Why Obama did not stop NSA domestic surveillance

Post by cmdkeen » Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 3:43 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #55

cmdkeen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's as far as he went. He's hardly been shouting from the rafters about how America should not be a country which tortures, and especially in the light of the Congressional findings re the CIA's activities I'm amazed there haven't been prosecutions. Honestly McCain, on this particular issue, would have been a better president.

Were there any smoking guns in the Congressional report? I don't recall any, but I didn't read the whole thing or look too much into it at the time. I also don't think we should retroactively punish behavior that they thought was legal and proper at the time. That seems like a bad precedent.

Post by coldtea » Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

morley wrote: post #64

randcraw wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks; glad to know the name for this practice. It'd be a huge improvement over the popularity contest we have now. In fact, it's probably the ideal way to promote anyone in any setting. I'd make a few small adjustments, however. Rather than random selection, I'd like the pool of candidates to be reviewed by their peers and scored for ability, creativity, fairness, leadership -- whatever skills are appropriate in th…

It's easy to fall in love with a political system that's never been tested at the United State's scale. My guess is, if we implemented sortition, a few unsavory things would happen: (1) The Republican and Democrat parties would just switch their efforts to getting people excluded from the random drawing, much as they currently aim to include or exclude people from voting. (2) After selections, the losing party would…

Post by knowaveragejoe » Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

irq-1 wrote: post #67

steve19 wrote: post #3

The charitable explanation, which this article seems to imply, is that he suddenly discovers how important these programs are and how much is at stake. The less charitable explanation, since it's hard to believe he fundamentally agrees deep down with these programs, is that he is just another politicians and the guaranteed political fallout from surveillance and drones was far less than the catastrophic career-ending…

Obama publicly agreed with the data collection and voted to expand it before the election. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/... > But recently the Senate again took up legislation that would let the phone companies off the hook. It would also expand the government's domestic spying powers. > Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after t…

Post by knowaveragejoe » Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 4:04 PM UTC

cubancigar11 wrote: post #16

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. In theory he has enough power, but if you look at how the whole system works, you don't get to become a president if you aren't a) owing a lot of people favours, and b) a kind of person that would be disruptive. If you're the uncontrollable type that would pose the risk to the status quo, you won't be allowed to rise high enough to become a president.

That is a very absurd argument, one I have heard several times in liberal circles. President of United States of America is the most powerful man in the world. He doesn't owe anyone anything. We elect him thinking he will do what he promised and the only retribution for him is that he will either be impeached or not get re-elected. That's it. That is democracy. Unless he had 'an offer he could not refuse', he is guil…

Post by fweespeech » Wed, Nov 11, 2015, 4:06 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #74

morley wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to fall in love with a political system that's never been tested at the United State's scale. My guess is, if we implemented sortition, a few unsavory things would happen: (1) The Republican and Democrat parties would just switch their efforts to getting people excluded from the random drawing, much as they currently aim to include or exclude people from voting. (2) After selections, the losing party would…

> My guess is, if we implemented sortition, a few unsavory things would happen:(1) The Republican and Democrat parties would just switch their efforts to getting people excluded from the random drawing, much as they currently aim to include or exclude people from voting. Well, abolish the parties too then. It's just citizens.