Senators Push Trump Administration For Clarity On Privacy Act Exclusions (onthewire.io) 136
Trailrunner7 quotes a report from On the Wire: A group of influential lawmakers, including Sen. Ed Markey and Sen. Ron Wyden, are pressing the Trump administration for answers about how an executive order that includes changes to the Privacy Act will affect non-U.S. persons and whether the administration plans to release immigrants' private data. The letter comes from six senators who are concerned about the executive order that President Trump issued two weeks ago that excludes from privacy protections people who aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The order is mostly about changes to immigration policy, but Trump also included a small section that requires federal government agencies to exclude immigrants from Privacy Act protections. On Thursday, Markey, Wyden, and four other senators sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jon Kelly, asking a series of 10 questions about how the exclusion would be implemented, what it would cost, and whether the government plans to release the private data of people affected by the order. "These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities, and would be inconsistent with the commitments made when the government collected much of this information," the senators said in the letter to Kelly. In the letter, the lawmakers ask Kelly whether people affected by the order will be allowed full access to their own private data that has been collected by the government. They also ask how the government plans to identify U.S. persons in their databases and what policies DHS will apply to separate them from non-U.S persons. The letter also asks for clarification on how the executive order will affect the Privacy Shield pact between the U.S and the European Union. That agreement enables companies to move private data between countries under certain data protection laws.
There will be no privacy under the ruling party (Score:4, Insightful)
Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.
It'll never happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.
We have become so partisan in this country - which the ruling class LOVES - that we'll never see that happen.
My state keeps sending the same old people back every year. Why? because it means voting for a Democrat.
And that will never happen. In my state, all a Republican needs to do is say "Pro-Life" and "Roe vs Wade has to go" and "Democrats gonna take yer guns!" he's in. And here, Democrats are socialists!
Privacy and the finer points of civil liberties goes right over their heads. And how those "Conservatives" have gamed the system against them: how their retirement plans are being gouged by financial firms' fees; how they are being gouged by their ISP and cable TV company; why the business up the road can dump just about anything it wants into the ground; just flies through their ears.
As long as they have their bibles, guns, football on ESPN and F-150, they're happier than the pigs on the McCully farm. You can do anything you want to them politically.
I really hope my disgust for the American electorate shows.
Re: (Score:2)
How can we tell by this if you're disgusted or if these are just facts? -speak up god damnit.
Hope aint a strategy son. Let's see if I can work something out for you.
Until we reduce the reelection rates in congress you can forget about it.
We have become so partisan in this country - which the ruling class just LOVES! - that we'll never see that happen.
My state keeps sending the same old people back. Every. Year, and why!? because it means voting for a Democrat, that's why!
...and guess what? that will never happen. In my state, all a knuckle dragging Republican needs to do is say "Pro-Life" and "Roe vs Wade has to go" and "Dem democrats gon'take ma guns!" and he's in regardless of how much of a baboon he is. To add insult ot injury, here (US of A), Democrats are socialists!! -can you friggin get your head around that train wreck?! because I cannot and I live here!
I mean forget privacy and the finer points of civil liberties cause that goes right over their tiny socialist heads. They go on about how those "Conservatives" have gamed the system against them; how their retirement plans are being gouged by financial firms' fees, how they are being gouged by their ISP and cable TV company, why the business up the road can dump just about anything it wants into the ground. It all just flies in one ear, through their vacatious heads and out the other end FFS!!.
Without a doubt, as long as they have their bibles, guns, football on ESPN and F-150, they're happier than the pigs on the McCully farm it dobn't even matter if you gonna have bacon soon. You can do anything you want to them politically as long as you aint black.
If you cannot tell by now the sheer contempt, derision and my disgust for the American electorate then you must be an ecomentalist or a redneck and fuck you and your fat mom.
Welp, now that you alienated 80% of Americans I hope life in exile without works out for ya fella. All the best.
