Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 243 posts

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#181

Post by bombcar »

hammock wrote: post #165
Zancarius wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely who you hang around with, but I think how the conversation is approached also dictates outcome. Talk about a political ruling class with most people, and they'll look at you as though you grew a third eyeball. Talk about the Dems and Repubs being out of touch with the average person due to the insulative effect of DC, and they'll usually agree. You can generally convey the same idea gently as long as…

You nailed it. This discussion would never have happened on HN if I hadn’t worded my original comment the way I did. It’s not how I wanted to word it ;)

You can talk about a uniparty all you want as long as the people you’re talking to are still sure you vote the “correct” way.

How that is broached depends on whom you are talking with.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#182

Post by Cacti »

pessimizer wrote: post #82
jedberg wrote: post #32

What's most interesting is that this wasn't on party lines. The yes/no mix is very mixed party-wise. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

The parties only have "disputes" on a short list of wedge issues, and either side winning on those removes the that issue as a cudgel that can motivate their base. If you look at their donors, you'll see the lines. The people who voted for it make money from the defense and intelligence industries, and the people who didn't, don't. Voting for for something majorities of the voters of both parties are against is expen…

I mean, except that many people can’t get either an abortion or IVF. This affects people’s entires lives, it’s not “pretend” unless you are unaffected.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#183

Post by Cacti »

coolbreezetft24 wrote: post #50
dotnet00 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're ultimately the same, the partisanship is mostly a farce as they both know that they're the only realistic options, so as long as neither side goes out of its way to seriously be better than the other, they can both enjoy the perks of being in power eventually, and therefore increased power is always good from their pov as regardless of party, they'll eventually have access to that power too.

> the partisanship is mostly a farce This was noticeably on display for me in 2020 right after it was determined that Biden had won the election. Lindsey Graham, a Republican Senator, was caught on video in the Senate chamber warmly congratulating and hugging Kamala Harris, a D senator and VP-elect. It was as if they both knew Graham's hyper-partisan antics during the preceding months before the vote was all just an…

This is basic human empathy from a very small group of insiders. I mean, this is their job. Do you think they all go around work being dicks to each other all day every day?

Besides, it cost him nothing.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#184

Post by twoodfin »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167
twoodfin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution. What you’re saying is no different from Congress declaring war and funding the army, but with the proviso they must clear all battles with a Federal judge before they’re begun. Or funding the Department of Justice, but with the proviso that any nominee for Attorney General must be over age 60. The power of the purse is not unlimited.

Requiring battles to be approved by a judge has obvious practical problems, because they often happen in remote locations at unpredictable times, but Congress can pass all kinds of dumb requirements if they want to. That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. You're proposing an alternative where the executive gets to decide how money is spent. As if mass surveillance, which is a waste of money, has to be funded in orde…

No, it really is unconstitutional for Congress to encroach on the enumerated powers of the executive. Just look at the recent SCOTUS cases around the setup of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to understand how consequential this constraint is.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#185

Post by lesam »

fardo wrote: post #176
idiotsecant wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Lobbyists and special interests already knew how politicians voted, they just knew via old fashioned grapevine methods. There was an information asymmetry between well connected lobbyists and average people. The fact that no longer exists is a good thing, in the long and short term.

There’s a tension between the common belief that “when private citizens are able to vote privately, it protects their ability to vote their conscience, rather than allowing some third party to explicitly buy votes or bully someone into voting in line with someone else”, and the belief that somehow this doesn’t apply to congress members. Additionally, on hard philosophical and policy qurstions, some bits of negotiatio…

Sure there’s a tension, but one difference is that I know how I vote, but I don’t know how my representative votes unless it’s in the public record.

If you believe that electorates punish politicians for decisions in the public interest, and legislators’ jobs would be easier if they were less accountable to their voters, why support democracy at all?

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#186

Post by bobthepanda »

Cacti wrote: post #177
lettergram wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the republican side, those voting yea are almost always the old McCain crowd. What the right calls “RINOs” or republicans in name only. That’s not surprising, they’re also the group funding wars, voted for the initial spy bills, etc. What’s more surprising is the split in IL between Duckworth (yea) and Durban (Nay). Usually you don’t see states splitting too much. Tennessee was all Nays for instance.

