Why is the "Resistance" giving warrantless surveillance power to Trump?

Progressives are against Democrats who act like Republicans. And yes, Obama allowed this, which is one reason I'm not a fan. Also, there are Democrats running against establishment Democrats. Establishment Democrats don't seem open to protesting Democrats for anything. I was banned from a liberal site for even trying to have a discussion. They seem to feel that we should just shrug this off and continue to vote for any Democrat, no matter how they vote. This is actually a really big deal and is not getting much press compared to Trump's Sh##hole comment. Trump has been making racist comments since at least 1951. Not exactly news compared to this.

LOST said:



nan said:

How is joining a group focused on impeaching Trump supposed to help with Democrats voting to give him warrentless  survaillence, the precursor to a totalitarian state?  

How else do you influence Democrats to vote differently other than by creating a Movement to pressure them? The Movement can even Primary those who are not supportive of the policies favored by that Movement.

Recall how the Tea Party moved the Republicans to the Right.

The Resistance should not be only about impeaching Trump. It should be a very minor focus if at all, and then should be only a tactic.

By the way 55 Dems voted for while 125 voted against. And Congress gave Bush and Obama the same power.




nan said:

Progressives are against Democrats who act like Republicans. And yes, Obama allowed this, which is one reason I'm not a fan. Also, there are Democrats running against establishment Democrats. Establishment Democrats don't seem open to protesting Democrats for anything. I was banned from a liberal site for even trying to have a discussion. They seem to feel that we should just shrug this off and continue to vote for any Democrat, no matter how they vote. This is actually a really big deal and is not getting much press compared to Trump's Sh##hole comment. Trump has been making racist comments since at least 1951. Not exactly news compared to this.

The number of times the word “compromise” appears in “Why Competition in the Politics Industry Is Failing America,” which you commended to our attention: 32.

The report’s action plan includes:

Implement the Centrist Project’s “Senate Fulcrum Strategy.” Structural reform will take time. A highly leveraged way to break the current political gridlock would be to elect three to five centrist independent U.S. senators to act as a swing coalition and force change from the political center.

Run (centrist) independents at all levels. Solutions-oriented, independent campaigns would bring critical new competition to politics, and can be powerful change agents. Today, it is difficult to run outside the duopoly, and even more difficult to win outside the duopoly. Concerned voters should seek out and actively support such independent candidates.


I saw that report when it came out and I agree that the U.S. Politics Industry is failing America, but not that running centrists is the way to get change.  That's ridiculous, and the report itself says that change often comes from more extreme positions.  They also mention ranked-choice voting and getting money out of politics, two great ideas.  



nan said:

That's ridiculous, and the report itself says that change often comes from more extreme positions. 

Can you remind me where it says this?


Pg. 41:

"

"We admit to a bias that moderate, compromise-oriented
politicians have an important value in crafting and
delivering solutions to the nation’s problems. We are not
suggesting, however, that moderates are the only valuable
kind of elected official. Historically, transformational
changes in the U.S. have often begun at the fringes—in
decidedly non-moderate camps."


I give them credit for admitting their bias which is obvious.

DaveSchmidt said:



nan said:

That's ridiculous, and the report itself says that change often comes from more extreme positions. 

Can you remind me where it says this?



yes. you don't understand arithmetic.


7 voters

3 candidates

5 votes so far

trump 3 votes
hillary 2 votes
stein   0 votes

Voters 6 and 7 decide to vote for Stein, instead of the lesser evil.

final tally

trump 3
hillary 2
stein 2


Trump wins, because of Stein voters insistence on not voting for the lesser of two evils. Instead, these coupla braintrusts effectively vote for the greater of two evils but maintain their personal integrity, because, of course, that's what an election is all about. Preserving your integrity. Damn its effect on the rest of us.