Open primaries (Score:2)
Another option - open primaries. Instead of having separate R and D primaries, have one open primary that all candidates take part in, with the top two going on to the actual election.
That has a fair chance of breaking the lock-in in highly partisan races, since you may well end up with two R or two D candidates going into the election. At which point you've got the whole electorate voting for whichever candidate they think is best, rather than just voting the party line.
Of course you may well get a bunch
Re: (Score:2)
First that's already a state by state issue. Your state may not have them, others certainly do.
Second it winds up just being an opportunity for voters in opposing parties to game the system. Many people think that Trump getting the nomination was due to Hillary's lock on the Democratic nomination providing opportunity for Democrats to vote for who they thought would be the worst Republican candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, some states do. I don't see how it offers a comparable chance to "game the system" though. I mean if the "good party" is strongly enough dominant that they're likely to fill both spots on the ballot, then generally speaking you're unlikely to try to get an "evil party" candidate onto the final ballot just to improve your preferred "good party" candidate's chances. Doing so lowers the chance of your preferred candidate making the cut, as well as putting an "evil party" candidate one unlikely elect
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a question of good or bad, it's more unified vs less unified. To a certain extent primaries are meant to be internal party events to build unity within the party. With open primaries whichever party unifies quickest can disrupt the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
>disrupt the other party.
How so?
Assuming a relatively evenly split electorate you'd have to unify pretty radically to be able to claim both spots on the ballot - after all it doesn't actually matter how much support the favored candidate of one party gets in the primary, it's the second-favorite candidate that the opposition is racing against - and they can't possibly get more than 25% of the vote unless they're attracting a lot of votes from across the aisle. So, as long as both parties can consolidate
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, that may be an issue if one party has a broad field of candidates and the other has only two, but how common is that, really?
2016 ?
It isn't even a function so much of the initial state as the rate of convergence. For the sake of argument lets say party A and B both start with 8 candidates but by the time New Hampshire is done party A has one clear front runner and someone left obviously playing for the VP spot. If party B still has 5 or more viable candidates it's a winning strategy for party A to have people tilt Party B towards weaker candidates and less unity.
Re: (Score:2)
The result has been the election of more moderate and FAR more independent candidates. The are more moderate because the main-line party candidate (both parties) tend toward the extremes of their parties. More independent because the parties have poured vast resources into the main-line candidates and the moderates don't feel at all beholden to them, even though they generally host similar positions on most issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart" talks about the combination of geographic isolation (segregation by income/politics), elite schools (public and private) where their children all socialize, ideological conforming by the "elite" institutions all creating an elite population that has prime access to top corporate jobs, NGOs, government positions under Democrats. They base morality as adherence to the ideology and thus see all who disagree as evil/stupid and look down on those beneath them as at best unen
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it's a collection of right-wing propaganda, because "elite" is not the sole provenance of the Democratic Party. If "They" means Democrats, you're generalizing wildly about a varied group of people. The ones I know do not take their morality from ideology, but tend to take their ideology from their ethical and religious beliefs. There are ideologues in the Democratic party, but there's plenty in the Republican party. Republicans actively discriminate against other classes of people.
Mus
Re:It'll never happen (Score:5, Interesting)
You're better off in a swing state. Any state or district where one party has a "lock" is guaranteed to be corrupt... and that goes for Republicans (the Old South) and Democrats (looking at you, Massachusetts). It's just the way it is, no different from the way monopolies in business can't help but screw their customers... there's nothing stopping them, and the temptation is too great.
The fix? Term limits. At least it's a start. But the sad thing is the Republicans actually PROMOTED term limits as part of their Contract with America [wikipedia.org]. The Contract helped the Republicans capture the House back in the Clinton years. My faith in Republicans evaporated when their commitment to term limits did the same pretty much as soon as they took office (thanks, Newt... I haven't forgotten).
