Will Trump's Presidency Bring More Surveillance To The US? (scmagazine.com) 412
An anonymous reader reports that Donald Trump's upcoming presidency raises a few concerns for the security industry:
"Some of his statements that industry professionals find troubling are his calls for 'closing parts of the Internet', his support for mass surveillance, and demands that Apple should have helped the FBI break the encrypted communications of the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone," writes SC Magazine. One digital rights activist even used Trump's surprise victory as an opportunity to suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it... he has made it very clear exactly how he would use such powers: to target Muslims, immigrant families, marginalized communities, political dissidents, and journalists."
Edward Snowden's lawyer says "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful," and the Verge adds that Pinboard CEO Maciej Ceglowski is now urging tech sites to stop collecting so much data. "According to Ceglowski, the only sane response to a Trump presidency was to get rid of as much stored user data as possible. 'If you work at Google or Facebook,' he wrote on Pinboard's Twitter account, 'please start a meaningful internal conversation about giving people tools to scrub their behavioral data.'"
Could a Trump presidency ultimately lead to a massive public backlash against government surveillance?
Edward Snowden's lawyer says "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful," and the Verge adds that Pinboard CEO Maciej Ceglowski is now urging tech sites to stop collecting so much data. "According to Ceglowski, the only sane response to a Trump presidency was to get rid of as much stored user data as possible. 'If you work at Google or Facebook,' he wrote on Pinboard's Twitter account, 'please start a meaningful internal conversation about giving people tools to scrub their behavioral data.'"
Could a Trump presidency ultimately lead to a massive public backlash against government surveillance?
Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
But so would have Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he will
But so would have Clinton.
Yes to both, but to varying degrees and different implementations. We will see first hand and history will tell us what President-Elect Trump will do/has done. As for Secretary Clinton, it is all speculation with very little basis in reality as to what she would have done, but 100% sure yes, she would have too.
Re: (Score:2)
"As for Secretary Clinton, it is all speculation with very little basis in reality as to what she would have done, but 100% sure yes, she would have too."
Errr...you do realize you've contradicted yourself in one sentence, yes?
No they didn't, did completely (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't contradict themselves; they *certainly* did. :)
Seriously though I took it as not contradictory meaning:
--
We can only speculate.
I'm willing to speculate that she almost certainly would have.
--
She's actually been in politics, observable by the public, since 1977. In those 39 years, she has manifested a belief that the elites like her are better than common plebes. No more reason they shouldn't watch us than a parent shouldn't watch a six year old; based on what her view seems to be.
Trump's public life has been all about drumming up publicity for his buildings and his brand, not about policy. I doubt he's thought much about public policy at all. He DOES have a huge ego. Such a big ego that he thinks a) he should be president and b) most of America will agree he should be president. Unfortunately all presidents have that megalomania.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't contradict themselves; they *certainly* did. :)
Seriously though I took it as not contradictory meaning:
--
We can only speculate.
I'm willing to speculate that she almost certainly would have.
--
Close. She does have a history of availing herself of government surveillance and in this day and age it is a certainty that any president will avail themselves of surveillance, but to what extent is speculation for Clinton, as for Trump we are going to live through it :)
Re: (Score:2)
He may or may not take action, but you can be jolly sure it will not be preceded by any planning - or even thinking.
No experience, billion $ empire, not beholden (Score:2)
Trump lacks public policy experience. That's a big problem.
He built a $2 billion dollar business empire, with one of his first projects being razing rail yards and building a whole new neighborhood around his new luxury hotel. He can and does plan a project, quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
He built a $2 billion dollar business empire
If Trump's business empire is only worth $2 billion, instead of the $4 billion that he claims, then he's an even worse businessman than we thought. Starting with $200 million 40 years ago, $2 billion now would be far below average for the stock market, whereas $4 billion is only slightly below average.
Bought for $100 million, sold for $1.8 billion (Score:3)
That would be the one he bought, sold, bought back for $100 million, then sold ten years later for $1.8 billion.
Mr. Trump most certainly has his weaknesses. Unlike most presidential candidates, he has flaunted his arrogance. He also has his strengths.
