patrick.net

T L Lipsovich says

Rew says

The point is that this administration desperately needs to feel like it isn't embattled and that it isn't under siege. The fact is, it very much is, and no it isn't from Islam. Watch now for more "give us a chance" whining coming soon.

It's from the Deep State - unelected bureaucrats - and the increasingly irrelevant Media.

Why would the Trump administration be under siege from The Deep State?

It seems more like the scrutiny is coming from Freedom Loving Americans, and people concerned with The Economy and Jobs

T L, if that were true, you argue camp Trump will happily destroy true civil setvants in the name of perception?

Rew says

Save us from the terrorists and the people who took my non-existent job.

And this is why he will win 2020. Ivory tower elites.

If I'm as close an example to an ivory tower elitist camp Trump can find, they are in deep shit!

FLYNNGHAZI!!!!

FLYNNGHAZI!!!!

How much $ will Cum Swapping TrumpBots demand should be spent to root out the TRUTH OF FLYNNGHAZI!!!!

Under the current media scrutiny... just wondering if an administration representative, started running around the seats of power, waving a vial of 'yellow cake'... Would we have spent 2T dollars and killed over 300,000 humans?

Going to war the media will green-light and ostracize those who speak out. How does that compare to the magnifying glass this administration is under?

Just curious.

The mainstream media bought into that war and were used, by the administration, as a propaganda tool. So excuse me if I take everything I hear from them with a grain of salt.

ALTHOUGH. Every now and again... they do let the truth slip out.

www.youtube.com/embed/gk0TqIbPNbY

"You have no problem with a rep from citi bank sending the POTUS cabinet post suggestions?"

Like was said earlier--everybody and their brother sends suggestions. Who cares?

"I don't remember Obama putting out the word for cabinet post suggestions"

You mean like he didn't go on the 11 O'clock news asking the public for suggestions? Of course not. He did likely put out the word to his advisors to suggest names, however.

Junkmail, I think the risk for the US population to be pushed into an unwise conflict, due to the current climate of fear, is at an all-time high. Yes. A much smaller nudge than 911 is needed, for sure.

I see a very real likelihood of us blundering into a new conflict or being scared into one.

Seriously, heaven help us if a terror attack comes on Trump's watch. The amount of "I was right." followed by draconian civil liberty eroding "safety and defense" policies will be staggering.

We were only just begging to unwind some of the DHS, Patriot Act, overreach as it was. We haven't even remotely come down to a typical norm. When we ratchet up again, especially from here, America probably won't look very American to some.

We were only just begging to unwind some of the DHS, Patriot Act, overreach as it was.

------------

I must have missed something. What were we doing to this end?

Rew says

We were only just begging to unwind some of the DHS, Patriot Act, overreach as it was.

THIS!

The National Defense Authorization Act [4] signed by President Obama on the 31st December 2011 authorizes the indefinite detention, without trial or indictment, of any US citizens designated as enemies by the executive.

Rew says

Yes, that sinister dark conspiracy, where the opposition is controlled sheeple enslaved by the media talking heads, unable to critically think for themselves, and championing an elitist status quo agenda at the expense of the poor peasants, the true Americans, guardians of the humble and wholesome path, who have been forgotten. (Massive run on, no Fs to give)

Don't be silly. A nation of 350M people doesn't not march in lock step - the fact that we do on so many issues is actually scary, not positive. Institutions develop a certain view of the world, especially if those views are heavily influenced by wealthy, big spending think tanks and the promise of contracts, appointments, and consulting jobs with everybody from Foreign Affairs to Crowdstrike to Saudi Arabia.

You can't think of an institution or class in history that remained stubbornly married to a narrative despite overwhelming evidence is was rubbish?

Dems never mention how Obama embraced the total destruction of the 4th Amendment.

And, the NSA flat out lied, as did Clapper, about mass warrantless wiretaps. To allow this, the 4th Amendment would have to be modified via an amendment process. That didn't happen.

Obama could have issued an executive order stopping this, it didn't matter who in Congress opposed it (since their only way of passing a law to allow it would be shot down by any SCOTUS 9-0 due to 4th Amendment Conflict).

Not only did Obama not keep his promise to eliminate the troublesome parts of the Patriot Act (written years before 9/11), he ended his Presidency with even more violations of Civil Liberties.

Yes, deflect. deflect.

But Obama!!!

But Clinton!!!