But voters can do their own term limits. If Americans were really serious about their low approval of Congress, they would vote out whoever is the incumbent. Keep that up for a couple of terms, and the Parties would get the message, because they keep losing. Would force Congresspeople, particularly members of the House with their 2-year terms, to work a lot harder to keep their jobs or else resign themselves to a single term. But Americans have short memories, and often don't know who their Representative or even Senators are. Worse, the Parties often don't even try in Districts they don't feel safe in (looking at you, Democrats). That's why things don't change.
Re: (Score:3)
The fix? Term limits. At least it's a start. But the sad thing is the Republicans actually PROMOTED term limits as part of their Contract with America [wikipedia.org]. The Contract helped the Republicans capture the House back in the Clinton years. My faith in Republicans evaporated when their commitment to term limits did the same pretty much as soon as they took office (thanks, Newt... I haven't forgotten).
Do you also remember that SCOTUS shot down term limits as unconstitutional?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you also remember that SCOTUS shot down term limits as unconstitutional?
Please cite. And anyway, the Party can mandate term-limits within their own ranks, and SCOTUS has nothing to say. The Party gives you one shot, then if you want re-election, you're on your own as an independent. If there's a will, there's a way. But there was no real will behind term-limits, or else Newt knew all along that the plank for term-limits in his Contract was a sucker-play all along. Not the first time people like him played the electorate for fools, and sadly won't be the last.
Re: (Score:3)
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) [justia.com]. Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.
The exercise by Congress of its power to judge the qualifications of its Members further confirmed this understanding. We concluded that, during the first 100 years of its existence, "Congress strictly limited its power to judge the qualifications of its members to those enumerated in the Constitution." 395 U. S., at 542.
"It would seem but fair reasoning upon the plainest principles of interpretation, that when the constitution established certain qualifications, as necessary for office, it meant to exclude all others, as prerequisites. From the very nature of such a provision, the affirmation of these qualifications would seem to imply a negative of all others." 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 625 (3d ed. 1858) (hereinafter Story). See also Warren 421 ("As the Constitution ... expressly set forth the qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence, and as the Convention refused to grant to Congress power to establish qualifications in general, the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius would seem to apply").
Unsurprisingly, the state courts and lower federal courts have similarly concluded that Powell conclusively resolved the issue whether Congress has the power to impose additional qualifications. See, e. g., Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523, 1528 (CA9 1983) ("In Powell ... , the Supreme Court accepted this restrictive view of the Qualifications Clauseat least as applied to Congress"); Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (CADC 1994) (citing Nixon's description of Powell's holding); Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 830, 839 P. 2d 120, 122 (1992) (citing Powell for the proposition that "[n]ot even Congress has the power to alter qualifications for these constitutional federal officers").13
Petitioners argue that the Constitution contains no express prohibition against state-added qualifications, and that Amendment 73 is therefore an appropriate exercise of a State's reserved power to place additional restrictions on the choices that its own voters may make. We disagree for two independent reasons. First, we conclude that the power to add qualifications is not within the "original powers" of the States, and thus is not reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Second, even if States possessed some original power in this area, we conclude that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) [justia.com]. Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.
Most excellent cite. Thank you.
Re:It'll never happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the term limits have been eased (also by popular vote) and it is hoped that this will help. We'll see in 5 or 6 years
Re: (Score:3)
You're better off in a swing state. Any state or district where one party has a "lock" is guaranteed to be corrupt...
That is probably why people in many European countries (especially in Scandinavia) have much more faith in their governments and parliaments: the voting system and the political process means that they have many parties in parliament, so no government rules from majority and no politician is safe in his seat. Just have a look at the Danish Folketing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. 179 seats - and 13 parties. It means the politicians are much more likely to represent the voters, and they are good at coop
Don't Agree (Score:1)
Term limits only ensure that you replace a Republican with another Republican, or a Democrat with another Democrat.