He's unique amongst all the presidents of our lifetime in that he's not beholden to the people who financed his campaign. Mrs. Clinton, for example, was financed primarily by Wall Street banks. They pay her, she essentially works for them. A Trump presidenc
Re: (Score:2)
"As for Secretary Clinton, it is all speculation with very little basis in reality as to what she would have done, but 100% sure yes, she would have too."
Errr...you do realize you've contradicted yourself in one sentence, yes?
Badly worded on my part. The extent and type of surveillance that a Clinton administration would undertake is speculation at this point, but like prior administrations and the history of her, it would have been a 100% certainty that surveillance would be a cornerstone of her defense platform. In this day and age it is extremely difficult for it not to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> The extent and type of surveillance that a Clinton administration would undertake is speculation at this point,
I'm afraid that former Secretary Clinton's party beliefs have been fairly clear, we saw them during her husband's administration. We also saw, with her email on a private server, that she's willing to ignore existing law, basic security practice, and a concern for setting safe precedents for IT in the name of political expediency.
I expect Mr. Trump to be _much worse_ because he's a political "
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
> She was being practical and mistakeingly cut a few corners. No real harm was done,
As an IT professional who handles confidential data, and data security, that act was not "cutting a few corners". The leaks show that she was using the private server for direct activity as the Secretary of State as a matter of course. I've helped fire people who were pulling such abuses, especially for sensitive data such as HIPAA protected medical documentation or FERPA protected educational records.
Like failing to scrub a computer for handing it over to another employee, or leaving your passphrases on sticky pads on your desk, it's a very foolish and normally unnecessary act. Please don't ignore the very real misbehavior revealed by these leaks and charges.
That said, the woman is _far_ less dangerous than Mr. Trump, whose insistence on gambling at every level of personal and professional life is legendary and constitutes a _much_ larger danger.
Can we even speculate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton is of the same party, and has made a number of statements that align her closely with President Obama.
President Obama (re)imposed the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act on the US; if that doesn't give you a guiding sense of where the party is, and very likely where Mrs. Clinton is in terms of invasive surveillance, imposition on personal liberty, and constitutional malfeasance, I don't know what would.
Not to say President-elect Trump is likely to be any better, but inasmuch as his campaign was riddled with trivially disproved falsehoods, and in just the few days since the election, we've seen (at least) these radical pivots from him and/or his team...
o Not getting rid of pre-existing conditions or the ACA as a whole;
o Not dumping the banksters (met with them already to kill Dodd–Frank consumer protections)
o Not cleaning house (already hiring the most in- of the in-movers and shakers and lobbyists, for his team)
o Not actually building a wall, that was just figurative;
o No special prosecutor for Clinton ("what a great campaign she ran!");
o Making nice with President Obama after explicitly claiming he was the worst president ever;
o The whole "no-ties with Russia" thing, oops, lots of ties, plus wikileaks admitted by the Russians now;
o Going from "ultra-vet all Muslims at the border" to "we will not allow people in from terrorist regions"
What a weird set of circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She should be in jail. She broke the law in ways that would have had the average person in jail for a very, very long time.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about.
Come on now folks. This too shall pass. If we look at Germany, they had a few rough years from the late 30's to mid 40's. But today Germany is a pretty darn nice place.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At least 6 million people [wikipedia.org] would disagree that it's gonna pass...
Re: (Score:3)
At least 6 million people [wikipedia.org] would disagree that it's gonna pass...
side notes - I'm really disappointed. Now not only is the wall not going to happen, apparently he's got more important things to focus on than putting his opponent in jail. Pepe' might not like this!
Pull up a lawn chair, sit a spell, and enjoy some popcorn bro, what kinda beer you want? I even have Tequila and bourbon in case you want to do shots. The wife is making tacos too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about.
I guess that's why people are sitting in US military prisons for doing less than Hillary right. Never mind that team Obama and the IRS actually went after people for not having the right viewpoint. Or that in multiple states that democrats and AG's wanted to prosecute people for daring to have a point of view contrary to the orthodoxy on global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about."
By "people", you mean Hillary? Yep, that is what candidates do. And yeah, it is called justice in her case, if it happens. She probably should be in jail. Of course, he probably should be too, but that is a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilized candidates don't threaten jail for the other ones.