Of course, you do have the additional problem of 3rd party voters being so addled that they get the whole "lesser of two evils" backwards in the first place, so they might have voted for Trump anyway. But I have enough trust in the American people (but just barely) that most can get it right. As they did anyway.

author said:



drummerboy said:

That means you vote for more evil.

Congratulations on a fine moral choice!ooo

author said:

 PS.  I never have and never will vote for the lesser of two evils.  My vote is precious and if I must find

a fourth party candidate..............they will be my champion

Playing word games gets you somewhere in Scrabble...........not in real life.  If you read my whole statement you would see where my vote would go.  And it would be to neither of the evil ones




nan said:

 Trump has been making racist comments since at least 1951. Not exactly news compared to this.

Trump was five years old in 1951. I hate him but that statement is bizarre. Perhaps you meant 1981.

In any event the President making a despicable racist comment at a meeting with Congresspeople is more significant than Congresspeople voting the way they always vote.



LOST said:



nan said:

 Trump has been making racist comments since at least 1951. Not exactly news compared to this.

Trump was five years old in 1951. I hate him but that statement is bizarre. Perhaps you meant 1981.

In any event the President making a despicable racist comment at a meeting with Congresspeople is more significant than Congresspeople voting the way they always vote.

Um, NO. 1951 was an exaggeration--hopefully you got the point.  The president making a racist statement is normal for this president.  DEMOCRATS voting to allow warrantless surveillance of all Americans and handing that power over to the president who makes racist statements and whom they have formed a "resistance" against because he is supposedly racist and dangerous is a much bigger deal.  



nan said:

Um, NO. 1951 was an exaggeration--hopefully you got the point.  The president making a racist statement is normal for this president.  DEMOCRATS voting to allow warrantless surveillance of all Americans and handing that power over to the president who makes racist statements and whom they have formed a "resistance" against because he is supposedly racist and dangerous is a much bigger deal.  

Democrats voting that way is normal for "centrist" or "moderate" or "establishment" Democrats. Whoever the President is they will always give him or her that power. 

Having as President of the US  a blatant racist is not normal in this day and age. 

And Nancy Pelosi and the Dems who voted that way did not form "The Resistance". 


You and I can continue to agree to disagree but what do you suggest be done about the problem of those Democrats voting that way? What's your solution? 


It is unconstitutional to allow warrantless searches, so therefore it is not normal for anyone to be voting for these, nevermind Democrats who consider themselves leaders of the Resistance, which they do.  My solution is to protest them and then vote them out.  There are Progressive Democrats out to primary them and I hope they do and win.  Nancy Pelosi and every other Democrat who voted for this (55 in all) should be out.  I hope none of them are speaking at the upcoming Women's March and if they do, I hope they get booed.

LOST said:



nan said:


Um, NO. 1951 was an exaggeration--hopefully you got the point.  The president making a racist statement is normal for this president.  DEMOCRATS voting to allow warrantless surveillance of all Americans and handing that power over to the president who makes racist statements and whom they have formed a "resistance" against because he is supposedly racist and dangerous is a much bigger deal.  

Democrats voting that way is normal for "centrist" or "moderate" or "establishment" Democrats. Whoever the President is they will always give him or her that power. 

Having as President of the US  a blatant racist is not normal in this day and age. 

And Nancy Pelosi and the Dems who voted that way did not form "The Resistance". 




You and I can continue to agree to disagree but what do you suggest be done about the problem of those Democrats voting that way? What's your solution? 




nan said:

It is unconstitutional to allow warrantless searches, so therefore it is not normal for anyone to be voting for these, nevermind Democrats who consider themselves leaders of the Resistance, which they do.  My solution is to protest them and then vote them out.  There are Progressive Democrats out to primary them and I hope they do and win.  Nancy Pelosi and every other Democrat who voted for this (55 in all) should be out.  I hope none of them are speaking at the upcoming Women's March and if they do, I hope they get booed.

Will you be there to boo? 


