story. However, more likely is that nobody involved wanted the appearance that the Obama administration was involved in malfeasance itself. Obama has always been that way and his administration always followed suit.
The fact is that people are still screaming about an Obama administration bias despite the FBI sitting on all of the information about their ongoing investigations.
Imagine a world where the FBI does release this factual information, exactly the same way it handled the Hillary investigations. Despite it being all factual, Trump does lose the election and half the country screams about how Hillary is an illegitimate president instilled by Obama administration that helped ensure she was elected.
Obama was often put into no-win situations during his presidency when it came to actions he could take or positions he could voice. He almost always held close to the vest in such cases because he realized this and his administration followed suit.
This was just the last tragic example of how his thoughtfulness and ability to see the “big picture” bit him in the ass. He was so smart but he never learned that he was always damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
That said, I also feel that they didn’t think Trump would win. If he was gonna lose anyway, no reason to open that can of worms. But given his past history I am pretty sure he doesn’t open it in any case.
I challenge both of you to a crazy-off. Whoever finds the craziest public comment from an elected official wins. You have an advantage, JohnStamosEar because I’m pretty sure Follingay doesn’t know how to link stuff.
Unless the U.S. takes some positive steps at self-improvement, it’s hardly inconceivable that the conditions that elected Trump in 2016 will do so again in 2020, or another pseudo-populist bluster-pack like him will be elected in future.
I think I’ll pass on that. However, I will point out that a simple look at the stupidest Republican and stupidest liberal threads that have long been running here will show a massive uptick in the former and not much more quantity, let alone quality, in the latter.
I agree with this - Trump is a symptom of a sick system and unless the actual causes are corrected we will continue to have government that is unresponsive to its people.
Republicans are getting their wall and Devin Nunes is building it.
“In a sign of increasing partisan hostilities, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee plan to construct a wall – a physical partition – separating Republican and Democratic staff members in the committee’s secure spaces, according to multiple committee sources. It’s expected to happen this spring.”
I know! It’s terrible how this board is biased by being able to present literally hundreds of examples of Republican elected officials and nationally-known spokespeople saying or doing phenomenally stupid things whereas board conservatives have to struggle to find a few measly examples of Democrats doing the same. I mean, look at how many of the SDIOTD examples involve random dumb students because we can’t find more idiocy at higher levels of government! If this board weren’t so biased we’d be able to find dozens and dozens of examples of Democratic elected officials and nationally-known spokespeople saying and doing phenomenally stupid things! Why, if it weren’t for that, Congress would be filled with left-wing equivalents to Louie Gohmert!
If one side is worse than the other, what would you have us do-create fake stories about one side until the numbers artificially match, or restrict the reporting of legitimate stories on one side until the numbers artificially match?
So, in Great Debates I cannot call someone dumb but I can say that a post was dumb right?
I can say that post from HeweyLogan is remarkably dumb, correct? Just want to be clear.
If you have to ask, ATMB is the place to do it. The answer depends on context so I’d recommend against it lest the evaluation fall on the wrong side of the line. I don’t find this attempt at rule skirting amusing nor convincing. Knock it off.
I’m looking at Isikoff’s September Yahoo article. Is Nunes claiming that the FBI used an article claiming that the government was interested in Page as evidence that the FISA court should be interested in Page? That makes no sense. They would have just cited the government activity as evidence. The only logical reason for inclusion of article was to make the court aware that Page knew the government was on to him.