"Civilized candidates" don't commit crimes and expect to get away with them. Civilized societies don't respect, or expect, this sort of Gentleman's agreement between candidates where they let each other get away with crimes that ordinary citizens would be prosecuted for.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 exactly.
This is why so many of us are upset about the process. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHOICE. We end up having to elect people based on conflicting single issues. But when both candidates share the same negatives, and surveillance is just one, you lose, regardless.
There is ZERO doubt that Hilary Clinton would bring more surveillance. Same with Trump. She would have been all sneaky about it and probably lie about it too. He will more likely be loud and annoying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is ZERO doubt that Hilary Clinton would bring more surveillance. Same with Trump. She would have been all sneaky about it and probably lie about it too. He will more likely be loud and annoying about it.
Although he still desperately needs his twitter account taken out of his tiny hands, Trump has been substantially quieter than usual. I suspect the volume will be pretty selective.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but out of the two, the chances are that Trump would do less than Clinton simply because of the politics in place.
If Clinton were elected, she would have full support of the Democrat base regardless on what craziness she would propose, and the Republicians would bow to the media pressure to pass anything she would want in congress.
Trump is a totally different matter. Democrats and most of the media will never support anything he proposes even if it was a democrat issue, and many Republicans don't suppor
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Trump is a totally different matter. Democrats and most of the media will never support anything he proposes even if it was a democrat issue, and many Republicans don't support him either. If he does anything out of the ordinary he will be impeached faster than the news media can say "Trump is Grand Wizard Adolf Stalin."
I've seen that line of thinking before and I think it's wishful thinking. The Republicans that were against Trump did so only because they thought he was damaging their election chances. But Trump won. And now Republicans will line up behind him to support whatever he wants. There might be some intraparty squabbling, but that will only be over the scale of an idea. As for impeachment, that'll never happen. Democrats won't have a majority in the House anytime soon to force the issue and Republicans won't impeach one of their one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There were more than 2 clowns on the ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The majority of Americans did not vote from Trump, he does not have legitimacy. "
The clear majority didn't vote for Clinton either. It is essentially a tie. But it doesn't matter. Our system uses the electoral college, and Trump is the OVERWHELMING winner.
>"The magic swing states were the ones who refused help securing electronic voting, and Trump is well connected to hackers."
Sorry, but it is FAR more likely the DNC would be involved in voter fraud. And electronic voting does NOT reduce fraud,
Re: (Score:3)
He was a real soldier not a weekend gun nut anarchist. He could tell you that you need a squad to get things done and that a single guy against an army is called a practice target no matter how well armed the single guy is.
Losing their minds (Score:5, Insightful)
Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here)
Re:Losing their minds (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton voted to invade Afghanistan and we wrecked that country - even more so than it was before, which is quite a feat.
She voted to invade Iraq and we wrecked that country - killing hundreds of thousands of civilians directly and indirectly.
She recommended invading Libya and we ruined that country.
Her next step would be military intervention in Syria. Because we have had such a good track record over there.
What's your definition of psychopathy?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually read the authorization to use force?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That's it in a nut shell. Nowhere does it state that Iraq was behind 9/11. It does state that some terrorist involved were known to be in Iraq as well as others who were against the US and that due to 9/11, the threat of terrorist getting WMDs that Iraq was believed to still be in possession of and working on was a direct threat to the United States.
Here is the full version in PDF [gpo.gov]
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/... [gpo.gov]
This enti
Re: (Score:3)
Since we are hurtling down this slope to forfeit our privacy, primarily as a volunteer operation, which candidate would have slowed the roll?
It's too late this time, and there may exist issues more important to you and yours than an overreaching government... but students of history are probably correct that we should concern ourselves with this issue.
The people in power, regardless of their political affiliation, love their surveillance state. Who could we have elected that would
Re: (Score:2)
Yay Sanders, he'll do for college what Obama did for healthcare.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the US election system isn't good at rewarding for voting third party.
Possibly single transferable vote would be better.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO this is the result of decades of people saying "don't throw your vote away by voting third party."