No, the real solution (IMO) is to attack gerrymandering. Make the districts unsafe for any party! Safe districts are a pox on democracy. Get some control on gerrymandering and you start to break down the walls of the echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling party? Obama did a wonderful job of continuing the Bush/Cheney agenda of invading our privacy and taking away our rights.
So we shouldn't be too concerned about privacy? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
which thing? Travel ban from seven countries where ISIL operates and that support or harbor terrorism (which Obama did too)? Surveillance on foreigners (which we've done for decades)?
Trump might do worse things but he hasn't done them yet, I would expect his "worse things" to be in realm of corporate fascism and also in carbon pollution (which I care about mostly because of acidification of oceans)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump hasn't banned anyone either, they were just vetted with more attention
and plenty of "majority muslim" countries *aren't* on the list, in fact most of them aren't on the list. phrase is just a attention whoring device
Flynn is a Russian spy (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile CIA and FBI staff have confirmed Flynn's discussions with the Russian Ambassador about lifting sanctions, as described in the pee memo. BEFORE the election.
"A US official confirmed to CNN late Friday afternoon that Flynn and the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, did speak about sanctions, among other matters, during the call....Flynn cannot rule out that he spoke to Kislyak about sanctions, an aide close to the national security adviser said earlier Friday. Flynn, the aide said, has "no recollection of discussing sanctions," but added that the national security adviser "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up."
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/flynn-russia-us-sanctions-reports/index.html
Keep in mind Flynn was a nobody, back in August, when the memo says Putin was grooming him. Which means Putin knew before America that Trump would pluck this nobody for his security advisor, and it confirms Trump conspired with Putin to select people. The Russian Ambassador knew too, before the election that Flynn was to be appointed, again before Trump actually chose him. Proving the two conspired.
At this point Republicans need to get their shit together, prosecute Trump for treason, put Pence in, get the cyber security bill signed, the one Trump is blocking. Get the generals put back onto the National Security council, after Trump demoted them to occasional consultants... they are Congretional Appointees assigned to the National Security Council FFS, America is vulnerable if the military is removed from those meetings, and only Putin's agents are present.
The two spies Putin arrested, they fit the profile of the two known agents in the pee memos. These agents were known and considered reliable by NSA, CIA, MI6 etc. Yet they were arrested just after Trump's men entered the CIA. If they are US spies in Russia, then Trump needs to face espionage charges for passing their names across.
Kick this whiney buttercup out of office and put a Republican in.
Re: (Score:3)
Flynn's role (Score:2, Flamebait)
Flynn was named the National Security Advisor in the transition team, so meeting w/ envoys of other countries to discuss the agenda would have been part of his job description. In other words, him meeting the envoy of one of the world's 2 other superpowers would have been pretty high on his list.
The OP's post is just a carryover of Democrat bitterness over losing the elections, and trying to illegitimize the role of Wikileaks here by tying it to Russia. Even though Assange has stated that Russia was no
You're citing a fugitive from international justic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll need someone other than Trump to call it fake to be sure.
Re:Flynn's role (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we assume a search/replace of 'Assange' in place of 'Nader' is all you had to perform to recycle the above content from your position in 2001?
It's painful watching the 'progressives' eat their own, and over the failure of a candidate at best termed 'moderate' in a presidential election.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not applicable to Nader. Nader stayed reasonably true to his beliefs, and acted accordingly. I disagree with some of those beliefs, but then I disagree with pretty much everyone over something or other. I believe he did a lot of harm, but that's due to how voting is done in the US, including the obsolete Electoral College, and not his fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Nader stuck to his principles and opposed who he saw as a candidate who was really no better or worse than the Republican opponent.
Assange stuck to his principles and opposed who he saw as an candidate who was really no better or worse than the Republican opponent.
It's so disappointing that the 'Third Way' moderates took over and have now essentially destroyed the traditional Democratic party.