I doubt they will be at any rally I might be attending.  Have not seen the schedule.  I marched in the Women's March last year in New York.  No one I wanted to boo there. Had I gone to Washington, I would have booed Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  


Well even if there is no one to boo it should be a worthy event. grin 


The FISA renewal bill passed by the House, referenced at the start of this thread, is now before the Senate.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/368778-week-ahead-senate-takes-up-surveillance-bill

Practically speaking, on a local basis, people can contact the offices of NJ's two Senators.

On a national basis, the Democratic caucus can ally with Rand Paul (yes, I know) on this one issue because, uniquely in the GOP, he's exercised about government surveillance.



I get the feeling that Nan and I agree on very little.  That being said, I like the cut of her(his?) jib. 


I think the simple answer is that Democrats voted to continue this program so that the next Democratic president can utilize it.  Both parties are equally bad on this issue.


I would think that you two agree on this issue though. No?

terp said:

I get the feeling that Nan and I agree on very little.  That being said, I like the cut of her(his?) jib. 




drummerboy said:

I would think that you two agree on this issue though. No?

terp said:

I get the feeling that Nan and I agree on very little.  That being said, I like the cut of her(his?) jib. 

Evidently.  I'm glad for the support.  My legion of fans has increased to two, including my blind cat. 


possibly the only issue that the three of us are in agreement on


you can add me too. it's a sucky bill and I wish the Dems would show some more backbone on fundamental Constitutional issues like this. Politically though, it's such an easy issue to demagogue. First you make the population inordinately scared about terrorism, then you accuse the Dems of not wanting to fight it. The Dems are the bad guys again.

And ,unfortunately, your average voter on the street could give a hoot about 4th amendment protections.

It's a tough nut.

ml1 said:

possibly the only issue that the three of us are in agreement on




drummerboy said:

you can add me too. it's a sucky bill and I wish the Dems would show some more backbone on fundamental Constitutional issues like this. Politically though, it's such an easy issue to demagogue. First you make the population inordinately scared about terrorism, then you accuse the Dems of not wanting to fight it. The Dems are the bad guys again.


And ,unfortunately, your average voter on the street could give a hoot about 4th amendment protections.


It's a tough nut.

ml1 said:

possibly the only issue that the three of us are in agreement on

What is sad is that EVERYONE doesn't agree.


Does anybody have a link at hand to the legisation nan references?

Thanks for any help.

TomR


Google FISA Section 702.


It's on C-SPAN:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?439676-1/us-senate-resumes-debate-fisa-reauthorization

At least a banner which says they have agreed to limit debate and schedule a vote. 

Looks like vote is at 5:30. 



LOST said:



drummerboy said:

you can add me too. it's a sucky bill and I wish the Dems would show some more backbone on fundamental Constitutional issues like this. Politically though, it's such an easy issue to demagogue. First you make the population inordinately scared about terrorism, then you accuse the Dems of not wanting to fight it. The Dems are the bad guys again.


And ,unfortunately, your average voter on the street could give a hoot about 4th amendment protections.


It's a tough nut.

ml1 said:

possibly the only issue that the three of us are in agreement on

What is sad is that EVERYONE doesn't agree.

Pelosi and the other Democrats knew it was a terrible bill and still voted for it probably, as ml1  suggested above, so that the next Democratic president can  use it.

"These two events, in my opinion, show how dysfunctional legislation affecting the “Deep State,” the entrenched national security bureaucracy, is. There is a clear political recognition among the Democratic leaders cooperating in passing the bill that the bill goes too far. Probably, they worry about what will happen when we learn how Jeff Sessions will use the unreviewable authority to deem either warrantless back door searches for Americans’ names or retention of Tor and VPN domestic collection a “national security” issue to target Democratic constituencies." 

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/01/16/the-702-capitulations-a-real-measure-of-the-deep-state/




Oh, look Diane Feinstein, another prominent member of the McResistance, voting to give Trump warrentless surveillance. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.