And they are all correct, in our First Past the Post election system, you ARE throwing away your vote by doing that...
If you want to change it, you have to change the election system.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that the problem is the election process. But how are you ever going to change that?
The two major parties have 0 incentive to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you stop giving the President so much power and make him a limited check and balance on government as the constitution originally intended.
You have a lot more control over your senator and even more over your representative when you compete with votes within a single state and even portions of that single state than you do when you compete with votes in 49 other states and the district of Columbia (Yes, Washington D.C. has electoral votes).
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds nice, but unless you have a lot of money to buy a lot of congressmen, it isn't going to happen.
They don't really listen to you, they listen to who pays for their election campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah.. It's relatively easy to get elected to a representative seat if you aren't from one of the big states and loony in what you want. On average there are about 710,000 people in each district. If you convinve only a third of them to give you $5, you have over a million dollars to run your campaign with.
It's easier if you are part of one of the two big parties and not going for a highly contested seat but the same level of fund raising can make you one of those who pays for their election campaign if you
Re: (Score:3)
Well, technically speaking, the lib party will have federal funding the next time around thanks to how many votes it got this time around, and may even have a shot of growing more and more, and maybe in 2-3 elections get a real shot at a president.
Re: (Score:2)
My search pulled up that he came in shy of the 5% mark. He was projected to be over, but polls were off (shocking I know)
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/... [heavy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO this is the result of decades of people saying "don't throw your vote away by voting third party."
And they are all correct, in our First Past the Post election system, you ARE throwing away your vote by doing that...
If you want to change it, you have to change the election system.
In what sense? Do you mean that by voting for a third party you threw away your vote because your candidate couldn't win? I would say the same applies to voting for Hillary Clinton. The election results are clear evidence that she couldn't win. Maybe you mistakenly believed that she could, but if so, reality proves you were wrong. By voting for Clinton you voted for just as much of a losing candidate as Johnson or Stein or any of the others.
There's no second place in a US Presidential election. If you didn'
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton had a chance to win (and wasn't far from it, actually).
If you have a means of visiting alternate universes and/or timelines then you correct. However, in this universe and this timeline you are incorrect. Clinton had zero chance to win as demonstrated by the fact that she didn't.
Speculating on what would have happened if 100,000 people did something other than what they did is pointless. And you're making a big assumption in thinking that 100,000 people who didn't vote for Clinton would be happy if she won.
I didn't want to Trump to win and didn't vote for him, but I'm glad Clinton lost. I certainly wouldn't have felt good if I learned I was the person who put her over the top. If Clinton had won it wouldn't have been the end of the world, and the world isn't going to end because Trump won either, but neither one of them deserves to claim that I voted for them. My vote counted and is reflected in the election results as part of the small but statistically significant percentage of the US population who took the time to go out to their polling place and register their belief that neither Trump nor Clinton are a worthy choice as president of the US.
Unfortunately the polls don't distinguish between the opinions of "I think Hillary Clinton will be the best president ever" and "I think Hillary Clinton will be the worst president ever but I'm going to vote for her anyway" so I would say people with the second opinion threw away their vote by making it indistinguishable from people with the first opinion.
Now, for someone who thinks that Hillary is fantastic but voted for someone they thought was just a tiny, tiny bit better, then maybe that wasn't a good choice. But for someone who thinks that Trump and Clinton are both horribly bad choices, voting for the one who is marginally less horrendous is not a rational course of action.
What makes you think you can even claim that 100,000 people in Wisconsin were on the edge of choosing whether they loved Clinton more than the third party candidate they voted for?
Maybe those 100,000 feel like the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between drinking out of a septic tank or out of the pre-treatment tank of a residential sewage treatment plant. Maybe they voted for drinking out of a clean mountain spring even though they new they'd end up drinking sewage one way or another. And maybe they're glad they didn't vote to drink sewage even if that's what they ended up with.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he will
But so would have Clinton.
Thank you! Surveillance isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a power thing. And EVERY President wants more power, no matter what they say on the campaign trail.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump's enough of a loose cannon that there's actually a reasonable (small, but non-zero) chance that we see Snowden pardoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes he will
But so would have Clinton.
Is drinking a glass of rat poison bad for your health?