The traditional Left should jettison the modern Democratic party. Bernie could be a part of that but he's very old
Re: (Score:2)
More the reverse, I look for evidence that something is true. That's how the burden of proof works and some hearsay they've published isn't going to change that. But feel free to jump at every new rumor, there's going to be a steady drip of those for years, FYI.
Is there a single non-anonymous source there? Some random "US official," really? Because unless they have something that can be corroborated, the whole thing is just a rumor. We were told us they had attacks like that planned months ago [wikileaks.org].
And no,
Re: Flynn is a Russian spy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way to remove fake news is to start by getting Trump out of office. There are honest Republicans, sure, but Trump isn't anywhere near close to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news. Trump said so.
This is a post truth world. Trump is bigger than facts. Proof? some dumb fuckers still support him cause he's gonna MAGA.
Trump is a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Kick this whiney buttercup out of office and put a Republican in.
Then give us a real Republican to vote for. Seriously, between Trump and Clinton, Trump was the only sane choice.
Here is the REAL kicker, Trump was an insane choice overall; he only looked like a sane next to Clinton. Seriously, what the fuck is going on when the best person presented for the office of President of the United States of America is an outright scoundrel and thief?
The people who influence this country are deeply troubled. Too many groups are willing to outright slaughter in the name of an ideo
Why are you asking him? (Score:1)
He doesnt know what any of his policies are.
Less secure (Score:3)
No one is going to share data with the US if it goes ahead with this. The EU is already reluctant.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU executive branch (the Euro commissionars) are greatly in favor of pleasing the US more and more. The chosen representatives and the courts don't agree. This "privacy shield" agreement was stillborn, it will live just as long as it takes to get shut down by the European supreme court (which, unfortunately, can be quite long because legel processing it has to start all the way up from lower courts).
Re: (Score:1)
And what would happen in that case? Google, Facebook, and Microsoft cloud services would be forced to stop providing most of their services because they couldn't finance them anymore through advertising. Small European advertisers would lose the ability to target people online by interest and would therefore face bigger barriers to entry. Europeans would lose big time. On top of
Re: Less secure (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, what threats are you concerned about? If you are concerned about the US government reading your email, you are probably better off hosting in Europe. If you are concerned about European governments reading your email, you are probably better off hosting in the US or Switzerland. No matter where you host, you should be under no illusio
Re: (Score:1)
This has nothing to do with the EU Privacy Act, it has to do with data collected from and about illegals in the US.
Re: Less secure (Score:3)
A very few Constituti
Re: (Score:1)
Which "Constitutional protection" do you think denying entry to the US to non-citizens from specific countries violates? It doesn't violate due process either under the Fifth or Fourteenth amendments. Nor does it violate the equal protection clause, which only applies to persons within the jurisdictions of states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Most of the people fleeing those countries don't even seem to meet the definition of "refugee" under the convention. Refugee status is for persecuted minorities, not merely people who leave their countries because they are violent shitholes. Jews fleeing from
Re: (Score:2)
To add to that list Trump has already made noise about people who have previously been citizens of other countries. Apparently they are not real Americans to him. He's also made tweets about revoking citizenship - not just residency, citizenship.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the US Government roughly 35% of all tourists to the country come from Western European countries. I'm pretty sure your idea will work real well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who lives in Western Europe and has been travelling to the USA since 1975 I can safely say that I really have no inclination to want to visit while you current TWIC (Tweeter in Charge) is running the show.
Sorry guys but my tourist dollar will be going elsewhere for the forseeable future.
Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.
Re: (Score:1)
The same is true about visiting europe. Nothing about constant terrror attacks from refugee that roam the street and are not properly vetted. LOVE PARIS. Was there last summer and it was out and out SCARY with all the refugess sleeping on street corners and trying to rob you
Enjoy your trip. (Score:2)
Last year I spent close on $3,000 in the USA. This year, I'm going to Sri Lanka.
Enjoy your trip.