Trumps actions are good because they're just like Obama!

Bizarro World indeed

joeyjojojunior says

Yes, deflect. deflect.

Ignore! Ignore! Speculate on what Trump might do while ignoring what Obama did to the 4th Amendment!

Did Obama fire Clapper for lying to Congress and violating the 4th Amendment even more than what was previously revealed?

Rew says

We were only just begging to unwind some of the DHS, Patriot Act, overreach as it was. We haven't even remotely come down to a typical norm. When we ratchet up again, especially from here, America probably won't look very American to some.

People who actually follow these issues closely, think Obama was horrible on Civil Liberties. And they're not right-wingers. One of the last acts of Obama was to expand these powers allow information gleaned by warrantless spying to be shared among more agencies.

However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security.

We had hoped for more. In November, we and other civil liberties and privacy groups sent a letter to President Obama asking him to improve transparency and accountability, especially around government surveillance, before he leaves office. This is not the transparency we were hoping for.

Sorry--

But Obama!!!

But Clinton!!!

But Clapper!!!

joeyjojojunior says

But Clapper!!!

Yes or No: Clapper lied to Congress on warrantless spying live on TV.

AND he literally led the collection and storage of every transmission by all Americans and stored it without any Warrant or Court Order.

Should he have been fired for that?

(No bullshit about "everybody knows it happened, no big deal", it's totally unconstitutional)

I don't care, my team is the good team! It doesn't matter that Obama expanded violations of the 4th Amendment, it doesn't matter Clapper lied and spied! Blue Team Good!

"I don't care, my team is the good team! It doesn't matter that Obama expanded violations of the 4th Amendment, it doesn't matter Clapper lied and spied! Blue Team Good!"

See, this is where you and I differ. I'm happy to criticize Dems when they deserve it. Obama was a disaster on the Patriot Act and civil rights in general. He wasn't great on trade either.

The next time you criticize Trump or his cabinet for anything will be the first.

"I did, Flynn shouldn't have resigned."

I rest my case.

I think this is just the beginning though--it's going to be a fun couple months. The only bad part is we'll be left with Pence as President and that's probably worse than Trump.

errc says

I must have missed something. What were we doing to this end?

Pretty balanced analysis of Obama on civil liberties in face of DHS/Patriot Act. He did do a lot to walk some things back, despite broad interpretations and increased drone use. Yes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/obama-civil-liberties/512864/

More than McCain would have? More than Romney would have? Debatable, but I lean in the affirmative.
More than Trump will today? Obviously.

Obama was very good domestically, and very anti-Torture. He was very willing to operate in the grey with drones though. Indeed. There was a push toward the norms of what types of activities America will engage in, especially domestically, to further national interest and defend its citizens.

Contrast that with Trump today (at least by words, and a few actions). Not even a close comparison.

errc says

Trumps actions are good because they're just like Obama!

Bizzaro world indeed, but the comparison is garbage to begin with. False equivalency.

he pulled back on prosecution of marijuana laws,

-----------

Not sure if you're intentionally lying or not, but that's false.

Again--so Trump is worse than Obama on civil rights? That's why you voted for him?

joeyjojojunior says

Again--so Trump is worse than Obama on civil rights? That's why you voted for him?

Don't know yet. Not enough time. I do know that the use of Section 213 of the Patriot act nearly tripled between 2010-2013.

Only .5% That's ZERO POINT FIVE percent, of the use involved Terrorism. The rest was overwhelmingly narcotics based.

Looks like the Drug War is trampling Civil Liberties again, with the active collusion of the Status Quo Establishment and the Politicians in their camp.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government-uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses

Who led the Executive Branch 2010-2013?

T L Lipsovich says

So the executive is supposed to throw shit on the wall, regardless of Constitutionality?

No, but they have to do their job.

Likewise I don't see congress fighting to get to declare war and take a firm stand on anything. They are happy to let the President step up, declare emergency conflicts, so that they can then point fingers if it goes bad, or take credit if it goes well. Spineless.

T L Lipsovich says

This is more balanced.

3.5 more than Trump will measure or does the scale go negative?

You are talking about a President who actually cared to try and reform and walk things back, versus one who currently appears to fully embrace a surveillance state in some capacity.

errc says

Not sure if you're intentionally lying or not, but that's false.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-weed-legalization-2016-11

T L Lipsovich says

Section 213 of the Patriot act nearly tripled between 2010-2013.