I would imagine Duckworth has a personal interest in it, given her work history.

at least a bunch of the isolationist sentiment on the republican side recently has actually come from former veterans, since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had such questionable returns

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#187

Post by beau_g »

fardo wrote: post #176
idiotsecant wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Lobbyists and special interests already knew how politicians voted, they just knew via old fashioned grapevine methods. There was an information asymmetry between well connected lobbyists and average people. The fact that no longer exists is a good thing, in the long and short term.

There’s a tension between the common belief that “when private citizens are able to vote privately, it protects their ability to vote their conscience, rather than allowing some third party to explicitly buy votes or bully someone into voting in line with someone else”, and the belief that somehow this doesn’t apply to congress members. Additionally, on hard philosophical and policy qurstions, some bits of negotiatio…

Elected officials should not vote their conscience, they should vote according to the wishes of their constituents

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#188

Post by godelski »

idiotsecant wrote: post #155
alexpotato wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple years ago I stumbled upon this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz27n1tNNMg The summary is this: - Votes in the House and Senate used to be anonymous - They then decided to make them public under the reasoning of transparency - One side effect of making them public is that you got people like Grover Norquist and The Americans for Tax Reform who could see who voted for taxes and then use that to…

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Lobbyists and special interests already knew how politicians voted, they just knew via old fashioned grapevine methods. There was an information asymmetry between well connected lobbyists and average people. The fact that no longer exists is a good thing, in the long and short term.

> I'm not convinced that this is a problem.

There's no "THE problem." There's a ton of "problems." Just to be clear. Because many of the problems we face today are through interaction of different things, often in a complex chain, rather than a direct easy to follow causal chain.

> via old fashioned grapevine

Treat the problem as an adversarial problem. Yes, your adversary will always be able to break your defenses. Nothing is bulletproof. How you defend is through forcing adversaries to expend resources. It is very clear that forcing lobbiests to learn through the grapevine is a more costly method than simply looking at a public database. And if you aren't familiar with this concept, people lie. No one need know your vote unless you reveal it (which... might be a lie).

The point also is that it can also prevent inner conflict, among parties. You're not voting along party lines? You think you're going to get as much support from your party when it comes to your bills and campaign funds? So you have plenty of incentive to not reveal your vote, even among allies.

I agree with you in that switching to private votes won't solve the problems we have. But would it improve? I'd guess some and I'd guess it would take time for the real effects to be seen. But the other side is, would it do harm? I doubt it.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#189

Post by kdasme »

deviantbit wrote: post #178

It amazes me how we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we want to abate, while all of it is being obscured into history. We were united around the Bill of Rights, now we've been brainwashed into believing no one should have rights. 1A, Nope, you have to have facts, and specific facts, and a subject-matter expert, source? 2A, Ban all guns, the government will protect us. 3A, No worry, they're not sol…

I can relate to your opinions. Still, I’m going to mentions this: please, vote. Otherwise you are a part of the problem.

Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight

#190

Post by fnordpiglet »

idiotsecant wrote: post #155
alexpotato wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple years ago I stumbled upon this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz27n1tNNMg The summary is this: - Votes in the House and Senate used to be anonymous - They then decided to make them public under the reasoning of transparency - One side effect of making them public is that you got people like Grover Norquist and The Americans for Tax Reform who could see who voted for taxes and then use that to…

I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Lobbyists and special interests already knew how politicians voted, they just knew via old fashioned grapevine methods. There was an information asymmetry between well connected lobbyists and average people. The fact that no longer exists is a good thing, in the long and short term.

The continental congress itself was entirely secret with no notes taken and no existing journal, diary, or any other record of the proceedings - and this was a bunch of folks who obsessively recorded their lives and thoughts for posterity. They also thought pretty hard about the side effects of such things and congressional and senate votes were private until modern times.

I’m not one who believes the constitution is sacred or that the founding fathers were infallible, but I do think the chance for a person to vote their conscience vs their politics is an important feature. While the grapevine might be a route to learn, it’s also a route that doesn’t have to be accurate. I can tell my lobbyist whatever I want about my vote, but only I know what my vote was in private voting. This feels like a feature not a flaw.

The point of representative democracy is selecting a person whose judgement you believe in. Public voting records lead to populist and party strangleholds on outcomes with consequences for breaking dogma. Practically speaking it also gives lobbyists proof positive of whether their money was well spent.

Post reply on HN