Yes it is.
But so is a Pepsi!
This kind of false equivalency is one of the things that got Trump elected.
Now we don't know exactly what Trump would do, he's never had a job remotely like President, but we do know he openly praises authoritarians for doing authoritarian things, doesn't think much of constitutional restrictions, and is very vindictive.
I think it's very likely that he'll want to use the surveillance apparatus to go after political and persona
Funny how that works (Score:5, Interesting)
>>...suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it..
When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state. He's enjoyed using the presidential powers at whim. Now that he's leaving, someone else gets to pick up the parts he so willingly put into place and use them.
Should have thought of that before you put it into law eh there mr. president?
Re:Funny how that works (Score:4, Insightful)
>>...suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it..
When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state.
Re:Funny how that works (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
"The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state"
Liberals have never been in control of the US Gov
Re: (Score:3)
Liberals have never been in control of the US Gov
Well somewhat right. The democrats for example are much closer to authoritarians and anti-constitutionalists then liberals. Hillary proposed restricting the 2nd amendment for example through XO's. Establishment republicans aren't any better, many of them hold anti-constitutionalist views as well and are more then happy to work with the democrats as long as it either gets them more power, or more power for the people who helped fund their campaigns...just like democrats. Both establishment democrats and
Both true. Govt control is Trump control. Unpredic (Score:3)
It looks like you and GP disagree, but you both bring up good points.
> The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state
Indeed. I posted here many times years ago reminding them that allowing President Clinton and then President Obama more amd more power meant that President Palin or President Trump would have more power soon. The nanny state doesn't seem so attractive when the nanny isn't someone you like.
> When Obama got into powe
Re: (Score:3)
If your so literate you should have no problem understanding Federalist 29 and 46 in which the author of your quoted text explains what he meant. As the supreme court ruled..it is an individual right.
Re: (Score:3)
The Bill of Rights does not grant any new rights, it simply reaffirms rights that Americans already have under the Constitution. So, the language of 2A really wouldn't matter, even if your interpretation were correct. Gun control is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore the federal
Re: (Score:3)
You are thinking like a European, where a Constitution defines specific limited rights to the people. That's not how the US Constitution works. The US Constitution is one of limited government powers. That is, Americans
Re:Funny how that works (Score:5, Informative)
Here's Glenn Greenwald's editorial [washingtonpost.com] on it. Dems were OK with surveillance and unchecked government power starting the day Obama was nominated.
You say "typical liberal" as if that's a genuine belief system and not just a storytelling style designed to persuade a specific subculture.
Re:Funny how that works (Score:4, Interesting)
We really need some indication for distinguishing US "liberal" from actual "liberal" in discussions. US "liberals" jettisoned economic liberalism a century ago, and have gradually shed personal and social liberalism over the last half century. US "liberalism" has become some kind of authoritarian technocratic progressive welfare state; it is the antithesis of actual liberalism.
Re:Funny how that works (Score:5, Insightful)
>>...suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it..
When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state. He's enjoyed using the presidential powers at whim. Now that he's leaving, someone else gets to pick up the parts he so willingly put into place and use them.
Should have thought of that before you put it into law eh there mr. president?
The only way Obama could have been considered a liberal is if he was being compared to hardline conservative. Just because the GOP loudmouths were labeling him a socialist for months before he was elected didn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a reason to excuse Republicans for using
Re: (Score:3)
Obama is No true Scottsman .
No, he's from the centrist wing of the Democratic party. Which doesn't "defend" anything; it just explains where his positions come from,e.g. like on energy, which was very bullish on production including DAPL. You might not have read the news but the US became a net exporter of energy in 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's ok when your team does it - if you're only sorry that they got caught"
Holy crap, you've lost your fucking mind! I'd quote your entire post but your lunacy may be infectious.
I stated that Obama is not & has never been a liberal. That's all. Period.
And he's never considered himself one either.
If you look, you'll find him speaking with Elizabeth Warren (2010, 2011?) about consumer protection and pursuing the Wall St fraudsters where he gets exasperated with her and starts a sentence with "you libe
Re: (Score:2)
By any measure Obama is center-left. That said, he did deport more illegal immigrants than his predecessor, he did not close Gitmo, and he kept executing wars of aggression against other countries.