Meanwhile, Trump will just have ICE deport three more illegal immigrant households, more than making up for the money you might have spent (even if you'd been giving it straight to the US taxpayers, rather than mostly to the megacorps that exploit them.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really believe that, then you have no idea how the economy works.
1: It COSTS money to round up those illegal immigrants. So your taxes will go up in some ways. (data point: http://www.newsweek.com/how-mu... [newsweek.com])
2: Those illegal immigrants most of who are working and actually contributing to society. (in the form of taxes and general purchasing) they may be illegal but they are give far more than they take). - (data point: http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com])
3: The places that employed them were doing
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Good! Stay gone! America doesn't need fair-weather friends who will drop us the minute we elect a politician they don't like.
Americans are tired of wasting money on the likes of NATO, bases in Germany, etc. A complete waste of money that we canâ(TM)t afford, and which serves no purpose. If Russia wants to annex the Ukraine I donâ(TM)t care at all, not even a tiny bit.
The EU also has massive, massive problems, unelected, unresponsive bureaucrats who view their jobs as an all expense paid vacat
Re: (Score:2)
You know what we really can't afford? Our health care system. If we switched to one that was as expensive as the second most expensive system on the planet, we'd save nearly a trillion a year. That would more than cover NATO activities and much more besides. Let's look at the really big expenses first.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try, anonymous troll. By most measures, Europe is a much safer place than the US. You are unlikely for example to be shot for honking at someone cutting in front of you. You are also safe from civil forfeiture. And you have the right to criticise the president - any president.
But as the OP said, civil liberties are not appreciated anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you possibly say that.? In Europe, you can't carry your 14 round Glock pistol or your M-16 derived 'hunting rifle' into the grocery store. You never know what lurks behind the shelves.
You're never safe over there.
Never.
USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting you should say this. One of my friends and his family was planning to visit the UK last fall, but after a stabbing jihad attack in London, he canned that plan and went to the Canadian Rockies instead.
Most of the posters on /., as well as members of 'The Resistance' are pissed that people from countries like Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria are being stopped from coming to the US. They should put their money where their mouth is and go to one of these countries on vacati
Re: Still much more secure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the difference of issues..
Some people cancel travel over a specific/isolated crime event (something that can happen literally anywhere).. VS.. a government actively turning into a 3rd world dictatorship + isolated crime event (like the above) + the general attitude of the local populous.
Yes, events do happen, but systemic issues + government turning into an oppressive regime = no tourists. (I know personally about 40 Chinese and Indian investors that are cancelling trips (and when I say investors,
Re: (Score:3)
One single incident doesn't affect crime statistics much. Europe with Muslim violence can still be safer than the US. Humans are poor at judging such dangers, and it's getting worse.
There's reasons why I don't want to visit Iraq, and some of those reasons are why we're getting lots of refugees from there, and why it's important to have a compassionate policy towards refugees (which doesn't preclude the sort of rigorous vetting the US does).
This is not news for nerds. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is political crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it DOES have an impact on our work.
Some of them are self-employed (which means a smaller market, and a shifting set of regulations that we can't plan around or who we can even sell to)
Also with this "political crap" going on.. its going to change who can be employed, which means potentially a lot of new faces (ie: projects will get delayed, or even halted, some projects will be cancelled due to workforce issues.
And if you think all these "changes" are going to be good for operating expenses, doubtf
"devastating impact" (Score:5, Interesting)
“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
He's the one who's really writing many of these Executive Orders. He wants to burn it all down, and rebuild it in his own twisted image that fits his into his alt-right image. He knows that our society is held together by very fragile bonds formed through trust, past promises, monetary policy; attack these pillars and the whole thing will collapse.
Re:"devastating impact" (Score:5, Funny)
"It's easy to burn down the outhouse; the hard part is putting in new plumbing.”
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you equate "the planet" and "civilization as we know it" with "the state" and "all of today's establishment".