If only Americans can remember that we have signed very bad things into law, when we are scared. Doubt we will be so rational.

Rew says

Likewise I don't see congress fighting to get to declare war and take a firm stand on anything. They are happy to let the President step up, declare emergency conflicts, so that they can then point fingers if it goes bad, or take credit if it goes well. Spineless.

YUP. Also on the list.

Rew says

3.5 more than Trump will measure or does the scale go negative?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued this before Trump even announced he was running.

Rew says

You are talking about a President who actually cared to try and reform and walk things back, versus one who currently appears to fully embrace a surveillance state in some capacity.

As executive, he doesn't need Congressional permission to insist the Patriot Act only be used for foreign intel/counter-intel and Terrorism. He can do that with a memo, much less an executive order.

Rew says

If only Americans can remember that we have signed very bad things into law, when we are scared. Doubt we will be so rational.

Congress did that - not because people were scared, but because Chaos brings opportunity to those who wrote the Patriot Act long before 9/11, and they knew Congress wanted to Signal their toughness. The Patriot Act had broad support in both parties.

"Don't know yet"

You don't know yet?? Are you an idiot? Let's see--Trump is on record for expanding civil forfeiture. He's for expanding torture.

joeyjojojunior says

You don't know yet?? Are you an idiot? Let's see--Trump is on record for expanding civil forfeiture. He's for expanding torture.

Obama's DOJ expanded Forfeiture faster than they did the use of Section 213 of the Patriot Act. Neoliberalism.

As for expanding torture, how many people did Obama's DOJ indict for that? How many MIC Consultants lost contracts?

Trump allowed himself to be 'convinced' very fast on not torturing, eh? It's called Pacing.

So do you agree then that Trump is much worse than Obama?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit

joeyjojojunior says

So do you agree then that Trump is much worse than Obama?

I have years of Obama to look at. I don't have a month of Trump.

The point you are dodging is that on both Y'alls points about Civil Liberties (Patriot Act) and Forfeiture, the assertion of Rew and yourself are at complete odds with the facts. Rather, the use greatly expanded by ~300% - that is to say tripled! - under the Obama Admin.

You might call the notion that Obama rolled back a bit of the Patriot Act and Forfeiture "Alternative Facts".

"The point you are dodging is that on both Y'alls points about Civil Liberties (Patriot Act) and Forfeiture, the assertion of Rew and yourself are at complete odds with the facts."

Read my posts again. I'm the one that said Obama sucked on civil liberties.

The things is--Trump sucks MUCH, MUCH worse. The fact that you can't admit that is very telling.

joeyjojojunior says

he things is--Trump sucks MUCH, MUCH worse.

In three weeks you know this for a fact??

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/02/trumps-assault-civil-liberties-serious-extraordinarily-dangerous
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/01/civil_liberties_be_damned_donald_trump_an_enemy_of_the_constitution/

joeyjojojunior says

Read my posts again. I'm the one that said Obama sucked on civil liberties.

I said y'alls points. You brought up Forfeiture, which I demonstrated increased 300% under Obama - that's a fact, not based on an assertion or hypothetical about what Trump might do or said he will do.

joeyjojojunior says

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/02/trumps-assault-civil-liberties-serious-extraordinarily-dangerous
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444813/trump-civil-forfeiture-position-violates-constitution-pleases-sheriffs-who-profit
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/09/trump-does-not-know-what-civil-forfeitur
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/01/civil_liberties_be_damned_donald_trump_an_enemy_of_the_...

Immaterial. We don't have the numbers on Trump yet. We do know under Obama's DOJ forfeiture skyrocketed. Trump's ability to influence STATE law on forfeiture is limited.

"In three weeks you know this for a fact??"

All you have to do is listen to Trump and it's pretty apparent.

Lips--So, you're saying Trump is lying then?

joeyjojojunior says

Lips--So, you're saying Trump is lying then?

Maybe lying - more like pacing. Acknowledging a point, getting the support, and then saying "Well, our War Hero Expert strongly advised me not to torture, and I have to agree with his expertise."

"more like pacing"

How is announcing that he is 100% behind expanding civil asset forfeiture "pacing"? How is appointing the #1 backer of civil asset forfeiture to your cabinet "pacing"? Face it--Trump is probably the worst President on civil liberties ever.

And you voted for him. How does that feel?