Still, let's review this quote from TFA: "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful,"
I think that was true already even before Obama was president. But, of course much of the debate stopped because the ones making this argument liked Obama and his center-left policies. If electing Trump keeps this debate going that is a good thing - but I suspect most people are just in opposition because their candidate lost, and would not be discussing it if Clinton had been elected.
Nonsense. Congress has effectively nullified much of what Obama wanted to do since 2010. The only thing that made him powerful was the early support of the people and Democratic control Congress. That went up in smoke years ago.
Trump now has those same advantages and many of the elected GOP as as crazy or much more so than he is.
Re:Funny how that works (Score:5, Interesting)
By any measure Obama is center-left. That said, he did deport more illegal immigrants than his predecessor, he did not close Gitmo, and he kept executing wars of aggression against other countries.
Still, let's review this quote from TFA: "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful,"
I think that was true already even before Obama was president. But, of course much of the debate stopped because the ones making this argument liked Obama and his center-left policies. If electing Trump keeps this debate going that is a good thing - but I suspect most people are just in opposition because their candidate lost, and would not be discussing it if Clinton had been elected.
By any US American standard Obama is center-left, in Europe he'd be center right to moderate conservative. Just about the only US leftie I can point out that would register with a European as a moderate Social Democrat is Bernie Sanders and he scared the whits out of the so-called leftist Democrat party with his beliefs. By European standards vast sections of the Republican party bring back unpleasant memories of fascism and witch-burning 17th century protestant fundamentalists.
Re: (Score:3)
What's more likely is that he got the real security briefing and was frightened.
Re: (Score:2)
" typical liberal, with expansion of police state" (Score:2)
"When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state."
That's like saying:
"When Tom got into banking, I assumed he'd be the typical banker. Little did I know he'd like to work with money."
or
"When Paul got into boxing, I assumed he'd be the typical boxer. Little did I know he'd really enjoy hitting people."
When have liberals (the modern, government expanding kind) ever been shy about expanding the power of the police
Re: (Score:2)
Obama claimed to be a "liberal" (in the traditional sense). He turned out to be a progressive, and progressives favor police states; mass surveillance and suppression of dissent is the only way a progressive political program can be implemented.
Re: (Score:3)
There already should be public backlash... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people (including government people) aren't good at keeping secrets and make too many assumptions.
There's no question in my mind that the US government spends too much money and other resources on this stuff. If Trump is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes enough resentment to actually change something post-Trump then so be it.
Ow! My Balls! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlikely. All they care about is cat videos.
Re: (Score:2)
And Slurm [wikipedia.org].
Perhaps he should have moved sooner? (Score:4, Funny)
It might be possible that a group at the NSA with lots of funding, a few smart people and little to no oversight leaked the Podesta emails. They have access to computers in botnets in Russia and Eastern Europe. They certainly have the hacking skills. They have the language skills. People in the intelligence community might not be big Hillary supporters.
Spooks hate Trump being unpredictable (Score:2)
> People in the intelligence community might not be big Hillary supporters.
Plenty of people aren't "big Hillary supporters". To be a BIG supporter of hers you pretty much need to either be on her payroll on just not be paying attention. However, if your mission is national security, the completely unpredictable Trump is more worrisome for sure. He's not a politician, not a public policy guy. His public life has been all about being off-the-wall to drum up publicity for his businesses and his brand. N
Re: (Score:2)
99% of them are people who try to use the excessive access they've been given to protect their country, which includes their families
And also to keep tabs on love interests [washingtonpost.com], done commonly enough to garner its own official designation.
Without a doubt (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure there are a ton of good people in this country, but like in this election, they will continue to do nothing.This grand experiment in democracy is over and no one is coming to the rescue.
Re:Without a doubt (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, they are one state away from having enough power to add or delete amendments to the Constitution.
It takes 38 (3/4ths of 50) states to ratify an amendment. Republicans don't control 37 state legislatures [wikipedia.org]. It's 33 [rollcall.com].
Hopefully we can get a balanced budget amendment anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
just like its been Bush's fault for the last 8?