Isn't that what Democrats and progressives keep saying? Don't they keep claiming that the US is in the hands of "the 1
Re:Context is everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he's going to get right on that mission of removing the political class from power now that he is part of it. Literally lol.
Which you begin by limiting who can oppose you.
Which is exactly what they are trying to do by labelling any media outlet that disagrees with them as fake news. Eliminate the freedom of the press then control information. Once you do that, you can limit who becomes part of the ruling party. Sounds like its straight out of a story thats on sale for $19.84.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget maligning the judicial branch of government and calling them illegitimate.
*Senators *Privacy Act (Score:2)
There were multiple plausible solutions to the puzzle when it was merely the Trump campaign, and what they learned then is that clarity is the enemy. It wasn't necessary to win the election, and it's not going to be a high priority now.
Bilaterally, the Democratic campaign was no better at it.
Re:*Senators *Privacy Act (Score:5, Insightful)
You give Trump too much credit, there was no clarity because there can be no clarity from someone of such limited intellectual prowess. You can see that in his nominees for cabinet positions. They are not the A-Team, they are a reflection of Trump's idea of how to run an organization. There is no consistent ethos among the lot of them except hating the very agencies they are to lead. And Trump doesn't even trust them, he's got minders for each of the agency heads and those minders report to Trump and Bannon.
You can also see the effect of his lack of intellectual depth when he's admitted signing orders that he never read. Bannon shoved them in front of him and he signed because Bannon told him to. When the shit hit the fan on the immigration order, he went nuts trying assign blame to everyone but himself. He is without honor.
I doubt they know... (Score:2)
and I doubt they even wrote the executive order.
Re: (Score:3)
So, the Constitution isn't something Federal judges are supposed to cite.
Interesting outlook on the state of the country there.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, where does it say that? The Constitution says Congress is the authority on these things, and the President can use only authority voted by Congress. I reread Article One (about Congress) and Article Two (about the President) last night, so they're clear in my mind.
no "changes to the Privacy Act" (Score:2)
Trump didn't make any "changes to the privacy act", nor could he if he wanted to.
What they are saying is clear from these paragraphs:
So, citizens and immigrants are excluded.
Next:
Re: no "changes to the Privacy Act" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the solution is obvious: deport people illegally present in our country. You know, just like other civilized countries do.
Re: (Score:2)
Immigrant communities does not mean illegal immigrant communities, and Obama devoted a lot of resources to deporting illegal immigrants. If you read the Fourth Amendment, it doesn't mention "citizens", although other parts of the Constitution do. It applies to people in general. If this refers to laws that are in conformance with the Fourth, the question is what the laws say, because in this sort of thing the authority of the President is that conferred on the office by Congress. I'm not a lawyer, per
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely, but the EO only applies to illegal aliens within the US, yet Markey and Wyden misrepresent it as if it applied to "immigrants", and then they misrepresented it again as if it applied to Europeans. These senators are a bunch of dishonest pricks.
We're not talking about the legality of the EO here, we're talking about the fact that Markey and Wyden are misrepresenting
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what you said in GGP: "that excludes from privacy protections people who aren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents". There are people legally in the US who are not citizens or permanent residents, so any actual visa holders would appear to be excluded.
Re: (Score:2)
Markey/Wyden: "These Privacy Act exclusions could have a devastating impact on immigrant communities"
Me: No, it only applies to illegal immigrants/aliens.
That is, my comment was within the context of Markey/Wyden's lies.
The privacy situation for non-immigrant visa holders is a separate issue; it's an issue Markey and Wyden didn't comment on at all.
Senators should do more... (Score:2)
How this will work (Score:2)
The US State department officials will keep on allowing refugees, students, workers, random people into the USA from nations that are on watch lists.
So the travel aspect of getting valid US paperwork cant be changed thanks to massive amount of travel paperwork still been issued by US bureaucrats.
The good news is people entering the US on such pa