161–170 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy: Thieves, scammers, and public decency laws, in that order.
Unsure if sarcasm but doesn't the exact same reasoning apply to these? If there's things you don't want thieves to steal then obviously you _do_ have something to hide. Or maybe a better word is protect but both apply equally well
It's much harder to rescind a law than pass it, which means they only have to win once and we have to win every time. We are doomed by this asymmetry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to point out that many of these senators are also members of the Intelligence committee and are receiving regular reports from intelligence agencies as part of their senatorial duties. It is logical to think that these agencies are using these briefings to lobby senators for changes that directly impact their performance. It's highly unlikely this comes from a place of malice, but rather is a second or…
Hahahahaha Of course. Of course Cruz and Hawley are actually angels that are a victim of circumstances. Collins? Fucking immaculate. I don't know how many times we have to "fight back" when they come uo with this BS. They should just cut it out and serve the people that elected them. PS: Mandatory "Think about the children!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who say they have nothing to hide, I ask them why they have locks on their doors, passwords to their email, and clothes on their body.
I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
Alaska nearly voted swamp creature Murkowski out in the last midterm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who say they have nothing to hide, I ask them why they have locks on their doors, passwords to their email, and clothes on their body.
I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I met her at an SVLG dinner and had a discussion about encryption; it became instantly clear she doesn’t know what a computer is past that it is a TV that takes input, and that encryption is just “evil people wanting to do evil things.” There was no reasoning with her either, frankly because she is well-aged, and thus thinks herself “wise” with very little left to learn. It was honestly infuriating. [edit] In case an…
Even among the dinosaurs in the US Senate, Feinstein stands alone in her striking ability to be willfully ignorant about anything developed after the steam locomotive. The country would be an objectively better place if both the House and Senate had a mandatory retirement age.
I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly.
Unlike McConnell, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "regular joe" support for Feinstein. There's practically nobody in this thread singing her praises... even among her fellow D's.
But, when you look at Feinstein's accomplishments, she has represent her constituents as well as anybody... She authored the Respect for Marriage Act (undoing the conservative Defense of Marriage Act). She's pursued fair pay for federal wild land firefighters. She's protected millions of acres of federal land in CA for recreation. The list is extensive, as it should be for somebody of her tenure.
And with all that said, I do feel it's time for her to retire. I'm unconvinced on term limits, but I do dislike the tendency of long-time politicians to hang on well past their prime (and this applies equally on all sides of the aisle, and also to the courts).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FEINSTEIN Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's not her data.
Her brain is pea soup. I'm pretty sure she is not capable of connecting things.