The USA is a constitutional democratic republic (Score:2)
Also interesting how you frame your comment as "they are" rather than "we are" because that is the actual problem with this country. So many divisions have been sown along the lines of identity politics, political parties and other artifically defined divided groups such that these groups feel compelled to amplify their rhetoric to attempt to wrest power from the others. These disto
Re: (Score:2)
As most of the anti-trump vote came from women
Did it? In the bluest city of a blue state, my (very feminist) wife and every woman I know voted against Clinton (saying things like, "I'd love to see a woman as president, but not her."). Some of them even voted for Trump.
Trump may have an "R" after his name now, but he seems to be politically to the left of Hillary Clinton, and was a card-carrying Democrat until very recently. He's a NYC boy through-and-through and is certainly not a bible thumper.
junk-science (Score:5, Funny)
I'm taking the Climate Change denier position on the surveillance state.
1. There's no real proof that there is ubiquitous surveillance.
2. If if there was real proof of ubiquitous surveillance, there's no real proof that it's a bad thing.
3. Anyway, it's too late to stop ubiquitous surveillance, so there's no point in trying.
4, Ubiquitous surveillance might actually be good for us.
5. All the privacy advocates are just in it for the money.
Nobody really knows what he'll do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he doesn't consider himself bound by his prior statements, and his supporters don't hold him to them.
There are some things we know he won't do: build a border wall and make the Mexicans pay for it. There are other things we can be pretty sure he will do: lower taxes on the wealthiest people. But everything else will depend on how he feels that day.
There's a reason both liberal AND conservatives don't like him, because he's basically unprincipled. But similar conversations are going on on both sides to the effect: maybe we can exploit some of this situation to our advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
People want a leader who makes things seem simple. But reality isn't simple, and if you give them a taste of that then you're a soulless technocrat who doesn't feel their pain.
They want a politician so consummate he makes them feel like he's not a politician.
So tactical falsehood is part of the job description. However it's still possible to know where most politicians are going. I often compare this to a trial, with the voters as jury. You can't trust what the defense or prosecution says, but you can b
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. (Score:2)
You voted for him.
Everything that he does for the next four years is your responsibility.
If that seems unfair, welcome to why I hate modern politics and think it's all bollocks. Were the opposing candidates any different in this regard? No, they never are.
How much crap did any other president / prime minister promise and then never do? How's Guantanamo's promised removal coming along? 15 years later..
You can't hand people power without also taking the responsibility for doing so, same way I can't just h
Re: (Score:3)
You asked for it (Score:2)
Would've happened with Clinton or Trump. It is the one thing the two big parties agree on. You wanted bipartisanship? There it is!
he'll be a good boy (Score:4, Insightful)
The cameras are gone, the show is over. He's now surrounded by people with urgent messages of dire need. They are concerned about trade, about national security, about oil, and about a popular revolt due to economic disparity.
He will do what he's told to do.
Unconditional Support (Score:3)
It is bothersome to me that he seems to have unconditional support at the moment from many.
Re: (Score:3)
Closing parts of the Internet (Score:3)
Better hop over to 4chan and grab some copies of Melania's pics before they are gone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How about the educated white (and nonwhite) folks who stayed home because they'd "feel awful voting for Clinton after Bernie"? Or who threw away their vote on a third party candidate? Or who couldn't be bothered to vote because the polls showed that Clinton would win without their vote?
Clinton won the popular vote and she lost the electoral majority by razor thin margins. Every
Re: I would recommend it (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not how the internet works holy crap what are you doing here?
Re: (Score:3)
With the Second Amendment in place, its going to be difficult to take any others away.
Re: (Score:3)
When the government decides to come after our rights, they won't do so directly. The UCMJ requires that all troops must disobey illegal orders, so there won't be a standoff between the public and troops. What will happen is that the politicians will decide to have the local cops 'stand down' in the face of political unrest. They will retreat to protect city hall and the precincts and let rioters attack targets of their discontent. And the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves.
Google 'Roof Koreans'
Re: (Score:2)
I think its going to need a critical mass of super heros! (possibly with support from aliens from several galaxies far away - and we are not talking Ford galaxies, either).