[naasking]

> 2) How incredible would it be to candidly hear answers from Obama about what changed his mind?

It would be biased bullshit anyway. If they had any examples of real attacks being thwarted, they would have presented this evidence just to stop the criticisms. The surveillance is effective for political and economic reasons, and possibly for law enforcement's domestic use, which is borderline unconstitutional.

[leereeves]

The surveillance went as far as spying on members of Trump's campaign, which is eerily similar to Watergate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-tru...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-...

[naasking]

> The surveillance went as far as spying on members of Trump's campaign, which is eerily similar to Watergate.

Obvious hyperbole. They monitored everyone that communicated with foreign nationals, which Trump's aides were doing. They used the word "incidental collection" in that article for a reason.

[leereeves]

Surveillance on foreign nationals that "inadvertently" intercepted communications from their political opponents.

> Nunes suggested this unmasking might have been done for political reasons, saying the evidence he had seen had been widely disseminated across the intelligence community and had "little or no apparent intelligence value."

We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.

[naasking]

> Surveillance on foreign nationals that "inadvertently" intercepted communications from their political opponents.

And political allies too. That's how dragnet surveillance works. What's your point?

> We're rightfully worried about what Trump could do with such power; we should also be investigating what Obama actually did with it.

I agree, so stop wasting your time on conspiracy theories like this and look at Obama's actual questionable actions.

[leereeves]

> That's how dragnet surveillance works.

It's ok to spy on your political enemies as long as you spy on everyone else too? Will you feel so charitable when Trump does the same?

> look at Obama's actual questionable actions.

His known and proven questionable actions, you mean? Tip of the iceberg, certainly.

Watergate itself was nothing more than a conspiracy theory at one time.

But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.

[naasking]

> It's ok to spy on your political enemies as long as you spy on everyone else too?

The real issue is whether it's ok to spy on everyone. Spying on everyone means spying on your political enemies too, and your specific focus on the political enemies is ignoring the important debate. You're effectively arguing that spying on everyone isn't important, as long as you don't spy on your political enemies.

> But you're right, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. That's why I said we should investigate.

And waste time and resources on a completely stupid premise. Spend your political capital more wisely.

[heymijo]

Definition of candid:

1) free from bias, prejudice, or malice 2) indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception

[naasking]

Obama may be candid, but my point is that he'd just report the biased information he was given.

[heymijo]

Ah, I see. That's not something I considered.